A topic of much debate recently has been the £12 million transfer of Gareth Barry to Manchester City. This is the same player who considered - then turned down - a move to Liverpool twelve months ago.

Barry has cited that a move last year would have been wrong for him at that time. However, is moving to a supposedly smaller club now, such a wise decision? Note, I use the term \'supposedly smaller\' very loosely because we all know the sort of money City now have at their disposal.

It could be argued that there is little point in joining Man City at a time when Aston Villa are entering exciting times themselves. That said, City could also claim this as they are now back with pure Gold! On the contrary, though, City have seldom looked like a club with such millions in their bank. Do they have the quality, mentality or management to move up to the next level?

\'Demise\' may be a strong word, but is it really the beginning of a long and winding downhill road for Newcastle? Some relegatees are strong enough to bounce straight back, but do The Magpies really have the mentality to do so?

The season just gone will go down as probably the worst in the club\'s history - certainly the most costly. Not only that, but they also have the distinction of being one of the most major scalps in English football history.

Definitely not one for the CV, Messrs Allardyce and Shearer!

But where and how did it all go so horribly wrong? It has been suggested that this is the result of many years of mis-management at the club. Finally Newcastle are getting what they deserve.

The theory may be justifiably correct. However, we will focus on the season which wll prove so financially damaging to the club.

The season began poorly and just never recovered. Many teams in the past have had bad openings, but always managed to pull themselves out of the mire. It is standard practice. However, for The Magpies, they struggled from the first kick to the last.

As you would expect, many people assumed they would pull clear at some point. When Shearer took over as Manager, surely that would be the spur they needed? Wouldn\'t it? Obviously not. Shearer was unable to save the club he served so proudly as a player - the club he had loved as a boy. There was no saving this ailing club.

Not only were they ailing, but to me, it seems they were an ageing club also. Looking through heir line-up week aftre week, you could see the one-time star players sloggin it out and, to be honest, getting nowhere. The likes of Nicky Butt - a half-decent player in his youth - Damien Duff - Sprightly in earlier years at Blackburn - and Michael Owen - unfortunately injuries curtailed his Toon career and time and age has caught up with him.

Those are just a few examples of a team with no spark, a team with no energy, no flair, no desire - a team with so little will to win. A combination of these eventually led to their relegation.

Will they be back next year?

Today\'s \"What If?\" Question is:

What if Anders Limpar had not dived to win a penalty for Everton in the 1994 last day of the season?

The 1994 Everton team was one of the worst in recent history - possibly in their whole history. Relegation seemed imminent - which would have been the most shocking in a long time. Going into the final day, Everton 3rd from bottom in the League needed to win at home to Wimbledon, but also needed Ipswich to lose. Ipswich did their part and proceeded to lose their game, but Everton trailed miserably at half time 2-0. How likely a comeback seemed, given that they had to win - not even a draw was good enough.

The starting point was a clear dive in the penalty area from Anders Limpar, which led to the penalty which pulled Everton back in the game. From there, they gained the confidence to go on and score twice more and survive with a 3-2 win.

There\'s no doubt the Limpar dive (at the risk of being controversial!) was the catalyst for the recovery.

What if that had never happened? Would Everton have gone on to lose? Would they have still survived? If relegated, would they have gone straight back up? Would they still be languishing in the lower reaches of the Football League?

Please leave your opinions....

Aylesbury United Football Club were once a household name - certainly in Non-League circles, but also to an extent the rest of the nation knew of the club and it\\\'s proud traditions.

During the 1995 FA Cup run which culminated in a Third Round defeat to Queens Park Rangers, Aylesbury were famed for their \\\'Duck Walk\\\' which was performed during the Second Round victory over Kingstonian - and then replayed over and over on national television for the whole country to see.

Aylesbury United were also invited as guests on the game show \\\'They Think Its All Over\\\', further enhancing their growing reputation.

Previous historical events in the club\\\'s history include being the first Non-League club televised and the first and only Non-League club to host the Full England National team. This was just prior to the 1988 European Championships and acted as a Warm-Up game. The match itself was played at Buckingham Road and ended 8-0 to an England side which had the likes of Bryan Robson, Terry Butcher, Gary Linekar - in fact, the mainstay of the National Team at the time.

Now, 21 years on from that England game and 14 years after the \\\'Duck Walk\\\' embargo, Aylesbury United Football Club are in a time of turmoil. Having been relegated several times, they now languish in the very lowely stretches of the English Non-League. The financial situation is perilous - and they are currently homeless, having lost their Buckingham Road stadium a few years ago. Last season, they shared with neighbours Chesham United, but that tenure has come to a disagreeable end and now find themselves in search once more of a home.

How has a once proud football club come to such a state?

There have been - in the past fifteen years or so - many permanent and some temporary changes to the rule of Association Football. Some of these changes have been more successful - thus lasting longer - than others. The game of football has survived in every form for over 150 years, so why change it?

How have these changes affected the game on the whole. Let\'s discuss...

PASSBACK RULE
In 1993, to coincide with the new lucrative TV deal with BSkyB, the laws that be decided to take it upon themselves to make the most major change in football rule; The Passback Rule. It\'s still referred to as The Passback Rule, as if it\'s a single entity on it\'s own. The thrown-in rule isn\'t referred to as The Thrown-In Rule, etc. However, The Passback Rule name just stuck.

The initial effects of this rule was utter chaos! Goalkeepers just didn\'t know what to do when the ball was passed to them. There was no pre-planned kicking procedure - it was just take it as it came. This produced a whole array of memorable incidents and goals as a result. For the neutral, it was fantastic and probably produced the most exciting and goal-laden season in the modern era.

Now, fifteen years on, those days are long gone. The rule is still in place, but the modern player has been brought up with training on how to deal with these situations and goalkeepers are now more adept at kicking than used to be the case. Therefore, the rule itself doesn\'t produce the panic that it used to.

Better off with or without?
Even though it doesn\'t appear to make much difference to the game, if it didn\'t exist, we would still be with the old negative tactic of passing it back to the goalkeeper from the half-way line. The only conclusion can be that it was a very positive rule to introduce and would be disastrous to take it away from us.

TAKING GOAL KICKS
A much less remembered rule is the one which permits teams taking goal-kicks from either side of the goal. To re-cap, the old rule stated you must take your goal-kick from the side where the ball went out of play. The idea behind the rule was to speed the re-start of games up. This way you could retrieve the ball and get on with it no matter which side of the goald you are.

Better with or without?
The effects were minimal at best, but you can be sure logic suggests this rule does speed things up, if only slightly. There would be little point removing the rule.

GOALKEEPER 6-SECOND RULE
A more recent change is again designed to quicken the game. This involves goalkeepers only holding onto the ball for a maximum of six seconds. If exceeded, then an indirect free-kick is awarded. The old rule dictated that goalkeepers could only take six steps whilst holding the ball (ie, they couldn\'t run right across the penalty area with it!). This rule was hardly ever adhered to either by goalkeepers or referees anyway.

Goalkeepers are more intuned to this rule now and certainly speeds up their release of the ball.

OFFSIDE RULE
Unfortunately, we don\'t have enough time, energy or space to go into any kind of detail over the various changes to the Offside Rule! There have been so many variations and so many alterations to it that it would take another few pages to explain them all!