Liverpool 'will finish above Manchester City' claims James

James, who played for both Manchester City and Liverpool during his career, told BT that he believes City's approach will simply not bear fruit.

City have lavished millions on new players this summer, £49m of which went on landing Raheem Sterling from the Reds - but James is not impressed.

"I don't see the City model being right," he said.

"Just spending loads of money and acquiring players. It isn't necessarily the model of continued success.

"I have seen changes elsewhere and at the moment I'm not seeing that at City. It is just spend a bit more and expect success. You can't spend £250m on players and have no success... I think Man City, of the top four, are the weak link....

"I can see Liverpool qualifying for the Champions League at the expense of City this season.

"City have got all this talent but they have tripped over the line twice to win the title. Look at Chelsea last season - the title was won in November. If Arsenal had started better, Chelsea would just have carried on longer and won by 10 or 15 points."

Liverpool have also spent a vast amount on new players, but James added that it is the back-room changes at Anfield could prove critical.

"Brendan Rodgers has had three years and now he is looking at a different way of doing it," he said.

"I am encouraged Liverpool have changed around their coaching staff. With all the acquisition of players and no success, there had to be a reason. Now with the new coaching staff Liverpool will be winning far more games."

James also added that he expects Manchester United to contend.

"Manchester United have had to change," he said.

"They have had to restructure the side and financially they can afford that. That first year was about getting into the Champions League. Now it will be about trying to win the league."

We're disappointed by James's analysis here. Liverpool have actually spent more than City this summer, and spend a vast amount last summer as well, so it's hard to see where the logic in his argument is.

And as for suggesting that Chelsea "would just have carried on longer" if the league had been closer? That's like claiming that Mo Farah would simply have run a bit faster if somebody had been breathing down his neck: it's an easy suggestion to make, but an impossible one to prove.