Heads on the block at the FA

He's currently running the FA on a day-to-day basis - his third spell in a caretaker role - and his evidence is central to the inquiries into whether Eriksson misled the FA over the affair with Davies's secretary Alam.

Davies has carefully picked his way through various controversies during his FA career - the cash-for-votes scandal, Manchester United's FA Cup withdrawal, the Glenn Hoddle diary - but it may not be so easy this time.

He has been a close ally to Eriksson, often accompanying the coach and Nancy Dell'Olio to social events with his wife Sue. It was no surprise to me when Davies stood outside the FA offices on Monday and heaped lavish praise upon Eriksson for the TV cameras.

Unwittingly, this handsome endorsement of the Swede and his achievements virtually guaranteed Eriksson a large pay-off should the FA decide to dismiss him - just months after giving him a £1million-a-year pay rise.

If the FA were hoping to get rid of Eriksson this pavement eulogy was a spectacular own goal by one of their most influential officers.
Result: Stay. This is the most serious test of Davies's survival skills and it may go to extra time. But I expect another great escape.

Sven-Goran Eriksson

Case to answer: Did he mislead the FA? Does his record as coach justify the sack?

Reading some of the headlines a week ago you would have assumed the Swede's 42-match reign as coach was over. Caught with his trousers down again, the serial philanderer was widely believed to have lied to his employers about his relationship with Alam.

For some, this was the last straw. But Eriksson insists he didn't lie when discussing the subject with David Davies. In fact, he insists he never mentioned his private life.

But, on the basis of this conversation on 19 July, the FA issued lawyers' letters to newspapers denying the affair. Then, confronted with evidence to the contrary, the FA had to issue humiliating retractions.

If Davies genuinely misunderstood Eriksson in their telephone conversation, it's hard to see how the FA can sack the Swede on grounds of gross misconduct.

Some on the board view this as simply an excuse for getting him out, just as some saw Hoddle's statements about the disabled as the excuse for sacking him. There is a growing feeling among the board that Eriksson's results aren't justifying his £4m-a-year salary.

The quarter-final finish in Euro 2004 was a disappointment but, in truth, he was just a couple of penalties away from the semi-finals. In open play he's lost just two competitive matches, though some of his tactical decisions have been eccentric and I would question his ability to react quickly to the unexpected.

But you could not argue that his performance as a coach has deteriorated to such an extent since his £1m-a-year pay rise in April that he deserves to be sacked.

Yes, his credibility has suffered and he faces a difficult time in the next couple of months. If England lose their opening two World Cup qualifiers I could see his opponents building a worthwhile case against him. But, for now, the case for sacking him is flimsy, especially after the clumsy attempt to offer him as a sacrificial lamb to the News of the World.
Result: Stay. As long as he gets his tactics right I expect him to bounce back with a win.

Geoff Thompson

Case to answer: Why did he exonerate Palios before instigating the inquiry? Has his handling of the affair been inept?

Re-elected unopposed as chairman in July for a second four-year term, he is a church-going traditionalist committed to upholding what is left of football's good name.

In his 30 years with the organisation, he has never had to handle anything like this kind of scandal involving high-profile FA personalities. He's been shaken by the experience and some would argue his leadership has been found wanting.

He stormed through the media throng outside the FA offices the other night mumbling: "I've had enough of this."

Some within the FA feel he has indeed had enough and will resign as chairman. Some feel that, whether he's had enough or not, he should resign. If he doesn't, he will have the casting vote if the 12-man FA board cannot unanimously decide Eriksson's fate.

There is, of course, another scenario in which the chairman will face a vote of no confidence from the board. As a man of principle, Thompson accepts the buck stops in the chairman's office. He must shoulder the ultimate responsibility for the farce.

His decision to absolve Palios of any misconduct - the chief executive resigned five days later - was clearly an error of judgement. His failure to similarly exonerate Eriksson at the same time appeared to load the dice against the coach. Another mistake.

There are influential figures now wondering whether he has the charisma and energy to rebuild the damaged FA image.
Result: May go. He could try to drag this one to a replay but of the three main players he's the most likely to resign.