‘THERE’S no such thing as a multi-year contract for a manager, it’s just another way to calculate the compensation when he leaves.”

Those words, uttered by a wise footballing head a few years back, came to mind when news broke that Manuel Pellegrini and Jose Mourinho had extended their deals at Manchester City and Chelsea.

Both clubs – and a portion of the media – provided their own spin on the announcement. Pellegrini’s deal “will run for two years”, according to City’s website. Mourinho has “signed a new four-year contract”, says Chelsea’s version.

In fact, you can read this much more cynically. Mourinho’s deal had two seasons to run; after winning the title last year, he was given another two years.

The “win-a-title-get-a-new-contract” shtick is par for the course for him. It’s what happened at Real Madrid and Inter and Chelsea the first time around. It’s basically a performance bonus.

He can say, as he’s done several times, that he loves Chelsea and plans to build a legacy the way Sir Alex Ferguson did, but the reality is that it is largely out of his hands. A longer contract won’t help him do that. If he’s successful, he’ll get to stick around as long as he wants. If he screws up, he will be gone.

Pellegrini’s case is even more obvious. His deal was set to expire in June and, with the perpetual Pep Guardiola rumours swirling around him, the risk was the he would be the ultimate lame duck.

This extension doesn’t change the situation: Guardiola coming out and saying he definitely won’t be heading to City once his Bayern deal runs out at the end of the season is pretty much the only thing that would alter it.

But at least it gives City some level of plausible deniability among the more gullible in the commentariat, while ensuring Pellegrini another year’s wages come what may at the end of this campaign.

That’s the reality of managers and extensions. It’s not about job security. It’s about money and pay-offs.

ARSENAL open their campaign today against West Ham and Jack Wilshere won’t be there. He’s injured, again, this time a hairline fracture in his fibula, the result of “an accident” in training.

A little over two months ago, the talk was all about how Arsenal needed to give him a new deal – worth at least £100,000 a week – to “stop him” from joining Manchester City. Just how he was going to do that, without Arsenal agreeing a fee, was not explained. After all, Arsenal had all the leverage: Wilshere is locked in until 2018 and, most of all, hasn’t e xactly been the epitome of durability.

He has averaged 12 Premier League starts over the past four seasons. Last year, he managed to last 90 minutes four times while playing for England, while doing so just once in the Premier League for Arsenal. With Santi Cazorla, Francis Coquelin, Aaron Ramsey and Mikel Arteta (and, if need be, Mesut Ozil, Tomas Rosicky and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain), Arsene Wenger isn’t short of options in central midfield. Would he even get into Arsenal’s best XI if everyone was fit?

Wilshere’s case is a perfect example of a guy many want to see excel because he fits a narrative so neatly. He’s an Arsenal fan who came through the ranks after joining the club as a nine-year-old. He’s skilful and exciting to watch. We love that and so we project expectations on him that, say, Ramsey or Cazorla don’t face.

The reality is that he doesn’t need a new contract. He has three years left in which to prove he belongs at Arsenal. On the evidence of the last four campaigns he’s fortunate that he won’t have to worry where his next pay cheque will come from until 2018.

CHRISTIAN Benteke’s old manager, Tim Sherwood, was withering in his assessment. “There’s no point in him going to a club where they don’t cross the ball,” he said.

It is a good job for Brendan Rodgers that Fenway Sports Group trust their manager more than Villa’s. To obtain the green light for their £32.5 million move – the sixth highest by a English club – Rodgers apparently offered a detailed presentation outlining just how the club would play and where Benteke’s skill set would fit in.

You wonder if Rodgers had to make the same argument to obtain some of last season’s signings, especially Rickie Lambert and Mario Balotelli. If not, you wonder why? And, if he did, you wonder why FSG still listen to him when he was manifestly unable to get much of anything out of either front man.

Of course, the biggest question of all, concerns Daniel Sturridge. Assuming he’s going to be fit one day – a major assumption, I know, but he’s under contract until 2019 – how is Rodgers going to squeeze him and Benteke in the same line-up?

It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s just that it would have major implications on the rest of the line-up. Two out of Roberto Firmino, Lazar Markovic, Adam Lallana and Philippe Coutinho would, presumably, miss out. And given that all but Coutinho were signed by Rodgers in the past 13 months, you wonder just how clear his thinking is. There’s also the fact that even if you do play with two strikers there’s no room at the inn for Danny Ings and Divock Origi.

The other curious thing about Benteke – not quite a warning sign, but unusual nonetheless – is just how streaky he’s been the past two seasons. Last year, he scored 15 goals in all competitions, yet 12 of them came after March. In 2013-14, he had five in the first four games and then didn’t score again for four months.

If Benteke and the bulk of Liverpool’s summer signings don’t work out, expect more hand-wringing and finger-pointing between Rodgers and the fabled “transfer committee”. You only hope that the owners are keeping track of who wanted what and who said what when. And that they will have the guts to hold the right people responsible.