Pellegrini to Chelsea and Mourinho to Man City would have been a better match up for both clubs I think.
Man city would have got more short term success while Chelsea would have been stabilized as one of Europe's top teams.
Hopefully it goes pear shaped for both
It is, but they've banked on the mentoring of Ferguson creating another 'great', which could well happen.
Fergie wouldn't have been able to work with any of them other managers. As underwhelming as Moyes is to their fanbase, there is logic to what they've done. They've banked on continuity rather than any sort of change. And continuity for them guarantees league titles.
Here's a question: if we'd gone for Pellegrini (whom I believe we were also looking at) instead of Hodgson, how much better off (if at all) would we be now?
In the long run, title challenge, that is (hopefully). And obviously with 6 league points at stake (and if we meet them in domestic cup compeititions)?Why would it be at our expense?
He might already have been in place had former owner Thaksin Shinawatra lured him from Villarreal in 2007 before turning to Sven-Goran Eriksson.
And that was not 59-year-old Pellegrini's only brush with the Premier League, with Liverpool also apparently interested three years ago.
In 2010, after Rafael Benitez left Anfield, Pellegrini was available after his dismissal by Real Madrid but Malaga proved his next destination.
The Chilean, speaking as he was formally unveiled as City's new boss, said: "I had twice chances to arrive here before.
"One was to Manchester City but with the other owners, not these owners.
"Liverpool, I was very near, after Real Madrid, to arrive at Liverpool.
"But for different things, it was not the moment. Now it is the right moment with the right club."
So we had him, and we went for Roy?
He was on a free, the club was almost bankrupt and our management decided after reading the daily papers, we better off spending 2 million getting Hodgepodge and a few months later 6 million sacking him.