Mark Hughes’ dismissal was the least surprising news of the weekend, the managerial mayhem of the Premier League almost guaranteeing it, the media confirming it before Manchester City’s encounter with Sunderland. Hughes may well be upset, believing that his team were on the verge of something big but a divergence of defining that between himself and the club is at the root of the matter.

According to Hughes, his target for this season was agreed as a top six finish and 70 or more points. For an investor, this is not a good return on £200m especially since the top six finish does not guarantee European football next season. For the owners of Manchester City to have agreed that, many would believe them to be the perfect shareholders.

It became apparent that the board of the club did not share this view and in light of the team’s performances this season, there is some merit in their argument that the signs of improvement were not tangible. Indeed, it would be true to say that City has been the definition of a ‘big game team‘, winning at home to Arsenal and Chelsea in the Premier League, drawing at Anfield and narrowly defeated in their local derby.

However, seven other drawn games suggests that either incompetence or indifference has taken hold at Eastlands. Failure to beat Burnley, Hull or Bolton is not the form of a team that is confident of challenging the existing top four. Even if they win their game in hand, City will still be sixth. The recent capitulation at White Hart Lane did not indicate that Hughes was capable of halting the rut into which the team had dropped.

The Welshman is understandably upset at the board for talking to Roberto Mancini yet to believe those negotiations had not commenced some time ago is equally naive. Steve Gibson of Middlesbrough is widely regarded as a tolerant chairman, repeatedly as an almost the perfect boss. Even he admitted at the weekend that he had contacted Gordon Strachan before relieving Gareth Southgate of his duties.

The League Managers Association has opposed such moves but it is standard business practice to have a successor for key personnel in position ready for their employment being terminated. Hughes can have little complaint; he has squandered a good position. The squad was his own and if his purchases do not perform, then the axe is inevitable

The Uefa Champions League was revamped with effect from this season, the changes were supposed to give smaller European nations the chance to have representatives in the group phase and beyond. The charade was exposed with the trade-off made that in surrendering the possibility of one of the larger nations sides not progressing through the ‘non-champions’ qualifying round, those nations gained an extra place in the group phase by right.

Including this season, the past five has become lop-sided in the composition of the knockout rounds, the countries represented shows little change. The big three nations – England, Spain and Italy – have all had at least three representatives in the first knockout stage, meaning that 56% of the competitors minimum, have come from three divisions. In itself that is not in the least bit surprising. Money allows investment and these three generate the highest aggregate revenues in european club football.

Outside of these, the picture is surprisingly stable. Lyon have made the knockout phase on each occasion during this time, joined sporadically by a compatriot club. German, Portuguese and Greek teams invariably qualify as well, leaving at most four places available, usually less since on occasion, the first nations on that list have provided two clubs at this stage.

Filling the remaining places has been predictable. Celtic and Rangers have both represented Scotland until 2007/08, since then nothing whilst the decline of the Dutch League has meant that PSV were the last side from Holland to progress beyond the group phase in 2006/07 when they lost in the quarter-finals. Since then Turkish and surprisingly, for the first time this season, a Russian side has made it to the knockout phase.

Experimentally, Platini will argue that his grand plan was a success. It is a tough case to make. Whilst Debrecen, for example, made it to the group phase, they picked up their appearance money only, failing to earn a merit reward for points gained. That is not an extreme example unfortunately since Maccabi Haifa found their efforts as financially poor. Quite possibly this is the point; exposure to higher levels of football than those encountered domestically should theoretically improve a squad’s overall standard. However, that presumes the exposure is more than six games a season.

If Platini wants to level the playing field in this competition, he has few options and those available will be unpalatable to Uefa or their sponsors. The final between Monaco and Porto in 2004/05 was an exception that proves the rule rather than being the start of a power shift. Since then, only 7 teams have filled the sixteen semi-final places, all of them from England, Italy or Spain and for the past two seasons, no Italian club has emerged victorious in the quarter-finals. Dare Uefa try to interfere in an almost Darwinian football process?

The only real solution, assuming that the format of the Champions League is not to revert to a true knockout competition, is to remove the artifice inserted into the draws for each round. Other than ensuring that the most financially lucrative clubs progress, there is no rationale for seeding or preventing clubs from the same country facing each other in the group phase or first knockout round. Were the draws for these to be made entirely fair, the probability is that every season would see some domestic clashes played out on the european stage at an earlier stage than the quarter finals.

Is there anything wrong in this? No doubt that were a group to comprise of those clubs who are seeded now, there would be griping yet in a competition surely the element of luck in a draw is part of it’s charm? The Uefa Champions League is a stale tournament. The same clutch of clubs will make it to the quarter-finals and further; the same countries represented. If Platini and his cohorts want the exclusivity, create an Elite League to run concurrently with the domestic leagues; allow a smaller club the chance to win a trophy. Above all else, stop portraying the picture of inclusivity whilst poking heads out of corporate pockets.

News this weekend that Manchester United were to be the latest club subjected to a takeover bid came as little surprise. The recent history of the club suggested that it was ripe for new ownership. Since the fateful August day in the 1980s when Michael Knighton juggled the ball and left it nestling in the goal at the Stretford End, United has paved the way through plc status, Murdoch mania and now Glazer Hell. Of course, Knighton and Murdoch failed to in their bids to become outright owners of the club but a £1bn offer would surely be too much for the current owners to reject.

It comes atop of the farcical ownership of Portsmouth and Notts County, with the owners of Liverpool and West Ham United keen to divest themselves of their football interests. This is without delving into the equally turbulent waters that have surrounded Newcastle and Manchester City in recent seasons.

Even those clubs who are held as bastions of stability are not entirely immune from such machinations. All the while Stan Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov play out their expensive game of bluff, Arsenal cannot be certain that the plurality of ownership model which has stood the club in good stead for decades will survive.

It is little surprise therefore that ownership of the clubs changes frequently, investments made require a return and few if any of the clubs make sufficient profits for dividends to be paid. Directors remuneration, management fees or any description you wish to apply to the moneys withdrawn by owners can be substantial but borrowing heavily to buy a club does not signal a long-term investment, especially if the rate of interest to be paid is charged at a high rate. Quite literally, if there is a quick buck to be made turning over ownership, it will be made.

Problematically for football, few clubs now retain the community foundations upon which they were built. Of the top flight clubs, Lancashire provides perhaps the two strongest examples in Burnley and Blackburn. Others, such as Wolves, Bolton and Hull may argue to the contrary but even their ownership is tenuously linked to the towns or cities in which they are located.

The question is whether this entirely matters any more? Populations are more mobile than those of a century ago, further education and labour demands are more likely to relocate supporters of those team around the globe in the age in which we live.

Which begs the question as to what a club is believed to be. Times change; their function in society has changed as well. From being an outlet for the working classes, most Premier League clubs target wealthier individuals, wanting to attract them and their offspring, tapping into disposable incomes. Does their locality matter anymore?

If you consider that licences are becoming the vogue in regulation of clubs and the other financial strictures placed on those lower down the leagues, should clubs be considered individual entities any longer or are they simply franchises being operated on behalf of the authorities, being introduced via the back door? Constant espousals from the top of the game regarding consistent losses incurred being unsustainable or levelling the playing field, suggest that this the way that football is heading.

English clubs are by no means the biggest single offenders in the eyes of the football’s authorities when it comes to accumulating debt. They are those most culpable when it comes to single ownership, Real Madrid for example, are owned by the members even though the current reign of Florentino Perez has borrowed money to finance success at a level that would make most Premier League clubs blanche. Little, if any, criticism is directed to the Spanish capital which suggests he is either politically more astute than his peers or the model upon which he bases his footballing philosophy is currently more acceptable. The truth is somewhere between the two.

If franchises are formally adopted, football’s face changes irrevocably. Perhaps this is the bridge which authorities are too timid to cross, too frightened to take their beliefs to the natural conclusion for essentially all bureaucrats are politicians without conviction.

Uefa and governing bodies would certainly prefer this situation since it would give them total control of the game, arguments about club v country reduce to nothing since it becomes part of the franchise agreement. The question is whether they should take the final steps and would there be any noticeable difference to the current situation?

Optimism is a pre-requisite for football supporters. It takes different forms; winning a trophy for one club is the equivalent of avoiding relegation at another. The supporter, before and during a season, will invariably swing between belief and the less palatable outcome. As the Premier League avalanche sweeps all before it, the downward trajectory is being ignored. Until yesterday when the true extent of the Promised Land became evident for Liverpool supporters.

The optimism of Hicks and Gillett’s takeover was hardly unbridled but new owners wasted little time in raising the stakes, lifting the belief that they had new investment to build a new Anfield, give Rafa Benitez funds to spend on new players and deliver the Premier League title, the obsession for a club that became used to being champions of England but had not heard those words precede their club name for 20 years.

Having finished closer in 2008/09 to winning the title, the new season was approached with a guarded optimism. The plans for a new stadium had been put on the backburner as it was apparent that the American owners failed to borrow the money required, refusing or unable to invest their personal wealth into the club’s future. The length of commitment required for personal intervention was probably a driving force behind this. Neither makes any attempt to disguise their disdain for the other, quite probably regretting their dual involvement.

Their summer transfer dealings were disastrous. 2008 saw a distasteful public courtship of Gareth Barry, a signing which never materialised, and the attempted offloading of Xabi Alonso to Arsenal, reportedly falling through over £200k. Fast forward to 2009 and one of those transfers happened, Alonso returning to Spain. Barry upped sticks to Manchester City whilst Aquilani was brought in from Roma. The Italian though came with a proviso: he was injured, unavailable until autumn.

Having spent the majority of his funds on this transfer and Glen Johnson from Portsmouth, Benitez was unable to invest in forwards, a situation which haunted him as the Champions League was exited and the Premier League slipped from his grasp as Fernando Torres was sidelined. Europa League football is not much of a prospect to look forward to but this is the reality facing Liverpool for 2009/10 and quite possibly the following season as well.

Prior to the home fixture with Arsenal, Benitez gave a frank assessment of his situation. There was no money to spend nor would the coming seasons bring any immediate improvement. £60m of debt had to be repaid and with no-one willing to match the £100m sought by the owners for a mere 25% stake in the club, spending would be drastically reigned in. Media supposition that Gerrard and Torres may be sold to fund this was dismissed by the Spaniard yet the nagging doubt cannot be so easily shaken.

The club’s financial state is a warning for those clubs looking at foreign takeovers or already subjected to huge debt burdens on their parent company balance sheets. Unless you are delivering trophies – major ones at that – your business is unsustainable. Asset stripping is too strong a term but realisation of valuable assets is around the corner unless the American nightmare turns to a dream.

For many the Liverpool scenario is one that was destined to happen at Arsenal. Funding a new stadium restricted activity in the transfer market. Arsene Wenger and the board had thought ahead, bringing through young talent over a number of seasons, building an Academy and scouting system that created a sustained turnover of players. Liverpool is some way behind as the Carling Cup encounters over recent seasons have shown. It is a path that they are now treading, a path which will show how good a manager Benitez really is. If it comes to fruition, Hicks and Gillett may be consigned to the history books with not many good words accompanying them. If not, they may be remembered as the men who broke the bank of Anfield.

The World Cup draw in South Africa for next year’s finals allowed the English media to don its’ bombast hat and trumpet out loud about how easy the draw was, how progress could be made and the trophy won. Such jingoism is not unusual to read for those who inhabit these shores yet it also worked in Fifa’s favour.

Currently, the British government is reviewing those sporting events which should be listed to prevent pay-tv from purloining the nation’s broadcasting Crown Jewels. The Murdoch empire may screen these events but they cannot be the sole provider, terrestrial television must be allowed to carry them live. It is a fine principle, preventing the public from being cast into the televisual dark ages for the premier events.

Such policies though threaten to sabotage England’s 2018 World Cup, inflicting more damage than the bellicose pomposity of Jack Warner ever could. The World Cup final and home nations matches in the finals are listed. Under discussion is whether or not the whole of the tournament should follow suit.

Jerome Valcke, Fifa’s General Secretary, gave an unequivocal answer last week to the House of Commons committee reviewing the issue:

If the World Cup remained listed in its entirety by the time bids were received, England would not be selected unless, and until, Fifa had had discussions with the BBC and ITV and had struck a pre-contract agreement which gave Fifa full value for its broadcasting rights

It has long been known that broadcasters are the pipers who call football’s tune. The English Premier League came into existence as a result of the Machivellian manoeuverings of the televisions companies, promising to bring the game into a land of untold riches without quite explaining to the club chairmen how much of their souls they would have to sell. Too much as it turned out but by then events were too far progressed to prevent such an outcome.

Fifa does have a duty of care to maximise its revenues in order to re-invest into the game. However, it also has a duty to expose football to the widest audience, something which pay-tv will never be able to achieve. The two are not mutually exclusive; indeed a balance must be struck. Morally, the pendulum should swing in the favour of the masses. Realistically, money talks louder to football’s politicians.

Adidas has announced that the roundest ball ever, the Jubulani, will be used during next summer’s World Cup finals in South Africa. It continues the trend to improving balls which have evolved since the leather cannonball was first used. 

The key piece of equipment, footballs have been iconic. The Orange ball used in the 1966 finals in England carries the same resonance on South America as the 1958 and 1962 versions. 

Geoff Hurst's hat-trick goal, an iconic moment for the orange ball

It was part of a golden era for the ball.  1970 saw perhaps the most stylish ball issued, the Telstar which was improved and used in the 1974 finals. To those of a certain age, this is the ball remembered, the joy with which a replica was received is a memory that stays close in my mind. 

 1978’s Tango left Arie Haan’s boot and flew into the net with unerring accuracy. Or the stylish freekicks of Cubillas which possibly hurt Ally McLeod more than the dog that bit him after the debacle against Iran in the Scots second game. Heroic failure following their 3-2 win over the Dutch ensured that the Tango entered English folklore.  

The modern game has seen manufacturers attempt to build the scientifically perfect ball. No doubt the influence of the game’s ruling bodies have been behind such moves, as well as the quest for global domination between Adidas, Nike and Puma, two of which were driven by familial wranglings and the desire to put the new kid on the block in their place. 

The question becomes more complex when the good of the game is taken into consideraton. Everyone wants to see goals, that is after all the object of the exercise. Yet surely the outcome should be decided by moments of craft, outstanding skill and exemplary technique. To encourage long range shooting is commendable since a strike from distant encompasses all three. 

However, as distance from goal increases, the number of bodies between the shooter and the goal is likewise more. As more shots come in from distance, the likelihood of deflection en route increases. At its most extreme, this scenario makes football a lottery, one where skill is replaced by luck. Is that the ultimate endgame of designers? To make football become as high scoring as rugby or worse, basketball? 

Too much focus is put upon outfield players abilities without any real concern that goalkeeping could become a dying art, as bigger players are moved to fill the gap between the posts and crossbars. Time for FIFA and UEFA to go back to the drawing board and concentrate on improving skills and technique rather than focussing on easing that problem via the equipment.

The announcement that the Football League are to raise further questions about the ownership of Notts County is more evidence of the abject failure of the footballing authorities to preserve the game. The Guardian yesterday published an in-depth investigation into the ownership of England’s oldest professional club, here, here and here.

The biggest issue is the lack of transparency about ownership. A myriad of companies, trusts and individuals mesh together in a secretive web that would make Robert Maxwell spin in his grave. It raises several uneasy questions that must be answered more comprehensively by the Football League. The club would have to file a ‘Fit and Proper Persons’ questionnaire before any individual can become a director, a process based on the flawed assumption that any owner would become an officer of the company. How did this pass through the League’s regulatory scheme? Indeed, what investigation do the League put into effect once such paperwork is received. Precious little appears to be the answer.

Further up the scale, the Premier League and UEFA has Licencing schemes which must be adhered to in order for clubs to participate in their competitions. Much emphasis has been placed on the financial aspects of these yet the apparent lacklustre approach of the Football League brings suspicions that these two organisations are equally inept at running football.

No matter what their protestations to the contrary may be, UEFA and the EPL have form in regulatory failings. UEFA’s licencing scheme has been in place for most of the past decade but remains an ill-defined and unenforceable document. Had there been any teeth to the scheme, the landscape carved by the Champions League over that time would have been substantially different with champions such as AC Milan, Manchester United and Real Madrid unable to participate whilst Chelsea and Liverpool would have struggled to meet the criteria in seasons that have seen them reach the final.

Indebtedness is a thorny issue for UEFA and the Premier League to tackle. Football at all levels thrive because of borrowings from one source of another, rather than in spite of it. There is little issue with that in general terms since it is a normal business activity. Michel Platini however views things differently. He is a hopeless football romanticist but his vision of the game is based in hope rather than reality, pragmatism only entering the arena when compromises are required to ensure watered down versions of his ideology are brought into effect. Platini fails to differentiate between the variety of lending that clubs invoke. Third party or sugar daddy, investment in purchasing a club or building a new stadium, they are are viewed as the same evil.

The utopian ideal he has of fans owning clubs with municipalities funding stadiums is never going to be realised across the continent. Too many countries are too far down the sole ownership of clubs route for fan takeovers to happen at the top of the game whilst political pressures mean football clubs are not going to be top of local authority priorities. That is before the economic demands of refurbishing stadia is encountered.

Disconcertingly, UEFA is attempting to muddy the competitive waters via other methodologies such as those used to improve this season’s Champions League. It is the usual botch which leaves little or no confidence that they will ever strike the right chord in regulating the owners of clubs. As usual, the businessmen are too savvy for the administrative amateurs, evidenced by Roman Abramovich converting some of his debt into equity at Chelsea, a move designed not just to make the club look more attractive financially but to also counter moves by UEFA to introduce to counter what they deem to be debt accrued unfairly for competitive advantage.

The refusal of UEFA to adapt to a strategy that controls, defines and differentiates between the various debt status of clubs invariably means that they will never be able to regulate football finances effectively. Until the idealists become pragmatists, the empty rhetoric of the game’s leaders will remain populist opportunism.

Len Shackleton included a chapter in his autobiography that was blank, save for the title “The Average Director’s Knowledge of Football“. Fifty-three years on from publication, this week has seen more evidence that little has changed.

During the summer months of 2009, Portsmouth Football Club was subjected to a protracted and comical takeover reminiscent of that which Spencer Trethewy inflicted upon Aldershot in 1990. The outcome has not yet been as devastating to the club but there were considerable fears reported in the media that the club would be unable to survive financially, evidenced by a failure to pay players wages recently.

Throughout the summer, Paul Hart sat and watched helplessly as the best players were sold for fees in excess of £35m without funds being made available for recruiting replacements. Sulaiman Al Fahim concluded his ill-fated purchase of the club late in August, photographed in his personalised replica away top, seemingly feted as a saviour for the club. The protracted nature of the negotiations, and the emergence of a rival consortia no doubt exacerbated the takeover, left Hart with little time to pull together a squad for the 2009-10 season.

The club’s start to the season was unsurprisingly poor given the circumstances. Seven straight defeats in the Premier League came to an abrupt and startling end with consecutive four goal victories. From seemingly being cut adrift at the bottom of the division, the gap to safety had been cut. That cut no ice with the owners of the club; Paul Hart was relieved of his managerial duties this week.

Having survived the crisis this summer, Portsmouth needed stability. If that had meant the club rebuilding with a season in The Championship, it should have been a price worth paying. Instead, an instant remedy is being sought although the club is rudderless in the interim between Hart’s departure and a new appointment. The players though remain the same; whether the January transfer window will be an effective saviour for the next manager remains to be seen.

Premier League survival is the only thing that matters when faced with relegation, particularly if players contracts take no account of any diminished status bestowed upon the club through failure. Yet would the club have been better served by retaining Hart, especially in light of improved form which even with recent defeats, was vastly better than the opening seven games.

That Portsmouth have reacted quickly may yet turn out to be a masterstroke if they pull clear of the relegation zone. Such is the closeness in points totals at this stage of the season that three wins can elevate their position one place in the table if everyone else continues to take points off each other. It appears that consecutive away defeats have brought about Hart’s dismissal. However, victories at Blackburn and Stoke seemed highly unlikely on paper, let alone on the pitch.

In such circumstances, new owners often seek to bring in a ‘name’ manager. Avram Grant may well be a likeable man but is he the man to save them? Perhaps and time will tell. Yet with the paucity of talent within the squad, January wheeling and dealing is going to be crucial to their season. The sacking leaves an uneasy taste in the mouth. Hart worked hard throughout the summer in circumstances that may have forced others to consider their options and leave the club. His loyalty was rewarded with unemployment.

Should sentiment have come into the equation? The business side of the game probably dictates that it should not. The ego of a new owner automatically means it will not. Yet this will be the same owner who at points in the future will berate want-away players for their lack of loyalty “to a club that has treated them well“. The days of owners wanting their cake and eating it have yet to change. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Having been on the backburner for a year whilst other things took priority, this one is back, alive and kicking, a refuge for football matters. First post will be tomorrow and then every few days on the big, bad world of the professional game.

Liverpool maintained their advantage with a slender 1 – 0 victory over Portsmouth. Tony Adams in his first game in charge after being confirmed as Harry Redknapp’s replacement looked as though his charges would suffocate their hosts before Diop handled in the area with fourteen minutes remaining, L’il Stevie Gerrard despatched the resultant penalty. Robbie Keane Watch: Well, he looked dapper in the stands and looked more likely to score with blondes around him than he does in the Premier League when he is on the pitch.

Chelsea acted tough before their defeat to Liverpool and were back to their party spoiling ways as they crushed Hull City 3 – 0 at the KC Stadium. Frank Lampard set them on their way with a third minute strike, the rout being completed by the French duo of Anelka and Malouda in the second half.

Arsenal stumbled into third place, recovering from an audacious David Bentley strike to subsequently drop a two-goal lead in their 4 – 4 draw with Tottenham Hotspur at The Emirates Stadium. A Mikael Silvestre header nine minutes before the interval cancelled out Bentley’s thirteenth minute opener, the former Gunner hammering a volley past the hapless Manuel Almunia from forty yards. William Gallas scored another header a minute into the second half before Emmanuel Adebayor added a third capitalising on Alan Hutton’s slow recovery to force the ball home. It set about a mad five minutes as Bent made it 3 – 2, scoring from Almunia’s fumble before Hutton gifted the ball to Adebayor who set Robin van Persie up for 4 – 2. It seemed that the match would fizzle out before Jermaine Jenas punished Gael Clichy’s slip to score from twenty yards. Harry Redknapp’s passionate affair with Lady Luck paid off as Aaron Lennon reacted first to Luca Modric’s shot that came back off the post in the 94th minute.

Manchester United closed in on the top four, comfortably beating West Ham United 2 – 0 at Old Trafford. Two Cristiano Ronaldo goals did the damage in the opening half-hour but it goes to fuel more flames in the fire that supports the theory he is a bit of a Johnny-Come-Lately who struggles to score away from home. Having won the FIFPro Player of the Year award, he needs to improve that aspect of his game if he is to be considered a true great of the world game.

As it was, Aston Villa came back from Stephen Warnock’s 30th minute opener to overcome Blackburn Rovers 3 – 2 at Villa Park. Luke Young equalised on the stroke of half-time, bundling the ball home with his knee after a bout of pinball in the Rovers area. The turn around came as Gareth Barry got his third in three games before Gabriel Agbonlahor scored Villa’s third from Ashley Young’s pass. A last minute Brett Emerton freekick for all its majesty was little more than a consolation.

At the other end of the table, Stoke City recorded a rare win, beating Sunderland 1 – 0 at The Britannia Stadium, Ricardo Fuller getting the games only goal. It meant that Bolton Wanderers dropped into the bottom two as they succumbed to a 90th minute Fellaini goal in their 0 – 1 defeat at home to Everton. The relegation places are completed with Wigan Athletic, their 0 – 2 reverse at Craven Cottage gave Fulham three much needed points. Andy Johnson got both, his first for the club since his move from Everton.

The North East had a ray rare of sunshine this week with both Newcastle United and Middlesbrough winning at home. The Magpies defeated West Bromwich Albion 2 – 1 at St James Park, Thug In Chief, Joey Barton gave a sickening display of chest thumping following his tenth minute penalty conversion, a lead doubled by Shola Ameobi just before the break. Although Albion pulled one back through Miller midway through the second half, the victory led Joe Kinnear to demand an end to the uncertainty and a more permanent contract. Not bad for the manager of a team who are fourth bottom.

At The Cellnet Riverside Stadium, Manchester City and their money pitched up, leading to a comprehensive mugging at the hands of Middlesbrough. Robinho’s stated aim of thirty goals in a season took a battering as did the City defence with Afonso Alves with a penalty and Gary O’Neill in the last minute did the damage.