Hughes/Mancini/Mourinho - my theory

[Pam]

No way the owners sack Hughes and bring in Mancini for 6 months, only then to replace him with Mourinho over the summer. That wouldn't make any sense.

Course it would make sense. How different is it as a scenario than Hiddink taking over at Chelski until the end of last season, after which he decided he didn't want the job f/t, or leastways not whilst he was still trying to take Russia to the World Cup and so Chelski always had a Plan B in mind and at the end of the season, duly appointed Anchelotti. There is nothing very earth shattering about bringing in a caretaker and seeing how things go from there.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No way the owners sack Hughes and bring in Mancini for 6 months, only then to replace him with Mourinho over the summer. That wouldn't make any sense.

But you've obviously not understood what I said. JM was already signed up but they needed someone to bridge the gap. Maybe Mancini doesn't even know he's a stop-gap (unlikely I know) or maybe he does and has been given a shed-load of money (like a 3.5 year contract for 0.5 years work).

What would you do if someone said "Work for me for 6 months and I'll give you a 36 month bonus at the end"?

 

[yankblue]

No way the owners sack Hughes and bring in Mancini for 6 months, only then to replace him with Mourinho over the summer. That wouldn't make any sense.

Course it would make sense. How different is it as a scenario than Hiddink taking over at Chelski until the end of last season, after which he decided he didn't want the job f/t, or leastways not whilst he was still trying to take Russia to the World Cup and so Chelski always had a Plan B in mind and at the end of the season, duly appointed Anchelotti. There is nothing very earth shattering about bringing in a caretaker and seeing how things go from there.

You could very well be right, but I just don't see it happening. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hiddink was appointed as a caretaker and was expected to leave Chelsea at the end of the season. Mancini signed a 3 1/2 year deal. I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[blueinsa]

No way the owners sack Hughes and bring in Mancini for 6 months, only then to replace him with Mourinho over the summer. That wouldn't make any sense.

But you've obviously not understood what I said. JM was already signed up but they needed someone to bridge the gap. Maybe Mancini doesn't even know he's a stop-gap (unlikely I know) or maybe he does and has been given a shed-load of money (like a 3.5 year contract for 0.5 years work).

What would you do if someone said "Work for me for 6 months and I'll give you a 36 month bonus at the end"?

Mancini is a very good friend of Khaldoon.

 

[bluem0ng]

But you've obviously not understood what I said. JM was already signed up but they needed someone to bridge the gap. Maybe Mancini doesn't even know he's a stop-gap (unlikely I know) or maybe he does and has been given a shed-load of money (like a 3.5 year contract for 0.5 years work).

What would you do if someone said "Work for me for 6 months and I'll give you a 36 month bonus at the end"?

Mancini is a very good friend of Khaldoon.

In which case there could be no way that he wouldn't know if he was being used as a stop gap..

 

[yankblue]

No way the owners sack Hughes and bring in Mancini for 6 months, only then to replace him with Mourinho over the summer. That wouldn't make any sense.

But you've obviously not understood what I said. JM was already signed up but they needed someone to bridge the gap. Maybe Mancini doesn't even know he's a stop-gap (unlikely I know) or maybe he does and has been given a shed-load of money (like a 3.5 year contract for 0.5 years work).

What would you do if someone said "Work for me for 6 months and I'll give you a 36 month bonus at the end"?

Ah, sorry, I did misread your post. You could be right, I just assumed that Mancini is in for the long haul, and if Mourinho was going to be appointed, the owners would have stuck with Hughes until the end of the season.

 

[bluesoup]

What a good conspiracy theory. Makes some sense to help fill in the gaps.

Maybe Mancini was their (the boards) first choice manager all along. It is rather coincidental that his appointment seems to be in line with him becoming available sooner than expected, (the court case settled). Then again, Mourinho and Hiddink could have been a clever smoke screen for the surprise package of Bobby Manc to step right in and catch everyone out.

Who knows the truth!! I don't really care after been self absorbed by it all for a few days. There are too many conspiracy theories to pick from. The only thing that concerns me right now is that the team moves on and the supporters get behind the team.

 

[bluegray]

I could believe this. Maybe the board have looked at the situation with 4th place up for grabs and decided Hughes is struggling to get us there, then get Mancini in for 6 months. Hoping he gets us inthe top 4 for when JM takeover. Then Mancini can go back to Inter. Everyones happy.

 

[blueinsa]

Mancini is a very good friend of Khaldoon.

In which case there could be no way that he wouldn't know if he was being used as a stop gap..

You are right, and it also allows him to do his mate a favour if that is the situation?

 

[Pam]

Course it would make sense. How different is it as a scenario than Hiddink taking over at Chelski until the end of last season, after which he decided he didn't want the job f/t, or leastways not whilst he was still trying to take Russia to the World Cup and so Chelski always had a Plan B in mind and at the end of the season, duly appointed Anchelotti. There is nothing very earth shattering about bringing in a caretaker and seeing how things go from there.

You could very well be right, but I just don't see it happening. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hiddink was appointed as a caretaker and was expected to leave Chelsea at the end of the season. Mancini signed a 3 1/2 year deal. I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

But surely you can appreciate that whatever the length of the contract offered to Mancini, it isn't exactly likely to be written in blood. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if he's been told that if he makes top four, the job will stand permanently and if he doesn't, then either on his way or he'll be kept on in some capacity or other but not as manager. I realise that it is highly unlikely that JM has actually been appointment but there is absolutely nothing far fetched about thinking there may be some sort of agreement in place, in principle and given the right end of season circumstances. What have we got to lose if this is true? Not a lot, I venture to suggest.

And as for any assumption of good faith in terms of what Mancini has been promised or not promised, since when do you think Gary Cook is above breaking his promises. Any contract you sign with him isn't worth the paper it's written on, even by football's underhand standards.