You know something is very, very wrong when the prospect of Sven-Goran Eriksson walking off into the sunset with another handsome pay-off evokes enormous sympathy.

Eriksson was vilified for taking the FA to the cleaners after stepping down as England head coach in July 2006, even though it was a settlement he was perfectly entitled to under the terms of his contract, but few would begrudge the Manchester City manager a penny should he be sacked at the end of the season, as now appears inevitable.

Given that he has two years remaining on a contract worth an annual £2.5 million, Eriksson could feasibly receive up to £5m from Thaksin Shinawatra, although the likelihood is that he will be sent packing by the club’s controversial owner with approximately a year’s money.

Which begs the question – how on earth has it come to this? Just about everyone at City, from the board, the players, down to the supporters, are asking the same thing, although only Thaksin knows with any great confidence why and, clearly, when it comes to football, he doesn’t know a great deal at all.

Eriksson achieved Thaksin’s target of a top ten finish with two games to spare and still he is about to pay with his job. Maybe now it is becoming easier to see why the former Prime Minister of Thailand divided opinion in his homeland.

Usually, it is possible to see some rationale behind a chairman’s decision to fire a manager, but in this particular case, there can be no reasonable grounds to sack Eriksson and, should the anticipated revolt by supporters come to pass if and when the Swede is removed from office, Thaksin will deserve every barb that comes his way.

It is probably not overstating the point to suggest that the day Eriksson goes is the day football finally loses the plot.

Having taken charge of City only five weeks before the start of the season, Eriksson fashioned a team out of a bunch of strangers.

Relegation candidates last term, they were still in the top three by November, and although Christmas precipitated a downturn in results, the club could still finish in the top six and will, at worst, end up ninth, the position they presently occupy.

A summer of strengthening, of optimism, lay in wait, but instead Thaksin may find himself back at square one, in search of a new manager (good luck to the man who has to follow Eriksson), while the club wrestles with another summer of upheaval at a time when it should be in the midst of stability.

This farcical situation is straight out of the Tom Hicks/George Gillett Jr book on how not to run a football club.

Still, while Liverpool supporters may think they have it bad with Hicks and Gillett, they may be counting their lucky stars Thaksin did not get his hands on the club before the Americans.

No wonder MPs want to look into the issue of foreign ownership when they launch an inquiry into corporate governance in English football.

Even if, however unlikely, there was a sudden change of heart on Thaksin’s behalf – the man is known to be notoriously unpredictable – his relationship with Eriksson has been rendered untenable.

The worst thing about this whole sordid affair is that virtually everyone at City, barring one or two of Thaksin’s acolytes, is fully behind Eriksson – from the right-thinking members of the board to the players, tea lady and fans.

Thaksin is still being schooled in the world of football and the removal of Eriksson would be the clearest demonstration yet of his naivety, but it is apparent refusal to listen to those with a knowledge of the sport that is most alarming and does not bode well for City in the long-term under the Thai’s ownership.

There are itchy trigger fingers and itchy trigger fingers and then there is Thaksin’s. Eriksson met with his players on Monday to inform them that there were grave doubts about his future and the prospect of him leaving is said to have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon.

Eriksson at least stood up for himself during two meetings with Thaksin over the weekend, when he expressed his displeasure at the owner’s claims a fortnight ago that he would evaluate the manager’s position at the end of the season, but he could probably plead his case all he wanted and it would make no difference whatsoever.

Other than having a few misgivings over some of Eriksson’s signings last summer, it is hard to understand how Thaksin could have arrived at the conclusion that the Swede was not the man to take City forward when all the evidence on the pitch suggests he is. Take the money and bid good riddance Sven, it is the only sensible thing to do.