Brian Marwood - The New John 'Mad Dog' Maddock?

[King Kev]

It seems that hardly a day goes by recently without another story surfacing about Marwood doing his level best to get somebody out of the club.

I realise that some players will have to leave and the decision may be unpopular with some of the fans but he seems to be going around it in a pretty nasty (and unprofessional) way.

I have now heard from various reliable people that Ireland, Bellamy and Ned have all been on the receiving end of Marwood's sneaky ways.

[kinkylola]

hearsay and conjecture, next.

[Kladze]

It seems that hardly a day goes by recently without another story surfacing about Marwood doing his level best to get somebody out of the club.

I realise that some players will have to leave and the decision may be unpopular with some of the fans but he seems to be going around it in a pretty nasty (and unprofessional) way.

I have now heard from various reliable people that Ireland, Bellamy and Ned have all been on the receiving end of Marwood's sneaky ways.

It seems to me that the job description for director of football - at any club - includes being a snidy fucker.

[ant london]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff as I don't really think it can do much harm. Also prefer it to be Marwood over Cook as he is the face of the club in many respects.

I am ambivalent to Brian Marwood, as Kladze says, seems that all of these directors of football are snidy fuckers in lots of ways.....although on the basis that they spend most of their time dealing with players' agents I guess it is best to be able to fight fire with fire on that front.

People who are potentially or actually on their way out of the club are always to a certain extent going to be unhappy and want to grind an axe with someone. Again, I'd rather that be Marwood than Mancini or any of the fellow players.

Carry on Brian

[Beeks]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff

*cough*Platt*cough*

[ant london]

ah yeah.....I had forgotten about ye olde tatty heid

[johnny crossan]

It seems that hardly a day goes by recently without another story surfacing about Marwood doing his level best to get somebody out of the club.

I realise that some players will have to leave and the decision may be unpopular with some of the fans but he seems to be going around it in a pretty nasty (and unprofessional) way.

I have now heard from various reliable people that Ireland, Bellamy and Ned have all been on the receiving end of Marwood's sneaky ways.

and he seems such a nice man from the 3 part OS Doccy

[mcfc1632]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

POINT 1 - V.GOOD - this must be just CITY mentality - the recent slagging off of Cook just made me 'shake my head in bemusement' at the ability of fans to 'just need to moan' - oh well at least they are leaving Khaldoon and the Sheik alone (for the moment)

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff as I don't really think it can do much harm. Also prefer it to be Marwood over Cook as he is the face of the club in many respects.

POINT 2 - V.GOOD - Yeah - if it needs to be someone - he will do - although I would prefer we focussed on being positive and behind our club

I am ambivalent to Brian Marwood, as Kladze says, seems that all of these directors of football are snidy fuckers in lots of ways.....although on the basis that they spend most of their time dealing with players' agents I guess it is best to be able to fight fire with fire on that front.

POINT 3 - V.GOOD - don't know I agree - I feel a bit for him - imagine all the twats he has to deal with in closing out the deals that all the fans (including those that complain in a personal way without any facts) - crave - the agents etc - and then he even gets shit from the people who should be cheering

People who are potentially or actually on their way out of the club are always to a certain extent going to be unhappy and want to grind an axe with someone. Again, I'd rather that be Marwood than Mancini or any of the fellow players.

POINT 4 - V.GOOD - what a compelling statement of pure fact - but that will not get in the way of groundless rumour - people just neeeed to moan - ffs the CITY management have a business to run

Carry on Brian

Well said that man - succinctly making 4 good points - probably wasting your time though

[Ted Hughes]

Cook & Marwood are the people tasked with the job of doing others dirtywork. Hughes probably hates them but it would almost certainly be Khaldoon who really fired him. Dunne probably hates Cook but it will really be Hughes who dumped him. Whoever goes next will hate them but Mancini will be the one really sacking them. If Mancini fails Khaldoon will get Cook to sack him.

Mancini has probably tasked them with finding options for moving players on in the event he has to get rid, so they've been putting feelers out. The clubs who contacted them have probably leaked it to Bellamy, espescially that cunt Redknapp.

[Goaters 103]

End of the day if the club wants a player out, then somebody has to do it so why not Marwood? Clearly if Mancini wanted to keep a player he would, but he hasn't. If we win a trophy this season nobody will give a toss about Marwood's PR image and thats the nub of it.

I am assuming the inference here is Bellers, who though he has been largely excellent for us, has a history of wearing out his welcome at clubs which is why he has 57 of them and notably has never won a single medal. Personally I'd like Bellers to stay, but if the manager wants him out then we back the manager, we have to, otherwise the manager has no authority at all. Same thing with Ireland.

[Wooders]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

POINT 1 - V.GOOD - this must be just CITY mentality - the recent slagging off of Cook just made me 'shake my head in bemusement' at the ability of fans to 'just need to moan' - oh well at least they are leaving Khaldoon and the Sheik alone (for the moment)

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff as I don't really think it can do much harm. Also prefer it to be Marwood over Cook as he is the face of the club in many respects.

POINT 2 - V.GOOD - Yeah - if it needs to be someone - he will do - although I would prefer we focussed on being positive and behind our club

I am ambivalent to Brian Marwood, as Kladze says, seems that all of these directors of football are snidy fuckers in lots of ways.....although on the basis that they spend most of their time dealing with players' agents I guess it is best to be able to fight fire with fire on that front.

POINT 3 - V.GOOD - don't know I agree - I feel a bit for him - imagine all the twats he has to deal with in closing out the deals that all the fans (including those that complain in a personal way without any facts) - crave - the agents etc - and then he even gets shit from the people who should be cheering

People who are potentially or actually on their way out of the club are always to a certain extent going to be unhappy and want to grind an axe with someone. Again, I'd rather that be Marwood than Mancini or any of the fellow players.

POINT 4 - V.GOOD - what a compelling statement of pure fact - but that will not get in the way of groundless rumour - people just neeeed to moan - ffs the CITY management have a business to run

Carry on Brian

Well said that man - succinctly making 4 good points - probably wasting your time though

I've never seen someones post get marked before !

[blue wine]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff as I don't really think it can do much harm. Also prefer it to be Marwood over Cook as he is the face of the club in many respects.

I am ambivalent to Brian Marwood, as Kladze says, seems that all of these directors of football are snidy fuckers in lots of ways.....although on the basis that they spend most of their time dealing with players' agents I guess it is best to be able to fight fire with fire on that front.

People who are potentially or actually on their way out of the club are always to a certain extent going to be unhappy and want to grind an axe with someone. Again, I'd rather that be Marwood than Mancini or any of the fellow players.

Carry on Brian

I agree to very to everything you say, besides the comment "City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club"
I think its natural in football and in life, if you look at every club theres always a player or someone from the staff that the fans dont like.
but what city fans are best at, is when a player can turn it around, we are the first to admit it and we forget the past hope for a good future for the player...just like recent years with goater, sommeil (how no one liked, but did turn it around) edghill, garrido...theres so many.
some people my think "i'm talking abit out my arse here" but it's all about the future and people will/can turn it round if they want to..

brain & garry i'm really happy with the work your doing, your leading my club to a brighter future

[mcfc1632]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

POINT 1 - V.GOOD - this must be just CITY mentality - the recent slagging off of Cook just made me 'shake my head in bemusement' at the ability of fans to 'just need to moan' - oh well at least they are leaving Khaldoon and the Sheik alone (for the moment)

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff as I don't really think it can do much harm. Also prefer it to be Marwood over Cook as he is the face of the club in many respects.

POINT 2 - V.GOOD - Yeah - if it needs to be someone - he will do - although I would prefer we focussed on being positive and behind our club

I am ambivalent to Brian Marwood, as Kladze says, seems that all of these directors of football are snidy fuckers in lots of ways.....although on the basis that they spend most of their time dealing with players' agents I guess it is best to be able to fight fire with fire on that front.

POINT 3 - V.GOOD - don't know I agree - I feel a bit for him - imagine all the twats he has to deal with in closing out the deals that all the fans (including those that complain in a personal way without any facts) - crave - the agents etc - and then he even gets shit from the people who should be cheering

People who are potentially or actually on their way out of the club are always to a certain extent going to be unhappy and want to grind an axe with someone. Again, I'd rather that be Marwood than Mancini or any of the fellow players.

POINT 4 - V.GOOD - what a compelling statement of pure fact - but that will not get in the way of groundless rumour - people just neeeed to moan - ffs the CITY management have a business to run

Carry on Brian

Well said that man - succinctly making 4 good points - probably wasting your time though

I've never seen someones post get marked before !

The red pen did not come out best though!!

[blootoof]

If they aint wanted who cares who tells them to do one. How to transport a snooker table, fish tank/lake, 900" plasma will be top of their worries.

[mcfc1632]

It appears to me that some City fans are not happy unless there is a hate figure at the club

I'm happy for this to be Marwood rather any of the players or coaching/management staff

*cough*Platt*cough*

Perhaps appointing that twat was a deliberate policy to rally all the factions of the club and supporters into having a single focus for hate - maybe we can progress to having the hypocritical - city hating - twat in a stocks for half time entertainment

[john68]

I think the issue raised by KK is an excellent one and is maybe a little more complex, going far deeper than some imagine. It has recently been made quite apparent by Hughes that he was not always in control of which players came in and which players left. It seems plain that Hughes was not happy about that situation.
Whatever the quality of the job that Hughes did, it has become plain that there was a higher power controlling the tools he had to work with...The same it seems applies to Mancini.
This is not a Hughes/Mancini debate, so don't even go there. It is a "Who is in charge of football at City" issue, the manager? Marwood or others? It is a question about who has the final say on which way the club goes into the future? and possibly, even, Who dictates on field tactics and picks the teams. At this moment, is it Mancini who is deciding our 25 man squad or Marwood?

I have never been a supporter of Directors of Football. The model where the coach is simply a coach and does what he is told and works with the tools he is given, may work well in Europe but has been seen to fail far too often in English clubs. Marwood is obviously a very powerful figure at CoMS...but how powerful....and ALL POWERFUL?

I can personally vouch for at least one of KK's sources. I will NOT compromise that source and I think the role and methods of Marwood are well ripe for debate.

[Im_Spartacus]

I think the issue raised by KK is an excellent one and is maybe a little more complex, going far deeper than some imagine. It has recently been made quite apparent by Hughes that he was not always in control of which players came in and which players left. It seems plain that Hughes was not happy about that situation.
Whatever the quality of the job that Hughes did, it has become plain that there was a higher power controlling the tools he had to work with...The same it seems applies to Mancini.
This is not a Hughes/Mancini debate, so don't even go there. It is a "Who is in charge of football at City" issue, the manager? Marwood or others? It is a question about who has the final say on which way the club goes into the future? and possibly, even, Who dictates on field tactics and picks the teams. At this moment, is it Mancini who is deciding our 25 man squad or Marwood?

I have never been a supporter of Directors of Football. The model where the coach is simply a coach and does what he is told and works with the tools he is given, may work well in Europe but has been seen to fail far too often in English clubs. Marwood is obviously a very powerful figure at CoMS...but how powerful....and ALL POWERFUL?

I can personally vouch for at least one of KK's sources. I will NOT compromise that source and I think the role and methods of Marwood are well ripe for debate.

I think Hughes made it clear finally that Robinho for one was not his personal choice, and from that I can assume that neither were Terry, Eto or Kaka - but who wouldn't have them in any team in the world. Yes it might temporarily upset the balance of what he was trying to achieve, but he wasnt whinging when Robinho was banging them in for fun at the start was he?

Yes the club were all out for that big name signing and Hughes may not have had huge involvement in that, but equally the club indulged Hughes with RSC at a ridiculous cost, kept Ireland when Hughes put his foot down etc etc, they backed Hughes on all his big decisions, and their only fault was trying to bring in a player to boost the marketing bottom line.

I would expect that Mancini is much more used to working under a board who buys the odd superstar to add to the team, as this is much more the norm in the bigger clubs in Europe.

Also remember that when Richard Dunne left, his criticism was directed to Cook, not Marwood.

[ant london]

I think it's clear John that Mancini is not (nor will be any potential successors in the forseeable future) in total charge of footballing matters at City.

The issue of a Director of Football and the issue of identifying and bringing in players/sanctioning player departures is a thorny and divisive one. It is also one which we, in England, have invariably seen managed in a cackhanded and rather amateur way vis a vis its impact upon and interraction with the incumbent manager.

I can see the pros of a DoF from that persepective but can also see lots of cons (as can most people).

However, what I do think has changed (and we certainly, as a club, needed to change in this respect) is the sheer scale of the football operations that someone might oversee.

This is not Matt Busby or Joe Mercer overseeing a group of first teamers, a pot of reserves and keeping a watchful eye over some kids.

This is now a massive "people business" (and I just mean the football side of things) to manage.

If we see Mancini's job description as the day to day management of 30 senior pro's, researching opponents, formulating game plans and getting his staff prepared for the next game as well as the post match analysis, feedback, development points communicated to staff who performed well or badly as well as being primarily responsible for delivering messages to the media as well as the more "senior management" elements of his job in terms of meeting with other "departmental heads" and his own managers....well that's a pretty bloody full on job.

If you say that he also has overall responsibility for bringing in players and being involved in negotiations and overseeing the academy etc etc....I say that is too much for one man these days.

He doesn't have 100% control over footballing matters and I don't think he could be expected to have the necessary focus on what matters (ie. the first team, winning as often as possible) if he did have those extra areas of responsibility.

For me, it's a function of football as a sporting concern growing and becoming more complex and us, as a club, equally expanding and developing at an exponential rate and is just unavoidable.

[BobKowalski]

I think the issue raised by KK is an excellent one and is maybe a little more complex, going far deeper than some imagine. It has recently been made quite apparent by Hughes that he was not always in control of which players came in and which players left. It seems plain that Hughes was not happy about that situation.
Whatever the quality of the job that Hughes did, it has become plain that there was a higher power controlling the tools he had to work with...The same it seems applies to Mancini.
This is not a Hughes/Mancini debate, so don't even go there. It is a "Who is in charge of football at City" issue, the manager? Marwood or others? It is a question about who has the final say on which way the club goes into the future? and possibly, even, Who dictates on field tactics and picks the teams. At this moment, is it Mancini who is deciding our 25 man squad or Marwood?

I have never been a supporter of Directors of Football. The model where the coach is simply a coach and does what he is told and works with the tools he is given, may work well in Europe but has been seen to fail far too often in English clubs. Marwood is obviously a very powerful figure at CoMS...but how powerful....and ALL POWERFUL?

I can personally vouch for at least one of KK's sources. I will NOT compromise that source and I think the role and methods of Marwood are well ripe for debate.

It is a worthwhile debate because we are talking about the way the club is run and the merits or otherwise of the current model. Hughes was I think talking specifically about Robinho where he had no input. Same would have applied to Kaka. Bellamy, Santa Cruz et al where all down to Hughes. Mancini said at his opening PC that transfers where not his sole domain and it is self evident that the current transfer strategy is a joint undertaking with everyone signing off on the players we want. Fortunately everyone seems to be on the same page and working well together. This is shown by our acquisitions this summer and the way we have gone about our business which has been exemplary. I personally think that our current model for doing business is a good one but it is only as good as the people giving input on the players to target and judging by the evidence so far Marwood and Mancini get high marks. Hughes in my opinion did not wish to operate within, or felt uncomfortable with, our current modus operandi and this was a big factor in his departure. It is worth noting that everyone lives or dies by these signings whereas before it could all be lumped on Hughes (Lescott, RSC etc) so it means everyone pulls in the same direction otherwise it may just be more than Mancini for the chop if it all goes totally tits.

Equally I presume that the same applies on outgoings and whilst Mancini I suspect will retain the primary right to decide on the 25 squad makeup those on the fringe need all the allies they can get and if like Bellers they have upset someone like Marwood (I seem to recall some bust up but could be wrong) then it is going to be difficult. Potential injuries are the other factor. If a player is known to be injury prone (RSC) or has problems that need nursing (Bellers) they may get ditched for players that have no such issues. Naming a 25 with 2 players that break down 2 weeks later and then out for a month or so is bad luck. If those players have a history or potential for breaking down then picking them was risky or dumb depending on how you look at it. Ned also falls into this injury prone category. Bellers with his knees and talent for upsetting people needs all the friends he can get and if his only ally is Mancini it may not be enough especially as the doubters can just rest their case on his potential for injury.

I have no inside scoop on Marwood's role at City but judging on what I have seen so far I have no problem with him or Cook (or Mancini ). I think the continental model makes sense but like everything it is only as good as the people you employ.

[john68]

I think the issue raised by KK is an excellent one and is maybe a little more complex, going far deeper than some imagine. It has recently been made quite apparent by Hughes that he was not always in control of which players came in and which players left. It seems plain that Hughes was not happy about that situation.
Whatever the quality of the job that Hughes did, it has become plain that there was a higher power controlling the tools he had to work with...The same it seems applies to Mancini.
This is not a Hughes/Mancini debate, so don't even go there. It is a "Who is in charge of football at City" issue, the manager? Marwood or others? It is a question about who has the final say on which way the club goes into the future? and possibly, even, Who dictates on field tactics and picks the teams. At this moment, is it Mancini who is deciding our 25 man squad or Marwood?

I have never been a supporter of Directors of Football. The model where the coach is simply a coach and does what he is told and works with the tools he is given, may work well in Europe but has been seen to fail far too often in English clubs. Marwood is obviously a very powerful figure at CoMS...but how powerful....and ALL POWERFUL?

I can personally vouch for at least one of KK's sources. I will NOT compromise that source and I think the role and methods of Marwood are well ripe for debate.

I think Hughes made it clear finally that Robinho for one was not his personal choice, and from that I can assume that neither were Terry, Eto or Kaka - but who wouldn't have them in any team in the world. Yes it might temporarily upset the balance of what he was trying to achieve, but he wasnt whinging when Robinho was banging them in for fun at the start was he?

Yes the club were all out for that big name signing and Hughes may not have had huge involvement in that, but equally the club indulged Hughes with RSC at a ridiculous cost, kept Ireland when Hughes put his foot down etc etc, they backed Hughes on all his big decisions, and their only fault was trying to bring in a player to boost the marketing bottom line.

I would expect that Mancini is much more used to working under a board who buys the odd superstar to add to the team, as this is much more the norm in the bigger clubs in Europe.

Also remember that when Richard Dunne left, his criticism was directed to Cook, not Marwood.

John,
I don't doubt the veracity of what you say. Nor am I mounting an attack on Marwood. I am attempting to define who is in charge, who has the final say and just how much power Marwood has over football. I am trying to further a discussion on whether our football development policy is ruled by one man or concensus...and what happens should that concensus fail?
My only personal opinion in there is that I have strong doubts that a Director of Football is the right way to go, based on observations of failures at other English clubs.
Whether it has been Hughes or Mancini or even A N Other in the future, they will be in the spotlight. It is the manager/trainer who takes the plaudits or gets the sack. The are the public figures that everyone knows and discusses.
If Marwood is the real power, it's only fair that he is removed from the shadows and held up to public inspection.

(...and did you make any headway regarding that other matter?...cheers)