THERE ARE a lot of things you could say about Sven Goran Eriksson. Most of them were in fact said, and loudly, when he was being found out as England's manager. The excuses, if not the tactics, were always exquisite.

What you cannot say about the Swede is that he has failed to give Manchester City its best season in many a year, or that he knows just a bit more about football than Thaksin Shinawatra. The former prime minister of Thailand is a self-confessed dunce in that regard. He merely "wants to learn", which is nice. Yet with the typical, baseless confidence of the rich he is sure he knows enough to believe that Eriksson must be sacked.

Try this for size: the Swede is good enough for Benfica, who reportedly wait in the wings, but unsatisfactory to a man who sometimes has to choose between taking in a game or facing corruption charges back home.

True, Thaksin's "people" - the very rich always have those, too - have mentioned Luiz Felipe Scolari as a possible replacement for Eriksson. The trouble is, someone always mentions Big Phil when an important vacancy occurs. Of more relevance is the Portugal manager's determination to stay where he is until the conclusion of the European Championship.

Back in Manchester, Eriksson's players are threatening rebellion over the treatment of their coach. Another of his virtues, often overlooked, is an ability to inspire such loyalty. Fans who once welcomed Thaksin and his money have meanwhile revised their opinions. Overwhelmingly - by 97% in one local poll - they support the manager.

Consider it from the point of view of the paying City customer. Eriksson has certainly failed to improve on his side's impressive performances early in the season. But for this long-suffering support beating Manchester United counts as a trophy in itself. Duly done.

Any fan of Hearts reading any of the above might notice a few familiar elements. Then again, that sense of recognition applies across the length of England too. The tale of the rich overseas investor who sheds the garb of saviour and brings chaos where none existed is becoming all too common, above all in the Premiership, where the biggest egos and the biggest money combine.

Chelsea's support doesn't care for Avram Grant, they say. He is not Jose, therefore by definition not "Special", therefore incapable of supplying the thrilling sport that Mourinho, in point of fact, never did produce. Instead, the Israeli has taken the club to its first Champions League final and taken the domestic league race to the wire. Loser.

On this occasion, however, fans and proprietor seem to be in accord. Equally, Roman Abramovich does know his football. Yet they say he has grown "distant" from Chelsea and its coach. The Russian, it is also said, and said persistently, is toying with thoughts of replacements. Multi-billionaires like quick solutions to their problems. Sometimes they want answers when no problem exists.

Grant conducts himself with some dignity. If John Terry is to be believed, the dressing room is on his side. Yet still the muttering continues, from above and below. You can only ask one question: what more is the Israeli supposed to do?

He could try avoiding the plight of Rafa Benitez, for one thing. Okay: no Champions League trophy at Anfield "this time". Okay: an argument to the effect that he has failed to strengthen his squad in the right places and at the right moments. Okay: continuing questions over "rotation". But the words "Benitez" and "bad manager" simply do not compute.

Even if they did, would Tom Hicks and George Gillett know how to fashion a response? Would they be able to talk to one another for long enough even to make a start? Most could give them a clue: holding secret chats with Jurgen Klinnsmann behind the manager's back is in no sense the right response.

The North Americans could sell the club instead, and walk away with fat profits. Dubai International Capital is standing by for the call. But just to put Benitez in the right frame of mind to concentrate on his job, DIC feels obliged to make an announcement. Any contact it has had with anyone associated with a certain Mourinho was initiated by the other side.

The upshot is fresh speculation, informed and uninformed, hopeful or pessimistic, over the future of Benitez. Yet we await someone, anyone, capable of stating the nature of his crime. Failing to win the Premier League title is a hanging offence, after all, only for a few of the most unforgiving Liverpool supporters.

Money talks and all that, but should Hicks and Gillett really be deciding the fate of an old, great club? If anyone ever bothered to apply the test - and chance would be a fine thing - would Shinawatra truly qualify as a "fit and proper person"? Finally, observing Abramovich and his whims, would anyone still say that an influx of rich foreign eccentrics has been such a boon for the world's richest league?

This isn't racism, I hope. Britain has supplied plenty of dubious or demented home-grown owners down the years. I mean simply this: too few questions, if any, are being asked about the origins of overseas money or the intentions of its owners. Talk of clubs and their communities is always tricky, but never irrelevant. To see such things become toys for the rich, whimsical and generally ignorant is supremely depressing.

Thaksin, it is suggested (but only suggested) may have had a change of heart over Eriksson. Too late, I think, for that. Sometimes owners forget that wealthy professionals such as the Swede have options too. For Manchester City itself, however, that scarcely counts as a comfort.

Someone else will have to pick up the pieces, if they can. Someone else will have to deal with an owner's caprices. And for what? Because an individual facing corruption charges knows nothing about football. Financial irregularities are denied, of course, but for the ignorance there is no excuse.