It's beginning to become clear that you're burying your head in the sand with regards to both a) City's 115 charges and b) Guardiola's suspiciously short contract extension. I will avoid further addressing the former as there's a separate thread to discuss that. On the latter - for you to dismiss what happened after Pellegrini signed a short-term contract extension as irrelevant, because it was a 'completely different situation' and 'almost 10 years ago', ignores the fact that Pellegrini's successor was... Guardiola, and this occurred under... the same ownership. We're not comparing different eras here. You're trying to deflect by saying the Pellegrini situation was 'almost 10 years ago' as if it was several managerial appointments ago under a different ownership, when in reality we only have the context of the previous appointment to go off (unless you'd like to include Mancini) when predicting Abu Dhabi's succession plan.
Not burying my head in the sand at all. Unless you dispute my claim that you don't know anything about what the outcome will be, and using what you think is a likely outcome in a argument is at best speculative, I just don't see why I have to explain that it doesn't give any weight to your argument.
His successor was Guardiola yes, and that strenghtens my point way more than what you think it does to yours. It is well documented that the club wanted Guardiola above everyone. It was integral to the future planning of the direction of the club and something they had decided on. Pellegrini got hired in june 2013 because Pep chose Bayern Munich as his next destination. Pellegrini were made well aware that he were hired under these conditions. If Pep somehow had been available in October 2013, Pellegrini would have been done then and there. Pellegrini's situation at the club was dictated by Pep Guardiola.
When you say that the club were forward planning and that they were giving Pellegrini suspiciously short extensions because they knew he were leaving and they knew they were replacing him with Guardiola you seem to insinuate that either Pellegrini had decided to leave or the club had decided he were done in 2016 anyway. When the fact of the matter is as I already told you, the fact that they got Guardiola specifically was the reason for that managerial change to begin with! The "suspiciously short " contract extension Pellegrini got to "keep players motivated" would most likely have been honored by both parties for as long as they failed to achieve their target of hiring Guardiola, or if his result worsened to the point that is position were untenable. And how would you explain the fact that they gave him "suspiciously short" contract extensions but then decided to immediately announce that they had agreed terms with Guardiola mid-season anyway? Wouldn't that have negated the point of keeping players motivated if that was the original goal of the extension?
The way things were handled in the Pellegrini situation had nothing to do with Pellegrini, and everything to do with Guardiola. Now 10 years after, the situation has still everything to do with Guardiola. The club still wants him to stay, and by all accounts the noises around him and the club seem to suggest that he wants to stay for at least another year as well. Hence he signs a contract for another year, with a option for another which is basically the same short type of extension he signed last time he renewed his contract. Do you not see the differences here? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the fact that he most likely wants to stay because that is what is reported now and say that giving him an extension is the smart thing to do whether he decides to honor it or not, do you not see how far-fetched it is to link how this situation is handled, with how they handled Pellegrini?
We are like any other well-run club on the sporting side hopefully always planning ahead. I am sure there is a rolling list of options the board considers at all times if something happens at the manager position. If Guardiola decides to leave, he decides to leave. That is why he signs suspiciously short contracts, and not long ones that is way riskier for both parties to honor.
