Another day, another bust-up at Manchester City.

First Yaya Toure scuffled with James Milner, then Carlos Tevez scuffled with Roberto Mancini, then Mario Balotelli, then Kolo Toure scuffled with Emmanuel Adebayor.

We know the drill by now. City will use the ruckus as evidence of their intense will to win. The first three incidents this provoked the following responses:

"It says we're very hungry to win." (Milner)

"Now and then a good shake-up is healthy." (Mancini)

"The incident is a reflection of the competitive edge the players apply in training." (Spokesman)

Expect more of the same this time. Certainly, nobody will care about the fight if City pick up three points at Arsenal on Wednesday.

It is easy to mount a counter-argument which runs along the following lines:

The frequent displays of bad blood within the squad are evidence of tension created by the reality that only 11 of City's 20-plus multi-million pound signings can play at once.

The majority of players have been parachuted on massive contracts, with no real bond to the club or to their team-mates.

And when your captain is the first to throw a strop when substituted, you know this is an unhappy and divided squad full of me-first mercenaries.

So, which is it? Healthy, competitive spirit or corrosive petulance? Probably a bit of both.

But, this being football in 2011, we must have a definitive answer, and that will be determined solely by whether City win anything this season.

We like to think that things happen for a reason.

If a team wins, we assume they got everything right, that all aspects of the club were perfectly run, and that the manager had a masterplan to lose five times before November before slowly clawing back the points.

If they lose, they were destined to lose. They had a fatal flaw that meant they would never clear that final hurdle.

If City win the title, they MUST be united.

If they lose it, they MUST be divided.

Except that obviously isn't true.

These issues only tend to rear their ugly heads only when things are going wrong on the pitch.

For example, Arsenal's squad in the mid-2000s was apparently riven by factions.

People more in the know than me claim the squad was split along rough cultural lines into 'French', 'Latin' and 'Germanic' groups.

Where this left Ray Parlour I have no idea.

Did everyone in the squad get on? Probably not.

Did it matter? Obviously not. This was the squad that went unbeaten in 2003/04.

Admittedly, the Arsenal divisions related no further than to whom you sat next in the dressing room, and which fancy Hampstead eaterie you patronised, but still. You rarely heard about them because the team was winning.

Roy Keane rubbed people up the wrong way throughout his Manchester United career. But his criticism of (among others) Darren Fletcher and John O'Shea only had repercussions in autumn 2005, when United were well on their way to a third straight season without winning the title.

If you're winning, you can shrug off the barbs. If you're not, criticism can erode confidence. Keane was ushered out of Old Trafford, and Fletcher promptly grew into an authoritative central midfielder (if not quite in the Keane class).

And there is a reason why only this week Carlo Ancelotti has had to fend off claims his squad is 'at war', with John Terry and Frank Lampard stripped to the waist and ready to engage in hand-to-hand combat with Didier Drogba and Florent Malouda.

It is the same reason why rumours of a dressing-room plot to oust Luiz Felipe Scolari emerged in early 2009.

Simply, Chelsea were not winning.

At the moment, City are, although apparently not frequently enough to safeguard Mancini's job.

But the 'significance' of today's aggro will be determined entirely on the pitch at the Emirates.

Mancini said of the unhappy but in-form Tevez: "I hope he's unhappy like that all season."

Win at Arsenal, and City can have as many bust-ups as they like.

Eurosport