Oh you're all mocking but on radio 4 this morning they had a respected journalist from Spain on (cant recall who) saying that if the Pellegrini deal doesnt go through - which isnt certain as he hsa said if he gets assurances over financials then his preference is to stay - then he knows for a FACT that Rafa is nailed on plan B.
Benetez is a far better option than Pellegrini. Man City wont make top 5 next season with Pellegrini in charge, Pellegrini could well be the New Ramos.
http://sporcle.com/games/ben11/benitezsigningsliverpool Have a crack at that and then try and convince me that Sheik Mansour should trust Benitez with his fortunes. 6 years as Liverpool boss, 76 signings. I supposed we should thank him for bringing Hobbs through though. Bear in mind that Fergie signed only 109 in 26 years at united...
Must just be me who thinks Benitez has been a paranoid laughing stock since approximately 2006, then. Not that I'm sold on Pellegrini - my mocking was reserved solely for Benitez. I think this Chelsea squad is shaping up well and if they were to sign Falcao they'd win the title next season. They might even do it with Ba up top. [Edit: Or indeed Lukaku!]
He had targets and failed to achieve all but one of them (CL Qualification), if you failed to do almost everything asked of you over a 12 month period in your job you'd get the sack too. Not saying I agree with it, but in any other context this would be fine.
The problem is its a ridiculous target. Winning a league is never easy, the PL especially so. You might have a great side, but there's always Man United and Chelsea to thwart you.
Quite possibly, I'm not saying I agree but he will have known that before the season started and before he took the job. Sometimes it's hard to define right and wrong when it comes to sacking or sticking with managers, it's a gamble either way. Arsenal have stuck with their manager and won **** all for nearly a decade, Chelsea have had 10 or so managers in that time and won almost every available trophy.
I doubt that was the only target, I'm sure one of the cups and progression into the knock-out stages of the champions league would have also been a requirement.
This is where football is messed up. In any walk of business you should be held accountable and if you're not up to scratch, generally you're shown the door, however in football you're gifted with a golden handshake! Bonkers! Players and managers a-like move around and are not always able to replicate their passed success, or live up to their hype (Zaha over the next couple of years??). Is that the fault of the individual, the manager\players, the surroundings? Should the clubs have the ability to terminate their contracts without these massive pay-offs if they arent doing their jobs?
According to the reports and interviews on BBC he was sacked because he had lost the dressing room and his publicised spats with players, notably balotelli. The board are also referring to an holistic approach being taken throughout the club rather than just the first team and mancini didn't fit that role. Failing to hit a target is unlikely to be a sackable offence in one year. A target is an aspiration not a condition. If man city didn't win a trophy in several years I would understand it being the reason.
But the reason for that is obvious. Arsenal pretend to be a big club but at the moment they're nothing compared to Chelsea and the Manchester clubs. They have money but don't spend it and players regularly leave them for bigger clubs. If and when FFP kicks in they might benefit and be a force again, but until that or something else changes they're simply not title challengers any more. Chelsea have money and players who are good enough to win trophies, so they have done. The managers don't come into that comparison.
They have that ability if they set the contracts out to include it. Fact is, no player would sign for Man U if that was in the contract and Man City were offering the same terms without that clause because they don't mind paying him off. So competition dictates that players and managers get the best deal for themselves and rightly so.
If you look at the last decade, the first 5 years Arsenal had a team that was more than capable of challenging for trophies, it's only been recent years when they've lost key players, so that's not really valid reasoning. Money and players are not solely responsible for winning things as Man City and Chelsea have found out this season, the manager plays an important role and as Chelsea have proven in the past regular managerial changes can be effective, something which may work to Man City's benefit next season.
