Arsenal’s Spanish goalkeeper Manuel Almunia has given a strong indication that he may leave in the winter transfer window. Almunia last played for the Gunners back in September where his errors condemned Arsenal to a 3-2 home defeat to West Bromwich Albion.

“Almunia is on standby, that means he is here,” said Wenger at his pre-match press conference on Friday. “We keep always that very quiet [about whether there have been offers]. There is a slight chance he could go but as I told you it is standby.”

According to many pundits and fans alike, his performance against West Brom in September was the genesis of his problems. Almunia injured his elbow in the same match and has since continued to warm the Gunners bench despite claiming that he is fully fit and ready for action.

Reports emerging say that Spanish clubs Atletico Madrid and Malaga are keen on signing the 33 year old on a permanent deal.

Giving indications as to the future of the club, Wenger has played 20 year old Wojciech Szczesny, while Fabianski has seen playing time too.

Almunia was handed a curve ball when he was overlooked by Wenger who preferred little known and inexperienced Szczesny. This left Almunia infuriated as he claimed that there was no reason why he should have been overlooked. But in characteristic fashion, Wenger downplayed the whole issue saying that Almunia was free to leave in January.

With only days left until the January transfer window ends, it is looking very likely that Almunia may leave. The goalkeeper has been valued at a fee of 2million Euros which is believed to be in the range of both Malaga and Atletico Madrid. This only further intensifies and complicates the race to land his signature.

One lesson learned from the World Cup is that performance in qualification is not indicative of how England will perform in the actual tournament. The 4-1 and 5-1 victories over Croatia seem distant when you consider that England lacked the competency to break down Algeria or pick up a second goal over the USA or Slovenia. Either of which would have seen England top the group and avoid the dangerous Germany for the first knockout round. The poor results against Montenegro and France are excusable to an extent, Montenegro came into the game in highly surprising form having like England won all their previous games and left with a point they were highly fortunate to pick up. Cynics may look at how Montenegro almost stole victory with a late chance after Milan Jovanovic hit the bar but it’s fairer to England to focus on how the off-form Rooney missed two chances he’d usually easy put away or how Crouch should have done far better with a free header in the first half. England were also denied a clear penalty late on. Against France England were missing many players and France were able to field a significantly stronger team. Despite those slip ups it seems that England are in for another rampant qualification campaign which may or may not carry over lead to further good performances in the actual competition. The 4-0 over Bulgaria and 3-1 over Switzerland were highly impressive results and since the away game to Switzerland was probably the toughest fixture for England in the group it would be fair to expect smooth sailing when qualification results in 2011.

So can a country of supposed superstars and promising young talent backed up by a foreign manager with an impressive trophy haul really pick themselves up and go on to be a force in Euro 2012? I believe that under the right circumstances that winning the competition should not be out of England’s reach but England also face the danger of Euro 2012 being just another World Cup 2010. That is, filled with elevated expectations due impressive performances in qualification and the usual expectation that England are faced with simply due to being England, only for England to once again reach a quarter final at the very best. This is Capello’s last chance, he claims that this is his last ever job as a manager but even if he goes back on his decision it’s unlikely that he’d be allowed to continue as England manager following another failure. Capello is a manager accustomed to success and despite not being English, despite the great money he is earning from being England manager, win or lose I believe that failure in Poland/Ukraine would hurt Capello personally and that he will be determined to do a lot better next time round. A manager like Capello will surely not consider Euro 2012 as a success unless England can reach the final at least as was his affirmation before the World Cup that getting to the final was his idea of success and that anything else was failure.

But Capello could stand as the single most decisive factor over England’s success or failure in Euro 2012. Capello in the last few games has shown a willingness to bring in new players, whether that be 33 year old Kevin Davies or the significantly younger Andy Carroll. Manoeuvres such as this once again cast doubt onto whether Capello can actually figure out exactly what he intends to do with the players at his disposal. Leading up to the World Cup it was clear Capello was uncertain about his system and his starting line-up, characterised by the dramatic change in system for the game against Slovenia where Capello was forced to abandon the system that had only picked up a point against the USA and Algeria. He was also uncertain about his number one goalkeeper and dropping Robert Green after his mistake against the USA suggests that when he chose to start Green he wasn’t especially confident in his choice. If Capello goes into another major tournament without a clear system that has been practiced and refined then England face the same dangers as before. It is also Capello’s responsibility to make the correct decision over which younger players with little or no international experience will become established between now and Euro 2012. For England the talent is there and Capello must make big decisions over whether established players such as Barry, Terry, Lampard or others will continue to be first choice or whether the likes of Wilshire, Adam Johnson or Carroll can make their way into the first team. One reason why I mentioned Lampard there is because he has missed a number of recent England games through injury and a lot of the reaction I read from the wins over Bulgaria and Switzerland mentioned whether he should be allowed back into the once he recovers. Terry, on top of his persistent injury problems seems to be far away from the player he was back when Mourinho first took over at Chelsea and Barry has been very poor in England’s recent games. Wilshire is already looking like a readymade replacement if Barry cannot improve. The problem of England’s superstars feeling like they are invincible and subsequently not performing at their highest level is a problem for England and if England’s established players truly feared for their place in the starting line-up it could get England playing to their potential. Most of this will be down to the manager.

Another person that will determine just how well England perform in Euro 2012 is Wayne Rooney. His performances for Manchester United and England during the 2009-2010 season firmly established him as England’s superstar and greatest hope for victory in the World Cup. Rooney has been faced with similar levels for expectation in 2006 but like back then Rooney failed to deliver. Rooney will be 26 when Poland/Ukraine comes around which means quite possibly he will be at or close to his peak. A lot has been said about Rooney recently due to his personal life, his recent transfer saga with United and his lack of goals this season but it seems highly unlikely that England will be able to win or even make it deep into a major tournament without getting Rooney to play his best football. Rooney’s best performances this season have been in an England shirt against Bulgaria and Switzerland, the latter accounting for Rooney’s only goal from open play this season. Now Rooney seems to be clear of his injury problems and has returned for United England fans everywhere can hope that for England’s sake Rooney can return to his best and can go into Euro 2012 off the back of a fantastic 2011-2012 campaign. It would be even better if he could on this occasion avoid an injury close to the start of the tournament unlike in 2006 and 2010. England should not be too disheartened by Rooney’s failure to even manage a goal in the 2006 and 2010 World Cups, Rooney was excellent in the last European Championship he played in 2004 and has come a long way since then. He is a world class talent and during a major tournament national teams need their best players to step up and perform, England will once again need Rooney and if Rooney can perform as expected along with the rest of the team then Rooney can be the decisive factor against the big teams.

Of course if England team does manage to come back from Poland/Ukraine as successes it will have to be a team effort but as usual for England the components are there. Great players, young and old, experienced and inexperienced; a successful manager who was hired on the premise of being world class. However all these components were in place for South Africa and England were unable to achieve, and it wasn’t down to bad luck and the controversy over Lampard’s disallowed goal vs. Germany isn’t enough to explain what became a crushing defeat. So if England will compete in Euro 2012 something must be different, that something could come from the manager, the star players or perhaps the new players that will look to establish themselves between now and the end of the 2012 season. One thing is for sure, the established English players enjoy high reputations and most of the success with their clubs which they will be expected to replicate internationally, many of the younger players like Wilshire, Carroll, Walcott, Milner and Adam Johnson will be expected to develop into great players. So whether England go into Euro 2012 with any realistic hope of winning the competition or not it seems implausible that the expectation and belief from the fans will not be present as it always has been. I firmly believe that the talent of the England team is undeniable and the only thing holding England back is the inability to utilise that talent and transform England into a team that can consistently pull of world class performances against any opposition. But if England can show signs that they can overcome the boundaries that have held them back in the past then they will deservedly head into Euro 2012 amongst the favourites.

In 2006, John W. Henry—the executive fronting the New England Sports Venture’s (NESV’s) attempted takeover of Liverpool—was clocked at a £540m net worth. This was years before the inevitable subtractions of the global recession.

In 2009, Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, affectionately known as Sheikh Mansour and the owner of Manchester City, was estimated at about a £2.1bn net worth.

The gap is clear.

It’s safe to say that the NESV’s prospective takeover of Liverpool carries with it a culture wholly opposite from the win-at-all-costs mentality that Roman Abramovich or the Royal Abu Dhabi group flew in with; similar to Hicks and Gillett, these are businessmen: they aren’t handing over £300m to restore a cherished history, they’re handing it over to be handed more back. Investment seeks return, just like Sol Campbell seeks his kidney pies.

But the NESV are far from at fault for pursuing a profit.

It’d be naïve to reject the notion that ‘making bank’ is as mechanical a process to the modern businessman as the kill function is to the Terminator. And this ‘profiteering’ is only exacerbated by the influence of American professional-athletic culture: In America, sports like hockey, basketball, and American football all feature stringent financial regulations, such as a salary cap (an upper bound that limits the total amount owners can pay their players, across a team), which provides a buffer to the financial clout of personal fortunes—á la Sheik Mansour. In a strangely sappy way, the democratic ideals of the American constitution have permeated into the nation’s sporting culture and, although the NESV’s main interest is baseball (a sport featuring fewer financial regulations than other American pastimes), there’s a veritable connection between the idea of an investment quota and owners like Hicks and Gillett.

Whether the NESV would feature a similar reluctance to provide financial fuel—only time will tell. I’m a believer that the NESV would make a positive change, especially considering the low standard set by their predecessors. (Come to think of it, Liverpool’s position in the table almost guarantees that they couldn’t possibly lead the team any farther from success.) Businessmen they may be, but they’re smart businessmen: The Red Sox’s success didn’t come about overnight, and it didn’t come about by chance. Perhaps a direct comparison is in order: The NESV never approved of a Robbie Keane purchase that resulted in an £8m net loss in under a year, so they have an instant leg up on the dismal dealings of Hicks, Gillett and, to be fair in criticism, Rafa Benitez.

But I’ll posit the question: Even if the NESV provides relatively low investment (compared to the likes of Abramovich and Mansour), does financial prudency need to stifle a team’s success?

And I’ll provide an answer: No. From 2004-09, Chelsea, Manchester United, and the Hicks-Gillett Liverpool all saw net transfer losses ranging from £27-186m. Manchester City spent £115m in the summer alone and has received investment from Mansour upwards of £1bn. Tottenham come a close second in spending and an arguable equal to the other clubs in this list.

And I’ll back my answer with a (somewhat cliché) case study: What’s the one big-name club missing from the above list? Arsenal. During the same 2004-2009 period, Arsenal saw a net transfer profit of £27m. This is a club run by businessmen: They aren’t pirates scouring the high seas for clubs to abuse, and they’re far kinder to Arsenal than Didier Drogba; they’re movers and shakers with a vested interest in revenue and earnings—all of which starts with success. ‘Profiteering’ can’t be done without winning games and drawing in support from the fans, and the NESV know that.

Liverpool fans, ready yourselves and your expectations: This takeover won’t feature Roy Hodgson bathing in £20 notes (thank god—Hodgson bathing would be an unbearable sight). But it will mark a resurgence of reason.

Perhaps these Americans can restore their nation’s credibility within the world of football administration. But let’s make that a side note. For now, how about they restore both Anfield and the club’s winning mentality. It’s time to pick up the pieces and rebuild this shattered club.

Poor Roy Hodgson has had the pleasant task of informing the public that Fernando Torres is more than just a little iffy about staying with Liverpool. He seems to have washed his hands of the guilt a la Pontius Pilate. Hodgson emerged from talks with Torres saying, “Unfortunately, I cannot do much more,” Hodgson confessed. “His beef is with the club and not me.”

What beef is that exactly?

For Torres it’s the disappointment in the promises that Liverpool failed to fulfill—specifically the enhancement of the team with new players. The 26-year old striker was clearly depending on these new additions to win some silverware. Back in March, Torres was quoted in an interview with a Spanish paper saying, “If we do not reinforce the squad, […] all we will be able to do is fight for fourth again.” The striker emphasized his point, suggesting that Liverpool need to bring in “four or five top class players to compete—better than the ones we have.”

He has a point.

But if El Nino wants to transfer out of the club, now is not the time.

Liverpool know that they haven’t followed through on giving Torres the support that he desires, but the fact that they nabbed Joe Cole and retained Steven Gerrard should send a message. Cole and Gerrard might not be the ‘top-class players’ Torres was referring to, but he should realize that they perform well in the Premier League.

Despite lifting the World Cup trophy, he hasn’t made a good case for himself in terms of being an attractive candidate for potential clubs. His untimely groin strain at the finals against the Netherlands is scheduled to bench him for two months and his (lack of a) World Cup performance put him on par with the English squad.

Aside from this, he is only one year into his four-year contract with the Reds and any sort of transfer will be very expensive, to say the least. Chelsea, who are currently leading the chase, began to doubt their original valuation of £50 million (as reported by the Telegraph) after the World Cup. (To be quite honest, I don’t think Chelsea even need Torres, but that’s another story for another time). Liverpool currently value Torres at £70 million. Manchester City have also revived their interest in purchasing Torres, and unlike Chelsea, they are willing to pay a higher price.

Conversely, there are several important reasons why he should leave Liverpool. Financially, the club is very unstable and the likelihood to win silverware with the Reds isn’t very high. Although Hodgson has made it clear he would like to keep Torres at Anfield, he should consider selling the striker in order to pay for several others to give the team the reshaping and bolstering it needs.

And although Hodgson managed to grab Cole and Gerrard, it might not be enough. Torres probably realizes that obtaining these two players was not a difficult task for the Reds. After all, Cole was a free transfer from Chelsea and Gerrard was, well, relatively unwanted by other clubs.

The bottom line is, Liverpool need Torres more than Torres needs Liverpool.

Liverpool fans on the edge of their nerves can perhaps take solace in what Torres said back in March: “I don’t plan on going back to La Liga for a while. I have made my move away from home and I owe Liverpool a lot. I like it here, and people have treated me like one of their own. I am very happy here and hopefully my future is here. I think the club deserves to win again, but at this point they know they are a long way away.”

I have been to the past two World Cups. I was there in South Korea for the most famous almost-Cinderella run by the hosts in 2002. I was in Germany for the infamous Zidane headbutt that lost France the title in 2006. And this year, my father deemed it much too dangerous to let me go to South Africa, tarnishing my perfect record as a football fan. So, I’m stuck in the States with a world of fans. And after much research I present to you, a field guide to the four types of American soccer fans:

1. The Diehard USA Fan

Typical. These are the guys that paint their faces, wear flags as capes and swear they bleed red, white, and blue. They have eagle tattoos and only watch the World Cup because it fills the time in between the NBA Finals and the World Series. Hockey is for Canadians. These guys embody the reason why soccer will never take off here: American supremacy. America does it our way. We’re number one. Our way or the highway. What I mean by this is that these fans are normally guys that don’t know a thing about soccer except that they must yell loudly and spill beer when the Yanks net one because it proves that we’re the best country in the world no matter what anyone says! USA! USA! Ask them what ‘offside’ means and they won’t be able to tell you and frankly, they won’t care as long as America wins.

2. The Loud Rookie

Drawing most of his knowledge from quick Google and Wikipedia searches right before matches, the loud rookie likes to pass off as the knowledgeable ex-pat (see below) and often makes up for his lack of experience with angry shouts against the ref. Oftentimes, the loud rookie will memorize a handful of statistics about a team or a few significant names in order to strike up a conversation with a table of KEP’s (Knowledgeable Ex-Pat) in an attempt to blend in and perhaps impress a female fan. But really, the only thing they know is that Brazil is good, England is good, and African teams are cute underdogs. Avoid at all costs.

3. The Knowledgeable Ex-Pat

Foreigners from abroad also fall into this category. These are the people who know the most about the sport. They live and breathe soccer and more likely than not, follow football leagues during the 47 months the World Cup isn’t going on. They usually take a quiet seat in the corner of the bar and only raise their voices when they deem necessary. The KEP’s are rarely ever US fans and often hail from the likes of England, Spain, and other countries where football is prominent. KEP’s are also students who have taken a year off or have studied abroad and were drawn into their country’s subsequent footie culture. Respect the KEP’s. They’re there for the love of the game. Treat them as such.

4. The Female Fan

A rare breed in the States, there are two subcategories: the World Cup widow and the actual fan. World Cup Widows (WWC’s) are, in fact, the opposite of WAG’s. They are ‘widowed’ by their boyfriends, husbands, fiancés who sit glued to the TV absorbing match after match. Feeling neglected, WWCs will attempt to empathize and accompany their partners to a couple matches in the bar, but will inevitably find themselves bored—until they spot Torres’ golden hair, Lampard’s boyish grin or Ronaldo’s cliché physique. To fill the gaping hole of male abandonment, these women will watch matches solely for the purpose of ogling men. Can you blame them? Footballers are the epitome of male athleticism.

Conversely, there are the actual female fans who were probably raised by football-loving parents or played soccer in high school and wished to continue their love of the sport after the collapse of the WUSA in 2003. Often a quieter breed, their knowledge of the World Cup lies between the loud rookie and the KEP—a happy, pleasant medium. Never accuse these women of being WWC’s or WAGs.