After assessing each Premier League team’s weaknesses last season, talent gaps within the squad and new signings, I’ve compiled a short-list of suitable players teams could and perhaps should sign between now and the end of the transfer window, taking into account realistic transfer budgets and each manager’s preferences.

Drum roll, please. Here are the 20 Premier League clubs evaluated:

Arsenal

2011/12 Weaknesses

• 10 losses, more than the rest of the top 4 and double the amount of Manchester United and City
• Conceded more goals than the rest of the top 8, with the exception of Newcastle.
• Too reliant on van Persie for goals.

Shopping List

Pacey left back with the stamina and ball skills to shuttle up and down the entire left flank.

Left Back Shortlist

• Domenico Criscito
• Alex Sandro
• Leighton Baines
• Neil Taylor

Centre Back Shortlist

Wenger’s most dependable defenders have tended to be English.

• Phil Jagielka
• Kolo Toure
• Toby Alderweireld

Striker Shortlist

• Giuseppe Rossi (when he returns to fitness)
• Falcao
• Kevin Gameiro
• Klaas-Jan Huntelaar
• Alvaro Negredo

Aston Villa

 2011/12 Weaknesses

• Only Stoke scored fewer goals last season
• Just 7 league wins all season, fewer than every team but Wolves
• 17 draws, 5 more than any other team

Shopping List

Goalscorer needed to compliment a fit again Bent and players that can create the openings for Bent and co.

• Gary Hooper
• Giovani Dos Santos
• Yakubu
• Matt Phillips
• Wilfried Zaha
• Pete Whittingham
• Chris Burke
• Rickie Lambert

Chelsea

2011/12 Weaknesses

• 10 losses and conceded 46, both far too many for a team aspiring to 1^st place in the league
• Did not score anywhere near enough to challenge the top teams.

Shopping List

Sturridge and Torres cannot be relied upon to score with any regularity.

Striker Shortlist

• Fernando Llorente – Probably the best match for Drogba’s physicality and general playing style.
• Leandro Damiao
• Edinson Cavani
• Hulk
• Klaas-Jan Huntelaar
• Loic Remy
• Roberto Soldado

Everton

2011/12 Weaknesses

Need to get more goals if they are to break into the top 6

Shopping List

Striker Shortlist

• Ricky van Wolfswinkel
• Tomas Necid
• Seydou Doumbia

Creative Midfielder Shortlist

• Marcos Senna
• Kevin Strootman
• Lucas Biglia

Fulham

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Ended the league season with a goal difference of -3
• Low scorers

Shopping List

Physical striker needed similar in style to Zamora and Pogrebnyak.

Striker Shortlist

• Grant Holt
• Maxi Lopez
• Marouane Chamakh
• Roque Santa Cruz
• Rickie Lambert

Liverpool

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Liverpool’s strikers had a very low conversion rate last season despite many chances being created.
• Very low scorers given their league aspirations.

Shopping List

Players needed that can offer pace, dribbling and creativity from out wide.

Shortlist

• Younes Belhanda – Profile
• Pablo Piatti
• Pablo Hernandez
• Ryad Boudebouz – Compilation
• Iker Muniain
• Andre Ayew
• Patrick Herrmann
• Andre Schurrie
• Giovani Dos Santos
• James Rodriguez
• Nolito
• Jesus Navas
• Douglas Costa
• Nene
• Willlian

Ball playing Central Defender Shortlist

• Toby Alderweireld

Striker Shortlist

Suarez is a creator and dribbler and not actually good at finishing.

• Leandro Damiao
• Falcao
• Lisandro Lopez
• Alvaro Negredo
• Giuseppe Rossi (when fit)
• Fernando Llorente
• Loic Remy
• Kevin Gameiro

Manchester City

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Lacking options in certain squad positions.

Shopping List

Deep-lying play-maker needed that can add variety to attacking play when needed.

Shortlist

• Claudio Marchisio
• Joao Moutinho
• Keisuke Honda

Man City could still benefit from an additional attacking midfielder that can stay wide and go past players.

Shortlist

• Iker Muniain
• Nicolas Gaitan
• Younes Belhanda – Profile
• Hulk
• Jesus Navas
• James Rodriguez

Manchester United

2011/12 Weaknesses 

• Considerably lower goal difference when compared to champions Manchester City, scoring less and conceding more than their title rivals.
• Lack a pronounced creative or defensive presence in the centre of midfield.
• Having to rely on Rooney for goals too often.

Shopping List

Midfielder Shortlist

• Javi Martinez
• Sandro
• Arturo Vidal
• Daniele De Rossi

Right Back Shortlist

• Gregory van der Wiel
• Ignazio Abate
• Mathieu Debuchy – One of the best performing right backs at Euro 2012.
• Joao Pereira
• Andoni Iraola
• Christian Maggio

Creative Midfielder Shortlist

• Yohan Cabaye
• Joao Moutinho
• Keisuke Honda
• Hernanes

Newcastle United

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Conceded 51, more than any of the other top 8 teams.
• Need to find more scorers than just Cisse, otherwise the team will get found out.

Shopping List

Centre Back Shortlist

• Douglas
• Naldo
• Robert Huth
• Ryan Shawcross
• Brede Hangeland
• Khalid Boulahrouz

Striker Shortlist

• Seydou Doumbia
• Loic Remy
• Kevin Gameiro
• Jermain Defoe
• Alvaro Negredo
• Lima

Right Back Shortlist

• Khalid Boulahrouz
• Gregory van der Wiel
• Jesus Gamez
• Angel Rangel

Norwich City

2011/12 Weaknesses

• High scorers but conceded a lot, so need a better defense.

Shopping List

Centre Back Shortlist

• Curtis Davies
• Craig Dawson
• Dedryck Boyata (loan)
• Danny Wilson (loan)

Left Back Shortlist

• Martin Olsson
• Kyle Naughton (loan)
• Greg Cunningham (loan)

Striker Shortlist

• Yakubu
• Klasnic
• Gio Dos Santos
• Gary Hooper
• Billy Sharp

QPR

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Too many losses
• Very low scorers

Shopping List

Centre Back Shortlist

• Curtis Davies
• Roger Johnson
• Scott Dann
• David Wheater

Striker Shortlist

• Shane Long
• Roque Santa Cruz
• Matty Fryatt
• Danny Graham
• Ivan Klasnic

Reading

2011/12 Weaknesses 

• Only scored 69 goals last season in 46 league games, need an influx of attacking players added to the squad.

Shopping List

Striker Shortlist

• Matty Fryatt
• Yakubu

Winger Shortlist

Winger to match McAnuff on the opposite flank

• Matt Philips
• Wilfried Zaha
• Chris Burke

Southampton

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Conceded 46 goals from 46 Championship games, so will need a more resistant defense.

Shopping List 

Central Defenders Shortlist

• Curtis Davies
• Craig Dawson
• Dedryck Boyata (loan)
• Danny Wilson (loan)
• Roger Johnson
• Scott Dann
• David Wheater

Stoke City

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Joint 2nd highest draws and lowest scorers in the whole league
• Conceded 53, will have to shore up the defence in order to finish higher than last season.

Shopping List

Full Back Shortlist

• Martin Kelly (loan)
• John Flanagan (loan)
• Karl Naughton (loan)
• Liam Ridgewell
• Stephen Warnock
• Tony Hibbert

Inventive Midfielder Shortlist

• David Dunn
• Jamie O’Hara
• Graham Dorrans
• Jake Livermore
• Chris Brunt
• Lucas Biglia
• Lee Chung-Yong
• Hugo Viana
• Peter Whitingham
• Chris Burke
• Julien Feret
• Yossi Benayoun

Striker Shortlist

• Nicky Maynard
• Shane Long
• Gary Hooper
• Kris Boyd
• Anthony Stokes
• Micheal Owen
• Yakubu
• Jordan Rhodes
• Matty Fryatt

Sunderland

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Commendable defence but need to get more goals
• High amount of draws, becoming more of a goal threat will help turn draws into wins.

Shopping List

One more striker needed, preferably British as O’Neil favours buying from this region.

Shortlist

• Gary Hooper
• Danny Graham
• Grant Holt
• Shane Long
• Kevin Doyle
• Ivan Klasnic
• Billy Sharp
• Yakubu
• Seydou Doumbia
• Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang

Left back is a very apparent weakness within the squad.

Shortlist

• Erik Pieters
• Stephen Warnock
• Martin Olsson
• Marek Cech
• Reto Ziegler
• Taye Taiwo (loan)
• Kyle Naughton (loan)

Swansea City

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Despite being applauded for their high ball retention throughout last season Swansea didn’t convert enough of that possession into goals, so there is an obvious need to buy strikers.

Shopping List

Striker Shortlist

• Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang
• Tomas Necid
• Maxi Lopez
• Marc Janko
• Roque Santa Cruz

Pace and Direct Running Shortlist

• Gio Dos Santos – Perfect option, as he can play anywhere within a front 3 and has been nurtured  playing the Spanish way.
• Ryan Babel
• Dani Pacheco (loan)
• Jay Emmanuel-Thomas

Tottenham Hotspur

2011/12 Weaknesses

• It’s vital Spurs better their defensive record to have a chance of competing for a top 4 place again this season.
• More goals need to be scored and shared out amongst the wingers, central midfield and strikers.
• Lost too many at home by frequently failing to break through the defences of the lesser teams.

Shopping List 

Need a new striker that can alternate or partner Adebayor when needed.

Shortlist

• Falcao
• Klaas-Jan Huntelaar
• Oscar Cardozo
• Fernando Llorente
• Leandro Damiao

Need wide players who can create for the strikers and alternate with Bale and Lennon.

Shortlist

• Nicolas Gaitan
• Jesus Navas
• Pedro Leon
• Arda Turan
• Milos Krasic
• Hulk
• Andre Ayew
• James Rodriguez
• Sidney Sam
• Miroslav Stoch
• Patrick Herrmann
• Nene – Arguably PSG’s best player last season and they may be willing to sell him after all their marquee signings.
• Nolito

West Bromwich Albion

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Too many losses.
• Low scorers, scored less than Bolton and Blackburn, both of who were relegated.

Shopping List 

Proven Premiership Striker Shortlist

• Yakubu
• Grant Holt
• Gio Dos Santos
• Roque Santa Cruz

West Ham United

2011/12 Weaknesses

• Poor at home last season,  only winning 11 games out of  23.

Shopping List

A striker is needed who is a significant physical and aerial threat, able to play the “Kevin Davies” role.

Striker Shortlist

• Hugo Almeida
• Mdame N’Doye
• Lacina Traore
• Marc Janko
• Luuk de Jong

Physically Dominating Right Back Shortlist

• Khalid Boulahrouz
• Ronald Zubar
• Carl Jenkinson (loan)
• Anthony vanden Borre

Wigan Athletic

• 2011/12 Weaknesses
• 2nd lowest scorers

Shopping List

Proven Finishers Shortlist

• Gary Hooper
• Gio dos Santos
• Dani Pacheco (loan)
• Yakubu
• Kevin Doyle
• Michael Owen
• Matty Fryatt
• Daniel Guiza
• Roque Santa Cruz

Is Charlie Adam waving goodbye?

The short-list for 2010’s PFA Player Of The Year (Drogba, Rooney, Fabregas and Tevez) contained four of the Premier League’s most talented and proven names. This year’s short-list for the same award, however, highlighted the poor showing from many of the Premier League’s top stars as they were all absent. In their place were unfashionable players, basically the type that don’t usually get nominated for awards. So it begs the question, where were the stars, why were Rooney, Drogba, Terry, A.Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Torres, Fabregas and co. not present on the short-list?

Midway through last season’s Premier League season, a previously inconsistent and anonymous Nasri in years past, was evidently performing at a level above everyone else at that time. This got me thinking, why didn’t Nasri get selected for the France World Cup 2010 squad? From that point, I speculated that perhaps he was excelling because he didn’t get selected. So while the supposed stars of the Premier League participated in the World Cup, straight off the back of a tiring domestic season, Nasri was afforded a lengthy post season break. Leaving him fresh for the 2010-2011 league season.

With the exception of Van Persie and van der Vaart, as they also both benefited from sustained rest periods themselves (the first through injuries and the second with a winter break at Real Madrid), the only attacking Premiership player that you could emphatically state had a good season and also went to the World Cup is Tevez.

I believe the players were tired and burned out due to the lack of a Premier League winter break coupled with the 2010 World Cup. This is the main reason for the lacklustre performances of the other top Premiership players last season. The player goal and assist statistics (table 1 above) suggest not — with an overall drop in goals scored and assists credited when comparing the seasons before and after the last World Cup. The fact is that all the star names that underperformed in the Premier League last season also happened to be present at the World Cup. It’s the one thing they share in common.

Although it’s not just below par players. This season’s two biggest under-performing Premier League teams, Chelsea and Liverpool, are also the two teams that sent the most players to the 2010 World Cup with 12 each.

England underperformed themselves at last year’s World Cup (as did most of the Premier League based players) and the players that made up that England squad continued to falter throughout the 2010-11 Premiership season. Within that squad, Crouch, Rooney, Defoe, Heskey, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Lennon, Johnson, J.Cole, Carrick, Upson and Ferdinand were definitely inferior versions of their usual selves. The other squad members I don’t feel I’m in a position to judge accurately, but none of them stand out as having performed at the level I’m used to seeing from them in previous years.

In recent years England’s players have consistently failed to carry their club form over to the national team in major International tournaments. I’m of the opinion that part of the reason for this is because they are mentally and physically drained at the end of every Premier League season.

With the quadruple handicap of a frantically paced and more physically demanding Premier League game, no winter break, more domestic competitions than the rest of the major European leagues leading to fixture congestion, and then international tournaments, it’s no wonder they’re exhausted. With all that, not only do the players lack the energy to perform at their optimum during the post season International tournaments, but the lack of an uninterrupted mid-season or post season break noticeably hinders their performance levels for the following league season.

This goes to explain why this past Premier League season has been about the lesser teams and the lesser players, and perhaps why Manchester United won the Premier League title with only 80 points, the joint lowest points total for a league winner in 12 years. Last season’s Premier League was more exciting than we’ve come to expect, but that came at an expense, the expense of quality. The big stars fizzled, coming off the back of the previous league season and straight from the 2010 World Cup without adequate rest. This created the condition for a level playing field, with the lesser players, the underdogs, able to outperform the established. This lead to a tighter contested league, and the top teams winning with fewer points than usual..

In an effort to up the quality of the Premier League and improve the England national team, there needs to be a winter break (as repeatedly called for by previous England managers Capello and Eriksson). A mid-season break could be accommodated by revamping the Carling Cup. You could do this by authorizing that Premier League teams can only use reserve and U-21 players in the League Cup. Most Premier League teams use the Carling Cup to field fringe players and as a testing ground for youth players anyway, so I see no harm in enforcing that they all do it. Plus I see it as a diluted version of the FA Cup anyway. I mean what does it offer that the FA Cup doesn’t? Without the Carling Cup this would then mean Premier League first teams have two domestic competitions to concentrate on, which is in-line with the other major European leagues, who do have a winter break, do. With this new set-up, the yearly football calendar could then allocate space for a break of at least 2 weeks midway through the Premier League season, which would act as a winter break.

Whatever the solution, something has to change. Otherwise the quality of the Premier League and its most talented players will continue to suffer, as will the England team at major tournaments. It’s insane to expect players to perform at their best throughout the whole season and the World Cup or European Championships, without any rest breaks in-between. Einstein stated “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. But isn’t that exactly what we are asking of Premier League and England players by not granting them a winter break but still demanding they play at their best for the whole season?

Editor’s note: Read more of David’s articles at www.footiegambler.com

In his WSJ column, Gabriele Marcotti brings up the dearth of British managers at the top of English football.  Seven of the 20 Premier League managers are foreign.  Sir Alex Ferguson is the only British manager among the so-called “Big Four.”  Manchester City dumping Mark Hughes for Roberto Mancini seems only to exacerbate this trend.

Many in England believe this indicates domestic managers aren’t given a fair chance.  As Marcotti notes, Harry Redknapp expressed this sentiment in his column for the Sun.  “If any manager lower down the football pyramid believes they will get a big club…They won’t.  They simply won’t get a look in.  No chances will be taken.”

Such a sentiment is attractive, seemingly sensible, but ultimately ludicrous.

Viewing England’s top four as fixed entities is tempting and convenient, but it’s untrue.  Alex Ferguson inherited Manchester United in the 1980s and built the team into a perennial fixture.  Arsene Wenger did the same with Arsenal in the 1990s.  These managers joined clubs with resources and potential and built them.

British managers have had similar opportunities.

Sam Allardyce accepted the job at Newcastle, a large, heavy-spending club.  He failed and was finished by January.

Manchester City gave Mark Hughes a blank check.  He spent hundreds of millions.  He either bought poorly or managed the talent at his disposal poorly, but whatever he did it was poorly.  He was fired.

Harry Redknapp, the author of the aforementioned quotation, has the opportunity this season to finish in the top four.  He has been given ample talent.  He has a favorable league position.  He needs to lead them there.

Newcastle (before relegation), Manchester City and Tottenham were big jobs, similar to Arsenal and Man U once upon a time.  The clubs are among the wealthiest in Europe.  The resources are there.  They just need to use them correctly.

The most prominent British managers, men like Hughes Redknapp and Allardyce, have had opportunities to get to the top.  They didn’t take them.

British managers are not victims of structure.  They need no subsidy.  They just need to show ambition, take the initiative and perform better.

Liverpool announced that Glen Johnson will miss at least a month after tearing a knee ligament.  It may be paradoxical to claim this for a recent £18m signing, but Johnson’s absence may aid the Reds in their battle for fourth.

Johnson is an attacking right back.  He’s adept.  He gets forward with power and pace.  He spreads and penetrates defenses, presenting another angle of attack.  Such a forward running fullback can be devastating, in the right system.

Barcelona uses Dani Alves in a similar role to Johnson.  He races down the touchline.  He plays direct balls into the box.  He darts inside, creating space on the wing for Messi.  Alves vacates his defensive position, but it’s seldom an issue as Barcelona holds possession.  They rarely give the ball away in a disadvantageous place.

Liverpool is not Barcelona. The Reds are physical, attacking directly with haste.  Steven Gerrard has many strong suits.  Keeping the ball isn’t one of them.  Liverpool race down the pitch with the ball, but more often than not, give it straight back.

That style is not without virtue.  It unsettles complacent European teams (see Liverpool’s generally stellar record in Europe).  But, with English teams that play a similarly direct counterattack, it can leave them exposed (see Liverpool’s hiccups domestically that knock them from title contention).

If Glen Johnson runs forward, and Liverpool turn the ball over.  His right back position is wide open.  He either can’t get back, or is scrambling and not as effective.  Perhaps Jamie Carragher is not undergoing a mysterious atrophy, but is asked to cover too much ground for the ever advancing Johnson.  At the very least, Johnson’s positioning is exacerbating Carragher’s difficulties.  Unlike with Barcelona, a marauding right back in Liverpool’s system is a liability.

Even when Johnson is in position.  He’s not an instinctual defender.  When feasible, teams deliberately attack him as the weak point in Liverpool’s back line.  Liverpool have allowed 23 goals in 20 matches (They conceded only 27 all last season).  The major alteration was adding Johnson.

Glen Johnson was more expensive than Liverpool’s previous right backs, Finnan and Arbeloa.  He may, in a vacuum, offer more than either of them.  But, Liverpool have been terrible since Johnson arrived.  Maybe a reliable, unspectacular right back is the tonic they need.

EA Sports’ FIFA franchise strives for realism, to approximate the experience of being a footballer or managing a club. When you see the gaudy, arcade style interface of FIFA 10 for the Wii, you realize this will be a very different game.

Creating for the Wii constrains developers. The game needs to be simplified. The Wii’s processor is not as powerful as the XBox 360 or the Playstation 3. It can’t handle the graphics. The controls cannot be too intricate for the Wiimote. The target audience is more casual. Most serious console gamers would buy the game for another console.

FIFA 10 for the Wii is essentially an arcade game. There’s little strategy. The difference between players and teams is negligible. It resembles a generic early 1990s style sports game, but with real players and better graphics.  It does looks nice.  Even if it’s a cartoon Fernando Torres, you can tell easily that it’s a cartoon Torres.

It plays entirely differently. In traditional FIFA games you must aim your shot, on the Wii, a mere shake of the wiimote will sends a Michael Essien-style missile straight into the net. There’s no artistry in scoring goals. The only skill, if it could be called that, is finding a modicum of open space to launch.

This game should never be played alone. The more intricate game modes aren’t realistic enough to be worth it. It’s best head to head with a friend in a simple exhibition.

Though, it’s only a short time before you both figure out to slide tackle like a mad man and launch shots from anywhere inside the opposition half. More often than not, there’s a striker waiting to pick up the rebound.

While FIFA 10 was intriguing to mess around with for a few hours, I would not recommend buying it. Even for a Wii aficionado looking for a multiplayer football game, Super Mario Strikers is more fun and more intricate, if you can stomach playing as Luigi rather than Leo Messi.

It doesn’t matter how they are scored, whether it’s a tap in like Aaron Lennon in last seasons dramatic 4-4 in the North London Derby and Ole Gunnar Solksjaer winning the treble at the Camp Nou, or beautifully crafted like Beckham lighting up Old Trafford once again to send England to the 2002 World Cup and Gerrard smashing home against Olympiakos in the 86th minute, giving them the 2-goal lead they needed to progress past the group stage of the 2004 Champion’s League, a competition they would go on to win.

A late goal is what’s beautiful about football, and highlights how quickly a game can change. You just drift away from the real world for that split second and find yourself in a state of ecstacy with no control over your actions. Andy Gray’s commentary during the Gerrard goal illustrates that so beautifully.

There aren’t many moments that give me goosebumps 8 years on after countless times of watching, but Beckham v Greece is one of them. It was almost poetic, and there was only ever one person who was going to carry us through to the World Cup Finals. It was the turning point in his career after the controversy of the 1998 World Cup, and had that goal not gone in, how different could David Beckham’s career have turned out.

So never give up hope, and never leave a game early. No amount of traffic can ruin that perfect moment.

Last gasp goals are why we all love football.

Sven-Goran Eriksson sparked an apparent revolution at Notts County in July. With Tord Grip and mysterious financial backing, he set off to dazzle the Football League like one of his secretaries. He signed legacy kid Kasper Schmeichel. He lured former England stalwart Sol Campbell with £60,000 per week till age 40 and a path into coaching.

Promotion seemed inevitable. A hasty vault from League Two to the Premier League seemed quite plausible. The fervor didn’t last long.

Sol Campbell, as is customary for him in uncomfortable situations, left after just five weeks and one appearance. Blinded by the Elizabeths, he hadn’t realized the extent of the project.

“Perhaps things are not happening as quickly as he thought they might, but this is a five-year project, not a five-week project. We can’t just become a Premier League club overnight.”

“That is how it is. If he doesn’t want to play here, we don’t want him here.”

The star is gone, and now there is trouble with the top, as the new ownership may struggle with the stringent “Fit and Proper Person’s Test.”

Russell King is a senior representative for Qadbak, the consortium that bought Notts County.

King fabricated the theft of his Aston Martin in 1991, to claim the £600,000 insurance fee, while his company, Zodiac Toys, was in massive debt. He was sentenced to two years in Prison.

He had assets frozen in Jersey, £1.9m, after defaulting on debts to Channel Islands-based Close Finance. King and Nathan Willett, who negotiated with Sven, have links to the Belgravia Group, currently facing criminal charges.

Authorities could not care less about moderate human rights violations, but dishonesty, fraud and financial impropriety will cause trouble, as it affects the league itself.

We’ve yet to see how the chaos will affect Notts County on the pitch. They looked like a juggernaut in early August, beating Bradford and Macclesfield by a combined 9-0. Though, they have been less impressive since, winning only two of their last six. Given summer expectations, eighth place must be disappointing.

Notts County’s fate is uncertain. The only certain thing is that Sven-Goran Eriksson has no shame. As long as someone keeps writing the checks, he will be there to cash them.

In an exclusive interview for the Guardian, Manchester City chairman Khaldoon al-Mubarak criticized Michel Platini’s planned control of football club expenditure. He has a point.

Platini wants new financial rules by 2012. Under those guidelines, Clubs would spend within their soccer-generated income. Failure to do so would end in a European ban. Khaldoon argues that this calcifies the status quo.

“The argument that this is unhealthy suggests that the big clubs, which make the most money, must remain the big clubs, that the status quo must remain,” Khaldoon responded. “Is Mr Platini saying that only Real Madrid and Barcelona have the right to be competitive in La Liga?”

Clubs have a natural potential based on city size. A Madrid club will earn more than one in Tenerife. This is, however, too simplistic to explain why Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United generate revenue.

“You have to spend money to make money.” It’s a cliche, but it’s true. Teams must invest in players to generate revenue. Superclubs – such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man U, Inter Milan – are established because they have spent more money than other clubs for decades.

Platini’s implication is that Manchester City’s spending is unnatural. It’s not. It’s a necessary step to catch up with competitors. City’s crime, seemingly, is investing at an advantageous time during an economic downturn.

The point of Platini’s proposal is to protect financial stability in the game. As Khaldoon points out, Manchester City are perhaps the most financially stable club in Europe.

“I could accept the argument if we were artificially building up the club through debt,” Khaldoon said. “That produces a destructive end result; we have seen that happen. But in our case, the club will be in the healthiest position because there is no debt. We have funded it through equity [permanent investment], including the signing of the players.

“I believe what we are doing is a fair way to inject competition into football, without debt.”

If debt is destabilizing, Manchester United and Liverpool, bought on debt transferred to the club, are more threatening. The clubs’ sales alone have amassed over $1.5 billion in debt. Abu Dhabi’s purchase of City, in contrast, did not affect the league’s financial climate directly.

City have spent £200m on players under Abu Dhabi ownership, but it’s not as though they are driving the market up. Elite players do not want to go to Manchester City regardless of money. Players they have spent exorbitantly on, Tevez and Robinho, were only realistic targets for a few clubs. Their lesser buys, if anything, are benefitting the rest of the EPL. Everton aren’t crippled by receiving twice as much as they should have for Joleon Lescott.

Platini’s proposal selects a scapegoat in Manchester City. Attacking City is convenient, but it does not address true problems of inequality and economic stability. To do so, Platini would need to take on established clubs on wage limits, transfer caps and a luxury tax. Pushing those proposals would solve the problem. Unfortunately, it would also hasten the inevitable European Super League.

Before playing Arsenal, former Arsenal striker Emmanuel Adebayor said Arsenal supporters are “not real fans.”

“What is good at City is the fans. They love you. Arsenal have a lot of fans who are not fans,” Adebayor said. “Arsenal have fans from America and Jamaica. Today they are Arsenal fans, tomorrow they will be Liverpool fans, after tomorrow they will be Manchester United fans.

“If you boo your player every weekend, I am very sorry, you are not true fans. It hurt me a lot. That was the most difficult moment of my career.”

Ah, the uncritical ravings of a narcissist.

Football fans are the least judgmental segment of the population. They will forgive nearly everything short of murder and rape. Even rape might be forgiven in time.

They only ask the player to feign loyalty and to give his best effort. Emmanuel Adebayor did neither.

After scoring 30 goals in 2007-08, Emmanuel Adebayor and his agent tried to engineer his departure. He was disingenuous, stating one story on TV, then saying the exact opposite to reporters with the cameras off. He was not loyal.

Adebayor was not transferred. Arsenal doubled his salary to £80,000 per week. He then loafed through the 2008-09 season, scoring only 10 goals in the league. He gave so little effort, the club invented an injury to bench him at the end of the season.

Emmanuel Adebayor complains of fans with tenuous loyalties. Fans could make the identical complaint about him, and unlike Adebayor they have evidence.

Manchester City have good fans, who cheer him now. When they don’t qualify for the Champions League and Adebayor’s agent tries to engineer a move next summer, they will boo him, as good fans should.

Paul Doyle of The Guardian once described Carlos Tevez as “the rich man’s Dirk Kuyt.” That man may be far more rich than we thought.

Carlos Tevez left Manchester United for Manchester City, in a deal that reportedly paid Tevez’ handlers £25.5m. According to a new report in The Times, Tevez’ fee may really be £47m, nearly twice the initial figure. If true, that would dwarf the previous British transfer record – City’s buy of Robinho for £34.2m – and be the fifth largest transfer in history.

According to the Times, Kia Joorabchian’s consortium received an initial £15m payment, with two £16m payments to follow, bringing the total to £47m. The Times also claims the consortium receive an additional £3.5m, if City win the Champions League with Tevez.

Tevez has fans and detractors. I’d lump myself in the fan category.

He never quite fit at Manchester United, but showed how ferocious he can be in flashes. He never received a consistent run in the team, particularly after Dimitar Berbatov arrived at the club. He also battled for position with Rooney and Ronaldo.

Given a focal role, as he had at the end of his season at West Ham, he could dominate. Whether he receives that chance at Manchester City, with a similar log jam up front is questionable.

Allowed to play, Tevez could be great, but £47m? That’s absurd. Is there a player in the Premier League who would command that fee? Is there a player a club would reject that fee for? Torres? Rooney? Fabregas?

If £47m was the sum under discussion for Tevez, it seems we have a clear reason Manchester United let him leave.

It’s funny how karma works.  Chelsea took an inhumanely stern line with Adrian Mutu, and now FIFA has taken a stern line with them.

The Blues have been found guilty of “inducing” French midfielder Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007.  FIFA has forbid them to participate in the next two transfer windows, barring them from signing a player until 2011.

Chelsea was also fined €130,000.  Kakuta has been fined €780,000 and banned for the next four months.

Kakuta is the brightest star in Chelsea’s academy.  He’s an attacking left-winger, who was the youth team’s top scorer and academy player of the year.  He was named in Chelsea’s Champions League squad before the ruling.

Chelsea have been found guilty of malfeasance in the transfer market before.  The Premier League fined Chelsea £300,000, Jose Mourinho £200,000 and Ashley Cole £100,000 in the tapping up scandal of 2005.

The Blues have ten days to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  It’s probably a safe bet they will do so.

Is the penalty too harsh?  Can Chelsea compete for the Champions League, or even the Premier League without bringing in fresh talent?

Toward the end of his book Inverting the Pyramid, Jonathan Wilson writes about the changing nature of modern football.  A player he brings up to emphasize this is Michael Owen.  To Wilson, Owen is a relic of a previous era.

“He appears a player left behind by the tactical evolution of the game,” Wilson writes.  “Owen could be one of those players who wins teams the occasional game, but prevents them playing good football (which means that he may prove extremely useful to mediocre sides, or even to a good side playing badly, but rarely if at all to a good side playing well).”

Michael Owen is the prototypical “fox in the box” or “goal poacher.”  He does one thing.  He clings to the last defender, darts onto a pass and finishes.  He once did so very proficiently.  Despite injuries, he remains reasonably productive.  But, how valuable is that skill?

For Owen to affect the game, he needs service.  He needs a midfield dedicated to feeding him.  He sharpens one angle of attack, but simultaneously blunts others.  A team can make Owen successful, but can he make the team successful?

Liverpool did win the Champions League the year after Owen left.

The designated finisher once was an essential position, but how many teams play such a specialist anymore?  Look at last year’s Champions League finalists.

Manchester United did not play a designated goal-scorer.  Berbatov is more of a facilitator.  Goals came from Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney often moving in from wide roles.

Samuel Eto’o and Leo Messi scored a number of goals for Barcelona, but both play far more versatile roles, Eto’o will at times play on the wing, and defends.  Messi plays on the right.

Neither Man U nor Barcelona played a goal poacher.

If looking for a designated forward, most Premier League fans would choose Didier Drogba or Fernando Torres.  Both players finish, but they also are big, strong and fast enough to attack from multiple angles and create space.  Their technical ability and vision allows them to facilitate teammates.

The one manager who dared press Owen, point out his weaknesses, and encourage him to expand his game was Kevin Keegan.  Rather than accept the message, Owen stubbornly blamed Keegan for ruining his confidence.

Teams need forwards to do more than score goals.  Judging them solely by the number of goals, hardly says anything.  Unless, we are all crowning Nicholas Anelka the best striker in the Premier League.

It’s not necessarily that Michael Owen has declined, but his skill-set does not fit the modern game.  The question, then, is why Manchester United bothered to sign him?

Arsenal beat Celtic 2-0 at Celtic Park, all but assuring their qualification for the Champions League group stages, with two away goals.  It was not the presiding effort of their 6-1 away win at Everton, but the two deflected goals – from Gallas and Gary Caldwell’s foot – fulfilled the requirement in what was arguably the most important match of the season.

Celtic obviously came into match with an inferior squad.  The Scottish Premier League nowhere near equates the English one.  Celtic’s biggest signing was £4m Scott Brown.  As was mentioned in the telecast, new Celtic manager Tony Mowbray did have experience against Arsene Wenger from his time at West Brom.  Unfortunately, said experience was losing to Arsenal with an inferior squad.

The tactics came as no shock.  Celtic pressed early to disrupt Arsenal’s passing, with moderate success.  When the club tired, they kicked Cesc Fabregas constantly, resulting in two yellow cards and accomplishing nothing but placing him at risk for injury.  Fabregas is too savvy to be addled by wanton lunges.  Even if the tactic had hampered his effectiveness, Arsenal have four or five players who can create adequately with the increased space from diminished attention.

Wenger again opted for the 4-3-3, using the exact lineup that played against Everton.  This time, however, players shifted positions more frequently and both Gallas and Vermaelen attempted runs from the back.  This suggests we may be seeing some true total football at the Emirates this year.

Arsenal’s back four, fronted by Song were solid again.  Though, they benefitted from Arsenal breaking up plays high up the pitch in both matches.  The trio of Alumnia, Vermaelen and Gallas appear confident now.  Will this change when they face a team that can down the wings and challenge aerially with crosses?

The weak point for Arsenal was Nicklas Bendtner.  He shone with the ball at times against Everton, but against Celtic he was woeful.  Whether playing down the right or in the middle, his poor off the ball positioning placed him consistently two steps behind his proper place.  He has the technical ability, but does he have the football intelligence?

Theo Walcott should take Bendtner’s place when he returns from injury.  Though, if Bendtner remains the fall back plan for the slender shouldered one, that should influence Wenger’s to buy.  Could Wenger take Rafael Van Der Vaart off their hands for £6m?

For those tracking other transfers as we approach the deadline, Emmanuel Eboue was not in Arsenal’s squad, leaving that reported £9m move to Fiorentina an option.

Manchester City are spending their way into the Premier League top four. Paradoxically, the club most amenable to their ambition is Arsenal, whom they wish to supplant. The Gunners sold City striker Emmanuel Adebayor for £25m. Less than two weeks later, they are prepared to sell them defender Kolo Toure for another £14m, as the 28-year-old Ivorian has been turned by the £100,000 per week wage offer.

If Toure’s deal goes through, Arsenal will receive £39m from Manchester City. If Fiorentina buy Emmanuel Eboue for the rumored £8.5m that would be £47.5m in sales. Their only buy thus far has been £10m defender Thomas Vermaelen from Ajax. Arsenal would, theoretically, make a £37.5m profit over the summer, enough to buy one spectacular player or two borderline great ones. Despite the influx in cash, however, Arsene Wenger has already issued his tired refrain about being satisfied with the squad and not needing to spend.

The situation is curious. It indicates serious financial trouble, or serious delusion.

Arsenal have their zealots, pointing out that Arsenal already have their summer signings, Eduardo and Tomas Rosicky returning from injury. They also have the young players stepping forward. This justification sounds familiar, because it was the same exact justification given last summer, when Hleb, Flamini and Gilberto left. It also resonates with excuses made in the two trophy-less seasons previously.

Injuries are another common claim. Arsenal had serious ones last year, most crucially Cesc Fabregas’ knee. Had players not been injured, the season could have gone differently. True, but what squad has no injuries? Certainly not Arsenal in the past few seasons. Clubs that win have squads that withstand injuries.

Chelsea have stayed pat. Manchester United lost Cristiano Ronaldo. Liverpool may lose Alonso, Mascherano or both. Arsenal, with wise investment, could propel themselves to title contention next season. Instead, they jettison more players from an already perilously thin squad, content to be relevant rather than dominant, proud to be a few points off the pace.

Arsenal are receiving £39m from Manchester City, but, if the club does not reinvest at least some of the money, they could lose nearly that much by not qualifying for the Champions League.

UEFA will fine both Arsenal and Manchester United £5,000 respectively for fan incidents during last years Champions League semifinals.  An Arsenal fan hit Nemanja Vidic with a plastic bottle.  A Manchester United supporter hurled a smoke bomb onto the pitch.    The actions were potentially serious.  The fines are not.

UEFA functions like all bureaucracies.  It continues actions without a hint of rational analysis, solely because it was policy beforehand.  Has no one questioned the purpose of these penalties?

The sums under discussion are trivial.  Both Manchester United and Arsenal measure turnover in the hundreds of millions.  Five thousand pounds neither attracts attention nor deters future behavior.  It is doubtful Arsenal will now institute a plastic bottle task force.

It does not stop supporters.  If you throw a projectile into the pitch, it is assumed you will be banned.  The thought of the club paying a paltry fine in addition does not factor into the decision.

The fines are also not cost effective.  There must be a meeting to determine whether a meeting to discuss these incidents is required.  Someone has to schedule, to organize and to provide amenities for that meeting, which, with UEFA, is probably a lavish lunch.  They may even fly people in for it.  Someone has to contact the clubs to make statements.  Once the issue is deemed punishment-worthy, another meeting must take place.  The process takes months.  The sum cost exceeds the amount returned in fines.

UEFA penalizing Arsenal and Manchester United accomplishes only one thing.  It re-publicizes unsavory events long-forgotten and ultimately insignificant.

Rationales are non-existent.  The fines are useless.  UEFA should give meaningful punishments, or none at all.

Former England, Manchester City and Mexico manager Sven Goran-Eriksson did not become director of football at Notts County “for the money.”  Nor, apparently, did he go for the prestige or mild degree of difficulty.  Eriksson inherits a club that finished 19th in League Two last season, essentially the worst club in England that can be called professional.

Not only did Eriksson inherit difficulty, but he set his goal inordinately high.  He wants to bring the club nearly as old as football itself back to the top flight.

“I think it’s the biggest football challenge of my life, trying to take Notts County back to the Premier League, but that’s the target. The challenge is perhaps the most difficult football job I’ve had so far. But, I am looking forward to it.”

Eriksson signed a five-year contract.  He wants to bring the club up within those five years, meaning promotion in nearly every season.  The task is arduous.  Can Sven do it?

Possibly.

Lower league teams survive week to week financially.  Notts County was bought by a Middle Eastern consortium, with millions to spend.  The lower leagues have resources parity without terribly complex tactics.  Even a modest investment, could give the club a decisive advantage.  It’s not inconceivable that Notts County could spend their way to the Championship within three or four seasons.

The jump from the Championship to the Premier League, however, is bigger.  The Championship has large clubs, now including one of the largest in the world thanks to Newcastle, and seasoned clubs just down from the top flight.  Even with heavy spending and luck, promotion requires a greater level of guile.  Even QPR with its enormous financial advantage and stable building project has yet to escape.

Sven-Goran Eriksson has proven with cash he can construct a team, but he has never overseen the development of an academy and scouting infrastructure required for the top level.  Eriksson can be successful with Notts County’s raw material, but it’s an endeavor alien to his track record.

The Notts County project would be interesting in football manager.  Though, for a figure of Eriksson’s stature who would be in the mix for a Premier League or top-level European job come the first round of firings this fall, his decision to accept it seems curious.

For those not emotionally invested, the sale of a prominent Premier League club is chum in the water.  We want easily caricatured nutballs in charge, huge transfer budgets, grandiose schemes destined to fail and decimations of the club’s staff.  We want entertainment.

Given that context and the club’s unique penchant for disaster, West Ham’s sale was abominable, substandard and lamentable.  Given one word, it was boring.  Profoundly boring.

CB Holding, the original Icelandic creditors of Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, took control of West Ham to keep it from going bankrupt and protect it’s investment.  The ownership stays Icelandic.  The only difference is the Straumur Burdaras bank rather than Landsbanki.

West Ham’s financial situation was perilous.  There was the bank crisis, debt and the Tevez settlement.  They easily could have entered into administration.  There would have been furor over a points deduction, possibly one that could have effected the relegation battle next year.  The club would have been offloading players, possibly replacing Zola with a manager who would accept it.  It would have been messy.  It would have been exciting.

Instead, the new Hammers’ ownership wants to protect and enhance its investment.  There will be no sales of the clubs best players, though sensible sales such as Dean Ashton and Matthew Upson are possible.

The reasonably successful managerial partnership of Zola and Clarke will remain intact.  The club will even have a sensible transfer budget, all with a sound financial backing.

CB Holding’s takeover is great for West Ham and their supporters.  It’s great for the Premier League, who benefit from a large, successfully run club in London.  It’s awful for those who have to write about it.

This is not the worst team in the Premier League.  It is the least valuable.  This team would incite the masses with talent, with name recognition and with expense.  They would then fail pathetically.  This team could be composed entirely of Newcastle players, but we thought we’d include a few others to keep things interesting.

Emmanuel Adebayor (Arsenal): Doubled his salary this season.  Halved his work rate and effectiveness.

Michael Owen (Newcastle): No longer an elite player, no leadership value, paid like someone with both.

Damien Duff (Newcastle): Expensive, complacent and ineffectual, Duff is a perfect emblem for Newcastle’s season.

Joey Barton (Newcastle): He makes £60,000 per week.  No description needed.

Deco (Chelsea): Barcelona – better when he left.  Chelsea – better when he stopped playing.

David Bentley (Tottenham): Once tipped to start for England, can’t even start for Tottenham.  Spurs won eight out of eleven league games he did not play.

Gareth Bale (Tottenham): Spurs still have not won a Premier League match he has appeared in.

Micah Richards (Manchester City): Has regressed rather than progressed, a testament to Capello’s insight.

Gary Neville (Manchester United): Waste of a squad position.

Andrea Dossena (Liverpool): One reason Rafa Benitez should have to work for his transfer funds.

Craig Gordon (Sunderland): Sunderland allowed 113 goals the past two seasons.  Not all Gordon’s fault, but you would expect more impact, given his transfer fee.

Facing the sobering reality of a fourth season without a major trophy, Arsenal fans have been disappointed.  The disenchantment has created a culture of negativity around the club, which Arsene Wenger lashed out at on Friday.

“When you look at people assessing the situations of the clubs, it has become ridiculous,” Wenger said.

“You sit here, you are in the last four in Europe, and every day, you feel you have killed someone. If you do not take a distance with it, you think what kind of world do you live in?

“We lost against United who have 10 times more resources, they are the best in the world. In sport, you have to accept that. It is like they are ashamed to be fair.

“There is no shame to say, ‘Yes you are the best.’ We were in the last four with a very young team – that is the reality.

“We have to keep a little bit of commonsense. Our average age in midfield is 22 – normally you play not to go down in the Premier League with a team like that.”

Wenger has a point.  Arsenal played well for portions of the second half of the season to maintain their Champions League place.  They competed in both the Champions League and the FA Cup, and with a bit of luck or a better draw could have played in the finals of both competitions.  For a young squad, that is not a bad performance.

The club supporters, however, have a point as well.

Arsenal sputtered the first half of the league season.  They lost five of their first 14 matches.  Three of the losses were unacceptable against Fulham, Stoke, and Hull.

The club did have an injury crisis, but that crisis was self-imposed.  Wenger had time to account for injuries to Eduardo and Rosicky.  They had a frail first team, talented but green teenagers and zero squad players.  With nearly every player playing internationally as well, injuries are to be expected.  Arsenal suffered because they were not deep enough.

Arsenal’s cup performances look deceptively impressive.  The Gunners made the semifinals of the FA Cup.  To get there, they beat lower league sides Plymouth Argyle, Cardiff City and Burnley.  They faced Hull City in the quarterfinal.  The first time Arsenal was challenged facing Chelsea, they lost.  Arsenal’s FA Cup magic was really the minimum expected.

Arsenal made the semifinals of the Champions League.  They qualified from the group stages, the minimum expectation in a system designed to ensure the big clubs go through.  They scraped by on penalties against Roma.  They outclassed Villarreal, an inferior team.  Facing their first stern test against Manchester United, they were trounced.  Again, it was the minimum expected.

The season can be considered both positively and negatively, depending on Arsenal’s finances.  Supporters see one of the five wealthiest clubs in the world.  They see a sold-out stadium of fans paying the highest ticket prices in English football.  They see massive turnover, yet a team profiting in the transfer window.

The club’s fiscal picture inside may be bleak, but the Arsenal public front insists that there is money to spend.  Arsene Wenger heroically may have kept the club as competitive as it is has been the past four years, but, with no transparency, how are Arsenal fans to know that?

Supporters can understand the lack of resources, what they cannot accept is the seeming lack of effort.  On nearly every occasion, the 2008-09 Arsenal squad cowered in the face of adversity.

Arsenal are a team professing trophies as their goal.  For the manager to throw up his hands after a defeat and say something to the effect of “It’s Man United, what do you expect?” is unacceptable.

With their typical class, Chelsea players and staff asserted their belief, following their 1-1 agg defeat to Barcelona, that UEFA conspired against them to prevent an all-English final in the Champions League.

Players, such as Didier Drogba, displayed their sentiment by all but physically assaulting the referee as he left the pitch. Manager Guus Hiddink took a more measured tone in the subsequent press conference, but offered much the same sentiment.

“Conspiracy is a very tough word and you have to prove it,” Hiddink said. “I don’t want to go with that tough word. It was said in the build-up that it would be nice to have a repetition of last year’s final, but I can only say what I see.

“I cannot say if Uefa would not like another all-English final. What I’m sure about that, in big games like this, you need top-notch referees. Players make many mistakes, coaches makes mistakes and referees can make mistakes. But if you have seen three or four situations waved away, then it’s the worst I have seen. At this moment I’d have to think a lot if I have seen worse.”

It may have been better for UEFA business had Barcelona won, but that alone does not justify a conspiracy claim. If UEFA had conspired to fix this match, they did perhaps the worst job in the history of conspiracy.

UEFA so pressured the referee for a Barca victory at the Camp Nou that he ignored a blatant Chelsea penalty committed against Thierry Henry, booked Carles Puyol rashly causing him to miss the second and leg and sent off neither Michael Ballack nor Alex when he easily could have.

The anti-English junta flexed it’s influencing muscle even further in the second leg when Eric Abidal received a red card for being in the vicinity when Nicolas Anelka tripped over his own feet, forcing Barcelona to play with ten. Claims that UEFA was fixing the match for Chelsea are absurd.

Moreover, most of the Chelsea penalty claims in the second leg were specious.

For Alves’ foul on Malouda, the foul began outside the area and was only given at all because Malouda hurled himself to the ground against physics. Abidal’s miniscule touch on Drogba was followed by a blatant, delayed dive. Toure’s foul on Drogba, if he committed one, was outside the box. He tackled fairly in the box.

Pique’s handball, perhaps, was a penalty. But, the call was a mistake and hardly conspiracy. The referee had a shocker, but both teams had to live with him, not merely Chelsea.

Chelsea played to score one goal over two legs. They deployed 11 men in Barcelona purely to kick and stifle the opposition, forgoing an away goal. The played defensively once they went 1-0 up at Stamford Bridge, pulling off Drogba for defense, despite facing ten men.

Scoring goals and preventing the other team from scoring, not referees, decides football matches. Chelsea’s negative tactics left defeat plausible. Andres Iniesta snatched an opportunity. Conspiracy did not fell Chelsea. It was karma.

Those who would purify English football believe the current debauchery and debt stems from foreign ownership. That is not necessarily true.

American billionaire Stan Kroenke bought out the Carr family shares in Arsenal for about £45m, increasing his stake in the club to 28.3%, the largest individual holding.

Despite the Guardian’s assertions that this is part of “Silent Stan’s” insidious takeover deal, Kroenke’s involvement with the club has been viewed favorably. He has been seen as a benign bulwark against a strong-arming Usmanov.

The Arsenal Supporters’ Trust, the group who would be outraged, praised Kroenke’s acquisition.

“We were the first shareholders at Arsenal to welcome Kroenke’s initial investment. We have since established a good dialogue with him and this will continue.

“Our position is that stability and plurality in ownership is to the benefit of Arsenal.

“New chief executive Ivan Gazidis has made a good impression and says he values our role and the importance of custodianship.

“We hope he will build relationships with all shareholders so that the club has stability off the pitch which is a vital ingredient for success on it.”

Kroenke is no carpet-bagging American. He enjoys owning sports teams, and successful sports teams at that. He co-owns the St. Louis Rams who won a Super Bowl while he was there. His Colorado Avalanche also won a Stanley Cup in 2001. His Denver Nuggets are often a playoff team.

He has invested in long-term growth projects such as Arena Football and Major League Lacrosse.

Most importantly, he’s a football guy. He owns the Colorado Rapids of Major League Soccer. They are a stable club with a lovely, soccer-only facility and a development partnership with Arsenal.

The common thread with all of his sporting investments is that he has been successful, has not run the clubs into crazed debt and has not meddled with personnel decisions– exactly the qualities ideal for Premier League ownership.

Fellow American Randy Lerner bought Aston Villa in 2006. He has stuck with a great manager in Martin O’Neill, funded transfers and created the nucleus of a club set to challenge the top four. The club has also more than doubled in value under his stewardship.

There have been bad seed Americans. Manchester United has been successful under Malcolm Glazer, though he saddled the club with enormous debt. Ditto on the debt front for Hicks and Gillett. Rafa Benitez should be credited for being competitive despite the travesty of their ownership. However, there have also been good ones.

Some English owners have had farts smell like roses, others have run their club into the ground.

In a globalized economy, the notion of an English owner owning an English club, with an English manager and all English players is romantic, and probably xenophobic, nonsense. It’s not American or foreign ownership the Premier League needs to avoid. It is idiots.

Major League Soccer has announced Everton as the opponent for this year’s MLS All-Star game.

“We are very excited about Everton FC agreeing to be the opponent for the 2009 MLS All-Star Game,” MLS commissioner Don Garber said in a league statement. “Everton is an elite European club that features many world-class players, including former MLS standout Tim Howard, who will challenge our unbeaten record against English Premier League teams in the MLS All-Star Game series.”

Everton are excited as well.

“We are all looking forward to the match in Salt Lake City,” said Everton manager David Moyes. “I am sure there will be a lot of interest in the game and it will be a valuable part of our preseason schedule. We always enjoy spending time in America during the summer because the facilities are first-class and there is a warm welcome wherever we go.”

The match will occur on July 29 at Real Salt Lake’s Rio Tinto Stadium. It will be televised on ESPN 2 at 9:30 PM EST.

Spanish clubs Valencia, Villarreal and Atletico Madrid were also rumored to be candidates.

The MLS All-Stars are unbeaten in the game against European competition in this fixture and have outscored opponents 13-4. One suspects they would not fare so well travelling to England at a time when Premier League players are in midseason form.

The match is the first confirmed fixture of the 2009 summer schedule but Everton supporters are advised that the first-team squad will not be based in Salt Lake City and the game will form part of a wider tour across North America.

It will be the Blues’ fifth visit to the USA in their last six pre-season tours, which have included stays in Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago and Colorado.

For the latest schedule of preseason friendlies involving Premier League teams around the world, visit the preseason friendlies page on EPL Talk.

They provide entertainment. Premier League players are not as smart as you.  They did not work as hard as you.  They may not be as valuable to society as you believe that you are.  However, they are more athletically gifted than you.  The fundamental difference between their job and yours is that people are willing to pay inane amounts of money to watch them.  Players are the talent.  They generate the money they receive, no matter how extravagant it may be.  To fault them for that is misguided jealousy.

There is no trickle down effect. Player wages are a convenient excuse for owners ramping up prices for tickets and merchandise.  It’s not true.  Prices are driven by supply and demand in the market.  You don’t pay £45 or more for a shirt because clubs have outrageous wage bills.  You pay that because clubs decided that was the optimum price to fleece you, while not inhibiting you from buying the product.  Arsenal’s tickets are not absurdly expensive because of the players, but from a limited supply and enormous demand.  Capping player wages will not solve this.  It just will alter where the money goes.

If anything, players don’t receive a large enough share. The Premier League is probably the most successful league financially in the world.  Yet, players don’t make that much money, particularly when compared to American sports.  Manchester United has a wage bill of £100m.  They brought in £212m in revenue.  Less than 50% of the revenue went to the players.  In contrast, the NFL guarantees players receive roughly 60% of league revenue.  In the NBA and MLB that number, though not guaranteed, is probably higher.  A top Premier League player making £150,000 per week sounds excessive, but there are mediocre MLB pitchers who make more than that, in a league with nowhere near the financing.

Salaries are not the problem. It is transfer fees.  Money does limit competitiveness for smaller clubs.  However, the problem is not that every club can’t afford to pay Fernando Torres £7m per season in wages.  Most clubs can afford to pay an elite player.  They just can’t afford to pay £30m per season to buy him from another club.  A salary cap will not fix that.

Premier League owners do have major financial problems.  But, it’s from self-inflicted debt not from paying footballers too much money.  They may make more money in one week than the average person earns in one year, but they also generate much more money.  If players making excess money annoys you, stop following football.  It’s your tolerance, your spending and your viewing habits that fund it.

This just in – Premier League clubs are big money businesses. Forbes released their list of most valuable soccer teams. Here are some of the more interesting findings for the Premier League.

Three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool – are worth over $1 billion, joining Real Madrid and Bayern Munich in that gilded club. This, of course, does not factor in the hundreds of millions in debt hanging over all three clubs.

Cristiano Ronaldo may long for Real Madrid, but he currently plays for the demonstrably biggest club in the world. Man United is worth $1.87 billion. Real Madrid are the next highest at $1.35 billion. United brought in $160 million in income last year, $68 million alone from winning the Champions League.

An unheralded golden egg in United’s portfolio is Old Trafford. The club owned stadium is 27% larger than the next biggest Premier League stadium, seating 76,000. The stadium alone earned United $200 million in revenue last year.

There are six other Premier League clubs on the top 25 list: Chelsea (8 – $800 million), Tottenham (11 – $445 million), Manchester City (17 – $310 million), Newcastle (19 – $285 million), Aston Villa (21 – $240 million), Everton (24 – $207 million). West Ham, on the list last year, dropped off it.

The Premier League has a combined $4.5 billion in debt.

On current form, Newcastle will be the largest club in the English championship next season.

Arsenal and Liverpool rake in over $15 million per year from Emirates and Carlsberg respectively to employ you as a human billboard when you wear their shirts.

To emphasize the revenue disparity the Premier League enjoys, Manchester City earned 2.4 times as much revenue as Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. Unfortunately, the club does not own its stadium.

Middlesbrough manager Gareth Southgate has the “it” quality as a manager. Not “it” in the genius sense like Arsene Wenger or Sir Alex Ferguson. Southgate has it in the Raymond Domenech sense where he could strip naked, smear himself with his own fecal matter and reenact the Monty Python Silly Walks skit down the touchline yet still not be fired. Steve Gibson likes Southgate, believes in him. With the Boro on 27 points, and four points from safety, Gibson’s faith could be quite expensive.

Form: Dreadful does not describe Middlesbrough’s form. They have won only one of their last 18 matches in the Premier League, a shocking 2-0 win over Liverpool. During that stretch they dropped 44 points. Opponents shut them out in 11 of the 18 matches. They scored more than one goal once. Viewing their incompetence on paper, it’s really hard for a professional team to have played worse.

Schedule: Middlesbrough has a tough schedule, rife with top team ties and relegation six-pointers. They play Hull City, Fulham, Manchester United and Aston Villa at home. They travel to Bolton, Arsenal, Newcastle and West Ham. Fortunately, this may help. Middlesbrough play to the level of their competition. They have to wins since the end of October, but against Aston Villa and Liverpool. They have draws with Everton and Arsenal, and nearly took points from Manchester United in a 1-0 defeat.

Injuries: The Boro can’t blame their poor play on injuries. Didier Digard is out for the season. Chris Riggott may return from his knee injury sometime this month. The greater issue has been poor performance, punctuated by Aliadiere, Tuncay and £12m Alfonso Alves scoring just 11 goals between them in 72 combined appearances.

Prognosis: Middlesbrough has eight matches, to pick up four points and leap frog over two teams. There’s no doubt of Southgate’s ability to rouse the players for one match, but doing so week after week will likely be too much. If the club does not pick up at least six or seven points from their next three matches against Bolton, Hull City and Fulham, they are as good as relegated.

Newcastle has been in a rudderless malaise for most of the season. Kevin Keegan resigned and nearly every potential replacement rejected the offer. The club pulled backdated Joe Kinnear out of retirement, gave him the full time job and then watched him succumb to heart trouble. Chris Hughton took over as a caretaker, and the club has finally asked Alan Shearer to replace him for the final eight matches.

Along with the managerial mess, owner Mike Ashley, after being lambasted by the supporters, tried and failed to sell the team, while simultaneously watching his fortune come tumbling down in the economic crisis.

The traumatic season seems to warrant a dramatic ending, one way or another.

Form: Newcastle’s form has been atrocious. They have one win in their last 12 matches, and that was an unimpressive 3-2 affair against the worst team in the league, West Brom. Perhaps a moderate bright point is that their losses at home during the stretch, were to big four sides, suggesting that, at least at home, they can play for points.

Schedule: Newcastle need to get back on track. Their schedule may not allow that to happen. The Alan Shearer bounce will receive a rude welcome, hosting Chelsea on Saturday. They then travel away to Stoke City and Tottenham, play Portsmouth at home and then visit Anfield. Conceivably, Newcastle could be relegated before they hit the soft patch of home ties against Middlesbrough and Fulham, followed by a probable dead rubber away to Aston Villa. They may be sunk if they do not get at least four points from the next three matches.

Injuries: Injuries have and possibly will continue to hurt Newcastle. Both Bassong and Steven Taylor are suffering at the back, and Barton and Duff in midfield. The two things you want in the midst of a relegation battle, or at any time, are experience and quality, so this will hinder them.

Prognosis: Shearer is an unknown quantity, so it’s difficult to assess how effective he will be in this eight-game stint. A lot may rest on this weekend’s match against Chelsea. If Newcastle pull off a result at home, they could ride the wave from Alan Shearer’s mystical presence. If they play like they have the rest of the season, retiring like a doused candle, it’s hard to see them mustering the strength to fight their way out.

Stoke City are a newly promoted side from the Championship, and they certainly play like one. The operating procedure has been physicality, holding the line at home and hoping for some magic from Rory Delap’s wicked throw-ins. It has worked with a modicum of success. They are sixteenth in the table on 32 points.

Form: Stoke have three wins, three losses and two draws in their past eight matches, though they have won two of their last three. The club will compete at home, but be inept on the road, where they have no wins and three draws the entire season.

Schedule: Stoke have possibly the easiest schedule of any of the relegation candidates. They face only one big four side, Arsenal, with a dead rubber possibility, if the Gunners continue to pull away from Aston Villa. They have benign home matches against Newcastle and Blackburn. West Ham and Wigan don’t strike much fear either. They also have a softer road schedule against West Brom, Fulham and Hull City.

Injuries: Sidibe is the only notable injury, though Stoke have cover for him, such as it is, with Fuller and James Beattie.

Prognosis: Stoke City may be the least talented team with a chance to stay up, but the schedule bodes well for them. If they can win at home, and nick a draw or two on the road, they should be in position to stay in the Premier League.

Until late October, Portsmouth seemed destined for a mid-table season. After a rough August start against Chelsea and Man United, the trophy-winning club won four out of seven matches, looking frisky once again. Then Harry Redknapp left for the Tottenham and the seam exploded. Tony Adams had no perceivable managerial skill. Financial problems forced the sale of Defoe and Diarra. Fortune followed the clubs geography and they currently sit in 15^th place, just three points above water.

Form: Portsmouth have not played particularly well, winning just two out of eight and losing four. Though, all of the losses were to clubs in the top half of the table, and Pompey did hang with Liverpool and Chelsea. Had they been lucky they could have picked up a few more points. They scored a big victory over Everton. Jumping back on track isn’t inconceivable.

Schedule: Pompey have a rather benign squeaky bum journey ahead. They host Arsenal and travel away to Old Trafford, but the rest of the matches are winnable. West Brom, Bolton and Sunderland come to Fratton Park. Portsmouth play Hull City, Newcastle, Blackburn and Wigan away. They also have the game in hand, although it will be against a Manchester United team probably sorted by that point, so it will be irrelevant. If Portsmouth can pull things together, their schedule won’t stop them.

Injuries: Health could hinder Portsmouth a little bit. They need Crouch’s thigh injury to heal completely. He has 11 goals. No one else on the team has more than three. He’s essential. They also need Pennant and Traore back fit as well to provide some creativity in midfield.

Prognosis: Based on their ability, Portsmouth should not be in this position. On paper, they have decent, often above average, talent at every position. They have experience. Many of those players tasted success in the FA Cup last season. The team’s performance should reflect that. Tony Adams deserves the blame. Portsmouth has presumed leaders like Sol Campbell and David James. They should stay up.

Sunderland rose to the Premier League two seasons ago with Roy Keane’s magnetism, and it was the same presence that kept them afloat last season.  The reform movement lost steam when Keane left, and Sunderland have been rudderless since Ricky Sbragia transcended the interim label.  The club is in fourteenth place, but just three points above the drop zone.

Form: Sunderland have nine points from their last eight matches, winning two and drawing another three.  The two wins came at home against Stoke and Fulham, which isn’t so impressive, but the type of wins they need to stay up.  Though, the eight game sample sounds better than it should, because Sunderland are winless in their last five.

Schedule: Sunderland’s schedule is not hospitable.  Three out of their four home matches are against Manchester United, Everton and Chelsea, squelching opportunities to shoot for a home win.  They may get a reprieve if the final Chelsea match is a dead rubber, but even a deflated Chelsea team could compete.  The other home tie is against Hull City.  Sunderland also travel to West Ham, West Brom, Bolton and Portsmouth.

Injuries: Sunderland are not really beset with crucial injuries, with Teemu Tainio being the most significant loss.  Amazingly, Djibril Cisse has not broken his leg, but there’s still time.  Their talented players are healthy.  They just need to play well.

Prognosis: Sunderland have not beaten a noteworthy team all season, going winless against the top eight.  Besides the occasional flash of brilliance, they don’t create and they struggle to score, managing just 29 in 30 matches.  Sunderland need to win two to three of the next eight games to ensure their safety.  It doesn’t look likely.  If Newcastle catches some luck, Sunderland may be relegated instead.

This post is part of a series on relegation.  Check out our other posts on Bolton and Hull City.

Hull City surprised everyone at the start of the season, winning six of their first nine, knocking off an over-confident Arsenal. The club lost composure. Phil Brown lost his sweet goatee, and perhaps his sanity.

Hull won just two of their next 21 games, drifting from a solid European challenge to treading above the relegation zone. They currently set in thirteenth place, a mere four points over the drop.

Form: Hull have done nothing recently to suggest a resurgence. They have won just one of their last eight, and lost four. Shoring up their defense slightly may inject a bit of optimism, though, as the most generous side in the league (52 goals allowed), a 5-0 defeat seems perpetually possible. Hull may stay, but probably not because of a massive fortune turn.

Schedule: Hull’s schedule has difficult tests, though there are points available. The Tigers host both Liverpool and Manchester United, but have softer ties against Portsmouth and Stoke City. Hull also travel to fellow strugglers Middlesbrough and Sunderland. They also play Bolton and Aston Villa. A couple good results, particularly at the expense of clubs such as Middlesbrough and Sunderland could do a great deal to keep them up.

Injuries: Injuries have hurt Sunderland in midfield. George Boateng and Jimmy Bullard are the exact type of experienced, steady midfielders Hull needs to keep the ship upright. Unfortunately both are crocked. Boateng may be back by the end of April, but January-signing Bullard is out for the season. It’s difficult to replicate that type of presence.

Prognosis: Hull City should stay up. They have had an atrocious run of form. If they replicate that in the last eight matches, that would put them on 39 points, giving them a good chance at staying in the Premier League. Their first start and subsequent fall affect perceptions, but being in the position to stay up is an incredible feat, given their squad and pre-season expectations.

With Aston Villa’s demise the top of the league once again appears calcified, so, like Kim Kardashian crammed into a designer dress, the bulk of the tension will be at the bottom.  Here is the first of a series of assessments of this season’s relegation candidates.

As wretched as Manchester City and Tottenham have been at times this season, they are nine points clear.  They may not inspire much toward the end, but even if they stay static, it’s hard to see enough of the knuckle-draggers clambering up to knock them into the relegation zone.  Therefore Bolton are the first to technically be considered candidates for relegation.

Form: Bolton sit in twelfth place, on 34 points, five points clear of the drop.  They have a reasonable run of form in the past eight games, winning three, losing three and drawing two.  The club been hit or miss this season, drawing just four of the first thirty matches, but that is an advantage.  It’s easier to get to 40 points by winning twice in eight matches, than by gutting out six draws.

Schedule: Bolton have the points advantage, and they also have one of the easier schedules.  They face one top four side, Chelsea, at Stamford Bridge.  They have three benign home fixtures (Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Hull City) to get two wins.  On current form, a date with Aston Villa could be ripe as well.  Bolton could conceivably pick up a point or two away to Portsmouth, Wigan Athletic or Man City.  On schedule alone, Bolton getting to safety seems probable.

Injuries: One of the advantages to having few dynamic players, is not being dependent on such creative forces.  None of their injuries (Mark Davies, Vaz Te or O’Brien) has been critical to Bolton’s fortunes this season.  Matty Taylor is the only midfielder to have scored a goal this season, and Kevin Davies is the only reasonably effective striker.  As long as those two stay healthy, Bolton should be reasonably competitive.

Prognosis: One bad weekend could see Bolton thrust back into the race, but, at this point, they have the best position, a soft schedule and a stable squad.  It would take an epic collapse, intermingled with startling runs of form from three or four other clubs to see Bolton relegated.  It’s probably not going to happen.

Following Liverpool’s 4-0 dismantling of Real Madrid at Anfield last midweek, France legend Zinedine Zidane described Steven Gerrard as “the best player in the world.”

“Is he the best in the world? He might not get the attention of Messi and Ronaldo but yes, I think he just might be.

“No team will be successful without a heartbeat and you can see Gerrard is that heartbeat.

“He has great passing ability, can tackle and scores goals, but most importantly he gives the players around him confidence and belief.

“You can’t learn that — players like him are just born with that presence.”

Normally, Cristiano Ronaldo and Leo Messi saturate arguments about the best player in the world.  Whether Gerrard belongs in this discussion, depends on the criteria.

Gerrard deserves consideration based on talent.  He’s a skillful player with uncanny vision.  He’s innovative with a flair for the dramatic.  He’s dangerous on set pieces and in space.  His instincts allow him to do things no one else would ponder.  He’s one of the few players in world football who can truly pull a goal out of his ass, against the run of play.

It’s this ability that commands the respect of current and former players.

Though Gerrard displays none of the requisite maturity off the pitch, he deserves respect as a decent leader.  He’s neither overbearing nor bullish like a John Terry or a Rio Ferdinand, but remains as effective.  Whether Gerrard is “the heartbeat,” whether he makes those around him better and whether he has a strange magic are not important.  It is important is that his teammates believe it.

Gerrard’s a striking talent and a leader.  Experienced and playing at his peak, he has led his team to trophies, including the Champions League.  Unfortunately, it requires more than mere talent to be the best player.

Steven Gerrard has the raw ability necessary to be the greatest, but, despite his years of experience, it’s still raw.  He can achieve greatness through his instincts and innovation, but the routine fundamentals mastered by those with less ability, often stymie him.

Gerrard attacks with spirit, but without measurement, dashing into a hopeless positions and losing the ball.  He’ll overrun passes.  He’ll attempt the impossible.  He’ll squander opportunities, rather than hold possession.  If Gerrard was an artist, he would paint the most brilliant surreal paintings, yet struggle with a basic portrait.

He’s a brilliant match of the day player.  His highlight makes the reel.  His fifteen poor decisions that preceded it disappear from consciousness.

Gerrard plays in a free role in Liverpool’s system.  He plays in a free role, because he can’t man a position.  It’s why Benitez takes him out late in games.  It’s why he has been marooned on the right wing at times.  He plays only the Steven Gerrard way, the mark of a man whose talent eviscerated necessary criticism too early in his career.

Gerrard flourishes in a Liverpool system designed to account for him, and falters when he leaves this flattering ten-man embrace to play for England.  Gerrard and Lampard generally do not play well together.  Because Lampard won’t scurry behind the line cleaning up Gerrard’s mess.

Steven Gerrard equals anyone on talent, but his inability to maximize it brings him down a notch.  Gerrard is not on the transcendent Zidane, Platini or Cryuff level.  He’s a very rich man’s Robbie Keane.

Thanks to Unprofessional Foul

Forgiving the Gaffer’s scheduling criticisms, ESPN mostly has been wonderful for soccer promotion in the U.S..  Top goals are making the top-ten plays.  Sportscenter features highlight reels.  Yesterday’s Real Madrid-Liverpool match, though it was not the greatest testament, featured on the flagship network.  Much has been done, and the burgeoning community of soccer fans is, or at least should be, grateful.

Despite the progress one issue does remain and that is pronunciation.  Soccer’s a foreign game in the U.S. played by largely foreign men.  I can empathize with a Sportscenter anchor stumbling over Spanish.  Italian can be tricky and Portuguese perplexing.  English pundits often do no better.  A level of malapropism and muddling should be tolerable for foreign languages, but why is it happening with English?

The native tongue can be confusing for some folks, as half of the United States thinks thinks that “nuculur” is a word.  Some English soccer terms can still be difficult.  No one in America would intuitively understand that the English pronounce Derby, “Dar-bee.”

However is it really that hard to pronounce “Arsenal” correctly?  Three syllables.  Flows nicely.  It means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic.  It requires no Latin flourish.

Since Steven Gerrard is one of the most recognizable athletes in the world and has appeared in many Sportscenter reels, why is it impossible to remember that it is Steven, not “Steve” and “GERrard” not “GerRARD.”  (That Will Mays was a hell of a baseball player.  So was Mike Mantle.)

I understand ESPN anchors not following or liking soccer.  I feel similarly about golf.  I think it’s a frustrating, tiresome little game.  I don’t know why the participants are considered athletes, when a corpulent chain smoker can win a major tournament.  But, that doesn’t mean that I discuss “Tigger” Woods and “Philip Michaelson” facing off at “Agoosta Nacionale,” before inciting a giggle fest with my own ignorance.

No one expects you to break down Liverpool’s 4-5-1 formation, comment on Arsenal’s transfer policy or expound upon the Premier League’s impingement on the English National Team.  But, please ESPN, just read the highlights professionally.  It’s not too much to ask.  Or, start spelling things phonetically on the teleprompter.

Arsenal broke their four match scoreless streak on Tuesday, beating West Brom 3-1.  Arsene Wenger commented afterward that he never lost faith in his squad.

Wenger said: “You are quickly questioned, when you don’t score.

“There was no open discussion about the problem, but subconsciously it certainly has an influence on the way you think, so the fact we scored three goals is good.

“But we have always had a very strong attitude and focus in training and in the games.

Wenger implements an offensive brand of football.  Arsenal went over a month without scoring in the league.  If questioning after that is “quickly,” at what point is questioning it appropriate?  Or, do folks just not question Arsene.

Also, why was there no open discussion about the problem?  When something is failing, you generally try to figure out why that is.  You place it atop the agenda.  You discuss it.  You fix it.  Everyone frustrated, nervous and not talking about it is perhaps the worst psychological regime Arsenal can have.  It’s no surprise they went five times without winning.

Wenger also praised his team’s performance of late.

“We are on a good run, even if recently we did not score many goals. But we did not lose, and once you start to win, that will come good.

Arsenal has not lost in the league since Nov. 22 to Manchester City.  That can be framed positively.  No one likes to lose.  The draw earns a point and feels like progression.

However, there’s a counter argument.  Arsenal has not lost the past few months, but they have drawn opponents eight times, losing 16 points.  That’s the equivalent of five additional losses.  Had they eeked out a win in two of those eight draws, they would be clear of Aston Villa.

Arsenal bucked the impotency curse against West Brom, but that shouldn’t be grounds for optimism.  At least statistically, West Brom was not played off the pitch.  Arsenal merely converted their chances.  Teams with Vieira, Henry and Pires would have guffawed at the notion that beating the worst team in the Premier League away from home was impressive.

To say that things given time “will come good,” is passive.  How many trophy-winning teams are passive?

The Gunners have nearly caught Aston Villa for fourth, more from Villa’s fragility and profligacy than from any credit worthy activity.  They may challenge for the FA Cup, granted a cushioned run to the semifinals.  They may also receive Fabregas and Walcott in time to challenge for Europe.

However, this has been a dark Arsenal season.  The lack of trophies has become a fait accompli. They haven’t even been fun to watch.  The players, the board, and even the gilded manager deserve a share of blame for what has been a festering disaster.  Every sector of the club could use a swift kick in the ass, but without effective checks and balances there’s no one there to give it.

After last weekend’s rocking Carling Cup final, the iPod can help a goalkeeper save penalties. Manchester United goalkeeper Ben Foster admitted watching previous Tottenham penalties on a specially prepared iPod.

“Just before the shootout I was looking at an iPod with goalkeeping coach Eric Steele and it contained images of Tottenham’s players taking penalties,” Foster said.

“They told me for Jamie O’Hara I should stand up and be strong and he would probably go the way he did. I have done a lot of research before but this is an innovation we have brought in at the club.”

The question for the future is not whether the iPod should be legal, but why is the now ubiquitous technology not used more extensively?

Major League Baseball has employed video iPods since their creation.

Batters receive pods uploaded with every at bat. If the St. Louis Cardinals are facing the New York Mets, Albert Pujols can search his iPod by club “Mets” and by player “Johan Santana” to watch every at bat against Johan Santana, to understand how he may try to approach him.

The new generation of 120GB iPod classics can hold an entire career’s worth of at bats.

Though not as straight forward for football, this technology could easily be imported into Premier League.

Goalkeepers could extend the practice from penalties to free kicks or even to strikers’ preferred moves when one on one with the keeper.

Both defenders and attacking players could receive crucial insights about opposition tendencies. Knowing that Cristiano Ronaldo always makes a move after the fourth stepover or that John Terry always closes down on aerial balls to his left could make the difference on a goal and, consequently, a result.

The iPod could revolutionize the way Premier League teams prepare for matches.  It would at least be better than ketchup and a pat on the ass from Harry Redknapp.

However, considering these are the same people who would rather pay an agency to hunt down YouTubers than generate income from online interest in their product, widespread use may take some time..

It would be a sane Premier League week if there wasn’t an outlandish Manchester City rumor, but where is the fun in that?

This week’s circulation is a doozy.  Manchester City reportedly are including Robinho in a cash plus player offer for Chelsea captain John Terry this summer.  City would entice Terry by doubling his £135,000 per week salary.  He would be a part of the £200m summer spree to acquire everyone the Abu Dhabi owners fancy.

As farcical as this deal sounds, it would make sense.

Manchester City need to get rid of Robinho.  He kisses badges and plays to crowds but he obviously considers himself better than the club.  He disrespects City with grand gestures, such as his birthday jaunt to Brazil.  He disrespects them on an everyday basis through things as small as the dress code.

Despite the purported Hiddink magic, Chelsea need to revamp the squad.  With Abramovich’s money clip clamped, they need to raise funds from sales.  For all of Terry’s sentimental attachment, he’s aging and expandable, far less crucial to the defense than Carvalho.  If Chelsea can get an elite talent, such as Robinho, and cash, (or even straight cash) they must consider this deal.

Even just getting Terry’s contract off the books would be bottom-line beneficial.

It’s sensible for City to dump Robinho and Chelsea to sell Terry.  It’s also prudent to deal with each other, because they are the only available markets for the two players.

City would want close to the outrageous £32.5m they paid for the fancy dan.  That rules out nearly every club besides, Chelsea and Real Madrid.  Madrid obviously don’t want him back.  Chelsea fought earnestly for him in September.  He would be the perfect support striker with either Drogba or Anelka that Chelsea has missed.

Manchester City are also the only destination for Terry.  He’s overvalued in England, preventing any European club from coming in for him.  Liverpool and Arsenal have neither the need for his defending nor the money.  Manchester United have two far superior players in Vidic and Ferdinand.  City could use his defending, as well as his leadership ability.  They also have the money.

Terry may claim to be loyal to Chelsea, but the opportunity to be by far the highest paid player in football only comes once, particularly for an aging, above-average English defender.

This deal likely will be too crazy to occur.  Chelsea may deem Terry vital to future interests.  Terry may decide to stay in London.  City may even come to their senses, to go after someone with less star-power and more skill.

However, if this transfer does turn up, both clubs should not hesitate.

From an extravagant Russian billionaire to the post-peak stripper living paycheck to paycheck, the economic crisis has affected all. At some point, the recession will even reach the insular world of Premier League footballers. To help these normally fiscally free dandies adjust to these more responsible times, here are four helpful tips.

The Pint: Despite the scarring examples provided by Tony Adams and Paul Gascoigne, drinking remains an essential part of footballing culture. We wouldn’t dare suggest that Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard adopt the more professional, moderate lifestyles of players on the continent. Surely, commitment to fitness has nothing to do with winning a World Cup. However, these lads could imbibe in a more cost-conscious manner. Sugary mixed drinks in England are overpriced and awful, and paying £250 for a bottle of champagne is sodden idiocy. Either option is also effeminate. The simple beer is smooth, cost-effective and masculine. It lets you know when to stop.

The Base Model Car: A Bentley Continental GT is a lovely car. It’s cool.  Just as cool as the one you bought last year and equally as awesome as the four identical ones your teammates have sitting in the same parking lot.  Your super-car may be extra cool, with customized rims and your playing number and child’s or ex-girlfriend’s name worked into the trim. But, really who are you trying to impress? Women love luxury. Show up in a modest Mercedes or BMW.  It keeps the class and lessens the load on the wallet. If you have anything more impressive in the automobile department, women wonder what deficiency for which you need to overcompensate.

Monogamy: Women are expensive. Whether you date one, marry one, meet one in a club, visit one on the sly after training or pay your way into pleasure, it is going to be a good time. Having a healthy one-woman relationship minimizes wining and dining expenses. There’s only one set of birthday and Valentine’s Day gifts to buy. Another added benefit of flying with one, is you don’t get caught.  There’s no emotional baggage. Financially, you don’t have to buy expensive gifts to make up for it. You don’t lose half your money in a messy divorce. When the footballing days are over, and you are a grizzled old coot with jowls spouting aimless clichés on television, you have someone to take care of you.

Security: You have a large amount of money and no responsibilities. You want to buy some crazy jewelry and an insane home theater set. You don’t, however, want to buy two of everything. Have a security detail. Maybe you don’t want to pay one full time, but have someone guarding your house, particularly in Liverpool or Manchester, when you are playing away in Europe.  It may seem an unnecessary expense now, but it’s cozy not to have to worry about your loved ones being robbed at knifepoint.

“If you say 60% or 50% can be capped on wages, what it really does is absolutely lock in the natural order,” he told BBC Radio Five’s Sportsweek programme yesterday. “It would help the big clubs far more than the small clubs. If you have a small club who have got a benefactor, or who have got other ways of raising money or ways of funding, at least it gives them a chance to compete.”

Incredibly, the Premier League has a valid criticism.  Such a cap, tied to club revenue, would keep clubs within their means, rather than deficit spending themselves into massive debt.  But, it’s also implicitly unfair, as 60 percent of Man United’s turnover is far greater than 60 percent of Hull City.  It would calcify the existing order.

One alternative is a firm, legitimate salary cap for all clubs.  It would create parity, as it did in the NFL.  But, for such a system to be implemented, it would have to come at the expense of relegation.  Man United is not going to agree to a system that would see them at risk of relegation and financial ruin.

The NFL regulation may be too radical, but the Premier League should consider tow facets of the current system in place in Major League Baseball.

The first is the luxury tax.  There is no salary cap in American baseball, but there is a luxury tax – a set amount for payroll.  If a team spends above the luxury tax amount, they pay into a common fund, distributed to less fortunate clubs.

So, for instance, the Premier League could set the luxury tax threshold for payroll at £100m per year.  Chelsea’s payroll is £148.5m.  The difference is £48.5m.  Chelsea could pay a tax on the difference of 50 percent, so £24.25m.  That money would then be redistributed to the bottom clubs.  The tax could also increase for repeat offenders who repeatedly overspend.

The luxury tax would curb spending, but in a way palatable for clubs.  It would not stunt a big club’s ambition or enforce socialistic parity.  It would merely increase the cost of anticompetitive extravagance, to the benefit of other clubs.  Manchester United can still flex its financial muscle, but other clubs have a better chance to compete.

Another baseball innovation that the Premier League should consider is the apprenticeship period.

Baseball players are not natural free agents at the beginning of their careers.  Major League clubs hold their restricted rights for their first six seasons of Major League service.  The club dictates the player’s salary within league standards, for the first three years of the contract.

During the second three years, the player and club go to an arbitrator to agree on a salary.  A player may also sign an extended contract, often at below market value, forgoing another year of free agency in exchange for more money.

This could be key to breaking the Premier League oligarchy.

With young talent so cheap, teams would feel less pressure to sell young players.  Everton could keep Wayne Rooney for a few years, rather than selling him to Manchester United.

A low budget club with a smartly developed brood of youngsters and well-bought veterans could compete for the Premier League title.

It’s not a radical adjustment of power.  Generally, teams that spend well will still do well.  The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees are still favorites to win the American League every season.

However, occasionally, there is a season such as 2008.  The Tampa Bay Rays went to the World Series with the second lowest payroll in MLB.  The three highest paying teams – the New York Yankees, the New York Mets and the Detroit Tigers – all missed the playoffs.

Similarly, Manchester United and Liverpool would challenge for the title every year.  But, every so often, a club such as Middlesbrough would rise to knock them from the pedestal.

The Premier League doesn’t need a massive NFL-style overhaul.  A softer touch in the manner of MLB may be just right.

Real Madrid manager Juande Ramos, formerly of Tottenham, criticized Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez for giving up on Robbie Keane after half a season.

“You can’t tell me Robbie will not score goals at a top club,” Ramos is quoted as saying in The Sun.

“He is a top player and I don’t think he did badly at Liverpool.

“He scored goals and showed he’s a team player.

“He’s definitely a matchwinner for any club and if he were still at Liverpool, I would be telling my defenders to watch for him,” he added in reference to next week’s meeting between Real and Liverpool in the Champions League.

Ramos is right that Keane can be a match-winner.  He’s a tremendous instinctive player.  Flourishing in a free role, he’s unpredictable and can create havoc for opposing defenders.

Keane, however, could not have done that at Liverpool.  Benitez’ team plays a considered, deliberate brand of football.  For all of Keane’s fantastic instincts, he’s not a thinker.  

He intuitively reacts to what’s in front of him, sometimes brilliantly.  He’s not one to set out with a task and impose on the opposition.  When forced to do so, he befuddles himself into ineffectiveness.

There is a role in Liverpool’s system for a spontaneous, freewheeling and instinctive player.  Steven Gerrard fills it, and far better than Keane ever would.

Rafa Benitez should be censured over Keane, but for wasting club’s limited transfer funds on him, not for being decisive once the story was clear.

Liverpool’s problem up front, now, is not Robby Keane being gone.  It’s that the Keane deal did not go through quickly enough to buy a replacement.

FC Copenhagen chairman Stale Solbakken suggests that Manchester City’s spending will ruin football.

“The amounts of money that have been mentioned are incredible,” Solbakken told Ekstra-Bladet.

“I think that such incredible sums will take part in destroying football.

“They are creating too big a mental distance between what we call reality and then Manchester City.”

 The idea of City’s fiscal force frightens, but its tangible affect has been negligible.

City have not upset the competitive climate in the Premier League.  They sit just 9^th in the table, with 31 points from 25 matches, and that represents improvement from winning three of their last five in the league.  Before they were flirting with relegation.

Aside from the odd Robinho, City have not fleeced the world’s biggest stars from their clubs.  Kaka rejected triple his current salary.  David Villa and Gigi Buffon turned down deals as well.  The only financial flexing City have done thus far is overpaying for Craig Bellamy and Wayne Bridge.

City’s main hindrance signing players has been their perception as an unsuccessful club.  This also seems to be their critics’ point of contention.

Manchester City are not deemed a threat because they distort financial reality.  Clubs already do that.  Nothing divides the gods from the clods in European football more than the Champions League. 

There are also disparate television and merchandising deals on the continent.  Barcelona and Real Madrid operate under different financial considerations than the rest of La Liga.  Ditto for Bayern Munich in Germany and for AC Milan, Juventus and Inter in Serie A.

Spending obscene money disproportionately doesn’t bother football people.  It’s the notion of an upstart Manchester City doing it that is the problem.  Criticism of City is not censuring the rich, but the nouveau riche.

Perhaps, it’s not football that’s going to be destroyed, but a complacent aristocracy.

Abramovich’s woes have already affected Chelsea.  The Russian owner gutted the scouting department, and considered forcing players to pay for their own lunches.  His own contribution, the £23.1 million paid to Jose Mourinho and Avram Grant not to manage the club, undoubtedly escaped censure.

The summer will see changes, especially if Chelsea do not qualify for the Champions League.  The primary target will be the substantial wage bill, £148.5m – Manchester United’s is just over £100m.  The payroll accounts for over 70% of Chelsea’s turnover.

Chariman Peter Kenyon admitted there would be sales in the summer.  

“Any squad structuring in the summer will be funded prominently by sales,” Kenyon told the Telegraph.  “We have set ourselves ambitious targets, to require zero cash funding from the owner at the beginning of the financial year 2009-10. 

The question then is not whether Chelsea sell, but who they will sell.  The first group, whatever the transfer fees, will be the malcontents.

Didier Drogba comes immediately to mind.  Making nearly £100,000 per week, he has scored three goals in 18 appearances this season.  He’s not the 2006-07 dynamo, nor is he even the occasionally effective player from last year.  His performance alone warrants an exit.  Add his abrasive personality and he’s a net negative waiting to be excised.

Florent Malouda is another candidate for dismissal.  He’s been the mystery man, so awesome before he came and so terrible since he arrived.  Only the illustrious Shevchenko saves Malouda from being the biggest transfer disaster of the past few seasons.  He can’t make the squad regularly and does not deserve to do so.  Chelsea should sell him before everyone sees him as irredeemable.

Goalkeeper Petr Cech could be on his way out as well.  He’s been off the pace this season.  He really has not been right since his horrifying head injury.  Cech was one of the players who reportedly submarined Scolari.  He has played poorly.  He is expensive.  You can get a goalkeeper for cheaper.

If Chelsea are looking for straight ego excision, they may try to offload Anelka, Deco and Michael Ballack as well.

Chelsea may want rid of these players, but they won’t get very much money for them.  If they are looking for instant book-balancing, or a substantial restructuring kitty, a marketable asset, one they’d like to keep, may be required.

Barring sentiment, John Terry should be the prominent candidate here.  He’s not leaving England, so his market value is limited, but Manchester City seem to want him and £40m figures are floating through the rumor mill.  Purely as a player, he’s replaceable.  If Chelsea can get even £20m for him while removing his salary from the books, they should do so.  Peter Kenyon says Chelsea won’t sell Terry.  Who knows if Peter Kenyon will be there?

Michael Essien may fit here as well.  Chelsea won’t want to sell Essien.  Assuming he recovers from his injury, he’s their best midfielder.  He’s versatile.  He can hold with the backline or move forward and make plays.  He would feature in any team in the world’s starting XI.  At just 26 years old, every big side in Europe could use him.  If Chelsea want substantial restructuring money, that may be their only option.

Chelsea have a hodgepodge squad, constructed with conflicting visions.  What they really need is a long-term manager who can work with a reasonable budget to refashion a coherent squad, possibly David Moyes.  Does a liquidity-crazed Roman Abramovich have the patience?

The firings of Tony Adams by Portsmouth and Big Phil Scolari by Chelsea brought the total number of clubs that have changed managers this season to seven, and the number of managerial changes to eight.  That turnover rate seems quite high and quickly cycling managers seldom leads to success.  

It would seem that managers deserve a longer chance to get it right, but in the current financial climate, teams can’t afford it.

In Pompey’s case, sacking Adams was simple.  His managing made them relegation candidates.  They won just two of his sixteen league games in charge, and haven’t won since Nov. 30.  They are just one point from relegation, with 24 points in 24 matches.

Adams did a decent job in the transfer window, given his budget.  He could not help the Diarra and Defoe sales, but brought in serviceable players, such as Gekas, Hayden Mullins, Pele, Pennant and Belhadj.  His club also played decently, barring their chronic defensive brainfarts.

Theoretically, they have one of the clichéd “too good to go down” squads.  But, given the club’s perilous finances, Portsmouth could not entrust their fate to Adams’ experienced hands.

Scolari’s departure was similar.  Chelsea have played abysmally the past few months, winning just four of 12 matches, never beating a team above 14^th in the table.  Once the title favorites, Chelsea look poised to battle with Arsenal for the fourth Champions League place.

Part of this was Scolari’s fault.  Teams discovered the focal point of Scolari’s tactics overlapping fullbacks.  Pinning Cole and Bosingwa back, exposed Chelsea’s mismatched midfield and poor forward creativity.  Routinely running up three to five goals initially, they last scored more than two on Nov. 15.  Scolari never adjusted his tactics, nor did he display the acumen to do so.

However, not everything revolved around Scolari.  He inherited a hodgepodge, lopsided outfit.  He never got the funding to overhaul the club, as it required.

Maybe Scolari could right Chelsea eventually, but missing the Champions League would be too costly to offer for experimentation.

A club that has shown the manager patience is Middlesbrough.  Southgate took over after his retirement in 2006.  He guided Boro to a 12^th place finish in his first season and a 13^th in his second.  The club has been marred by inconsistency.  Southgate’s only skill seems to be outfoxing Arsene Wenger.

This season, Middlesbrough are relegation favorites.  They have 22 points from 25 matches, winning just five.  They haven’t won in the league since Nov. 9.  They have mustered just three goals since Nov. 22.  Their January acquisition of Marlon King won’t be the tipping point.  There’s no reason to argue they will stay in the league.

Steve Gibson likes Gareth Southgate, and has patience with him.  But, that patience could cost him heavily, if the club drops to the Championship next season.

Perhaps, clubs lose faith in managers too early.  But, in the perilous financial world of topflight football, it’s hard to blame them.

It’s two-thirds of the way through the season, and purported big clubs Newcastle and Tottenham remain entrenched in the relegation rumble.

Newcastle sputtered amid boardroom confusion, after the departure of manager Kevin Keegan.  Tottenham played woefully under Juande Ramos and their squad has flat-lined after an early revival from Harry Redknapp and his magical ketchup.  Both teams sit within five points of the drop.

Both Tottenham and Newcastle have an odious stench and many neutral detractors.  So it begs the question, which big club relegation would be more enjoyable?

Boardroom: Tottenham

Newcastle escaped from Fat Freddy Sheppard’s unctuous palms when Mike Ashley bought the club.  Ashley’s had his poorly thought out moments, notably wearing a Newcastle shirt, boozing it up with the patrons and bungling the Kevin Keegan fiasco.  But, despite the Cockney Mafia signs, he seems to have tried to the decent thing.  Genuinely hurt by the fans’ response, he made a good faith effort to sell.  Any more misery piled on him seems gratuitous at this point.

Levy, in contrast, deserves whatever pain comes his way.  Spurs are on manager number seven during his chairmanship.  Damien Comolli was successful everywhere else.  Martin Jol and Juande Ramos are doing decent jobs in their new gigs.  Levy has been ever present, as have the same problems – a babied squad, overspending on attacking players and an incompetent back four.  Levy has taken no responsibility for consistent failure.  Nor has he changed tack.  Relegation would be fitting.

Player: Tottenham

Apart from the pantomime Joey Barton, Newcastle’s players pose no problem.  They can hardly be blamed for their hodgepodge assembly under a succession of managers, board leaders and financial environments.  Most will be playing for other squads next season, regardless of the league.   There is no particular glee from seeing these players relegated.

Tottenham, however, would be delightful.  Their players epitomize the problems with English players.  They would rather toil in lucrative mediocrity while enjoying the London lifestyle at Spurs, rather than challenge themselves at a Big Four club or a Champions League club elsewhere in Europe.  Their players are gutless in pressure situations.   They celebrate minor triumphs disproportionately. It would be fantastic to see Tottenham’s players down.

Managers: Newcastle

Joe Kinnear is a pompous dinosaur.  The thirtieth-choice manager rolled into the Premier League on a whirlwind of vitriol.  His comments toward reporters, referees, and players have been clownish, both in subject matter and sentiment.  During the initial recovery it was his doing, when the team began to falter again, it was the players fault.  He deserves the stain.

Harry Redknapp is greedy, slippery and always for sale.  He’s been linked, but not charged with transfer corruption.  He’s manipulative.  But, no one outside the greater Portsmouth area would accuse the man of being evil.  He’s no Kinnear and he’s worth keeping around, at least for his jowls.

Fans: Tottenham

Newcastles Geordie fans come with all the assorted jokes.  They’re louts, lardos and drunkards.  When shirtless, it’s hard to tell the men from the women.  They are probably unemployed.  They support their team beyond all reason on message boards.  But, they are true, passionate fans – you would have to be to root for Newcastle.  They would be pathetic and heartbroken.

Spurs fans are abusive, racist and homophobic, which is marginally worse than Newcastle’s Mido-directed malevolence.  What edges the judgment toward them is expectation.  Spurs spent heavily in the summer, forcing fans into the delusion of a Champions League place.  For Tottenham fans to travel from those heights to relegation in nine months would be catastrophic, and amusing for those not involved.

Conclusion: It would be far more enjoyable if Tottenham went down.

Arsenal’s weaknesses have been prevalent in a season more perilous than any under the Wenger regime.  Arsenal have neither an experienced nor a competent holding midfielder.  Their central defense has been inconsistent.  Incompetent moments at the back have cost them points.  As of right now, they are the favorites to drop from the Champions League places.

The obvious, standard move would be to acquire a burly, possibly English midfielder to provide some steel or a veteran defender who can play with either Toure or Gallas.  Arsene Wenger, paradoxically, has spent the entire transfer window signing Russian attacker Andrei Arshavin.  Wenger seems to be intent to get the player Arsenal least need.  But, here is a possible explanation.

Arsenal did not beat West Ham, but after Vela entered the match they, for one of the few times all season, played Arsenal football, even if it amounted to nothing.

Two elements make Arsenal’s system successful.

When Arsenal play well, they dominate possession of the ball.  They shuffle it up and down and from side to side looking for an opening.  They keep the other team on the back foot.

To capitalize on the possession, Arsenal need penetration.  They get through the first line of defenders, with an incisive pass or a skillful run.  The defense panics.  The wall-passing and five-a-side skills come out, and Arsenal attack the goal.  Total football.  Lovely.

In most matches this season, Arsenal has reasonably held possession.  The problem has been in penetration.  Which is no coincidence, considering major injuries to players like Theo Walcott, Cesc Fabregas, Eduardo and Tomas Rosicky.  Arsenal have not penetrated all season, resorting to hoofing the ball up to Adebayor and hoping something happens.

Arshavin could replicate the role of these players, providing his own invention and creating additional space for players such as Nasri and Vela.  If he gets the system working, Arsenal’s game will hold opposing teams behind the ball, thus mitigating their need for a defensive midfielder and a defender.

Could this work or has the esteemed Arsene Wenger truly lost it?

 American billionaire Robert Kraft may make a £270m bid for George Gillett’s 50 percent share of Liverpool.

“We haven’t ruled it out completely,” Kraft told Sky Sports News.

“But I’m worried a little bit. I want to be able to win whatever we do. But there are no rules in terms of spending on players.

“We would never want to be in a business where we couldn’t compete and right now some of the structure doesn’t allow you to compete on a level playing field.”

Kraft currently owns both the New England Patriots of the NFL and the New England Revolution of MLS.  He wanted to invest in Liverpool as far back as 2005.  He also reportedly made an inquiry about buying the club last season before being outbid by DIC.

Kraft’s purchase would benefit the Merseyside club.

If he can muster more stable financing, it would deflect the itchy-triggered shotgun of debt currently pointing at the club from the initial American purchase.

Removing Gillett would ameliorate relations somewhat between the board and Benitez, as it was Gillett who opposed Benitez assuming control of transfer policy.

Kraft’s reputation in both the NFL and MLS is as an owner who hires the best people, and who allows them to do their job without meddling.  It is, thus, not a coincidence that his franchises have been successful.

The previously hapless Patriots have won three Super Bowls and appeared in four this decade.  The Revs have made the MLS Cup final four times under Kraft.  They also won a US Open Cup in 2007 and SuperLiga in 2008.

However, Kraft’s purchase would not be a complete panacea.

Kraft’s teams have been successful, though, in a manner that may be troublesome for Liverpool fans, it has been without spending.  The Patriots, during their Super Bowl runs always kept under the NFL’s salary cap.  The Revs have repeatedly drawn criticism for not spending money or taking advantage of the Designated Player slot.

The American may muster the requisite intelligentsia at the top of the club.  But, he may not be down with spending £20m each transfer window to bolster it.

Liverpool fans may emulate the fiscal flexibility of Chelsea or Manchester City.  But, with Robert Kraft at the helm, they may more resemble Arsenal.

City reportedly made an equally irresponsible bid for Spain and Valencia star David Villa, in the range of £100m.  The club then cancelled the deal “on principle,” after Valencia countered with £135m.

Gigi Buffon was probably the target of another record bid, although Manchester City again withdrew when Juventus started asking for nearly £100m for Buffon.  They will hold firm for £6m for Shay Given, yet be willing to part with ten times that for Buffon?

Man City also tried to raid Barcelona’s bench, offering a combined £49m for Thierry Henry , who may be a possibility next summer, and midfielder Yaya Toure.   They had a £10m offer to Arsenal for Yaya’s brother Kolo as well.

The club also have offered £18m for Roque Santa Cruz.  They are so eager they’re willing to throw Tal Ben Haim into the deal, which surely has nothing to do with him being Israeli.

This excludes the £40m already spent on players in January, bringing in a competent left-back (Wayne Bridge), a diminutive striker who doesn’t score much (Craig Bellamy) and a midfielder good enough to be rumored but never to be bought by a big club (Nigel de Jong).

Tallying things up, City have put forth a ludicrous amount of money, with ludicrous ambition.  So, it seems only fitting they get ludicrous responses.

City have been content scouring the continent for spectacular Brazilians, but, if they want their spending to be effective, sound they consider throwing their money around closer to home?

Manchester City’s transfer budget dwarfs that of England’s big four combined.  There are reasons for that.

Manchester United sit on a mountain of debt.  They bought their two Serbians and they’re out.  Roman Abramovich, after losing a few billion wants Chelsea to run a tight ship, allowing only £12m in January.  Liverpool face an uncertain financial future, should the Americans not be able to find a buyer.  Even profitable Arsenal must repay their debt.  And these are the well off clubs…

If Garry Cook is willing to offer nearly £100m to continental giants, why not test the resolve of the domestic ones?

Would the Liverpool board allow Rafa Benitez to turn his nose at such a mega-offer for Mascherano or Fernando Torres?

If City offered £50m for Adebayor or Van Persie could Arsenal afford not to listen?

With players at Chelsea paying for their own lunches, could they entice one of Chelsea’s stars up north?

Even moving down the table, Villa may be able to reject a great transfer bid.  But, could cash-short Everton reject a gobsmacking offer for Arteta?

Perhaps, these transfers may be inconceivable for January.  But, if the economy begins to effect the boffo Premier League revenues – and that probably should be a when not an if– these speculations may be a crude reality.

Traoré primarily has been seen in the Arsenal setup, as a left back blocked by Gael Clichy.  The 19-year-old Frenchman left this season for Pompey to gain first team experience.

However, Portsmouth have used Traoré as an attacking left winger, a role in which he’s shown capability.  In Pompey’s 1-1 draw with Spurs, Traoré stymied the Tottenham defense.  They had no answer for his incisive running.  He created David Nugent’s goal and could have scored another himself.

Arsene Wenger spoke of a special class and Traoré displayed more of it in his last much than many Arsenal players of late.

Arsenal’s defense has been prone to the inopportune brain fart, but the true difference this season from last has been in midfield.  The club has struggled to maintain the possession.  Even when they manage to do so, they create no danger or penetration.  There is no effective linkup between defense and the forward line.  The club that professes beautiful football, has most often been reduced to huffing forward and hoping.

This ineffective midfield has been compounded by injuries to Fabregas and to Walcott.  Their departures leave Samir Nasri as the sole creative presence, which is a problem since he’s also the only player who can competently play in left midfield.

Arsenal must either strand Nasri on the wing, constructing some sort of farce with Diaby and Denilson in the middle, or must play Diaby or Eboue on the left, hoping to mask the deficiency.  Neither solution has been acceptable.  It has showed in their performances.

If Traoré can play on the left wing as he does for Portsmouth, he can ameliorate this conundrum, improving the squad.  He could provide a Rosicky facsimile.  He could pose a different look in a substitute role.  At the very least, he could add the much needed depth, they will need for FA Cup and Euorpe campaigns.

Recalling Armand Traoré may not be a panacea, but it is low risk and costs Arsenal nothing.  In danger of losing their Champions League revenue, it’s time for Arsenal to experiment.

This team would win neither titles nor plaudits.  But, they certainly would entertain.  They may even possibly scare small children.  Without further delay, here is the most follically challenged/enlightened team in the English Premier League.

Manager: Joe Kinnear (Newcastle) Joe Kinnear is old school and tempestuous, his hair coincides.  It’s a mullet.  It’s a bird’s nest.  Combined, it is just a mess.

GK: David James (Portsmouth) This group of goalkeepers has scant follicle creativity, making David James the run-away choice.  Whether it’s cornrows, the standard fro or that slick do that lasted one magical day, the Pompey keeper does a job.

D: Gareth Bale (Tottenham) Bale’s hair looks as the rest of his body.  It defies styling. .  Yet, with all of its characteristic Welsh mysticism, it can’t conjure a win for Spurs when he plays.

D: Fabricio Coloccini (Newcastle) When Coloccini arrived at Newcastle, he drew comparisons to Kevin Keegan in his prime.  Whether you term it to be a perm or a lions’ mane, it’s molto fantastico.

D: John Terry (Chelsea) Terry does not necessarily belong in this team, but his general jerk factor should leave him open to even the most far-fetching ridicule.  He deploys the devious tactic of using height and product to mask an ever-worsening coverage issue.

D: Bakary Sagna (Arsenal) Normally, the blonde tarantula look would be absurd.  But, Bak rocks it as an everyday look rather than a fanciful fit, which bizarrely has made it seem normal.

M: Stephen Ireland (Manchester City) Ireland should be excluded, given his shorn status.  But, the premature balding followed by the mysterious solution he found last season leaves a lingering effect.

M: Steven Pienaar (Everton) Cornrows can be a nice look, even a sensible one for the footballer wanting neither muss nor fuss.  However, Pineaar’s , which is not his natural hairline, jars the visage.

M: Marouane Fellaini (Everton) Fellaini already has ten yellow cards in 17 Premier League appearances.  Don’t tell me it’s his height or prodigious skill that attracts the referees.  It’s all the hair.

M: Dirk Kuyt (Liverpool) Kuyt’s hair is business in the front and party in the back, He’s a 1980’s Larry Bird sans the moustache.

F: Djibril Cisse (Sunderland) (C) Djibril Cisse no longer shocks with his hair.  Any style or color is conceivable.  His head’s entirety has merged into a single unit of expression.  He’s even married to a hair dresser.  This craggy veteran wears the armband.

F: Andy Carroll (Newcastle) Andy Carroll emulates Kevin Federline.  He’s already got the pattern of juvenile delinquence.  With his new hairstyle, he’s got the fire as well.

At Sunderland, Richardson has blossomed.  Despite injuries, he’s developed into a dynamic attacker, a free kick artist and a match winner.  Originally viewed as unworthy of his fee, Richardson would probably be worth at least double it now, if manager Ricky Sbragia saw him as dispensable.  We never saw Richardson’s full potential until he left Manchester United, which raises a question.  How valuable are their other second-tier players?

John O’Shea’s popular image is as a bit of a bumbler and a doofus.  He’s never cemented a place as a first-team regular, despite making 313 appearances.   He’s clearly not in the same class as Cristiano Ronaldo, though he’ll show the occasional burst of flair.

However, the 27-year-old is very versatile.  He can fill in at fullback, centre-half and in central midfield, without United noticeably declining.  He literally has played every position on the pitch for United.  How much would a player like him be worth for Everton or Tottenham?  How good would he be with a consistent place in the Starting XI?

Who, when discussing a Manchester United performance, ever touches on Wes Brown’s contribution?  Listing the best players at various positions in the Premier League, Brown’s name seldom arises.  Has he been overlooked?

United were better with Brown at right back last season than they were with Gary Neville the year before.  Fabio Capello brought Brown into the England squad ahead of the far more hyped Micah Richards, with solid results.  If Wes Brown were playing for a mid-table club such as Portsmouth, would he receive more praise?

Look at Darren Fletcher as well.  He’s often maligned compared to his more talented companions.  Even his own teammates have ridiculed him.  At 24-years-old he’s never nailed down a place in the United midfield.

Despite this, however, Fletcher has been important for Manchester United.  When big signings Hargreaves and Carrick have been injured, Fletcher has filled in for big matches and played well.  United displayed no midfield faults when he played against Chelsea.  He already has 40 caps for Scotland.  He probably steps straight into 14 or 15 Premier League Starting XIs.  How good would he be with a regular run of games?

Manchester United have elite-level talents, such as Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand, but so do Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal.  What sets Manchester United apart is their second tier.  While the other big three falter noticeably without a star or two, United absorb injuries, calling on experienced players, such as O’Shea, Brown and Fletcher to fill a hole without incident.

Rather than being oafs or wastrels, these second-tier players are a major reason, Manchester United has won the Premier League the past two seasons.

One year ago, Fulham was arguably the worst team in the Premier League not named Derby.  The club showed little holiday spirit, sacking Lawrie Sanchez just four days before Christmas.  New manager Roy Hodgson needed a great escape, scraping to 36 points and safety on the season’s final day.

This season, however, Hodgson has revolutionized Fulham, currently sitting comfortably mid-table on 26 points with a game in hand.  Here are five facts to explain Fulham’s resurgence this season.

Ferocity at the Back: Americans have a saying, “Offense wins games.  Defense wins championships.”  Fulham are nowhere near title contention, but a vastly improved defense has proved pivotal.  Halfway through the current season, Fulham have allowed just 14 goals in the 19 matches.  That’s fourth best in the Premier League, behind only Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United.  If Fulham maintain that pace, they would allow 28 goals.  They shipped 60 the previous year.  Fulham are far more competitive and have their backline to thank.

Fortress Craven Cottage: Fulham’s 2008-09 model has the requisite fragility away from home.  They’ve failed to win in nine attempts, although they have drawn five.  However, Fulham have been spectacular at home this season, winning six and drawing three of their ten matches.  Only Manchester United and Liverpool have fared better at home this season than Fulham.

Overcoming Squandered Investments: Fulham spent serious moolah over the summer, nearly £20m, to revamp their striking with Andy Johnson and Bobby Zamora.  Despite their success, the duo have been largely ineffective, combining for only five goals in 33 combined appearances.  American forward Clint Dempsey has four times as many goals as Bobby Zamora, with barely more than half as many pitch minutes.  Fulham’s success has been despite not because of this substantial investment.

A Steely Run: Fulham, though only winning three, are undefeated in their past nine matches, last losing to 1-0 to Everton on Nov. 1.  This run of matches saw Fulham play top tier sides, such as Liverpool, Chelsea and Aston Villa.  They also played more talented teams, such as Manchester City, Newcastle and Tottenham twice.  Fulham may fade a bit, but those fifteen difficult points could stave off relegation.

Backbone Against the Big Five: These fixtures are often overrated.  For a team out of the title race six-pointers, they matter not more than any other match.  However, Fulham, with a victory against Arsenal and draws with Chelsea, Liverpool and Aston Villa, are undefeated in these matches.  They conceded just two goals in the four matches, both against Chelsea.  Tangibly, Fulham gain six points, but the value of the confidence earned is considerable.