MANCHESTER City managed to squeeze a last one in, deep into Fergie time.

The dismissal of Roberto Mancini meant that the beleaguered City – somehow downtrodden even in their reincarnation as the gilded nouveau riche – took to 14 the number of managers dispensed with during Sir Alex Ferguson's 26-and-a-half years at Manchester United.

City are United's neighbours, but light years away from them when it comes to patience, tolerance and the ethos of their decision-making on recruitment. Attributing characteristics to United's handling of managers is a tenuous business given that, in modern times, they have done so only in 1986 and last week, at the beginning and the end of Ferguson's aeons in charge. Naturally United had a completely different board of directors, working in entirely different circumstances, in 1986 compared to the group who approved the headhunting of David Moyes. But even across that huge span of time United showed signs of having a consistent policy.

United may have sacked Ferguson after his first, extremely patchy, three years. Instead they weighed his modest results against the obvious expansion and improvement of the club's scouting and youth development system. When the time eventually came, they went with the appointment of another Scotsman, this time one who has never won a trophy nor been in charge of a single Champions League group fixture. What's more, they gave David Moyes a six-year contract. It was as close as any global football brand can come to saying: "okay, you'll be embedded here, we believe in you and you'll get time to shape this club your way."

While United seem prepared to play a long game, giving managers the time to take root at Old Trafford, City look impulsive, reckless and rudderless. Dumping Mancini on the first anniversary of the day he won them the Barclays Premier League – 44 years after they were previously the champions of England – made City look excessively, unrealistically demanding. Mancini took the job in December 2009, and was up against Ferguson and a powerful Chelsea. In his first three-and-a-half years, he won an FA Cup and then a league and City sacked him. In his first three-and-a-half years Ferguson won nothing and United stood by him.

United have been rightly lauded for the quality and longevity of their employment of Ferguson. Last week papers carried graphics that listed the number of managers other clubs had gone through during his reign and none came out of it well. Real Madrid went through 25. So did Internazionale. Ajax had 18, Bayern Munich 17, AC Milan and Juventus 15, and Barcelona 14. That gives an impression of almost chaos management, years of relentless hiring and firing. Yet for all those coaches used, AC Milan won five European Cups (and Real Madrid three) in the time Ferguson won two. Bayern have already been through seven managers since 2007.

There are clubs where dismissing and replacing the head coach is seen as a routine freshening of the menu, an act designed to appease and reinvigorate unhappy supporters. It is a far more expensive modus operandi, of course, because sacked managers and their backroom staffs must be paid off, their replacements may have to be bought out of contracts with other clubs, then any new manager expects to be given substantial funds to revitalise a struggling squad. United saved themselves tens of millions over the years as they remained bound to a manager who slowly assembled teams and allowed them to evolve rather than going on costly transfer market splurges. City, of course, have the money to continually make their presence felt even with an ordinary manager in charge.

It did not help Mancini that too many around the club seemed to find him charmless, difficult and unpleasant. His relationships with directors, executives and his own players were said to be strained, often lacking warmth.

Mancini was sacked not because City wanted to change the menu, but because he had "failed to achieve any of its stated targets this year", with the exception of qualifying for next season's Champions League. Being cold and humourless would have been tolerable for City were it not for the fact they saw too little cause for encouragement on or off the pitch this season. The latter point is the most significant. City felt Mancini wasn't doing enough to help develop the club's youngsters. That's what their statement meant when it made reference to a "need to develop a holistic approach to all aspects of football at the club".

City have Txiki Begiristain, the former Barcelona technical director, overseeing player recruitment. The club has a 10-year plan to become a European trophy-winning club by 2018 and be sustainable in financial terms. Around £140m is being spent on an academy. They didn't get the feeling Mancini was sufficiently engaged with that. The problem was that he didn't fit what they wanted when they appointed him.

It seems they see their future in the hands of a man 11 years older than the one they've sacked, 59-year-old Manuel Pellegrini. The Chilean has the warmth and charm Mancini lacked, but there is also significance in the fact he has been in charge of 11 clubs while Ferguson reigned. He spent five years at Villarreal but otherwise he has hopped between clubs every two or three years. He has not won a trophy in Europe.

City fans liked Mancini more than many within the club did, even if he shed plenty of admirers by failing to deliver the FA Cup against Wigan Athletic. They are probably going to like Pellegrini too, if City get him despite the competing interest of Paris St-Germain. But the question remains: if they want stability and long-term planning, and a man who is the right age and has a track record of committing to a club for long enough to help build it into something bigger, the man just appointed by United looks a better fit than Pellegrini.