Transfer Fallout: Curbishley and Keegan

This just in: the Abu Dhabi group have funded their own Fountain of Youth, and want to pay Pele 400 million pounds to take dip and play for City.

Okay, not so much, but after pledging a ridiculous sum on Ronaldo for January, Manchester City's new owners may not be the biggest story from this summer's transfer period.

The real trouble may rest with the long term fallout from Alan Curbishley leaving West Ham and Kevin Keegan teetering on doing the same with Newcastle. Make no mistake, the tide was already turning for Premier League managers; from a position of large scale control of a club, to just another interchangeable part in the money machine. But now, with Curbishley resigning from the Hammers, and Keegan contemplating his departure from the Toon, it looks as if we have turned the corner on managerial power for good.

This idea has existed in Italy and Spain for some time now. Managers, even those with cup and league winning success, are turned over with the regularity of an oil change on a high performance automobile. Capello left Real Madrid after an inspiring La Liga championship, spurred by star David Beckham, who had fallen out of favor with his manager. Managers in England, however, are associated with their clubs. Sir-guson at Man U, Wenger with Arsenal, even Curbishley at Charlton for all those years.

It is probably that run at Charlton that is blinding Curbishley to the reality of modern football. At his former club, he brought in the players he liked for low costs and built the team he wanted. So what's changed? He has more talent now with West Ham than he had at Charlton.

The difference lies in ownership and the operation of clubs. Curbishley was told when he was hired that West Ham was willing to spend and bring in quality players. Then comes the summer transfer period, West Ham sell two important defensive players and bring no one of note back into the club, violating the reserved manager's trust.

The same has happened at Newcastle. Keegan's reaction to the mid range signings of Xisco and Gonzalez could only mean that he was promised more and didn't get it. This is the situation we are in. Ownership changes hands or restructures their own spending policies with little notice, and taking this as a personal affront, while a natural response, is not a healthy one for a manager.

My criticism is not primarily with ownership, the fault does not all rest in the boardroom. Curbishley and Keegan should know by now that this is modern football. A promise of spending or a warning of prudence means nothing. Managerial positions are not easy to come by in the Premier League and once a manager gets in, he should see that job out. His obligation is to the fans, his squad, and himself.

Are West Ham and Newcastle tied to a mid table finish with the talent that they have, probably. By why not show what you can do with the players you have? Isn't it better to fight for a fifth place finish, than to resign your squad to not winning and give up. How much would Keegan or Curbishley be lauded by media and fans alike if either of their teams made a charge up the table?

I can understand the immediate frustration and anger over being misled by upper management, but I don't understand giving up. Cup victories and the possibility of European play next year should be enough of a goal for these managers. A modern manager should manager his players and their tactics on the pitch, everything else is secondary.

Is it fair? Is it right? Probably not, but it is reality, and stomping away from your team and your fans will not change that fact.