Kolesnikov's office was straight out of the Cold War, with phones connected to the Kremlin, and a world map centred on Moscow. But it was also festooned with official Euro 2012 memorabilia. For Ukraine, it's clear that this is a big opportunity to look forward, and towards the west.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Two years ago, Uefa thought long and hard about stripping the country of European football's showpiece event, such was the level of concern following a series of missed construction deadlines and failed inspections.

After years of reliance on the federation's traditional territories of Holland & Belgium, Portugal, and then Austria & Switzerland, taking the event further east than ever before seemed too much of a risk.

But today, with work on its four host-stadia already completed, including perhaps the most beautiful I've ever seen at the reconstructed Olympic Stadium in Kiev which will play host to the final, Kolesnikov will take his seat at the draw ceremony at the National Palace of Arts and bask in the knowledge that Ukraine has proved the doubters wrong.

An ill-advised and now abandoned slaying of the capital's stray dogs provoked bad publicity and some preparations in the western city of Lviv are behind schedule but, overall, the mood is triumphant.

"If you don't bring tournaments to places like this we will never develop" says Kolesnikov. "We have built new stadia, new roads, new airport terminals, new hotels."

Twenty years after independence, Ukraine is relishing the opportunity to welcome the rest of Europe to its host cities in a way this former Communist country has rarely done.

Unlike in neighbouring Poland, where their status as co-hosts is remarkably low-key, the sense of participation in Kiev is palpable. In Independence Square a gigantic screen projects images of the Ukrainian national team.

A sparkling new terminal will soon greet visitors at the airport. For those fans with a sense of adventure, and who can handle the unfamiliar Cyrillic signage, places like Donetsk, Kharkiv and Lviv will provide a fascinating experience.

And yet, for all Ukraine's excitement and appeal to the football tourist, doubts remain over its suitability as a host.

Kevin Miles of the Football Supporters' Federation says the event will present England fans with the greatest challenge they've ever faced at a European finals.

A visit to Kiev's beautiful, Soviet-era railway station, from where antiquated trains travelling to the other Group D host city Donetsk take a full 12 hours, shows why.

Fans crossing between the two co-hosts will also require patience as different rail gauges require the wheels to be changed between Ukraine and Poland. There are still no motorways in Ukraine.

And in order to satisfy Uefa's minimum requirement of hotel rooms for a semi-final city, Donetsk has been forced to include all those within a 250-mile radius, such is the shortage.

Poland and Ukraine have invested billions to ensure a successful tournament. Photo: Getty

In Poland, the concerns are more to do with visitor safety. An Independence Day riot in Warsaw last month was a stark reminder of the kind of violence that has marred the co-hosts' football for years. May's Polish Cup Final between Legia Warsaw and Lech Poznan descended into large-scale clashes between rival sets of thugs.

Racism is an issue, too, with offensive banners and chanting a regular feature at league matches. From his base in Warsaw, Dr Rafal Pankowski of Never Again, an anti-racist organisation part of the Fare (Football Against Racism in Europe) network, tells me that more than 200 cases of anti-semitic or racist propaganda have been recorded in the last year-and-a-half at matches in Poland and Ukraine, "and that's just the tip of the iceberg".

Pape Samba Ba, a Senegalese international who plays for Odra Opole in the Polish league, has been on the receiving end. The 29-year-old has played in Poland for nine seasons, but had to leave his previous club because he was repeatedly abused - by the home fans.

"I just didn't understand why they did it," he tells me in the shadow of Warsaw's impressive new Olympic Stadium, where the tournament will begin. "This was my own fans. They would scream at me, throw lighters, and tell me to go back to Africa.

"It's getting better here, but if Poland are drawn to play against England or France who they know have plenty of black players, it could happen [at Euro 2012]."

Kristoph Pohorecki, executive director of Euro 2012 in Poland, denies that racism will rear its head next summer.

"It does happen and it is a pity," he tells me. "But Poland has a responsibility to welcome the world here. We will be very tough with anyone who spoils the festival of football.

"There will be no offensive banners or flags allowed in the stadium. Outside the grounds I do not see there will be a problem. We know how to police these events."

Poland has spared no expense preparing for Euro 2012 with 18 billion euros spent upgrading the country's infrastructure. There is a sense that they know they cannot afford to fail.

Two decades after they emerged from behind the Iron Curtain, Poland and Ukraine have a golden opportunity to live up to the tournament's motto, and 'Create History Together'.

Two countries previously hidden can put on an unforgettable show for those who travel here, and prove Uefa was right to take football eastwards. European football's elite are about to discover their Euro 2012 fate.

For Poland and Ukraine, the task of proving fitting hosts is well underway.

In the chief executive's office, Ivan Gazidis had spent the day making phone calls to agents and officials at other clubs as he tried desperately to complete the spending spree that the summer sales of Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri had enabled and which the humiliating 8-2 defeat by Manchester United had subsequently made a necessity.

A few yards away, club secretary David Miles, chief accountant Stuart Wisely and head lawyer Svenja Geissmar were working furiously, filling out registration documents and ensuring they were emailed to the Premier League. In all, 20 officials from the club's finance and legal departments were working harder than they could remember.

Deals for German Per Mertesacker and Brazilian Andre Santos had already been concluded, following Tuesday's acquisition of South Korean Park-Chu Young. But then there were the outgoings. Heading for the exit were Gilles Sunu and Joel Campbell to Lorient in France, while Henri Lansbury joined West Ham, moves that took hours of negotiations to conclude. Nicklas Bendtner's move to Sunderland and Yossi Benayoun's loan from Chelsea were yet to be completed but the signs were positive. Both would eventually be sealed in time.

Yet despite such a frenzied last few hours of the window, the mood inside Highbury House was one of frustration. The marquee midfield signing the club's fans craved had slipped through Arsenal's grasp. Bids of £5m and then £10m for Mikel Arteta had been rejected by Everton. The void left by Fabregas and Nasri would remain unfilled.

But then came hope. Arteta had apparently told Everton manager David Moyes that he wanted to join Arsenal. Everton decided not to stand in his way, so, with the deadline of 2300 BST fast approaching, the move was back on. Would there be time to complete it?

As the administrative team, led by the club's principle deal-maker, former scout Richard Law, leapt back into action, Gazidis rang Arsene Wenger immediately and told him the good news. The Arsenal manager was at a Uefa coaches conference in Switzerland but had been in contact with Gazidis all day. At this stage, neither the club's majority shareholder, Stan Kroenke, nor the club's board members were involved. There was no time for consultation. Decisions had to be taken - and fast. Shortly after 2300 BST, Arsenal announced Arteta's arrival. But how should the club's last-minute scramble to rejuvenate a depleted squad be viewed?

Pete Wood, the man behind the respected fan website Le Grove, believes deadline day was something of a reality check for the club. "On the face of it, Arsenal made great progress considering the self-imposed time restrictions we placed on ourselves," he said. "Yesterday has given me hope that a top-four finish is realistic. But does it feel like a successful summer? No. Does it look or feel like progress? No.

"However, with teams like Manchester City and Chelsea spending hundreds of millions, maybe it's time to accept that competing for the league is no longer a standard Arsenal fan expectation. That doesn't excuse the elephant in the room, though. Arsenal and Arsene Wenger have been negligent this summer. All of the business completed over the last two days could and should have been completed in June."

Tim Payton, of the Arsenal Supporters' Trust, is even more critical. "Mikel Arteta and Per Mertesaker are fine signings, but the truth is that Arsenal missed out on their preferred players in both midfield and defence, Juan Mata and Phil Jagielka," he says. "One puzzle is why the club drove through a 6.5% increase in ticket prices earlier this year, raising £4.5m in net revenues that hasn't been used."

Arsenal fans are certainly entitled to ask why, with Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov, two of the richest men in the world, as their majority shareholders, the club are now failing to compete when it comes to wages and transfers.

Arsenal's deadline day was undeniably exciting, provided a boon for their traumatised fans and has enhanced their squad with the arrival of some fine talents. The combined attacking potential of Arteta, Benayoun, Jack Wilshere, Aaron Ramsey, Robin Van Persie and Theo Walcott is formidable. But ultimately, despite the sterling efforts of the Highbury House team, one senses it is still too little and too late, judging by the expectations of the fans and set against the players the club have lost.

The former vice-chairman remains close to the man he appointed in 1996.

The pair met when Wenger was manager of Monaco and on a scouting mission at Highbury. Dein invited him for dinner with friends and ended up playing a game of charades with the Frenchman. The pair have been best friends ever since.

When Dein left Arsenal in 2007 having fallen out with the board over his backing of Uzbek steel magnate Alisher Usmanov, Wenger lost his closest ally, but they remain Totteridge neighbours and speak all the time.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Dein remains a die-hard Arsenal fan. He retains his corporate box at the Emirates and an impressive collection of club memorabilia hangs on the walls of his home.

He heard the abuse directed at Wenger by Arsenal's own fans at St James' Park last weekend and is aware that the manager's judgement, especially on transfers, is being openly questioned for the first time. And he knows that Wenger is struggling to deal with the toughest period of his 15-year tenure.

In short, Dein has stepped in because he fears for his friend and thinks he needs some back-up. The trauma of Arsenal's late-season implosion last spring, the loss of Cesc Fabregas and the impending departure of Samir Nasri have taken their toll on the manager. Dein knows that the multilingual Wenger would have no shortage of offers should he grow tired of the Emirates hot-seat, from PSG to the FA, and has stepped in on his behalf.

Many Arsenal fans have reacted angrily to Dein's call-to-arms this morning. Some, infuriated by record ticket price increases and an absent, elusive owner, claim they have every right to criticise a manager who seems increasingly delusional, stubbornly incapable of competing in the transfer market and has won nothing for six seasons.

Some believe the game has moved on, leaving Wenger behind; that the manager is a throwback and his emphasis on young players is out of touch when competing with the petro-dollars of Man City.

Others simply point out that Dein's son, Darren, is the agent of Fabregas and Gael Clichy, politely suggesting Dein should keep his thoughts to himself.

When Dein left Arsenal in 2007, Wenger lost his closest boardroom ally. Photo: Getty

But many Arsenal supporters will also heed Dein's words of caution and note that the club has not won a trophy since the man known as 'Mr Arsenal' left the club. They will also note the complete silence of majority shareholder Stan Kroenke and appreciate that at least someone is issuing a rallying cry at a critical time.

For years, Dein acted as Wenger's right-hand man, dealing with the grubby business of transfers while the Frenchman could concentrate on the actual football side of the club, which is his strength.

Wenger no longer has such assistance and many fans believe the time has come for Dein to be invited back. The suggestion even received a round of applause at a recent meeting of the Arsenal Supporters Trust.

If Dein were to come back, he would certainly have one or two ideas for how Kroenke and Usmanov, two of the richest men in the world, should spend their money. But with opposition from chairman Peter Hill-Wood and chief executive Ivan Gazidis, such a prospect remains unlikely.

Dein misses being involved at Arsenal and would love to return. Whether the man he brought to the club in 1996 is still there when and if he does remains to be seen.

"We're going to see some turnover of players, some new signings coming in. I expect it will be a busy close season for the club," the chief executive insisted.

Gazidis knew he was under pressure. Having at one stage been fighting for trophies on four fronts last season, the team's prospects fell apart following the shattering Carling Cup final defeat by Birmingham City and they eventually finished fourth in the Premier League, and trophyless for a sixth consecutive season.

That, combined with a controversial decision to increase ticket prices and the uncertainty created by elusive American billionaire Stan Kroenke's effective takeover, left the bond between club and fans as fragile as many AST members could remember.

Since then, Arsenal's fans have had to sit and watch while champions Manchester United have strengthened with the big-money acquisitions of Phil Jones and Ashley Young, Liverpool have spent similar amounts on Jordan Henderson, and Chelsea have completed the most expensive managerial signing in history by recruiting Andre Villas-Boas from Porto.

Meanwhile, at the Emirates, they've had to make do with the £1m capture of Carl Jenkinson from Charlton - and the focus of transfer activity is now on the possibility of their captain leaving, rather than any incoming new faces.

Barcelona's reported bid for Cesc Fabregas is no surprise, given their long-standing interest in bringing the midfielder home. Equally, the player himself clearly wants to return - but what may have shifted is Arsenal's attitude.

Fabregas was in Indonesia earlier this week, presenting medals at an under-14 tournament - photo: AP

My understanding is that Barcelona would like to conclude a deal when Fabregas is back in the city next week, visiting friends and family.

They would prefer to do business before he is forced to return to pre-season training in London on 5 July, enabling him to go on Barca's tour to the US, and avoid the messy, late negotiations that did little for relations with Arsenal last close-season.

So what should Arsenal do if and when a raised bid comes in? On the one hand they are well within their rights to follow the lead of Spurs when rebuffing Chelsea's pursuit of Luka Modric, and ignore Barcelona again.

Fabregas still has four years of his contract left to run so Wenger has no need to panic yet. Perhaps most decisively, if Gazidis and Kroenke think the mood among the fans is hostile now, just wait until they allow Fabregas to leave for less than his worth. They know this and may not dare countenance such a move.

However, Barcelona have other transfer targets and their maximum spend of £35m falls significantly short of Arsenal's valuation for their midfielder, and until this gap closes any deal remains unlikely.

The Spanish club knows it will get its man one day, perhaps at a time in the future when he would fit more easily into their stellar side, so their president Sandro Rosell may simply say the right things to please the club's members, but then fail to raise his offer sufficiently.

And yet, for the first time, Arsene Wenger may be prepared to think the previously unthinkable. Fabregas' recent injury problems, (he scored just three league goals last season), the emergence of Jack Wilshere and the problems associated with retaining an unsettled player may mean the manager allows his captain to leave.

Wenger may look at the way United and Liverpool have survived and then thrived following the painful departures of icons Cristiano Ronaldo and Fernando Torres respectively, and begin a much-needed revamp in spectacular style.

But Arsenal have another problem. The harsh reality is that despite being 95% owned by two billionaires, Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov, and boasting a fantastic stadium, the club is no longer in the same financial league as the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City when it comes to player wages and transfer spend.

To some extent this can be put down to a noble emphasis on sustainability at a time when loss-making has become the norm in the Premier League, and with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules on the horizon, the club's foresight should be recognised.

But just like on the pitch, Arsenal are also guilty of financial underperformance. In the 2009-10 season, for instance, the club's commercial revenue of £44m was almost half of that of United's £84m.

Seven years ago, rather than issue equity but dilute their highly profitable stakes in the club, Arsenal's principal share-holders sold long-term naming rights for their new stadium and struck a shirt-sponsorship deal as part of the same agreement.

Today, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Aston Villa all have more valuable deals, but Arsenal are locked in, hence the club's commercially-driven pre-season tour to the Far East next month, which will go ahead despite Wenger's reservations.

"We're well behind the clubs we're expected to compete with in revenue," admitted Gazidis a fortnight ago.

"We're competing with clubs who spend a lot more than us, so our spend must be as efficient as possible."

This all matters because as well as the uncertainty over Fabregas, the club has also allowed the contracts of players like Gael Clichy and Samir Nasri to run down, and both are now deciding whether to stay at the Emirates.

Arsenal are now in advanced negotiations with three key targets, with Phil Jagielka, Gervinho and Ricky Alvarez all linked with a move to the club, but many fans feel that Wenger, due to his distaste for the kind of "financial doping" he sees at other clubs, is too loyal to the principle of developing talent rather than simply buying it in.

Certainly, rival clubs have become equally familiar with the French talent pool of young players that Wenger has traditionally scoured for value signings.

Others believe Wenger badly misses the guidance and decisiveness of his friend, former vice-chairman David Dein, the man responsible for many of the club's most successful signings in the first decade of the manager's tenure.

Four years after he left the club, Dein's return would perhaps help when it comes to the issue of Fabregas. His son Darren is the Spaniard's agent, another twist in a long-running saga. Certainly, the bitter battle between Kroenke and Usmanov, who recently criticised the board for the recent lack of silverware, can hardly help when it comes to a consistent transfer strategy.

Usmanov now owns close to the 30% of shares required to be granted access to the club's detailed financial accounts under Premier League rules. He is expected to take up that opportunity in order to highlight where mistakes have been made over player contracts. Some feel that Gazidis is struggling, that Kroenke is too distant and needs to communicate directly with the supporters for the first time since taking control.

Perhaps no other club in the Premier League better demonstrates the tension between ambition and responsibility. There is tension between the main shareholders. There is tension between the board and the fans. And there is tension between Arsenal and Barcelona over what to do about Fabregas.

Arsenal's decision over their captain will set the tone for the club for seasons to come. But whatever Arsenal now does, the saga has highlighted challenging times for a traditional club struggling to adapt to the modern footballing landscape.

Humiliation, condemnation and even a hefty FA fine can swiftly follow.

But spare a thought for @theboyler. His injudicious tweeting cost him his job, and set in motion a chain of events that have now become one of the most emotive issues in the sport and even the subject of a Facebook campaign.

Dave Boyle was, until the weekend, Chief Executive of Supporters Direct (SD), the organisation born out of the policy commitments of the previous Government, and which encourages fan ownership, helping supporters to establish trusts like the one which now owns 20% of Swansea City.

Following the phoenix club's hugely symbolic promotion to the Football League, Boyle got carried away and, in heady celebration, tweeted some obscene and offensive remarks, directed at MK Dons Chairman Peter Winkelman, a central figure in the original Wimbledon club's relocation to Buckinghamshire, along with a lawyer who had been involved with the decision to allow the move.

Supporters Direct and Dave Boyle worked closely with AFC Wimbledon to assist the club in getting promotion to the Football League. Photo: PA

Then matters got more serious. The Premier League-financed Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF) on which SD depends, felt that Boyle had not been disciplined adequately, and concluded it "no longer had confidence in its (SD's) leadership and judgement". Boyle resigned, but funding of £1.2m was then withdrawn, putting SD's very existence in jeopardy.

So how much does SD matter, and should we care about its plight?

As this excellent blog by my colleague Matt Slater proves, the fan-ownership movement in football (and more recently rugby league) has had its fair share of ups and downs. But what is certain is that over the last decade, SD has helped establish nearly 200 supporters' trusts and has close to 300,000 members, forging a democratic model for mutual fan involvement. In doing so, it has managed to accumulate an enormous amount of knowledge and expertise which supporters groups can tap into when it comes to the often overwhelming task of saving their club from crisis and potential extinction. How to quickly establish a trust as a legal entity, raise funds, find a decent insolvency practitioner, deal with creditors. SD had the answers, and developed a model that proved invaluable to countless fans from as far afield as Chesterfield and Chester to AFC Wimbledon and Wrexham.

SD's supporters insist that not only is the organisation essential, it represents good value, with just 9 staff, 2 offices and a total annual budget of £800K. SD match-funds the start-up costs of new trusts up to £1k and pays the registration fees trusts must pay to become industrial and provident societies. It recently arranged a volume deal with a Manchester firm to do this, a good example of how their collective knowledge and bargaining power helps.

Quite apart from the advisory and financial role it carries out, at a time when the sport continues to find financial prudence difficult to achieve, SD's ethos of living within one's means appears as relevant as ever.

Supporters of SD stress that its campaigning work is far from over, with the goal of proper supporter representation on every board still a long way off. SD, they stress, must keep making the case for sustainability at a time when there have been more than 50 insolvencies in professional football in the last 20 years.

Others however, believe that SD's work is now done, and that the sport can survive without it. After all, the FSIF says that funding is still available to individual trusts, who can apply directly on a case-by-case basis rather than through the conduit of SD. This could be satisfactory for an established body like the Arsenal Supporters' Trust, led by highly-qualified and well-connected finance and media professionals. Perhaps less so at somewhere like Southend or Telford where SD's guidance has proved crucial. SD would also argue that such a system would encourage trusts to toe the Premier League's line.

Some have suggested that SD, as the one true voice of fans, was becoming a thorn in the side of the Premier League, whose leadership gleefully and callously exploited the opportunity that Boyle handed them to remove a talented critic, and put the organisation firmly in its place. Despite its official neutrality on the issue of ownership models, few would deny that the capitalist outlook of the international billionaire investors and sugar-daddies that own most Premier League clubs are at odds with the community-based philosophy that SD promotes. Some would add that the League's concerns over SD's governance is a little rich given their handling of crises at Portsmouth and West Ham in recent times.

For years Boyle was granted the license enjoyed by a student politician, tolerated by those who disagreed with him but who felt unthreatened. But with the DCMS inquiry into football governance expected to strongly back SD's demand for greater fan power, and the recent success of clubs with prominent trusts like Chester, AFC Wimbledon, Telford, FC United and Swansea City boosting SD's cause yet further, did Boyle and his colleagues get too influential, too popular with the media and politicians? In short, did the Premier League feel that the organisation it financed had got too big for its boots?

The League strongly deny this, pointing out that they have generously funded SD when no one else wanted to, praising its "commendable" work, and stressing that the decision to withdraw funding was taken in conjunction with other FSIF Board members. Spokesman Dan Johnson told the Guardian, "No one at the Premier League or in the broader football authorities is anti the Trust movement. The FSIF funding pot remains intact for the broader Trust movement - whether that includes SD or not going forward depends on meetings yet to be had."

Others will argue that the funding SD receives is little more than 'guilt money', and that the Premier League deserves little credit for buying goodwill, the very least the Premier League, with its annual revenues of £2bn, should do. But there is little doubt that many find it surprising that SD was so compromised by depending on the Premier League for its money, and should have found alternative, more independent sources of finance. Has its leadership brought all this on themselves, they ask, by being so vocal in their criticism of the way football is run, and biting the hand that fed them.

For what it's worth, my understanding is that talks between SD, the Premier League and the FSIF have every chance of reaching an agreement in the coming days, and funding could well be restored, saving SD and the jobs of those who work there. Certainly is not in the Premier League's interests to be accused of spitefully bringing down such a well-regarded body as SD just weeks before the Government makes recommendations on how the game should be run.

Those of a more cynical disposition may argue that this was the Premier League's intention all along, enabling them to gain the moral high ground at the perfect time while reminding their opponents exactly who is boss. Others will simply see the reinstatement of funding and the salvaging of an important organisation as a victory for common sense.

Managing its relationship with Fifa; a government inquiry into the way football is run; qualifying for Euro 2012 after England missed out on the last European Championship in 2008; finding a replacement for Fabio Capello next summer; improving standards of player discipline and behaviour; youth development and coaching education; paying for Wembley, and retaining its senior management for longer than six months.

But arguably its biggest headache is the most fundamental of all: actually getting people to play football.

The harsh reality is that the numbers participating in the national game is declining. Sport England reports those playing regular football fell from 2,144,700 in 2007 to 2,090,000 by last year. While the number of small-sided teams has gone up by a thousand in the last five years, the FA admits the number of traditional, adult, male, 11-a-side teams has fallen from 33,568 in 2005-06 to 30,355 in 2010-11, driven by a rapid fall in the numbers of 16-19-year-olds playing the sport.

It is with this in mind that the FA has launched its Just Play initiative. The aim is to arrest this decline by providing a new kick-about format at specialist centres throughout the country as well as an online tool to help adults find a place to play football near them. The target is to get 150,000 more playing for at least 30 minutes a week by 2013.

The truth is the FA is worried.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

It has already been warned by Sport England, the body responsible for investing £480m into grassroots sport through the Whole Sport Plan, that its current four-year, £25m funding stream could be cut if it cannot urgently reverse the downward trend in participation numbers.

With both basketball and rugby docked millions of pounds worth of much needed funding recently for dwindling participation figures, the FA knows the threat is a real one.

There are a number of theories as to why participation levels are falling.

Busier lifestyles and less leisure time, working at weekends, more transient communities with less volunteering, the loss of referees due to poor player behaviour, and the distractions of TV and computer games are all of course factors. There are also high costs involved in running amateur clubs. A Grassroots Football Show survey recently found that it costs clubs £2000 a season to run each team. But the state of our grassroots facilities is arguably the most critical of all.

Theo Walcott and Peter Crouch were drafted in to help launch the Mars Just Play scheme at Burgess Park in Camberwell. Funded by the Football Foundation, the facility's excellent, all-weather pitches and modern changing facilities just off the run-down Old Kent Road are sadly the exception to the rule in inner-city Southwark. Like most of London, the borough suffers from a chronic shortage of decent, well-maintained, public football facilities.

With a significant shortfall in the supply of such provision compared to demand, the city's artificial pitches are over-subscribed by as much as 40%. London has 16% of England's population but just 3% of the football facilities. Nationally, the FA estimates as many as 1.5m youngsters and adults want to play the sport but have nowhere to do so.
At a time when the sport is desperately trying to encourage more females to take up the sport (with £6m recently invested into the Women's Superleague), tens of thousands are alienated because of a lack of civilised changing facilities.
It is estimated that around £6bn is required to upgrade the national footballing infrastructure of pitches and changing rooms to bring it up to the levels of continental countries where local authorities regard sports provision as a priority on a par with health and education services.

Ironically, at a time when the onus on boosting the numbers playing the sport has never been greater, the amount of money being put into grassroots facilities is being reduced. Along with the FA and Premier League, Sport England puts money into the Football Foundation on behalf of the Government. The UK's biggest sports charity proudly reports that average participation rates increase by an astonishing 10% in areas where they upgrade or build new facilities.

But despite the vast wealth in the sport, the obvious need to reverse falling participation rates and rising inflation, the foundation's funding has almost halved from an initial £60m a year in 2001-2004 to £34m now. From its original commitment of £20m per annum, the FA currently gives £12m; a mere fraction of its income. Later this month, its board will meet and discuss cutting it yet further.

The cost of equipping clubs with goals for age-specific formats (a positive step), finally building the 'coaching university' of St George's Park and the desire to extend the Tesco Skills Programme mean that savings will be made, and I understand that the amount given to the foundation is almost certain to be cut once again to £10m, and possibly even less. Placed in the context of Fabio Capello's £6m annual salary, the governing body's contribution to the entire country's grassroots facilities appears far from generous.

Nor indeed does it at the Premier League - earning £3.1bn from its 2010-13 television broadcasting rights deal - but also investing just £12m into the Foundation each year. Some may argue the professional clubs have no obligation to pay a penny. Others would point to the money generated for a Sunderland from a home-grown player like Jordan Henderson and argue it makes complete sense to invest in the pipeline of talent.

The Premier League also gives £20.3m to the clubs' community and social inclusion schemes, £3m internationally and £8.1m to the Football League for community work and youth development, but it still represents a fraction of the vast broadcasting income it generates.

Meanwhile, the government has already cut its contribution to the Foundation to £10m, with cuts in funding to local authorities already resulting in the inevitable closure of leisure centres and pitches up and down the country. No wonder the key legacy target of the 2012 Olympics - the pledge to get one million more adults to simply be more active - has been dropped.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance says local councils put £36 per capita into sports facilities, but that still puts the UK way behind other countries we consider to be our peers - the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France and Ireland - all of whom spend at least £15 per head more. Furthermore, the UK is the 3rd lowest investor across the EU in sport from central government too.

Next month the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's inquiry into football governance is due to recommend how the sport could be run better. Increased supporter representation in clubs, greater independence at the FA, and a winter break will all no doubt be dealt with.

But the most fundamental issue of all, simply ensuring the sport is played on pitches up and down the country, must not be neglected.

After one of United's most convincing European away performances in Gelsenkirchen, last week, the formality of the second leg will surely be completed even if key players are rested.

Once a Wembley date with Barcelona is confirmed, Sir Alex Ferguson can then turn his attention to what appears to be a season-defining showdown against Chelsea on Sunday. Despite their opponent's recent revival, it is United who remain favourites, and a 19th league title, their fourth in five years, should be secured.

It is when put into this context that the true extent of Ferguson's achievements become clear but does it also demand a reappraisal of the club's owners too? The hundreds of millions of pounds of debt the Glazers saddled United with were, according to many, sure to bring decline by restricting the club's ability to compete in the transfer market. Yet United continue to accumulate silverware.

He seemed to have a point. Three draws in a row had left United five points behind a rampant Chelsea, last year's double winners. And while the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez had left, potential replacements such as Karim Benzema and Mesut Ozil were lured to Spain. The club still leaned on stalwarts like Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes and the next generation seemed raw and perhaps even a bit cheap.

Manchester United fans continue to protest about Malcolm Glazer's ownership of the club

Rooney was eventually given 200,000 reasons a week to stay and is back to his rampaging best, the likes of Javier Hernandez and Chris Smalling look like absolute steals and the evergreen Giggs has continued to astonish.

Old Trafford is a fortress again, with no home defeat in 13 months. United's away performances in Europe, symbolised by the stellar showing against Schalke, have been as good as ever. Ferguson is building his fourth great United side.

And as the club stand on the verge of another European final and domestic title, Ferguson has been proved right when he defiantly told Rooney that United remained the place to be. Have the Glazers been vindicated too?

On Tuesday I asked Ferguson whether the owners deserve more credit.

"They don't have any criticism from me or from anyone in the club. I think that's important," he said.

"I think they feel comfortable with the way the club is run and how they conduct their business. We have absolutely no problem with that. It's always going to be an outside thing."

Ferguson has hardly flung praise in the direction of Florida over the years - he is too sensitive to those who wear green and gold for that - but he was under no obligation to answer my question. Yet he chose to do so and from what he said he does appear to be genuinely comfortable with the regime.

Clearly, the manager is in a somewhat awkward position but it seems unlikely a man like Ferguson would not make his feelings known if he was unhappy.

Off the pitch, too, results are improving. In February, the club revealed overall revenues of £156m for the six months to December, up 8% on a year earlier.

Commercial sales were up 30% to £50m, despite calls by the anti-Glazer campaign to boycott club merchandise, virtually ensuring United will become the first club to make £100m a year from commercial revenue alone. And the club's debt was reduced by 9%, albeit to a still considerable £489m.

Meanwhile, the Glazers' insistence that United is not for sale, combined with this season's good performances, has meant the air of rebellion that became a feature of Old Trafford last season has subsided.

There will still be plenty of green and gold on Wednesday but the mood will be very different from when Bayern Munich knocked United out of the Champions League here last year.

If all goes to plan in the next month, the Glazers will perhaps feel confident enough to walk out of Wembley with heads held high and point to two Champions League triumphs, four Premier League titles, three League Cups and a Club World Cup since their takeover in 2005.

But then again, maybe not.

The Glazers' recent decision to sue a fan who is alleged to have published the details of corporate customers on the internet proves there is a long way to go before peace breaks out. There are still many who believe the true cost of the Glazers' ownership is yet to be felt and United's continued success is more a reflection of the frailties of their rivals, rather than the qualities of those who run the club.

"Our success is in spite of the Glazers, not because of them," insists Ian Prior of the Manchester United Supporters Trust.

"They've been very fortunate to have a manager like Sir Alex Ferguson. We should be fighting for our 20th title, not our 19th. If we'd had the money to keep Tevez and to buy a creative midfielder of the calibre we deserve, we could have done even better.

"Success on the pitch has taken the wind out of our (the anti-Glazer movement) sails. There's always going to be a large section of the crowd who are happy when we're winning and only come because United are successful, but success only covers over the cracks and delays the inevitable.

"The really big question is when Ferguson eventually goes and who replaces him."

United fan Andy Green, the man behind the andersred blog which analyses football finance and ownership, agrees.

"Nothing changes the fact that the Glazers' financial structure has cost the club more than £250m in interest and bank fees in the last five years. Vast amounts have been transferred from the fans to the owners in order to pay for their ownership," said Green.

"That money could have been spent on halving ticket prices for everyone at Old Trafford for the next five years."

In March, United's parent company revealed losses of £109m for the year to June 2010. The net transfer spend in that period was £56m, less than Manchester City invested, of course, but also less than Aston Villa and Sunderland spent.

"The truth is that Ferguson is operating on a far tighter budget than other major European teams," said Green.

"If we have been scaremongering about the Glazers all this time then I'd urge them to prove otherwise. Give Ferguson a war chest so he can buy the centre-half, midfielder and goalkeeper we desperately need. Look at the way we're limping towards the finishing line. We've won just five matches away in the league all season."

United do appear to have been fortunate that their own transitional period has coincided with Chelsea's confusion over how to integrate Fernando Torres and Arsenal's continued inability to turn potential into trophies. Perhaps the FA Cup semi-final defeat by Manchester City and the somewhat laboured display at the Emirates were a sign of things to come, evidence that United have merely been postponing the pain.

Much depends, of course, on how one measures success and who United see as their competition. In 2009, United's fans travelled to Rome full of confidence they could beat Barcelona and win a second successive Champions League final. They were soundly beaten.

The fact that two years later United will start as underdogs, even at Wembley, is telling. While Barca have invested in the likes of David Villa and Javier Mascherano, United's team is largely the same, minus Ronaldo and Tevez.

In truth, the gap between the two sides has widened and deep down Ferguson will know this. He will try everything in his power to defy it, and may manage to, but he will know United have fallen behind.

Perhaps a better time to judge the Glazers will be later this summer when Ferguson goes to the board and asks them to release the funds required to purchase long-term replacements for the likes of Rio Ferdinand, Giggs, Scholes and Edwin Van der Sar.

Will the Glazers, for example, decide they can afford the £80m needed for Wesley Sneijder's fee and salary? Only then will we discover whether Ferguson enjoys the support that chief executive David Gill insists he does.

Until that time, no one can deny the Glazer era has been successful on the pitch and the gloomy prophecies of those that want them gone are yet to come to pass. But one also suspects it could have been even better if United were freed from the financial costs the Glazers' ownership entails.

Whatever the outcome at Old Trafford on Sunday and at Wembley later this month, the Glazers are a long way from winning the argument.

As well as my blogs, you can follow me when I'm out and about at http://twitter.com/danroan

Heads would be down, the barriers up, the drawbridge raised. But not at Schalke 04.

On a beautiful spring day in the Ruhr valley and ahead of the biggest match in the club's history, Schalke had flung open the doors to their fans.

As one might expect from arguably the most popular club across Germany, with a staggering 94,000 paid-up members, 1,300 supporter groups worldwide - including two in England - and the sixth-highest average home attendance in the whole of Europe, some 2,000 loyalists had turned up to watch.

The day was proving a tough one for Schalke's fans. Their favourite son, Germany goalkeeper Manuel Neuer, had just informed them via social networking site Facebook that, after 20 years at his hometown club, he would not be extending his contract, almost certainly resulting in a transfer to Bayern Munich.

But even that news could not spoil the mood.

Just yards from the pitch, supporters enjoyed lunch at the dedicated members' club, while players chatted and signed autographs before leaving to get changed.

Nothing special. This is simply how it is at Schalke.

"If we did not let the fans come and see us, they would be unhappy."

And at Schalke, one senses that the happiness of the supporters genuinely matters.

Elsewhere, of course, clubs are not always as engaged with, or open to, those who support them. Take Carrington, for instance, training headquarters of Manchester United, Schalke's semi-final opponents.

As with other Premier League clubs, a sign makes clear that players will not be signing autographs, while imposing, high-level security prevents fans from getting anywhere near the out-of-sight training facilities. The contrast with Schalke could not be starker.

Gelsenkirchen, just like Manchester, was once at the centre of its country's industrial heartland. But the mines and steelworks have long since closed down, leaving the city of a thousand fires, as it was once known, with a 20% unemployment rate.

Still, Schalke remains loyal to the working-class ethos of the area it represents. This is a club built on fan power.

A supporter representative enjoys a permanent seat on the club's supervisory board, a body that can veto transfers worth more than 300,000 euros. Once Rangnick's predecessor, Felix Magath, attempted to get rid of the rule, his days were numbered, especially once he dismissed the club's supporter liaison officer. Having lost the fans, the man who helped secure Champions League qualification and led Schalke to the quarter-finals was promptly dismissed.

Stuart Dykes came to live in Germany in the 1980s, fell in love with Schalke and now works as a translator for the club, as well as a consultant for Supporters Direct, the network of fan trusts involved with running football clubs. "Schalke is more than just a club, it is the fans, it is the city," he explained.

"I can't think of any other club in Europe where the club is so closely associated with the community. Schalke is now one of the biggest employer in Gelsenkirchen, the area literally depends on the club.

"The club is 100% owned by the fans. Players visit supporter clubs throughout the country and fans are invited to come on holiday with the squad on pre-season training."

Dykes explains how the club were only allowed to raise ticket prices recently after a long consultation with the fans. And then the cost of a standing ticket was only put up from 13 to 15 euros. Season tickets cost just over 300 euros and include free transport to the stadium from various towns and train stations within a 50km radius.

"I used to support Manchester United but when the Glazers bought United that was the final straw," said Dykes. "I haven't been to Old Trafford since then. The second leg will be my first visit for a long time and I want Schalke to win."

Schalke's extraordinary 5-2 demolition of Inter Milan at the San Siro in the first leg of the quarter-finals was the moment the Royal Blues became the competition's dark horses. Following the return leg, which Schalke won 2-1, the normally reserved Raul climbed into the crowd, grabbed a microphone and led the celebrations, ensuring the striker became even more of a legend than his 71 Champions League goals already guarantee.

Schalke are not without their problems. Despite taking Europe by storm and with a forthcoming German Cup final to enjoy, the club have not won a league title since 1958. The success of bitter rivals Borussia Dortmund, who currently head the Bundesliga by five points, makes such perennial under-achievement even harder to stomach.

Having almost gone bankrupt several years ago, Schalke remains heavily indebted, with its finances under close scrutiny by the Bundesliga authorities. A multi-million euro sponsorship deal with controversial Russian gas giant Gazprom caused consternation among many fans, who felt the partnership did not fit with the club's values.

Seven large sections of the Veltins Arena roof are still missing, too, after snow caused them to collapse in the winter.

But nothing can tarnish the renewed sense of pride and optimism that Schalke's unlikely European adventure has engendered in this post-industrial city. Germany's original uber-club could yet enjoy its proudest day.

This may be Denmark v England but the underlying theme of this friendly is most certainly Club v Country.

With a game Fabio Capello dare not lose, the key qualifier against Wales in the cauldron of Cardiff looming into view and England desperately in need of confidence after a deflating draw against Montenegro and an insipid defeat by France in the last two matches of last year, this mid-season foray to Copenhagen does genuinely matter.

As Capello says, this is an "important moment" for England. Jack Wilshere, 19, will make his full debut for the national side and, from this point on, will be the focal point for the team, along with Liverpool's 22-year-old forward Andy Carroll, who is currently injured.

England's squad has been hit by withdrawals. Photo - Getty

The Danes are dangerous, full of familiar faces intent on making a point, and defeat would merely confirm the prevailing view that a full seven months on from Bloemfontein, England are still struggling to shake off their World Cup hangover, and move forward.

And yet despite the 2,500 away fans expected in the imposing Parken Stadium, there is a sense that this is a game that England could simply do without.

Maybe it is the number of late withdrawals, leaving Capello with a barely fit Frank Lampard as his third-choice captain, Fulham's rarely-used David Stockdale as his deputy goalkeeper and little-known Kyle Walker as the country's understudy at right-back. Not only that, the Italian has also been forced to send for Carlton Cole from bottom of the table West Ham.

Stuart Pearce has had it even worse. The England Under-21 manager had to cope with 11 withdrawals ahead of the 1-0 defeat by Italy on Tuesday night, leaving him to bemoan the scheduling of club matches.

In the senior ranks, players like Lampard, John Terry and Glen Johnson had one day to recover from Sunday's Premier League match between Chelsea and Liverpool, followed by one day of training with England before the match on Wednesday night. How can new teams be moulded and systems established with just one day of proper preparation? Capello must despair.

Perhaps instead, it was simply the number of goals scored in the Premier League last weekend, which only served to reinforce the prevailing view that club not country is now king when it comes to players' priorities.

World Cup winner Sir Geoff Hurst this week questioned whether wearing the three lions matters as much to players now as it once did - and he is almost certainly right to do so.

But with Champions League matches around the corner, title races to be won and relegation battles to be fought, is it any surprise that an international against Denmark, with no points at stake, is seen by some as, well, pointless?

At Anfield, they have not forgotten when Steven Gerrard got injured late in the game on England duty against France despite a loose agreement he would be substituted earlier.

Capello was branded "amateurish, incompetent and disgraceful" by the club's fitness instructor for having the audacity to ask his stand-in skipper to stay on the pitch for longer than an hour. And that was England v France at Wembley. Hurst must listen and struggle to take it all in.

Capello has likened Wilshere (centre) to Franco Baresi, Paulo Maldini and Raul

While England left their Hertfordshire base and flew to Copenhagen, in Westminster, the former Football Association chairman Lord Triesman sat in front of a Parliamentary inquiry into football governance and accused the Premier League clubs of being too powerful.

As he did so, in Geneva, the European Club Association (the lobby group for the continent's most powerful clubs), met and issued a stark warning that the international football calendar was already too busy and that players should be released for no more than one tournament per year.

It means the likes of Wayne Rooney, Theo Walcott and Wilshere could have to choose between representing England at the European Championships (if England qualify) or the once-in-a-lifetime experience of playing for a Great Britain side at the London Olympics.

It could become a huge dilemma but clubs pay players millions of pounds a year and can hardly be blamed for wanting to protect their prized assets.

It is against this backdrop that Capello must somehow operate in Copenhagen. Rather than a sense of excitement about whether the post-South Africa talents of Joe Hart, Wilshere, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young and Darren Bent can gel, or whether revenge can be gained against Denmark for the debacle of 2005, instead this game will be played amid a debate over whether such meaningless friendlies are still appropriate at all.

Amid talk of the slow death of the international fixture. Amid FA fears that another Premier League club might be alienated over the injury of a player. Amid a much greater sense of excitement at the best weekend of club football for years and some truly mouth-watering Champions League fixtures next week. David Bernstein, in Copenhagen on his first official trip as the FA's new chairman, would be forgiven for wondering why he bothered.

Capello and his captain said all the right things at their pre-match news conferences. There was no doubting the pride with which Lampard will wear the armband. As he counts down the days on his torturous England tenure, Capello once again wearily moaned about the lack of a winter break and the small pool of English Premier League players he has to pick from, although he generally toed the line.

The players did still care, he insisted. The clubs did still co-operate, he promised. The withdrawals were genuine injuries, he sighed. But at the same time the manager is a realist. He must try to keep the likes of Kenny Dalglish, Sir Alex Ferguson, Carlo Ancelotti and Arsene Wenger sweet. A full six substitutes will be used, he confirmed. Box ticked.

This may be first opportunity of the year to lay down a marker, with an exciting new young player anchoring the midfield and a proud new captain giving his all. It may be played after a new spirit of co-operation between the FA and Premier League was announced over the issue of youth development.

The game will be watched by the FA's new head of elite development, Gareth Southgate, whose job is to smooth relationships with the clubs over the release of players. But the recurring theme of balancing the interests of club and country resonates louder than ever.

For more than a minute, as the flashbulbs popped, and the photographers begged him to look their way, and the journalists waited to ask him their questions, and the press officers glanced nervously, he waited, and took it all in. A few yards away, on the wall at Anfield to his right, as if to emphasise the legendary status he still enjoys, and must now avoid staining, hung an oil painting of himself.

An image of a younger Kenny Dalglish, among a small row of portraits celebrating Liverpool's greatest ever managers.

These were the men who had won the title here. His was the most recent in 1989-90. Memories of the way things used to be.

This was the very room in which he had first signed for Bob Paisley's Liverpool as Kevin Keegan's replacement back in 1977.The room where, in 1991, he had announced his shock-resignation as manager, and walked away, a departure he always regretted, and from which the club has never really managed to recover.

This was the Anfield Trophy Room he did so much to fill. 19 trophies in 14 years he helped to deliver to this treasure trove, as both player and manager.

Now he was back where it had all begun.

His self-deprecating quip that if he lasted until the end of the season he would surely qualify as one of the league's longest serving managers, raised a laugh and immediately charmed the assembled media. Swiftly forgotten were the melodramatic offerings of Rafa Benitez and the tortured ramblings of Roy Hodgson, who departed after only six months in charge.

But if Dalglish intended to prove he was happy being merely a caretaker king, and to play down the possibility of a staying in charge beyond the summer, then he was fooling nobody.

The features may be older than we remember when he last spoke here, but his eyes still glint with the same steely determination and hunger.

Having posed on the pitch with the shirt he wore with such distinction, on a damp Merseyside day, Dalglish lit up Anfield as he spoke of his deep respect for the club he loves and his pride at being asked to help in its hour of need.

But these were not the words of a man content with just four months of duty.

Especially not when Damien Comolli, sat alongside him, admitted the Scotsman had the attributes required to be a contender for the job on a permanent basis and would therefore be under consideration.

In truth Comolli, the club's director of football strategy, could hardly have said anything else on such an occasion. But it served to highlight the dilemma now facing the club's owners.

He may have a Twitter account, but Dalglish is not the tech-savvy, young, statistically-minded, baseball-following manager that Comolli, and owners John Henry and Tom Werner no doubt have their hearts set on for the long-term.

The likes of continentals such as Jurgen Klopp and Ralf Rangnick are a different breed.

But if Dalglish does lead a revival in the league, and continues Liverpool's march towards Dublin and this year's Europa League final, then how can the owners deny him the chance to continue?

And what precisely would need to be achieved for Dalglish's second spell as manager to be regarded as a success?

In appointing the Kop's choice on a temporary basis, the Fenway Sports Group are storing up another big decision, another consultation with the fans, for later this year, but for now the focus is on the present, and a tough away game against Blackpool on Wednesday.

It took just 30 seconds for the romance of Dalglish's return to be put into perspective by Daniel Agger's needless challenge on Dimitar Berbatov to give away a penalty at Old Trafford on Sunday.

But now, at Bloomfield Road, the new manager will discover exactly how hard his job really is. Losing to Manchester United with 10 men in the FA Cup is one thing.

A second defeat of the season to Ian Holloway's pumped-up side would be deemed unacceptable. Dalglish's rescue mission is about to begin in earnest.

How did his his wife Marina feel, I asked, when he announced at the weekend as they holidayed in the Persian Gulf, that he had accepted the job, and would be immediately leaving for England?

"She said yes before I could!" Dalglish joked.

And maybe it was true, because he has always wanted to come back, and to help the club that stress, in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, had forced him to leave 20 years ago.

Having been overlooked for the role in the summer by the previous regime, there is genuine unfinished business for him here, and now he has his wish, he must be easier for Mrs Dalglish to live with.

When Dalglish last sat in the Anfield dugout, his team were champions. But the years have not been kind to Liverpool, and now we will discover whether this iconic figure, who has not coached for a decade, has what it takes to succeed where Hodgson, the reigning Manager of the Year, failed. It should be a fascinating journey.

To many Liverpool fans, Hodgson, for all his qualities as a man and attributes as a coach, only served to remind them of how far their club had fallen.

Like the Trophy Room in which he sat once again on Monday, Dalglish instead evokes memories of what Liverpool once was.

And inspires hope for what they perhaps could be again.

And I understand that, after undergoing a minor eye operation in Italy before the Europa League match against Juventus on Thursday, City manager Roberto Mancini will hold talks with his captain in a bid to persuade him to stay.

But should the attempt fail, the dispute between player and club will then intensify.

On Monday, BBC Sport broke the news that City are not prepared to grant Tevez his wish of leaving Eastlands in January and are bracing themselves for legal action against the striker's adviser, Kia Joorabchian, if the Argentine refuses to play or retires.

Man City fans want a swift resolution to the Tevez saga. Photo: AFP

The bigger picture is a developing power struggle between Joorabchian and City's board, especially chief executive Garry Cook. Two-and-a-half years ago, their relationship was healthy and mutually beneficial. Now it is deteriorating drastically, with the pair said to be communicating solely via email.

Having done business with Cook when he was a Nike executive in Brazil, Joorabchian, an ex-director at Sao Paolo giants Corinthians, recommended the Englishman to City's then owner Thaksin Shinawatra, who appointed Cook as chief executive in May 2008. In return, Joorabchian played a significant role as City went about their spending spree.

After brokering the £18m deal transfer of Jo from CSKA Moscow to City in 2008, Joorabchian continued to exert significant influence at Eastlands following the takeover of the club by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in August 2008.

Joorabchian was reportedly involved in the first mega-signing by the new owners - the £32.5m purchase of Robinho from Real Madrid - and was alongside Cook when City officials met AC Milan representatives last year with a view to luring Kaka to Manchester.

In July 2009, City paid Tevez's representatives, including Joorabchian, who owned the player's economic rights, £25.5m to secure his services after his decision to leave arch rivals Manchester United.

However, over the last two seasons, encouraged by City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and with Uefa's "financial fair play" rules looming into view, the club have made a concerted effort, led by City's football adminstrator Brian Marwood, to reduce the amount of money paid to agents and 'advisers' like Joorabchian.

This has paid off, with City halving their annual outlay on fees from £12.8m to just under £6m, although one well-placed City source suggested that Joorabchian resents the resultant loss of power, influence and earnings.

The club has compiled e-mail evidence which they believe proves that Joorabchian asked for a contract extension for Tevez earlier this season, contradicting the player's statement that he "could have signed an improved contract, offered by the club this season". They also point to Tevez's purchase of a second home in Manchester as evidence that the player is not necessarily intent on leaving the area and that other forces may be at play, namely Joorabchian's desire to engineer another big-money move. Joorabchian, they point out, also advises Mark Hughes, who was sacked by City last season.

City are upset by what the official described as "contradictory messages" coming from the Tevez camp. First, the striker was homesick and unhappy with Mancini. Then he had no personal gripe with the manager, blaming instead a rift with senior executives, a claim described as "ludicrous and nonsensical" by a City insider.

On Sunday, City went public, stressing in a statement that they were "particularly disappointed" by Joorabchian's role in the Tevez affair. Tevez said he "hugely resented" the suggestion he had been unduly influenced but there is a feeling at City that it is Joorabchian, more than Tevez, who is the problem.

Some may understandably ask precisely what City expected when they signed the Argentinian given Joorabchian and Tevez are no strangers to controversy. They first teamed up after the businessman's MSI company bought Corinthians in 2004 and secured the economic rights to the striker.

Two years later, Tevez was sold to West Ham and helped them stay in the Premier League, although the club were subsequently fined £5.5m for breaking rules on third-party agreements regarding player transfers and sued by relegated Sheffield United.

Tevez then joined Manchester United only to leave after a successful two-year 'loan spell' and despite the offer of a lucrative five-year contract and a £25.5m fee. United boss Sir Alex Ferguson hinted that Joorabchian's role in the player's contract negotiations had proved an obstacle to striking a deal.

Having been forced to sell Robinho to AC Milan this summer for half of what they paid for the Brazilian, City are in no mood to roll over again. The club are prepared to sell Tevez in the summer, on their terms, but not in January.

If Tevez is as unhappy about staying in Manchester as his associates suggest and refuses to play or retires, the club say they will sue for breach of contract, seeking tens of millions of pounds in compensation from Joorabchian himself. Given Tevez has three-and-a-half years left to run on a five-year contract worth around £10m a year, that could amount to a claim of around £35m.

A loan deal similar to the one agreed with Santos for Robinho is still possible as a compromise, but Dr Gregory Ioannadis, a lecturer in sports law at Buckingham University, fears the Tevez camp could ultimately win the day.

"If Tevez refuses to play or quits, breaching his contract, then that contract is rendered void and, because of the Bosman Rule, Tevez could then go and play for whoever he wants," said Ioannadis.

"It would then be normal for that club to pay the compensation. Ultimately the power lies with the player so clubs therefore are best advised to sell as soon as possible. The player's value will only decrease if he just sits in the stands.

"City could claim for compensation - and seem prepared to do so - but Fifa are unlikely to award the City the amount they would want. I would expect City to have to seek recourse at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. I still believe the most likely outcome is that Tevez will be sold in January."

Sources close to Joorabchian say he remains friends with City's owners but that he feels he has been "betrayed" by Cook, blaming him for the dispute over Tevez escalating. They point to the unhappiness of other key members of City's squad as proof that Tevez is not alone in the way he feels about his chief executive.

They also insist that Cook has gone back on certain commitments made to Tevez when he signed. The Tevez camp believe City are bluffing over their refusal to sell next month and are simply playing hardball in an attempt to keep any transfer value as high as possible. Tevez, they say, simply hates life in Manchester and is intent on living somewhere where his ex-partner will be prepared to base herself and give him access to his children. Namely Spain.

Two months ago, Mancini was asked whether he would be interested in signing Wayne Rooney after the United striker refused to sign a new contract at Old Trafford. The Italian's prediction that United would bow to the player's demands and that Rooney would stay proved accurate. At the time, Sir Alex bemoaned the role of Rooney's agent Paul Stretford. Mancini would be forgiven for feeling the same about Joorabchian.

City may rely on Tevez even more that United do on Rooney. The difference between the two clubs is that City may make a stand.

UPDATE 1300 GMT

Tevez is training with his Manchester City team-mates.

It was obvious something was wrong when the Governor of Rio de Janeiro made a dash for the exit. Sergio Cabral was a special guest at the opening ceremony of Soccerex, the global business of football convention that had descended upon Rio and was based in a luxury hotel a few yards from the Copacabana.

Surrounded by aides and bodyguards, he had only been seated for a few minutes when suddenly - and without warning - he was swiftly ushered out of the auditorium and away, leaving organisers in disarray, chaos in his wake and our hopes of an interview dashed.

Later, the reason became clear. Rio was gripped by a state of emergency. The authorities' pacification programme across the city's notorious favelas had sparked a wave of retaliatory violence.

For years, gangs have enjoyed sovereignty over these unauthorised, sprawling shanty towns. Now, with the two biggest sporting shows on earth looming into view on the horizon, efforts to gain control of the slums and crack down on the city's no-go areas had intensified. But the drug lords were not going quietly.

This was not the image of Brazil that the Government would have wanted hundreds of football's wealthiest and most influential figures to witness.

In a city defined by inequality, where rich and poor live in stunning proximity, Soccerex got back down to business on Copacabana beach, minus the governor.

Inside the VIP lounge, England's 2018 World Cup bid international president David Dein brushed shoulders with former Fifa President Dr Joao Havelange. In the main conference hall, international stadium designers, kit manufacturers and security firms were vying for fresh business. Bid nations Qatar, Russia, Korea and Netherlands/Belgium had impressive stands, their campaigns for Fifa 's favour on Thursday in Zurich entering the final straight.

Outside on the beach, legendary players from across South America had been flown in to play a veterans' tournament. The annual jamboree of football's business community was recognition of Brazil's status as the focus of the sporting world for years to come. World Cup in 2014. Olympics in 2016. The opportunity to provide further impetus to an already giant economy appeared obvious. Brazil's tourism minister spoke proudly of forecasts that the numbers of visitors to the country would double from next year.

But then came the reminder that not all in Brazil is perfect.

Danny Jordaan faced similar concerns in the build-up to South Africa 2010, a tournament he helped to ensure passed off peacefully despite the dire predictions of some. He issued the following warning: "Brazil must be the envy of the sporting world holding both events, but you can't have a celebratory event without it being safe.

"All of the components of organisation have to be wrapped in a security plan - and this must integrate all the components and get levels of personnel up. When there's a physical presence on the streets, it makes people feel safe. I acknowledge there are challenges, though, and there's some way to go."

The message could not have been clearer: Get a grip or risk way fewer visitors

A few paces from the thousands of sun worshippers on a packed Flamengo beach is a small clue as to why Brazil has, for decades, been so bountiful in the production of raw, footballing talent.

Pitches stretch for as far as the eye can see. Small-sided pitches. Places where touch, technique and skill - not strength and pace - are rewarded. Each one is full with children. All are free. Those who cannot find space to play wait patiently outside, watching, studying, learning. The pitches are in use almost 24 hours a day. Even in the early hours, when the doormen, waiters and kitchen staff of the nearby district of Ipanema engage in 4am kick-abouts on a nightly basis once their shifts end.

Some of the teenagers wear out-of-date strips representing the giants of the domestic championship; Flamengo and Fluminense of Rio de Janeiro, Corinthians and Palmeiras of Sao Paolo, Internacional, and Santos. Many are barefoot. But hope and inspiration accompanies every kick of the ball.

Three-and-a-half years into the future can seem like a lifetime at that age but the young hopefuls of the Flamengo beach pitches already have their hearts set on 2014 and the first World Cup in the spiritual home of football since 1950.

Here in a country where star players are produced, selected, sold on to Europe and then replaced with remarkable speed and regularity, many dream of playing in the finals. Others display surprising maturity as they talk of their expectation that the event will spark much-needed investment in the city's infrastructure, hospitals and sports facilities.

Rio's iconic Sugar Loaf mountain had been hired by Soccerex to host a lavish ceremony honouring Brazil's 1970 World Cup-winning team.

Despite being in pain from an old knee injury that needs an operation, the legendary former captain Carlos Alberto dealt patiently with the requests for autographs and photographs. Hosting the World Cup again will, he said, be "a dream for us". He added: "We lack so many things here; we need more airports, better infrastructure, decent roads. It will force the Government to help the people."

His words ring true in nearby Cantagolo, one of the thousand favelas within Rio. Perched precariously on the steep slopes of a hill, this impoverished community has benefitted from some of the £1bn of investment being pumped into Rio as Brazil looks to upgrade before the world comes to visit.

A new public elevator has been opened, allowing residents to access their homes 300ft above the street quickly, freely and safely. Cantagolo has been successfully pacified, crime is down and tourism has been introduced, with guided tours around the slum.

This is merely scratching the surface, of course, and one suspects that those favelas closest to the city centre, the ones most starkly in view of the tourists, will be those most likely to receive such assistance. But it's an encouraging start.

A few miles away, the Maracana undergoes a transformation. This vast arena, a gigantic bowl of a stadium, is being prepared to stage both the World Cup final in 2014 and the opening ceremony of the Olympics two years later. The entire lower tier of the gigantic stands have been reduced to rubble but work is on time. Elsewhere, the progress report is less encouraging.

In Sao Paolo, there's gridlock. Above the infamous traffic jams, helicopters criss-cross the skies, the preferred mode of transport of the rich elite in South America's biggest city. It's a vivid illustration of the strain the country's outdated infrastructure is under.

At a discreet training ground belonging to Palmeiras, Sao Paolo manager Luiz Felipe Scolari tells me of his concerns. "We need to start," he grumbles. "Time is running out. We only have three-and-a-half years and if we do not start work there will be problems." Many agree with him, including Fifa, which is known to be unsettled by Brazil's lack of progress. Winning the right to stage the event back in 2003 effectively uncontested appears to have resulted in a lack of urgency over the last seven years.

Towards the south-west of the city lies the Morumbi stadium, home of Sao Paolo. The antiquated ground has now been rejected by Fifa as a World Cup venue after years of foot-dragging and a brand new venue must be built from scratch on the other side of the city in partnership with the Corinthians club . Elsewhere, stadia construction and improvements are proving a huge drain on public finances. Money many believe would be better spent on alleviating the widespread poverty throughout the country.

The lack of private funding tells a story. Companies do not believe that once the World Cup is over, the stadia will be full enough to make money. It seems a surprise in football-mad Brazil but the average attendances for matches in the Brazilian national championship are a paltry 14,000, largely down to high ticket prices.

Elephants are not known to be native to Brazil but it seems the white breed could soon be. An official report by a federal finance watchdog has warned that the host stadia in Brasilia, Cuiaba, Manaus and Natal are all at risk of losing money following the 2014 tournament, with all four locations lacking a significant enough football tradition.

Other challenges face the teams who qualify for the tournament. In a country the size of a continent, the equatorial venues in the north, where temperatures stay hot throughout the year, will be very different from the colder south, where temperatures could be freezing. Transporting squads and their fans around Brazil once the knockout rounds are complete will not be simple.

Back at Soccerex, suddenly there was a commotion as light bulbs flashed. Amid a crowd, the undisputed boy prince of Brazilian football, Neymar, even more popular since staying at Santos and rejecting Chelsea's advances this summer, had made a surprise appearance.

Flanked by his father and agent, the teenager seemed unconcerned by the attention but the scene served to demonstrate the kind of burden Brazil's players will be under come 2014. Surely no team will ever have played under more pressure.

Some 64 years after they clutched defeat from the jaws of victory against Uruguay when winning their own world Cup seemed a formality, the five-time winners will have a chance to exorcise the demons of 1950. Mano Menezes is rebuilding his side around the youthful talents of Neymar, Ganso, Pato and Thiago Silva. Brazil simply have to win their own World Cup. But not just on the pitch. Off it as well.

None would have known to thank him.

But as Philip Hall took his seat in the Anfield Directors' Box for the match against Blackburn, he allowed himself a smile of satisfaction.

As the man who brokered NESV's dramatic takeover of Liverpool, the Senior Partner of American investment bank Inner Circle Sports knows better than most what went in to the club's change of ownership. For months, Hall worked tirelessly, desperately scouring the world for somebody who would buy the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Now, finally, he could reflect on the fruits of his labour.

"It felt like the end of a journey for me," the Harvard MBA graduate says in his soft Manhattan accent.

"Anfield is always a very special place to take in a match. It was good to see familiar faces and most importantly for the club to get three points. Gerry Marsden's rendition of You'll Never Walk Alone in person was particularly moving. Tom and the other attendees from NESV were in awe of the atmosphere. They spent a few minutes with manager Roy Hodgson after the match to congratulate him on the victory and to get his take on how it went."

Back in 2007 it was Inner Circle themselves who had introduced Hicks and Gillett to Liverpool as the men to carry the club forward. Some would suggest that Hall and his colleagues had a responsibility to help bring an end to the controversial regime they had helped put in place in the first place. But, with the threat of a $1.6bn lawsuit hanging over the club and the takeover, Hall is understandably diplomatic and sympathetic towards the former owners.

"George and Tom were well-intentioned and wanted the best for club but a number of events conspired to not allow them to follow through" says Hall.

"The relationship between both themselves and with former Liverpool boss Rafa Benitez was difficult."

Liverpool's co-owner Tom Werner enjoys a taste of the unique atmosphere at Anfield

Inner Circle are effectively a football finance 'dating service', bringing clubs and potential investors together, not only in the US but increasingly in Europe. Having overseen the sale of Liverpool to Hicks and Gillett, the company then focused on arranging Ellis Short's takeover of Sunderland and began work on finding a new buyer for Sheffield Wednesday. But even though Hall stopped working for Hicks and Gillett in 2008, he maintained key relationships with senior figures at Anfield, constantly looking out for someone with the money to buy the club.

"I kept working talking and working behind the scenes" he commented. "I always hoped this day would come. It's a huge sense of accomplishment. I had a good relationship with NESV and three months ago I started talking to them seriously about the possibility of a deal. Three weeks ago we came to London to agree a purchase with the club's board. A lot of people played key roles, including the team from Shearman & Sterling (the corporate lawyers advising NESV), but then obviously things got delayed."

Hicks and Gillett's opposition to the £300m sale to NESV meant that the purchase Hall had brokered went down to the wire as the drawn-out dispute was dragged through courtrooms in London and Dallas.

"It was very difficult, hearing about all this back in the US" he says.

"I was waking up at 2am to read reports in the media. It was an emotional rollercoaster but in the end it was a great result. This was the culmination of two years hard work, of countless meetings and phone calls. It tugs at you a little bit because I knew how much Liverpool fans wanted this to be done."

Hall, whose interest in European football stems originally from his Leeds-born father, understands the reservations of Liverpool fans who are wary of another American, introduced and advised by the same company that brought about the previous regime, but he insists Henry and his associates can be trusted.

"This is not some fantasy. NESV is a very strong business which underpins their investment. NESV are fiercely competitive, they want to win and understand the frustration of Liverpool's fans. They will do the right thing.

"They won't be a Sheikh Mansour or Roman Abramovich, they'll take a more holistic approach, applying sound business judgement on all aspects of the club, including what to do about a stadium. It's not going to be easy but they're here for the long-haul. They're not interested in a 'quick flip' sale in a year or two. They want to turn this around, right the ship and win. Debt will not be an issue, they do not believe in building brands with leverage."

Hall believes the new owners will give Hodgson time and listen and take a long-term perspective as they seek to usher in a revival at Anfield - but should Liverpool supporters expect an influx of signings in January?

"They should be patient" says Hall.

"The summer is when there may be a surge, rather than the new year. These are well-intentioned individuals but above all they are winners. Look at what they've done at the Boston Red Sox. They are intensely competitive."

With Liverpool, Manchester United, Sunderland and Aston Villa all owned by Americans, and Stanley Kroenke hovering just short of the shareholding level which will force him to make an offer for all other Arsenal shares, the influence of the United States over the Premier League is growing. So does Hall believe the trend will continue?

"The challenge is that only a few of the Premier League clubs have the global brands and international resonance that US investors are looking for.

"However, the game in England is still 10 to 15 years behind the US when it comes to the commercialisation of sports so the Premier League remains an intriguing proposition."

According to Hall, in Liverpool NESV saw a similar "unpolished diamond" that the Boston Red Sox represented when they were bought in 2002. Two world titles, a renovated stadium and a reinvigorated business swiftly followed. If the same can be achieved at Anfield, Liverpool supporters might spare a thought for Hall and the 'inner circle' behind John W Henry's arrival.

You can follow me at twitter.com/danroan

The discussion, which took place on Thursday afternoon, was reminiscent of a conversation John Terry had with Roman Abramovich when the Chelsea captain was talked out of leaving for Manchester City last year and it saw Rooney finally receive the assurances he required over future investment in the club's squad.

The phone call between star player and owner could be the most important element of a traumatic week for Sir Alex Ferguson, if it does indeed usher in a renewed period of spending by the club despite its £720m debts.

United co-owner Joel Glazer, and his brother Avi, have come in for a lot of criticism Photo: Getty

The first seeds of a U-turn were sown earlier that day, when Rooney spoke to Ferguson at Carrington, United's training complex. Prior to that, events the previous night had given the player pause for thought.

On Wednesday evening, Rooney had overshadowed the Champions League match against Bursaspor by confirming in a staggering statement his desire to leave United.

It publicly disputed his manager's version of events, and effectively accused the club of stagnation. Sources close to Rooney suggested there was no going back, and the statement seemed to confirm it.

However, fierce anti-Rooney banners in the stands during the game, the sinister visit of a gang of hooded members of the Manchester Education Committee group of hardcore fans to his Prestbury mansion, and an ominous death threat scrawled over the facade of a local Nike store had made Rooney think hard about his stance, and the consequences of a mega-money move to arch-rivals Manchester City.

For the first time since contract talks had stalled in August, Rooney was prepared to at least look at what United would offer him to stay.

At 1145 BST on Thursday, having persuaded Rooney to reconsider and talk directly to the most senior member of the Glazer family once Florida had woken up, Ferguson drove out of the Carrington training ground past the ranks of camera crews and journalists camped outside.

Rooney went home via a discreet back entrance to the training ground and asked his agent, Paul Stretford, to attend meetings at Old Trafford with Ferguson and chief executive David Gill. A conference call with Joel and Bryan Glazer was set up to inform them of events.

Ferguson stayed at Old Trafford for little more than an hour before leaving Gill and Stretford to thrash out the deal.

Negotiations did not take long because Gill had prepared the deal back in August.

This, however, was the first time Stretford and Rooney had given the club a chance to put a contract on the table. Win bonuses and other variables mean the five-year contract is worth between £150,000 and £180,000 a week.

Rooney then spoke directly to co-Chairman Joel Glazer, who told him United would remain in the market for the world's best players despite the departures of Carlos Tevez and Cristiano Ronaldo last year.

Having had the conversation, Rooney told Stretford of his desire to change his mind.

With solicitors from Manchester-based firm Brabners Chaffe Street working on the legal aspect of contract overnight, a holding statement was issued by the club at 1900.

The deal was finalised on Friday morning, with United confirming the news at 12.37 before Rooney signed the contract at Old Trafford and told the fans of his astonishing change of heart via MUTV.

The precise details of Rooney's chat with Glazer and the promises he was given by the American owner will remain a mystery, but having appeared to hold the club to ransom in such an apparently ruthless fashion, all but written off his team-mates, and accused his manager of getting his facts wrong, Rooney could now struggle to repair the damage done to his reputation, a reputation already stained by allegations of lurid off-field antics, and a dramatic loss of form.

Rooney had a point when he voiced concerns over United's ability to compete with richer, less indebted rivals. But by performing his volte face so swiftly, he leaves himself wide open to accusations of greed and brinkmanship.

1830 BST update

United's image could also be in serious danger of being affected by the saga. Many feel their willingness to bend to Rooney's demands in a way the club has never done before for any player is unbecoming for a club of their stature.

Had Ferguson done what many expected and wanted, and shown the striker the door, he would have lost a great player and given a boon to those who believe the club, under the Glazers, is on the decline.

Rooney might joined Manchester City to the distaste of United's followers, but at least their pride and trust in the integrity of the club would have been preserved.

Many feared that if Rooney was allowed to leave, despite what he said this week, United's standing in the game would suffer. By allowing him to stay, the damage done could in fact be much worse.

So now we knew. There would be no evasion. No blackout. No swerving the issue. Sir Alex would be addressing matters head on.

An expectant hush fell over the massed ranks of journalists, photographers and film crews crammed into the Europa Suite at Old Trafford. Pre-match press conferences ahead of Champions League group games increasingly have an air of the routine about them but not this one.

After 10 minutes of obedient, almost token queries about the qualities of the Turkish visitors and United's recent defensive lapses, John O'Shea was sent out of the room and Sir Alex was left alone to speak.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

As well as attending many Manchester United press conferences in recent years, two seasons ago I had the privilege of interviewing Ferguson on a one-to-one basis immediately before and after Premier League matches.

At the time, United were locked in a title race with arch rivals Liverpool and the pressure was on the manager. But regardless of the result or the opposition, he was always firmly in control, forthright, self-assured, almost menacing in his certainty.

But on Tuesday I witnessed a Ferguson I had never seen before. Crestfallen, befuddled, exasperated, he took on the air of a heartbroken father, saddened and stunned by the wayward antics of a favourite son.

At one point, having abandoned the piece of paper from which he had initially intended to read, Sir Alex fell silent, apparently lost for words. He appeared close to tears. For the first time in his long reign at Old Trafford, the manager seemed to have no answer to the simple question: "Why?"

On the face of it, Ferguson's pain over Rooney's decision to leave is understandable. Perhaps more than any other player the Scot has coached, Rooney seems to be a man cut from the same cloth. A working-class warrior from the bleak streets of Croxteth, here was a naturally gifted, intensely motivated man, driven not by greed but by the sheer love of doing what comes so naturally - simply playing and scoring goals.

In wanting to leave, Rooney appears to betray those qualities, living up to the image of the modern professional footballer. And in doing so, he leaves his manager in shock.

For now, Ferguson's extraordinary press conference will ensure he claims the moral high ground in the eyes of United's fans - he is bound to receive rapturous applause before Wednesday's Champions League game with Bursaspor.

And yet, in reality - and Ferguson knows this - Rooney's decision is entirely consistent with the defining principle that he applies to his profession. Anyone who has ever witnessed the terrifying, selfless commitment with which he treats every training session knows above all that Rooney wants to win. To say this is just a mercenary, available to whichever club will offer the best deal in town, is too simplistic.

Rather, ambition more than avarice has dominated Rooney's thinking. Sure, Rooney and his advisers will be aware that less talented players like Yaya Toure are on more than double the Englishman's wages at Manchester City. While not being able to match such eye-watering amounts, it is clear United are prepared to offer Rooney significantly more than the £90,000 a week he currently enjoys. Yet he still wants to leave.

Ferguson may lament the influence of agents like Paul Stretford and wage inflation. But, as far as Rooney is concerned, this misses the point. At 24, the striker knows his next long-term contract could be the last of his career and will have asked himself whether United, saddled with vast debt and soon to be without the guidance of their great manager, will be the dominant force going forward that they have been in recent years. It is my understanding Rooney has looked at the evidence and decided the answer is no.

Rooney's representatives first told United's chief executive David Gill of his reluctance to sign a new contract on 14 August. The reason it remained a secret was because, at that point, the player's departure from Old Trafford was still far from certain. If it had been, then, with two weeks of the transfer window still to go, would Rooney not have been sold there and then before his value dropped further?

Ferguson's disappointment at lurid allegations over the striker's private life was not the deal breaker that it could have been. Nor was Rooney's public contradiction of his manager's assessment of an ankle injury. Neither issue helped matters and made the breakdown in negotiations harder to salvage but they were not decisive, hence Ferguson's admission that "the door remains open".

Above all, Rooney is troubled by United's failure to replenish their squad. For years, Ferguson has forged great teams and then replaced them with others, always regenerating, developing, poaching, selling. But, with United having to service huge interest repayments and contending with £80m losses, that process has slowed.

At the end of last season, after losing in the Champions League quarter-finals and relinquishing the Premier League title to Chelsea, Rooney will have looked at Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs and Gary Neville and wondered who the club would be bringing in to replace these great servants.

While all fine prospects, it is doubtful whether the arrival of Javier Hernandez, Chris Smalling and Bebe will have satisfied the striker. United appear just as reliant on their old guard as they did a year ago - and this will have proved decisive in Rooney's thinking.

Ambition brought Rooney to United in the first place. Ambition on the part of the player, who left the club he had followed as a boy. And ambition on the part of his manager, who recognised the innate genius of the stocky teenager and ruthlessly stole a prized asset Everton had nurtured and honed.

In little more than a year, Ferguson has been powerless to prevent the departures of Cristiano Ronaldo and Carlos Tevez, both players the manager admires. I understand nothing that Ferguson said on Tuesday has changed Rooney's mind. Soon he will be gone, too, and it will hurt the manager in a way he has not experienced before.

The pursuit of success still defines Ferguson but for United there are other considerations, other pressures at play. United are restricted in a way that the wealthier Manchester City are not. One senses that the balance of power is shifting both in English football and perhaps Manchester itself.

Great players have come and gone at Old Trafford in the past but Rooney's impending departure is different and starkly telling.