You snooze, you lose?

I know I'm tempting fate posting on the Romelu Lukaku situation this Saturday morning, given that by the end of the weekend the striker could be a signed, sealed and delivered Manchester United player. That's as opposed to the Chelsea player everyone - including Antonio Conte - has spent the better part of the last 12 months assuming he would eventually become again.

The 24-year-old's protracted desire to escape Everton, to whom Chelsea sold him in 2014, has been as tiresome as it has generated eye-watering headlines of his valuation. That Everton allegedly slapped a presumably prohibitive £100 million price on him is as damning a statement of the inflationary state of football as anything else. I suppose you can't really blame Everton, even if he's really worth only a fraction of that amount.

Both United and Chelsea have apparently offered £75 million. This is still an insane amount, but Conte is reported to have instructed his club's dealmakers (principally Marina Granovskaia) to get Lukaku at any cost. However, that doesn't appear to extend to the fee that Lukaku's agent, Mino Raola, would want from any sale (Raola notoriously pocketed a tidy sum for bringing Paul Pogba to Old Trafford, and also represents another United player, Henrikh Mkhitaryan). Advantage United.

Antonio Conte has now, according to The Times, made his peace over Lukaku signing for United, although he's understandably seething that a player he's been openly courting for the better part of a year is being drawn towards José Mourinho's United at the last minute. And it will raise questions about Chelsea's transfer nous. There's no doubt that the club has demonstrated sound acumen when husbanding its resources: the sales of Juan Cuadrado, Asmir Begovic, Christian Atsu, Bertrand Traore and Nathan Ake have brought in £62 million, money which will go towards the impending acquisitions of Tiemoue Bakayoko and Antonio Rudiger, and possibly Alex Sandro. But still.

Long before those three names were on anyone's lips, Lukaku had been a case of 'when' rather than 'if'. At root has been his desire to play in the Champions League and even to prove to Chelsea that José Mourinho was wrong for selling him to begin with. Everton initially didn't want to let him go, and slapped a nonsensical price tag on him as the proverbial sprig of garlic to ward of predatory interest. On top of that, it has been suggested that Chelsea's relationship with Everton has not been great since it spent much of 2015 trying to buy John Stones. Increasing bids from Chelsea were rejected on the basis that Stones was not for sale. Until Manchester City came along with £47 million, of course. Funny that.

Clubs now appear giddy with an inflated pot of television money, and are apparently happy with increasing their spending on individual players by magnitudes of leaps and bounds. There is a precedent for this: when BSkyB bought the first package of Premier League broadcasting rights in 1992, ahead of the league's debut season, it paid £304 million, establishing the model for paying way over the odds to keep all competitors at bay. 26 years on, the last three-year Premier League TV deal checked in at £8.3 billion. Even with Financial Fair Play ensuring that clubs balance the books, things have gone nuts. If Chelsea do, against the odds, manage to bag Lukaku, it should be remembered that the last two strikers they bought - Diego Costa in 2015 and Michy Batshuayi last summer - cost £32 million and £33 million respectively. And in the case of Costa, you could say they've got their money's worth. Would the same be said of Lukaku? I'm not so sure...

The Pep in the Premier League's step that it needed

I am experiencing both dread and delight by this week's not-exactly unexpected news that Pep Guardiola will become Manchester City's new manager.

The dread comes from the fact that a patent talent - a Jamie Vardy or a John Stones - on the shopping lists of the big clubs, is more likely to want to play for the celebrated Catalan than opt for the managerial uncertainty and dysfunction at either Manchester United or Chelsea. Or the truly odd world that is Arsenal, who, once again, have started a season with all of the usual "This is our year!" and "We're better placed now than ever to win the league!" before it all starts to fade away in January. All of which means sloppy seconds elsewhere. OK, those are the breaks.

The delight, however, is the prospect of arguably the world's greatest club coach, currently, applying himself in the Premier League and bringing to it a pedigree that has netted, by the age of 44, 14 trophies in four years at Barcelona, including three Spanish league titles and the Champions League twice, and two Bundesliga championships with Bayern Munich in the course of his two full seasons at the club. That's beyond Mourinho form, and without the antics. Or the third season syndrome.

The Premier League will be, though, a very different beast to La Liga and its German counterpart. I don't say that out of arrogance, but just as players have been lured to England by the money and prestige of the league, they've also struggled or at least initially laboured to adapt to its speed and physicality.

Guardiola may be a master of innovation and guile, but he should not expect to have it all his own way, any more so than City, with Sheikh Mansoor's money, have done under Roberto Mancini and Manuel Pellegrini. But given the scale of Guardiola's proven ability, and the transfer budget that will be at his disposal, it's entirely possible that the once less-fashionable Manchester club could become the greatest in Premier League history, eclipsing their city rival in wealth and superlative, though not necessarily, one suspects, in heritage and status. But, then, that's the problem for United, as it has been for Liverpool. You were great, but what now?

Alright, this may be a little over the top. City have been there before, with preposterous, Galactico-sized spending that has still only netted the two Premier League titles since the Abu Dhabi United Group took over the club eight years ago. And it still hasn't won anything in Europe since the 1970 Cup Winners Cup.

We shouldn't, either, fall victim to creating a deity out of Guardiola. There's no doubt that he has set the bar high for exciting football and for applying an intelligent, cultured approach to football management. But even with the money, the existing squad and the potential for reinforcements, we should be cautious about installing Guardiola as a nailed-on cert.

That said, I have liked what Manchester City have done over recent seasons. It's hard for me to take a queasy stance over their monied resurgence, given that my own club has, too, benefited from the questionable largesse of an oligarch. But their arrival as a fourth big player, not to mention the somewhat satisfying sight of Manchester United's hubris being brought down a peg or two, has made the league infinitely more interesting.

There's little doubting that Guardiola will elevate City to another level, but credit should be given to Manuel Pellegrini, who is, in essence, a good manager, blessedly lacking in the histrionics of certain others, and who has acted with supreme dignity while the club has openly courted the younger Spaniard.

Though two different characters, there have been strong parallels between the Chilean and Claudio Ranieri's "dead man walking" period at Chelsea. Ironic, then, that both Pellegrini and Ranieri have been mentioned as candidates for the vacant job at Stamford Bridge.

Which is what makes Pellegrini a very interesting and unexpected candidate for Chelsea, or even the surely-soon-to-open vacancy at Old Trafford. In theory he could walk into the job at United (as would any manager given the opportunity - viz D. Moyes). But while Chelsea have been considering the likes of Antonio Conte and Diego Simeone - unproven, both, in the Premier League, and with no guarantee that they'd fit - as well as Mark Hughes and Ranieri, Pellegrini would bring Chelsea the experience of managing a big club with big expectations of quick success.

Pellegrini also possesses the sort of personality that Abramovich would like. He is without doubt a top manager, but unlike his former rival José Mourinho and all the manias that came with him, Pellegrini has demonstrated a knack for just getting on with things. Not for nothing has City been challenging for the title or fending off challengers under this refreshing character.

And what of now? Dignity personified, as he continues to compete for four titles whilst knowing for certain that his time in charge at the Etihad is drawing to a close. In spite of City's capricious managerial policy, Pellegrini came to Manchester with a very decent managerial record, from South America and then in Spain (look at his Villareal stats and then against Guardiola's Barcelona when in charge of Real Madrid). Even if this season, in which all the so-called big clubs have shown intermittent desire to win the Premier League, Pellegrini's ethos has been one that would also fit Chelsea's ambition for style of play and a style of success (on Premier League history alone, his win rate is third, behind Mourinho and Alex Ferguson).

At 62, and not, for example, the insane 34 years André Villas-Boas was when appointed to effectively restructure the Chelsea dressing room, Pellegrini would be the safe pair of hands that the club will need to pick up in the wake of John Terry's departure and following the restorative effect of Guus Hiddink, who will be 70 in November and unlikely to want to remain in club management for the long term. Moreover, Pellegrini would be charged with rebuilding Chelsea, possibly without European football next season, which is unlikely to bother his apparent lack of ego.

Yes, it may well take a fallow year for Chelsea to re-emerge with youth on its side, with the wealth of it in the current squad and, ridiculously, out on loan, exceptional quality like Dominic Solanke, Ruben Loftus-Cheek and the Brazilian Kenedy, all of which could build something very special indeed for the '17-18 season.

But back to Guardiola, sort of. With just under four full months of the season to go, Manchester City under Pellegrini still have plenty to deliver. Chelsea, under Hiddink, still have damage to repair and confidence to restore, with an exiting captain to maintain too. Manchester United need to do something to retore their status as the biggest club in the world and not a running joke. Arsenal need to give themselves a kick up the...er...Arsène and deliver on the false dawns they so unfuratingly - even for a Chelsea fan! - keep serving up. Liverpool need to calm down and settle under the delightfully eccentric Jurgen Klopp. And Leicester City? They just need to win the damn thing and put a smile on all of our faces.

Because next season will be a very different animal, with a Premier League "starring" a manager who has been coveted by more clubs than anyone in the history of the sport, who will be paid more than any manager in the history of the sport, and who will have more expectation placed on him than anyone in the history of the sport. And that means I can't wait for August.