Pellegrini Satisfometer

[Cocacolajojo1]

Good riddance you two angels you. Fly away for a bit and soar into the heavens. Cunts.

I don't know why, but I choked laughing on that.

It was pretty funny.

[Beefymcfc]

Good riddance you two angels you. Fly away for a bit and soar into the heavens. Cunts.

I don't know why, but I choked laughing on that.

It was pretty funny.

There's no need for that. Just 'cos Pellers pissers are sitting on Doomy's root doesn't mean 'We're' the cunts.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

[Im_Spartacus]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

Bound to happen though isn't it?

Forget for a minute about Mancini's off pitch problems, and all you have is two managers paid to get results.

In fairness Mancini won a title albeit in his 3rd season so plenty of time to get settled and a system up and running, so any manager who ever comes in is always going to be compared to that level of success.

My take on the whole thing is that we appear to have a lot of things right, but keep shooting ourselves in the foot or picking Garcia. The manager is by no means to blame for individual errors, but his challenge is to stop those errors by getting the team to play cohesively.

I'm right on the fence at the moment, which is unusual as I'm generally amongst the first to write a new manager off.

I sort of get the feeling though that pellers is no more than a caretaker manager in the bigger picture, so I'm fairly relaxed about things, I'm sure we will win something under him this season, just not sure it will be the league

[Alex Sapphire]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

What would you like us to compare him with? Just so I know what's OK

[Alioune DVToure]

What would you like us to compare him with? Just so I know what's OK

Christopher Lee and Henry Winkler.

[Blue Since 76]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

Bit like us away from home

[Original Dub]

Across the world, football fans have been comparing their successive managers for hundreds of years.

I don't get why this is the first time we're being repeatedly told not to?

[nottsblue]

Across the world, football fans have been comparing their successive managers for hundreds of years.

I don't get why this is the first time we're being repeatedly told not to?

Very true. I can only imagine the rags getting their thick heads round Gollum after Bacon. Puts our positipn into perspective.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

What would you like us to compare him with? Just so I know what's OK

Two completely separate managers. Comparing the way they set the team and even their results would only make sense if we are judging the performance of Spafia. They were the ones who made the decision.

Mancini and Pellegrini have different set of ideals how team should play and therefore compaeing them is pretty pointless. And Mancini isn't coming back so fruitless as well.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Can't we just stop comparing Pellegrini to Mancini? Completely pointless.

Bound to happen though isn't it?

Forget for a minute about Mancini's off pitch problems, and all you have is two managers paid to get results.

In fairness Mancini won a title albeit in his 3rd season so plenty of time to get settled and a system up and running, so any manager who ever comes in is always going to be compared to that level of success.

My take on the whole thing is that we appear to have a lot of things right, but keep shooting ourselves in the foot or picking Garcia. The manager is by no means to blame for individual errors, but his challenge is to stop those errors by getting the team to play cohesively.

I'm right on the fence at the moment, which is unusual as I'm generally amongst the first to write a new manager off.

I sort of get the feeling though that pellers is no more than a caretaker manager in the bigger picture, so I'm fairly relaxed about things, I'm sure we will win something under him this season, just not sure it will be the league

Pretty much the same. I'm on the fence regarding him and I have a gut feeling he is nothing but a stop gap.

What's the point in saying Mancini would've done this and that though?

[Hutch's Shoulder]

I said earlier in this thread that this season reminded me most so far of Keegan’s first, and since then other posters have compared Pellegrini to Keegan as a gambler (on the outcome of his attacking play). As this is a dull FIB, I took the opportunity to compare the current season’s results so far with those from Keegan’s debut, to see if they supported these impressions. All Keegan stats are from Wikipedia.

After 11 league games (out of 46) Keegan had won 6 drawn 1 and lost 4 – exactly the same as the current side (albeit out of 38). At home we had Won 4, drawn 1 lost 1 and away won 2 and lost 3. So we are better at home but worse away this season for the same overall total. Of course, it is a big jump from there to saying that the rest of this season will pan out the same as Kevin’s, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose it did.

In Kev’s 46 game season that gave us 99 points and the title (108 goals scored and a GD of +56, Goater the division top scorer with 32). This was at a win percentage of 82.6% at home and 52.2% away (67.4% in aggregate) and an overall draw percentage of 13%. For a 38 game PL season that would translate into 26 wins and 5 draws (rounded figures) = 83 points. Enough to win the league, I think, in this crazy season.

If we had the same goals-to-games ratio as Keegan’s team then we would score 89 goals, but we are ahead of his rate so far this term and if we continue as we are (2.55 per game) then we would score 96.

Of course, Keegan’s squad significantly upped the success rate later in the season and we will have to do the same this time if we want to match his outcome, but let’s hope we don’t have to win two home games whilst playing most of the match with ten men (Benarbia and Berkovic sent off in consecutive home games)!

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I said earlier in this thread that this season reminded me most so far of Keegan’s first, and since then other posters have compared Pellegrini to Keegan as a gambler (on the outcome of his attacking play). As this is a dull FIB, I took the opportunity to compare the current season’s results so far with those from Keegan’s debut, to see if they supported these impressions. All Keegan stats are from Wikipedia.

After 11 league games (out of 46) Keegan had won 6 drawn 1 and lost 4 – exactly the same as the current side (albeit out of 38). At home we had Won 4, drawn 1 lost 1 and away won 2 and lost 3. So we are better at home but worse away this season for the same overall total. Of course, it is a big jump from there to saying that the rest of this season will pan out the same as Kevin’s, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose it did.

In Kev’s 46 game season that gave us 99 points and the title (108 goals scored and a GD of +56, Goater the division top scorer with 32). This was at a win percentage of 82.6% at home and 52.2% away (67.4% in aggregate) and an overall draw percentage of 13%. For a 38 game PL season that would translate into 26 wins and 5 draws (rounded figures) = 83 points. Enough to win the league, I think, in this crazy season.

If we had the same goals-to-games ratio as Keegan’s team then we would score 89 goals, but we are ahead of his rate so far this term and if we continue as we are (2.55 per game) then we would score 96.

Of course, Keegan’s squad significantly upped the success rate later in the season and we will have to do the same this time if we want to match his outcome, but let’s hope we don’t have to win two home games whilst playing most of the match with ten men (Benarbia and Berkovic sent off in consecutive home games)!

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

[Ted Hughes]

I said earlier in this thread that this season reminded me most so far of Keegan’s first, and since then other posters have compared Pellegrini to Keegan as a gambler (on the outcome of his attacking play). As this is a dull FIB, I took the opportunity to compare the current season’s results so far with those from Keegan’s debut, to see if they supported these impressions. All Keegan stats are from Wikipedia.

After 11 league games (out of 46) Keegan had won 6 drawn 1 and lost 4 – exactly the same as the current side (albeit out of 38). At home we had Won 4, drawn 1 lost 1 and away won 2 and lost 3. So we are better at home but worse away this season for the same overall total. Of course, it is a big jump from there to saying that the rest of this season will pan out the same as Kevin’s, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose it did.

In Kev’s 46 game season that gave us 99 points and the title (108 goals scored and a GD of +56, Goater the division top scorer with 32). This was at a win percentage of 82.6% at home and 52.2% away (67.4% in aggregate) and an overall draw percentage of 13%. For a 38 game PL season that would translate into 26 wins and 5 draws (rounded figures) = 83 points. Enough to win the league, I think, in this crazy season.

If we had the same goals-to-games ratio as Keegan’s team then we would score 89 goals, but we are ahead of his rate so far this term and if we continue as we are (2.55 per game) then we would score 96.

Of course, Keegan’s squad significantly upped the success rate later in the season and we will have to do the same this time if we want to match his outcome, but let’s hope we don’t have to win two home games whilst playing most of the match with ten men (Benarbia and Berkovic sent off in consecutive home games)!

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

He has clearly stated that he asked for the players he got. I don't understand this business of persisting with the idea that he has been told who to sign. Even the players themselves have, for the most part, talked about their past connections with Pellegrini.

The players he has been 'given' are the ones who were already at City, most of whom are pretty good. The signings are picked by the Count; he says so & they say so.

[Im_Spartacus]

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

To be fair, they sold key players to fund the signing of ronaldo and left the squad balance all over the show.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

To be fair, they sold key players to fund the signing of ronaldo and left the squad balance all over the show.

I wasn't being critical of Pellegrini. Just noted that he may not be "head coach" type.

[BobKowalski]

I said earlier in this thread that this season reminded me most so far of Keegan’s first, and since then other posters have compared Pellegrini to Keegan as a gambler (on the outcome of his attacking play). As this is a dull FIB, I took the opportunity to compare the current season’s results so far with those from Keegan’s debut, to see if they supported these impressions. All Keegan stats are from Wikipedia.

After 11 league games (out of 46) Keegan had won 6 drawn 1 and lost 4 – exactly the same as the current side (albeit out of 38). At home we had Won 4, drawn 1 lost 1 and away won 2 and lost 3. So we are better at home but worse away this season for the same overall total. Of course, it is a big jump from there to saying that the rest of this season will pan out the same as Kevin’s, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose it did.

In Kev’s 46 game season that gave us 99 points and the title (108 goals scored and a GD of +56, Goater the division top scorer with 32). This was at a win percentage of 82.6% at home and 52.2% away (67.4% in aggregate) and an overall draw percentage of 13%. For a 38 game PL season that would translate into 26 wins and 5 draws (rounded figures) = 83 points. Enough to win the league, I think, in this crazy season.

If we had the same goals-to-games ratio as Keegan’s team then we would score 89 goals, but we are ahead of his rate so far this term and if we continue as we are (2.55 per game) then we would score 96.

Of course, Keegan’s squad significantly upped the success rate later in the season and we will have to do the same this time if we want to match his outcome, but let’s hope we don’t have to win two home games whilst playing most of the match with ten men (Benarbia and Berkovic sent off in consecutive home games)!

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

He has clearly stated that he asked for the players he got. I don't understand this business of persisting with the idea that he has been told who to sign. Even the players themselves have, for the most part, talked about their past connections with Pellegrini.

The players he has been 'given' are the ones who were already at City, most of whom are pretty good. The signings are picked by the Count; he says so & they say so.

Its unlikely that Pellers was involved in all of the signings if only because of the timings. The Fernandinho deal was done in January and Txiki was working on the Navas deal for months beforehand. The squad is assembled and shaped primarily by Txiki. Its his job. Its the same with existing players. Barry was told at the end of last season that he would be surplus and whilst he may have hoped to impress the new manager the decision had already been made by Txiki. This is not to say Pellers or any future manager will not have input. Isco would have been down to Pellers and Demichelis is all Pellers but the composition of the squad is primarily down to Txiki.

All of this and the way we will work in the future was laid out by Ferran when he gave his interview in New York.

"The difference in role between Txiki and the manager is that the director of football has, and has to have, a long-term view. So what we are asking him to do is build a squad, but also football concepts, and a way of working that will last for the next 10 years"

Personally I have always liked the DoF structure with the manager/head coach focused on coaching the first team so the idea that Pellers did not pick the summer signings is no big deal. Its just the way we operate.

[Herb]

Yes but that's getting away from the point that we need to compare results under Pellegrini with results under Mancini because, regardless of their different styles, we need to be able to measure progress or lack of it and that's the only way we can reasonbly do it.


The really big question is who would win if they had a fight?

[Ted Hughes]

I said earlier in this thread that this season reminded me most so far of Keegan’s first, and since then other posters have compared Pellegrini to Keegan as a gambler (on the outcome of his attacking play). As this is a dull FIB, I took the opportunity to compare the current season’s results so far with those from Keegan’s debut, to see if they supported these impressions. All Keegan stats are from Wikipedia.

After 11 league games (out of 46) Keegan had won 6 drawn 1 and lost 4 – exactly the same as the current side (albeit out of 38). At home we had Won 4, drawn 1 lost 1 and away won 2 and lost 3. So we are better at home but worse away this season for the same overall total. Of course, it is a big jump from there to saying that the rest of this season will pan out the same as Kevin’s, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose it did.

In Kev’s 46 game season that gave us 99 points and the title (108 goals scored and a GD of +56, Goater the division top scorer with 32). This was at a win percentage of 82.6% at home and 52.2% away (67.4% in aggregate) and an overall draw percentage of 13%. For a 38 game PL season that would translate into 26 wins and 5 draws (rounded figures) = 83 points. Enough to win the league, I think, in this crazy season.

If we had the same goals-to-games ratio as Keegan’s team then we would score 89 goals, but we are ahead of his rate so far this term and if we continue as we are (2.55 per game) then we would score 96.

Of course, Keegan’s squad significantly upped the success rate later in the season and we will have to do the same this time if we want to match his outcome, but let’s hope we don’t have to win two home games whilst playing most of the match with ten men (Benarbia and Berkovic sent off in consecutive home games)!

There's lot of similarities with the way Keegan and Pellegrini see the game but their shortcomings in the end of the day are quite different. Keegan was an innovator and for him making constant tactical changes and even changing the fundamental system every now and then was possibility....often when there was no need for it too. Pellegrini is pretty steady with his system but seems to need right type of guys for his system and therefore sometimes leaves us little bit vulnerable when the pieces don't work well together (and don't take that as tactical naivety). I agree that for both of them winning is not good enough, you need to with some style.

I'm starting to wonder whether Pellegrini either is suitable to Director of Football system. It seems to me that he is looking for right kind of player profiles and when the players are given to you, what you need most is tactical flexibility. To make talented group of players play to their strenghts and get results. To my recollection, he was talking about having been given wrong blend of players when he was in similar situation in Madrid.

He has clearly stated that he asked for the players he got. I don't understand this business of persisting with the idea that he has been told who to sign. Even the players themselves have, for the most part, talked about their past connections with Pellegrini.

The players he has been 'given' are the ones who were already at City, most of whom are pretty good. The signings are picked by the Count; he says so & they say so.

Its unlikely that Pellers was involved in all of the signings if only because of the timings. The Fernandinho deal was done in January and Txiki was working on the Navas deal for months beforehand. The squad is assembled and shaped primarily by Txiki. Its his job. Its the same with existing players. Barry was told at the end of last season that he would be surplus and whilst he may have hoped to impress the new manager the decision had already been made by Txiki. This is not to say Pellers or any future manager will not have input. Isco would have been down to Pellers and Demichelis is all Pellers but the composition of the squad is primarily down to Txiki.

All of this and the way we will work in the future was laid out by Ferran when he gave his interview in New York.

"The difference in role between Txiki and the manager is that the director of football has, and has to have, a long-term view. So what we are asking him to do is build a squad, but also football concepts, and a way of working that will last for the next 10 years"

Personally I have always liked the DoF structure with the manager/head coach focused on coaching the first team so the idea that Pellers did not pick the summer signings is no big deal. Its just the way we operate.

If the Fernandinho deal had already been done, how come he had to waive his loyalty bonus in June in order to get it signed ?

Answer: It wasn't. It was 'talks' which established a desire from the player to sign & a potential willingness from his club to sell. Then it's down to the Count as to whether we see it through or spend the money elsewhere. He opted to buy Fernandinho.

When did Barca leak the details of Txiki meeting Pellegrini ? May ? City/Pellegrini had plenty of time to change targets & allocate the budget elsewhere. Fernandinho was one of the top mids in europe last season. Mancini fancied signing him & so did the Count, so he's here. He starts every game possible.

Hughes wanted Silva & Yaya Toure before Mancini arrived. Did Mancini veto it ? Of course not, he went after them full tilt because they are good & he saw a role for them. Same with Fernandinho.

In contrast, Mancini would have gone all out for Cavani & 'the Spaniards' were negotiating for him. Pellegrini has chosen to go for Negredo plus several other players instead, skimp on a cb, & possibly has some more money left in the transfer/wages kitty because of it but we lack a cb; why didn't 'the Spaniards' just sign one ? Ans: because the Count wanted Pepe & he decides.

The Count will have been given a general budget, a list of players/clubs we are already on good terms with in positions required & asked if there were any he specifically wanted as well as discussing which ones may be close to leaving.

The Count will have been told by Txiki, Soriano AND KHALDOON, that he will have to lose some players if he wants to continue making big signings on big wages & can't just stockpile players. This is something Mancini was also told, when we had the exact same nonsense/ people making up stories re Marwood. Even Mancini admitted in the end that he made the decision re signings & that his complaint was re targets missed, not those signed. All the bollocks about Marwood allegedly signing players was exactly that: bollocks. Pellegrini has stated the same re our signings now.

People prefer to believe both were lying because it suits their position.

The same bollocks Marwood suffered is now being levelled at the Spaniards . Of course there is a plan, but that plan isn't to force the manager to accept players, it is to manage the budget effectively. It seems that Kolo, Barry & Lescott are the first casualties & the Count is going along with this plan by allowing some players to go (wrong ones imo).

That WILL be partially down to the Spaniards of course, who will be encouaging the Count to lose older players on biggish wages, but it will also give him space to deal if he plays ball, especially if we sell a big one like Dzeko or similar.

The 1st team squad signings however, will ultimately be picked by Pellegrini. He won't get the cash for his 1st choices unless he ships some out though. The kids we sign will be decided by Vieira Txiki Marwood etc seperate from the first team setup.

If Messi becomes available however, Txiki Soriano will do the deal but Sheikh Manasour will be the bloke who signs him, whether they like it or not. In the end, the club is run by Sheikh Mansour & Khaldoon, & they can put a stop to anything at any time.

They have decided they want two Spanish guys building the club for the future.

Best thing they ever did imo, but if people don't like it; blame the guys who made that decision.

[BobKowalski]

If the Fernandinho deal had already been done, how come he had to waive his loyalty bonus in June in order to get it signed ?

Answer: It wasn't. It was 'talks' which established a desire from the player to sign & a potential willingness from his club to sell. Then it's down to the Count as to whether we see it through or spend the money elsewhere. He opted to buy Fernandinho.

When did Barca leak the details of Txiki meeting Pellegrini ? May ? City/Pellegrini had plenty of time to change targets & allocate the budget elsewhere. Fernandinho was one of the top mids in europe last season. Mancini fancied signing him & so did the Count, so he's here. He starts every game possible.

Hughes wanted Silva & Yaya Toure before Mancini arrived. Did Mancini veto it ? Of course not, he went after them full tilt because they are good & he saw a role for them. Same with Fernandinho.

In contrast, Mancini would have gone all out for Cavani & 'the Spaniards' were negotiating for him. Pellegrini has chosen to go for Negredo plus several other players instead, skimp on a cb, & possibly has some more money left in the transfer/wages kitty because of it but we lack a cb; why didn't 'the Spaniards' just sign one ? Ans: because the Count wanted Pepe & he decides.

The Count will have been given a general budget, a list of players/clubs we are already on good terms with in positions required & asked if there were any he specifically wanted as well as discussing which ones may be close to leaving.

The Count will have been told by Txiki, Soriano AND KHALDOON, that he will have to lose some players if he wants to continue making big signings on big wages & can't just stockpile players. This is something Mancini was also told, when we had the exact same nonsense/ people making up stories re Marwood. Even Mancini admitted in the end that he made the decision re signings & that his complaint was re targets missed, not those signed. All the bollocks about Marwood allegedly signing players was exactly that: bollocks. Pellegrini has stated the same re our signings now.

People prefer to believe both were lying because it suits their position.

The same bollocks Marwood suffered is now being levelled at the Spaniards . Of course there is a plan, but that plan isn't to force the manager to accept players, it is to manage the budget effectively. It seems that Kolo, Barry & Lescott are the first casualties & the Count is going along with this plan by allowing some players to go (wrong ones imo).

That WILL be partially down to the Spaniards of course, who will be encouaging the Count to lose older players on biggish wages, but it will also give him space to deal if he plays ball, especially if we sell a big one like Dzeko or similar.

The 1st team squad signings however, will ultimately be picked by Pellegrini. He won't get the cash for his 1st choices unless he ships some out though. The kids we sign will be decided by Vieira Txiki Marwood etc seperate from the first team setup.

If Messi becomes available however, Txiki Soriano will do the deal but Sheikh Manasour will be the bloke who signs him, whether they like it or not. In the end, the club is run by Sheikh Mansour & Khaldoon, & they can put a stop to anything at any time.

They have decided they want two Spanish guys building the club for the future.

Best thing they ever did imo, but if people don't like it; blame the guys who made that decision.

Er yes. What are you talking about? F&T have been hired to run the club. In my view its an excellent decision. Txiki is DoF and his remit is to build and reshape the squad. I know this because Ferran said so. The Fernandinho deal was agreed in January and finalised in the summer. The Barry decision was taken at the end of last season.

As for Marwood and Txiki, Ferran was very clear

"We have Brian Marwood, who takes care of all the young football, and Txiki who takes care of the first-team."

And on managers or head coaches Ferran sees them having a shorter life cycle of 2 or 3 years but underpinning that will be the core squad as built and shaped by Txiki. Pellers is here as much for his willingness to buy into the way we are now doing things but it does not mean he has no say or input. Again to quote Ferran its as much a collaboration as anything else but the manager has to manage 'within the essence of what we do'. Pellers can suggest/recommend players and as long as they fit in with the overall budget and Txiki's vision of what the squad should be in terms of balance and numbers etc, etc I have no doubt we will go after them just as we did with Isco.

Its just how we operate. Chelsea operate the same way except we have people who know something about football. I just don't see why its a problem or why we have to get hysterical at the thought Pellers isn't controlling every aspect of the first team.