United, Van Gaal, Guardiola and me.

While SkySports' coverage of the transfer deadline day may have now become an insipid affair to what was once considered to be genuinely interesting and entertaining, undoubtedly the story emerging out of Manchester City today is probably the most significant football news event this year. The appointment of Pep Guardiola as manager is an enormous statement for the club. Not only does it represent a profound declaration of intent among other clubs in England and across the rest of Europe, but it also highlights the relative decline in footballing means of their city rivals Manchester United.

There are plenty of column inches already highlighting why Louis van Gaal should not remain as United's manager. His poor relationship and handling of the media, his tactical intransigence and oddities, the turgid and boring football, his poor grasp and understanding of English.

Van Gaal is not entirely culpable, in fact, it is fair to say that while the current prevailing winds are far from conducive and will likely lead to his dismissal or otherwise early departure, he brought in a degree of stability to a side unnerved following David Moyes' short stint as manager. Additionally, while United's style is far removed from the teams Old Trafford was used to watching, van Gaal has strengthened United's defensive base, overseen the emergence of Chris Smalling as a international defender and brought back Champions League football (albeit with an early group stage exit to the Europe League).

United old boys have been quick to put the boot in where possible. Most notably, Paul Scholes in his punditry for BT Sport did not hide his conceit towards the style and attitude of the manager. Rio Ferdinand and former Liverpool player, manager and now pundit Graeme Souness have questioned whether United have lost their edge and leaders within the dressing room. Gary Neville pointed out that United fans should recognise that the United of old was just that, in the past. Former CEO David Gill also publicly stated that the quality of football was not what Old Trafford expect.

I think many fans recognise this and understand that 'pragmatic' football is essential for picking up points. I think United fans also recognise that the huge investment, sale of squad players and the exodus of senior players in recent years was necessary. By all means, the loss of the likes of Darren Fletcher, Jonny Evans, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra may not be ideal in terms of the match and trophy winning experience, but nonetheless, underinvestment over the medium term only allows rivals to catch up with you.

What United fans will not understand or like is why has it come to this. Why is supposedly the world's third richest club and England's most successful team slipping away from Europe and England's elite? Was Guardiola's decision a reflection of the current state of affairs? City have a better squad, bigger transfer budget, better infrastructure, while United have withered. Was United a viable option for a coach like Pep?

Why didn't United try to sign the likes of Dele Ali when he emerged last season? Would the likes of Harry Kane prefer to remain at Tottenham rather than move to Manchester? After the failed signing of Angel Di Maria, would the world's best snub United for the lights of London or other European capitals?

There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed and while the inexorable commercial success only shows what canny a investment the Glazer Family made they should also be aware that the success of the business is driven by the long term achievements of the club. I don't believe United will dissipate and fail to challenge in future, but I do worry that bad decisions and failure to acknowledge and address them is undermining the club's footballing future.

Van Gaal's tenure as manager at times was amusing, but is ultimately flawed. United will not only need a new manager come next season, but a reflection of what it wants to be.

Football's money men

Over the past few weeks there have been several stories in the back pages that have caused a great deal of comment regarding football finances and an inevitable look into how the game is run. Stan Kroenke, the reclusive majority shareholder of Arsenal said to several football journalists that the Glazer family, the controversial owners of Manchester United, had done a good job in running the football club. The American family, who bought the club through a leveraged takeover in 2005, have faced opprobrium from fans that have seen ticket prices soar and millions of pounds worth of debt secured against the club. Kroenke, who like the Glazers owns a National Football Team (NFL) in America, said that United fans should be thankful to the owners for their recent success the club has had domestically and in Europe. Last week, Newcastle United fans were venting further fury at owner, Mike Ashley, who has renamed the 119-year-old St James’ Park to the Sports Direct Arena. Ashley has never endeared himself to club’s fans and has openly been looking to sell the club to the highest bidder for the past few years; to fans, neglecting the club. Stories like this are not new to English football, yet fans continuously feel they have an axe to grind against corporate ownership, so what vision do they expect of English football and how is it supposed to work?

Some football commentators reserve certain clichés for different clubs, Everton are often dubbed a ‘well-run’ club. Most Premier League fans have an admiration for the Liverpool club and certainly believe their manager David Moyes has done a fantastic job for almost a decade. In the early years of the Premier League, Everton flirted with relegation on a number of occasions, yet under Moyes, the club attracted quality signings, reached the FA Cup Final in 2009 and most notably finished fourth in the Premiership in 2005. Put into perspective, Everton, one of England’s most dominant teams in the 1980s, have continuously punched above their weight. Yet, the club are stagnating financially compared to other clubs around them. They do not have an Arab Sheikh or Russian Oligarch bankrolling them, Goodison Park lacks corporate facilities and is in a location that would prevent it from being redeveloped. Current owner, the impresario Bill Kenwright, is openly looking for new investment but compared to other clubs, Everton are seen as unfavourable. Long gone are the days when the local rich man owned and bankrolled the club e.g. Jack Walker (Blackburn) and even the modern day comparisons like Wigan’s Dave Whelan are more realistic in what they can spend. Several years ago Kenwright, prevented the club from being sold to a Russian tycoon called Alexander Gaydamak. Eventually Gaydamak bought Portsmouth on the South Coast and with his funding they were able to spend freely on the transfer market and won the FA Cup in 2008. Portsmouth have subsequently faced administration, the first Premier League side to do so, after Gaydamak withdrew funds from the club. It is perhaps ironic that Kenwright has received criticism from Everton fans because he is more frugal on transfer policy, yet the sensible policies are seen as backward and unadventurous.

The English and the Scottish leagues are the most historical in the world and each club has a deep sense of community spirit within it. Yet, through the mass television deals that open new markets to clubs, cosmopolitan owners that come from different backgrounds and teams that do not feature a local youngster, it does make a difference to what the club means. Although it wouldn’t work, it is not crazy to believe that many of the owners would prefer an American style franchise system where clubs are relocated to different parts of the country after a boardroom meeting, the size of the UK and amount of clubs that already exist would have an effect. The issue for clubs is that prize money for the Champions League is enormous and clubs would be foolish not to chase such golden tickets. This has meant selling their history to the largest bidder, either to finish in the top four or to stay in the Premier League. Most clubs in the top two divisions of the English football league have either moved or improved their stadium infrastructure over the past two decades. Games cost between £40-£80 to watch rather than 50p at the turnstile. The sponsors are no longer the hi-tech Japanese electronic brands of the 1980s but from the Gulf Arab states. The change from what fans saw when they were growing up is profound and only highlights the difference new investment has made, yet for footballing institutions like Everton and Newcastle new money is the only way to survive.