No half-measures for Keegan

The indomitable City manager cares little for talk of consolidation. His ambition demands a place in the higher order

It is the time of year when some superstitious manager or other announces that no one at the club is even mentioning the word "championship" or "relegation" – usually when players, staff and supporters are talking about nothing else. But Manchester City, like the past, is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

For Kevin Keegan, relentlessly ambitious, money goes into the swear-box for a word that most newly promoted clubs would consider to be a highly laudable aim, especially when thrust into the bear-pit that is the Premiership. "Consolidate," he almost spat on Friday, "I hate that word. It's a horrible word. It gives people a chance just to get into that pack and stay there. It doesn't smack of any ambition."

As player or manager, Keegan has never been one to sit comfortably in the pack. But like it or not – and he clearly does not – the C word is what City are going to have to settle for this season, lying as they do below the midway point of the table going into today's home game with Birmingham City, who were promoted alongside them last May and would be absolutely delighted to have consolidated their new status one year later.

With spring dawning, football followers around Moss Side would normally expect to be living on already shredded nerves and studying either one end of the league table or the other with desperate intensity. The City defence may have conceded more goals than any team except West Ham, Sunderland and Bolton, including four in the first 19 minutes when Keegan decided on all-out attack at home to Arsenal and left Richard Dunne marking Thierry Henry ("It didn't quite work") – since the glorious 3-1 victory over Manchester United in November only six league and cup games out of 17 have been won – but for the first time in half-a-dozen years the fans are relaxed and carefree.

Keegan, used to life at (or very near) the top, with Newcastle United and Fulham, cannot get used to this stress-free existence. "I talk to supporters and read all their letters and they're delighted," he added. "But I think we should be higher. I'm not frustrated but I'm a little disappointed at where we are with the players we've got. Now I would settle for us finishing the season with a flourish, playing just a little bit better than we have been over 90 minutes. It would be a shame if we didn't finish halfway or above because I think that's where our talents deserve to be. We've been stop-go, stop-go and it's important to finish the season off properly. But there's nine games left and that's 27 points to play for and any club who put three wins together..." No, calm down, Kevin, calm down.

He does so when asked about the possibility of reaching the Uefa Cup (this season's boldly stated ambition) through the cat-flap of the Fair Play Trophy, by which a well-behaved City side could end up in the draw for a place. The idea does not appeal: "It didn't do Ipswich much good this year, did it? You'd take it, but the way to qualify for Europe is by performance. If we finished up in Europe because we'd got one less yellow card than somebody else, I don't think we would exactly be doing a lap of honour."

At least, in the first season for years devoid of serious drama on the pitch – though most supporters are quite happy to settle for having taken four points off the other Manchester team – there has been a vintage Maine Road boardroom bust-up to savour. It must be a good couple of years since the last one and this time two lots of blood were found on the carpet in the space of a week, belonging to the managing director, Chris Bird, and then the chairman, David Bernstein.

Bernstein was the man regarded as the sensible restraining financial influence, though these things are relative; "We were the third highest spenders in Europe," he admitted. In City's case, sensible restraint means limiting last year's loss to £14m, and taking on a £30m mortgage from an American bank instead of the £60m once envisaged, thereby cutting the interest payments to a mere £2.2m every year.

The security offered was future ticket sales from the new 48,000-seater stadium, built with public money for the Commonwealth Games and handed to City "on a silver platter" (Jonathan Edwards), which must delight United supporters checking their Council Tax bill.

Then there was player expenditure, of which the most conservative estimate (Keegan's) is almost £40m. Just as well, you might say, that the big spenders were not in control. Now the perception is that they are, led by an acting chairman in John Wardle, one of the major shareholders, who does not want the position on a permanent basis. A strong candidate to take over is Sir Howard Davies, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, which sounds like the sort of qualification the club (now run as a plc) could do with but may not get. Friday's Man-chester Evening News wrote of him, "Sounds a bit posh to us".

In the interim, a genuine new financial reality may be creeping in, signalled by the decision that Marc-Vivien Foé, currently on loan from Lyon, is not worth the increased price of £7.1m his club are demanding following a downturn in the value of the euro. "That shows how the game has changed," said Keegan, who nevertheless has some way to go in convincing the world he is not still the same impatient manager indulged by mega-rich chairmen like Sir John Hall and Mohamed Al Fayed.

Wardle insists he will not be allowed the run of the sweetshop, and Keegan wants to bury the notion that Bernstein was some sort of Scrooge to the manager's Viv Nicholson. Spend, spend, spend? "It's totally unfair to everyone to say it's to do with finance for players. They had a board meeting and the chairman wanted to make some changes, and he's resigned over it. I think we've done it [buying players] sensibly. Yes, we've spent £39.5m, but a lot of those are young players. Manchester United spent £30m on one player. With Nicolas Anelka, for instance, we've paid £10m over six years. And we don't have the wage bill of some other clubs.

"So to talk about us as another Leeds is very unfair to the people at this football club – and to Leeds, because they were trying to get into that 'other league' and they were the thickness of a crossbar from doing it.

"I'd have preferred it [the resignations] not to have happened, but nothing's changed for me. I like the club and I'm really happy here." As long as no one mentions consolidating.