Manchester City have had to pay Chelsea for Enzo Maresca but it is the West London club who may end up counting the cost
It didn’t have the audacity of Antoine Semenyo backheeling in a Wembley winner, or the mic-drop moment of Bunny Shaw announcing in the middle of a parade that she was signing a new deal, but the three statements that accompanied Enzo Maresca’s change of job marked up another Manchester City victory over Chelsea. On and off the pitch, the Blues are continuing to flex their muscles.
Chelsea will count the words on Monday and the figure – at least £17million – that they have picked up for Maresca as a success, and they are right to do so. The very fact that Maresca and City both posted reflected that, for they certainly would not have done if the West London club had not insisted on it as part of the compensation agreement thrashed out over the last few weeks.
That does look a small victory in the context of the war waged by City to defend and protect their interests as one of the leading football clubs. Maresca made Chelsea world champions 12 months ago but has now been picked out as the man to maintain and sharpen City’s edge.
The words and money issued after confirmation of Maresca’s appointment by City roughly tell how an eventful year unfolded. The Blues approached Maresca about the possibility of succeeding Guardiola without any firm possibilities, he then told Chelsea (as he was contractually obliged to do) and despite also inviting them to offer a new contract they believed that he had made his mind up and wanted out.
Trust was lost and the situation exploded in a matter of weeks, leaving Maresca out of a job by January. As he has rejuvenated and sunned himself in the Maldives while taking meetings with AC Milan and then City to decide on his next job, Chelsea’s season fell apart as they hired and fired another manager and finished so low in the Premier League final standings that they will not play any European football next season.
As much as they can count their money at Stamford Bridge though, they have lost a manager who they could have enticed with a new contract and will not get the sizable funds that English clubs get playing in UEFA competitions next season. City, on the other hand, have landed one of a shortlist no longer than half a dozen of coaches they thought capable of succeeding Guardiola.
It does feel a lot to be paying £17m for a manager, but then at least for City it is not a regular occurrence. Guardiola cost nothing and their last handout to a manager was back in 2013 when they sacked Roberto Mancini and his staff. Chelsea have recouped less for Maresca than they paid Brighton for Graham Potter (£20m) and not far off what they paid Potter to sack him less than a year later (£13m); Manchester United paid £11m to hire Ruben Amorim after paying £10.4m for sacking Erik Ten Hag, and have set aside a provision of £15.9m that Amorim could get after his subsequent sacking.
City do not expect to be paying Maresca out, but if £17m and a public statement is what is needed to land them the coach that they want it has been quickly seen as a price worth paying. Considering the influence Maresca will have and the fact that players are valued at as much as £116m, that doesn’t feel terrible value either.
City have paid out for Maresca, but if he lives up to their expectations it will be Chelsea who end up counting the cost of an explosive and expensive episode..
You must be logged in to post a comment Login