This may seem hard to believe, but the Premier League does actually have rules governing who can gain control of a Premiership football club. You see, not just any Tom, Dick or deposed despot can put on their wellies, wander into top paddock and milk the Premiership cash cow. No, they must first pass what is known as the ‘fit and proper person test’.

This is a fairly new idea in football. Whilst other sports, such as rugby, have had vetting procedures in place for many a year, football has always been a free market. If you had the money, you could have a slice of the action. Well, not any more. About a year ago, some bright spark at Soho Square decided that given the trend amongst foreign billionaires to invest in Premiership football teams – you don’t get that rich without doing something wrong – it would be right and proper to introduce rules to safeguard the beautiful game from an influx of undesirables; hence the ‘fit and proper person test’.

It is probably jumping the gun to try and second guess how the Premier League goes about deciding what constitutes a so-called ‘fit and proper person’ - after all, if the bigwigs who govern the top tier of our national game had the same sense of justice and moral obligation as you or I, West Ham would have been relegated months ago – nevertheless, one would hope that the scope of their criteria extended so far as to examine the financial propriety and human rights record of whosoever tries to gain control of a Premiership club.

Now this brings us on to the former Thai Prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra whose bid of £81 million to buy Manchester City was yesterday recommended to shareholders by the club’s board. It would appear, therefore, that only the minor obstacle of being deemed both ‘fit and proper’ now stands in between Shinawatra and his dream of taking control of a Premiership team.

So, is Mr Shinawatra a fit and proper person? Well, up until yesterday, the only information that I had on Thaksin Shinawatra was a series of allegations of financial impropriety – he’s alleged to have profited to the tune of £1 billion following a deal made possible by his own legislation - and Amnesty International’s repeated concerns vis-à-vis over two thousand uninvestigated murders, the use of excessive force against demonstrators, torture of detainees, and the impunity enjoyed by state officials for alleged human rights violations.

One would have thought that all this would be sufficient to disqualify Mr Shinawatra from taking over at Man City, but having recently seen an interview with the man, I have to admit that he comes across as quite a cheerful and congenial chap. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he has a certain teddy-bearish quality about him. My media-induced lack of cynicism has, therefore, led me to turn my attentions away from the fact that Mr Shinawatra’s government was frequently challenged with allegations of corruption, dictatorship, demagogy, treason, conflicts of interest, human rights abuses, acting undiplomatically, the use of legal loopholes and hostility towards a free press and turn instead towards all the good that he achieved whilst in power – I've heard that he managed to cut poverty in half and provide near universal access to affordable healthcare.

For some reason, I’ve got a funny feeling that the Premier League will also choose not to focus on the negative, and Mr Shinawatra will be deemed both fit and proper to become Chairman of Manchester City.

If I were the head of the Serbian Football Federation, I’d be worried. The racist chanting by Serbian fans during their U21 team’s final group match against England has really landed them in it. UEFA don’t mess about when it comes to serious matters like this; they operate a policy of ‘zero tolerance’.

Or at least that’s what UEFA's clownish spokesman, William Gaillard, would like us to believe.

Among the besuited, champagne-quaffing footballcrats at UEFA, ‘zero tolerance’ is something of a hazy expression. For it can imply numerous eventualities, to which if you or I were pushed to give a numeric tolerance-value, it would certainly not be zero. For example, when Ashley Cole was subjected to monkey chants at the Santiago Bernabeu, when England played Spain three years ago, the Spanish FA were fined £30,000. Considering gate receipts for that game would have been upwards of £1.5 million, the fine imposed was not zero-tolerant. I would probably place it somewhere in the region of 6-tolerance, which is fairly tolerant, given that my scale only goes up to 10 and 10 would have involved letting the Spanish off scot-free.

So, following the embarrassing events of Sunday night, what punishment can we expect to see meted out to the Serbian FA?

Those of us who don’t ride to work on the UEFA gravy train would expect to see Serbia expelled from the competition. No ifs, no buts, no questions. That way, in any future tournaments, fans who come to support their team or country would know that racist behaviour was counterproductive to their cause. This is the commonsense solution. So will it happen? Of course not. UEFA have already said that nothing will happen before an investigation takes place on July 12th.

An investigation is presumably required to establish that the monkey chants were actually monkey chants and not some inoffensive noise that sounded just like monkey chants. By the time this investigation takes place, the tournament will have been over for nearly three weeks.

However, once the necessary investigation has established for certain that the monkey noises were actually monkey noises, we can then expect to see Serbia banned from taking part in the next Euro U21s. Not likely! This just wouldn’t be in keeping with UEFA’s policy of burying their head in the sand and trying not to do anything too proactive.

A ban is not going to happen. It never does with UEFA. Every racist incident in European football has been met with a paltry fine and no further action and that is exactly what will happen to Serbia. A drawn out investigation will be quietly concluded and UEFA’s mouthy spokesman will claim that the fine is another example of Europe’s governing body getting tough on racism. Meanwhile, Serbia’s mediaeval fans will continue to make their presence known in their own unpleasant way.

Following the Champions’ league exits of England’s top two sides, it seems that it is now universally accepted that going for victory in all competitions is foolish, it being ‘impossible to win on all fronts’. In fact, the very use of this terminology – usually found in descriptions of failed German attempts to conquer Europe – suggests that attempting to win the Champions’ League alongside other domestic competitions is as difficult as taking an army through Russia in wintertime. As many a General has found to his cost, this is indeed very difficult and by extension, United and Chelsea are excused for their poor showing in last week’s semi-finals. Just like the armies of Napoleon and Hitler, they had become battle-weary, whereas Liverpool – who according to Mourinho have been focussing solely on Europe since January – and Milan were not better, just fresher.

Now, to anyone who actually watched both matches, this view may seem a little hard to swallow. And anyone who witnessed Chelsea lump countless diagonal balls to Drogba or Manchester United obstinately refuse to mark the brilliant Kaka may wish to suggest that the root cause of the defeats imposed upon United and Chelsea was not fatigue, but tactical naivety. Going for victory on so many ‘fronts’ is undoubtedly a tall order, but both teams played into the hands of their adversary. Traps were laid and the Premiership’s top two sides gamely fell prey to their opponent’s devices.

One doesn’t imagine that the DVD of Liverpool’s epic victory over Milan two years ago is among Sir Alex Ferguson’s personal collection, but had he thrown even a cursory glance at that game, he couldn’t have helped but notice how Kaka took Liverpool to the proverbial cleaners before the tough tackling German, Didi Hamann, was brought on to nullify the Brazilian’s wizardry. With his influence diminished, Liverpool were able to get a foothold in the game and went on to stage one of the greatest comebacks of all time.

On Wednesday night, Sir Alex Fergusson’s United refused to pay any special attention to the dynamic Brazilian. Pre-game, when asked directly how he planned to deal with Kaka, Fergusson claimed with dismissive authority that he would be dealt with by the nearest man. This was not a bluff and was quite extraordinary considering how the balletic playmaker had twice dismantled the United defence just a week previously. Ferguson’s carefree attitude was bordering on arrogance and he was suitably punished when Kaka ghosted unmarked into the United box to slot home Milan’s crucial opening goal.

The Rossoneri were certainly not going to leave Ronaldo and Rooney unattended in a similar fashion. The Portuguese was constantly tracked and hounded by two men, whilst Rooney was left isolated up front. Despite an array of attacking talent at their disposal, United failed to provide any support for England's most potent striker. As Sven found out against Portugal, Rooney is not suited to playing up front on his own: he becomes frustrated, the responsibility becomes burdensome. He is at his best when another forward is able to occupy defenders, leaving him the space to operate in front of them. The combative Smith should have started against Milan, if only to bring Rooney into the game.

Whereas United were largely undone by their failure to deal with an outstanding individual, Chelsea were bereft of ideas from start to finish in their clash with Liverpool. Due to the regularity of the meetings between these two clubs, a synthetic rivalry has developed, which provokes as much volume and fervour inside Anfield as when more traditional foes are in town. Fans have claimed that the noise during Liverpool’s semi-final victory two years ago was like nothing experienced at Anfield before. On Tuesday night, it was possibly louder. And just like two years ago, Mourinho’s men were unable to silence the Liverpool faithful.

Like United, Chelsea left the focal point of their attack isolated up front and persisted in lumping aimless diagonal balls forward from Ashley Cole who seems to have lost all of the marauding instincts that characterised his game at Arsenal. In the vain hope that Didier Drogba could reproduce some of the magic that has enabled Chelsea to emerge unscathed from many a tight squeeze this season, they persevered with this tactic throughout the match. It was only the late introduction of Wright-Phillips and Robben that enabled Mourinho’s side to pose any attacking threat at all. However, by this stage, the tie had degenerated into an exhausted slugfest, with both sides hoping for a mistake rather than actively trying to create an opening.

For all Mourinho’s sound and fury before the game, his team exited with a whimper. They came to Anfield intent on preventing Liverpool scoring, but when the goal came, there was no plan B for them to fall back on.

So, simple as it is true, fatigue was not to blame for the Champion’s league demise of United and Chelsea. They just got it tactically wrong on the night.

It is common for football writers and pundits to heap praise upon players and managers whose media profile far outweighs their achievements or abilities. It is, however, rare for inappropriate superlatives to survive the test of time. In a rather strange inversion of a common assumption regarding the veracity of historical accounts, the more time that separates the lauding of a player or manager from their heyday, the more accurate the description is likely to be. If somebody writes in glowing terms about the achievements of Brian Clough or Bob Paisley, we know that this opinion has had time to mature and is firmly founded on years of perspective. Sure, we all have a tendency to romanticise the past, but this tendency is eclipsed by our ability to indulge in the present and ignore everything that we will come to reflect upon in time.

It is now less than a day since the unfathomably popular ‘Big Sam’ quit Bolton and already the hacks are busy shovelling praise left, right and centre. Perspective will, no doubt, come in time, but at the moment we are being subjected to a big, fat, Big Sam love-in.

Although we shouldn’t take away from his achievements – he took Bolton Wanderers from Division One and turned them into an above mid-table Premiership side - we should remember one thing above all else: during his reign, Sam Allardyce won nothing as manager of Bolton. His best Premiership finish was 6th and he qualified for the UEFA cup only once with the ensuing European adventure ending two rounds prior to the quarter-final. He is a good, solid Premiership manager, but not a great one, by any stretch of the imagination. Great managers win trophies even when handicapped by the subject of an interminable Allardyce whinge: an unlevel playing field.

To coin a popular expression, great managers make the impossible possible or at least turn the unlikely into an eventuality. Now, it is very difficult to imagine even the greatest manager usurping the big four and turning Bolton into title contenders, but an FA Cup, a League Cup or even a UEFA Cup was certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

Arsene Wenger recently commented that if managers were all given equal resources, he would regularly come top of the league. Big Sam, however, disagreed and snorted his disapproval, claiming that the winner of this hypothetical championship would not be Wenger but Allardyce.

The former Bolton manager likes to indulge in this fantasy that he is champion among underdogs. Take out the big spenders and there he is, sitting pretty at the top of the tree. But the facts tell a remarkably different story. Even if we take the big four out of the equation, Allardyce’s premiership record is not a succession of titles but a 12th, 13th, 4th, 2nd and 4th place finish. This is hardly the record of one of the game’s greats. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if any of the ‘big four’ managers had this return after 5 years in the Premiership, they would be struggling to hang on to their jobs.

Many fans of the beautiful game will not be at all upset to see an end to this particular Bolton era. Under Allardyce, the team played their own unique brand of hoofball: they were dirty, scrappy, and downright unpleasant to watch. They were like Revie’s Leeds, but without the success. Predictably, though, their combative approach was a rather touchy subject for their former manager. When anyone dared question his chosen style of play, he would launch with unerring regularity into yet another whinge about how the team had to compensate for their lack of investment in the transfer market. Yawn.

Why Big Sam still remains such a popular choice for the England job is, quite frankly, beyond me. Perhaps the public are attracted to that gruff, rhinoceros-like personality: the northern toiler, doing everything he can to stay afloat whilst other top managers are gifted with the footballing equivalent of a silver spoon. Myself, I see only a grumpy, rancorous excuse-maker, whose teams play with all the style of lumbering heavyweight boxer.

It’s funny how quickly things can change in football. Until last week, Arsenal were probably the most stable and well-directed club in the country. The Emirates faithful were not burdened by concerns about whether or not their owners would be able to cope with the crippling debts they had secured against the club, or indeed, whether their manager may be sacked in an act of Stalinesque ruthlessness. They had a new stadium promising a healthy financial future, a manager who had delivered unprecedented success, and a stable board upon whom Arsene Wenger could rely.

Following David Dein’s resignation, however, amidst talk of a takeover by American billionaire Stan Kronke, the north London Club has been shaken to its core. What was once a cruise liner on a tour of success has been transformed overnight into a dinghy stranded in open water.

From beneath the mire of internet rumour, only a few clear facts have emerged. We can be fairly certain of one thing: Mr Arsenal (David Dein) was in favour of the American takeover, whilst the rest of the Arsenal board – headed by Chairman Peter Hill-Wood - were vehemently against any such proposal.

The Chairman was certainly keen to let everyone know his position regarding a possible change of ownership: ‘Why don’t we want the American at our club? Call me old fashioned, but we don’t need his money and we don’t want his sort. Our objective is to keep Arsenal English, albeit with a lot of foreign players.’

Keep Arsenal English? His sort? The temptation is to allow such jingoistic nonsense to pass without reply, but so bizarre is it coming from the chairman of Arsenal that it really does demand a few words. Had this rant spouted from the mouth of Doug Ellis before Villa fell into American hands, one could - just about - have understood it, but Arsenal are quite possibly the most cosmopolitan team in the world. The first-team is regularly made up of eleven foreign imports, the manager is French and the majority of their fans live outside North London.

One can only assume, therefore, that what Hill-wood was getting at when he said he wanted to ‘keep Arsenal English’ was that he and the other board members don’t fancy losing their jobs. So, unless of course, the ageing Chairman is party to plans on the part of the American to uproot the club and plonk them in the deep south or replace the tea lady with a coffee-pouring truck stop dame, then he comes across, at best, as a man caught up in an act of desperate self-preservation while at worst, he reminds you of a clichéd old granddad still bitter about the fact that the Americans came over here and nicked our women during the War.

Of course this doesn’t mean that Kronke should be welcomed with open arms, but claiming that he should be rejected on the basis of his nationality, when your club is quite so nationally diverse is ludicrously dumb.

In fact, Hill-Wood’s ramblings serve only to confuse the issue. There are questions that need to be asked and if the chairman had wanted to appear slightly less self-concerned and worried about his own future, he could have emphasised to a greater extent the fears that many fans have regarding the sudden influx of foreign – and in particular American – investment.

To the vast majority of Arsenal fans, the nationality of their owner will be of little concern. What they will want to know is whether or not a takeover could benefit their club. They need to know if Stan Kronke would have the money to invest substantially in the team after the buy-out. David Dein would no doubt have us believe that his support for the American is due to the club’s present – though relative – poverty. But would Kronke have to borrow substantial amounts to buy out the present owners? And would this debt be secured against the club?

These are the sort of issues that should have been brought up by Hill-Wood. He, on the other hand, obviously hoped that there would be a general agreement amongst the Arsenal faithful that selling out to an American would be a step in a terrible direction. He probably assumed that the average football fan is a barely coherent, patriotic, club-waving thug, whose tribal instincts would be so riled by the thought of imminent Yankee invasion that they would immediately jump into the Hill-Wood corner. This isn’t going to happen. Most Arsenal fans have become quite accustomed to a foreign presence and are distinctly laissez-faire in their attitude. This is probably due in no small measure to the fact that since they broadened their horizons, they have won three league titles, two FA Cups, and reached the Champions’ League final for the first time in their history. If these fans feel that new owners could help move the club forward then they will welcome them with open arms and will abstain – almost certainly - from patriotic tub-thumping.

The most entertaining sports are usually those that allow many and varied approaches to result in success. Competitions where victory is not solely guaranteed by either the physical, technical, or tactical elements of the game, but where different combinations of all three can yield rewards have a greater appeal for one reason or another. If the weak can sometimes defeat the strong through technique or speed of thought and if the technically inferior can overcome the gifted through hard graft, we find ourselves instinctively drawn to the sport.

Take tennis, for example and in particular Wimbledon. Towards the end of the last decade, what was once the greatest tennis tournament in the world became a rather unappealing spectacle, nothing more than an event to establish who on the planet had the fastest and most destructive serve. Now that guile (Federer) and guts (Nadal) can overcome even the most ferocious of opening shots, we once again have a competition that captivates us sports fanatics.

Perhaps it’s the narrative quality of these games that engage our imaginations in ways that pure tribal loyalty simply couldn’t.

Now football is one of those sports that simply refuses to have any particular style or approach imposed upon it. It is never simply a case of having the best athletes, the most technically gifted players or the most tactically astute manager. And nowhere is this more evident than in the annually contested entertainment banquet of the Champions’ League. This week, Barcelona’s superior technical ability was undone by Liverpool’s shrewd tactical approach, whilst Arsenal’s free-flowing, fast moving, two-touch possession game succumbed to a resilient and pragmatic PSV. It was, of course, very different last year when the rampaging, attacking instincts of both Arsenal and Barcelona swept all aside on their way to the final with the latter eventually emerging triumphant.

With so many different approaches to the game in evidence, it stands to reason that sides should be prepared to alter their tactical approach in order to best challenge whoever they are facing. Horses for courses as they say. But this is not a universally held opinion and in Rafa Benitez and Arsene Wenger we have two managers who – on this issue – would appear to stand at opposite ends of the tactical spectrum. They are, if you like, chalk and cheese, although art and science would be a more appropriate analogy.

Like all Wenger’s previous teams, the present Arsenal side is indeed a work of art, and we, the spectators, are allowed to feast upon her beauty. Touched by her simplicity and graceful elegance, even rival fans are compelled to admire her from afar.

In turn, the artist, Monsieur Wenger - in awe of his creation - refuses to entertain any alteration to his work that may detract from her stunning grace. No compromise will be considered. His work shall remain intact and how it was intended.

If his creation is deemed unsatisfactory by the rules of competition then so be it. Not as long as the artist is allowed to preside over his chef d’oeuvres will any thought be entertained of ‘winning ugly’. It just wouldn’t be right. This is, after all, the beautiful game.

The only downside with this is that Arsenal, like Barcelona, are almost metronomic in their predictability. They only know one way to play and they play it very well. Many teams are simply blown away by the fluency of their movement. But every so often they come up against a side that has set out specifically to nullify their attacking instincts, a team that is prepared to cede much of their own offensive ambition in order to frustrate their opponent’s efforts. And all too often in Europe – it’s usually once a year - Arsenal are beaten by a side that they are expected to overcome.

Now let’s contrast this with Rafa Benitez’s Liverpool. The scientist on Merseyside has created a machine with many settings. And no matter who the opposition, the machine has an appropriate instruction.

His side can sit deep, keep their opponents in front of them and try to hit them hard and fast on the break, whilst being equally capable of playing an attacking, high-tempo possession game, pressing opponents in their own half.

They can play with the solidity of Sissoko and Alonso in the middle with Gerrard on the right or - when Benitez decides to go for the throat - they let their captain loose in the centre of midfield. Depending on the opposition, they sometimes look to dominate possession using Peter Crouch’s hold up play and sometimes look to stretch teams with Bellamy’s pace.

Not even the most partisan Liverpool supporter could ever describe Benitez’s team as beautiful, but they can be ruthlessly efficient. And all too often in Europe, they overcome sides to whom they are expected to fall. Barcelona can now be added to a list that includes Juventus, Chelsea and AC Milan.

The point of this article, however, is not to laud Benitez’s tactical plurality over Wenger’s decorative monism. For a start, the Spaniard’s constant tactical and personnel changes have not been an unreserved success. For every swing, there is a roundabout, and for every cup final triumph there is Liverpool’s less than impressive league form, which has led to accusations of tinkering in extremis on the part of their Spanish manager. Then there’s Arsene Wenger’s three league titles and season-long unbeaten run to consider. Although he habitually falls short in Europe, he has enjoyed almost unparalleled domestic success.

Perhaps the answer to both managers’ difficulties, therefore, lies in some form of compromise between the two polarities. Maybe Benitez should put a little more trust in the quality of a settled eleven rather than taking it upon himself to create a tactical master plan for every game. And, Wenger could perhaps add a little variety to his rather predictable, though certainly not pedestrian side.

But then again, maybe not. Football management is a delicate balancing act and success often comes down to the chance discovery of a winning formula. Who’s to say that Arsenal’s attacking instincts could be successfully curtailed or that Liverpool could thrive without Benitez’s constant tweaks?

If this has come across as an almighty cop-out, then so be it. I don’t believe there is necessarily any concrete or universal approach that either boss could swiftly adopt in order for their teams to become the complete package. And, herein lies part of the attraction to the game. The vagaries and nuances of the sport are what give it the all important narrative quality and this is why we love it.

Arsenal’s defeat to Blackburn in last night’s FA Cup replay saw Arsene Wenger’s side wave goodbye to their most realistic chance of silverware this season. Following defeats to PSV in the Champions’ League and to Chelsea in Sunday’s Carling Cup Final, the FA Cup provided the North London club with arguably their best chance of taking something from an indifferent year. Benni McCarthy’s last minute wonder goal, however, ensured that Arsene Wenger’s latest batch of exciting young talent would probably end the campaign empty handed.

It could well have been different. Had Wenger played a few more players over the age of 21 against Chelsea, they might have won the Carling Cup and had he not left out crucial first teamers in favour the youngsters again last night, they could and should have been in the quarter-finals of the FA Cup too. But such is Wenger’s way: winning trophies seems to be of little concern when it comes to the domestic cup competitions. He has always treated the early stages of the Carling Cup with disdain, and now it seems, the FA Cup gets indulged with a similar dispassion. It would appear that for Wenger winning is less important than showing off his ability to find and develop great young talent.

Perhaps Mourinho’s comment that Wenger could not be considered a great manager, as he has never won Champions' League had a bigger effect on the Arsenal boss than he would ever want to admit. Wenger himself has achieved fantastic domestic success, but he is probably all too aware that - in the eyes of the general public - his claim to greatness lies in the fact that without huge financial resources at his disposal, he has still managed to develop incredibly successful teams that play exciting, free-flowing football. He has, if you like, done a Clough and created his teams rather than bought them. For this he has reason to be proud and is certainly justified in calling himself a ‘great’ manager.

But, so desperate is he to showcase his ability to unearth and develop young players that he has become temporarily distracted from the overriding objective of all truly great managers: winning competitions. His decision to play his young players in the Carling Cup Final and in last night’s FA Cup replay at Ewood Park showed up a manager for whom personal adulation is the primary concern, with winning coming a distant second. How he would have loved to walk away from Cardiff with all and sundry hailing his ability to turn a bunch of talented youngsters into a force capable of beating the mighty Chelsea.

The Arsenal fans have shown remarkable tolerance and trust in their manager's decisions. His tremendous success at the club has ensured that the knives are not out just yet. However, if he continues to show a total lack of sympathy for the common fan, they soon will be. Both sets of supporters travelled down to the Millennium Stadium on Sunday hoping for a victory, but it was the Chelsea fans who left Cardiff celebrating another success. Understandably, they would have been disappointed had Chelsea lost the game following a decision by Jose Mourinho to play the youth team instead of his best eleven. Without wanting to labour the point, this is because fans go to cup finals hoping to see their captain lift the trophy at the end of the match. They don’t go out of curiosity to see how their stars of tomorrow will compete at the highest level. And this is why there is no justification for Wenger’s policy of blooding young players in important cup games. Although the domestic cup competitions provide the young players with invaluable experience, there are no prizes dished out for having a great side in the future, only for winning in the here and now. Chelsea didn’t use the Carling Cup Final to bed in young players and, as a result they have one more trophy in the cabinet under Jose Mourinho.

In fact, it is probably Mourinho’s success at Chelsea, combined with Arsenal’s disappointing performance in the league over recent seasons, which has led Wenger to attempt such a vain stunt. Whereas once he was universally acclaimed as the one true genius in English football, now the gloss has come off his reputation. His effort to reassert himself at the top of the football management tree has backfired and his vanity has cost the club and the fans their best two chances of silverware this season. When future generations come to pass judgement on Arsene Wenger, they will look at what he has won first and other achievements will come second. If he continues to pass up opportunities for success then his greatness will certainly be called into question