What is the issue for him agreeing a longer contract in the first place? Can't recall any manager who doesn't want it, longer contract means better security and the mindset for all managers is longer contract means more pay out if things don't work out. It's a pretty basic strategy for insurance.
His complain about Chelsea is just an excuse used as justification for him leaving while in fact without the offer, he would have stayed. You don't actually believe if things were rosy at Chelsea then he would have rejected city, do you?
I think an employee getting big headed when he got another offer on the table is pretty common thing. We can agree he doesn't deserve to demand anything based on his limited quality but he got a legit bargaining chip because if his demand is not met then he would just be somewhere else. Btw, I think that demand is smokescreen because he wanted to leave anyway.
How do you reckon other managers in his position would or should do if they want to leave? You know that maresca could have played a stinker until the end of the season forcing the blueco to sack him right? It's not like he has to join city immediately, he got the time. That's why he reported the city approach and resigned is better than he keeping it quiet and play a stinker to get the sack.
There is absolutely no issue with him signing a long term contract but the point made was he was under contract and he signed it willingly and in the full knowledge of the structure at the club. Yes it’s insurance but a contract is commitment by two parties not just one.Should one of those parties unilaterally break the contract there is a price to pay and as we see time after time that’s usually the club.
Contracts in football are not the basic employment of contract you or me would be offered they go far further in that competitors ,and City clearly are one ,can’t approach you , can’t speak to you if the intention is induce you to break your contract and you aren’t allowed to engage with unless there is
permission.
But it doesn’t just end with the contract because once employed with a PL club the HC/ manager has to adhere to a code of contact with the PL.
The fact that something else would possibly put something on the table maybe common in the big wide world but in football City did what probably most clubs did is sound out an individual as a first step before following process. Yes it’s tapping up, yes it’s rogue but let’s be realistic that we and probably every club adopt fact finding before approaching the current “ employer”
I very much doubt that City went as far as offering him the job during those initial contacts when Pep was just a few weeks into his new two year deal and even if Pep had said he wanted out come the end of 25/26 I would imagine that the City hierarchy would have thrown everything at him, Pep, to try and convince him to stay but they no doubt wanted a plan b
You saying him asking for a new contract was a smokescreen not quite sure how that works because what would have been his play had they agreed to one ? No the bargaining chip was the approach not an offer of a contract. That bargaining chip almost certainly wasn’t the hand winner he thought it was.
When he left he did so because he had been called out. At that point he was either going to be sacked, stop sulking and honour his contract or he in the extreme had to resign.
The resignation must have horrified city. My belief is that had he given City the thumbs up they would have officially approached the club. But from that point on they were complicit. They had no defence should we make a complaint and now if Pep were to leave should they appoint Maresca they would have to pay and pay dearly what I suspect was the surprise was the fact that the club went after Maresca.
