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

[DoomMerchant]

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)

all of them are one team. Marwood, Cook, Mancini...ahem. Platt. In fact Hughes is gone, i believe, because he wasn't part of the team. He wanted to be the big swinging Richard in that crew that everyone watched blow his load, and the reality of this is that it's not one man in charge, it's a team who work to consensus and move forward with plans they hatch, develop and execute together in various levels of participation. Not the typical English football structure, but also, as others have said, a structure that works in the biggest football clubs in the world.

i can tell you that Marwood would not sanction the sale of someone Mancini would pitch a fit about, and neither would Mancini pull to bring someone in whom the rest of the group vetoed as not a fit.

they delayed the hiring of Platt as Mancini's personal translator/piss boy because Marwood and Cook and Mancini needed to get the chemistry right and make sure they didn't have power struggles like they had with Hughes.

it's all about chemistry. capiche?

if you guys are hearing stories about "Marwood/Cook" throwing players out the door whom Mancini really covets i would be shocked. and i wouldn't believe it either. Hughes might be complaining about not wanting certain players, but if he'd had his way who knows what we might had had. His transfer record ultimately, as most managers records do, is tarnishing over just a short period of time, so i wouldn't put much stock in that feedback. He clearly wasn't getting along with the structure and program post-Sheik so i am not surprised by anything he says on that matter. I thought he was dignified in his views about it, but i don't think he knows he probably talked himself out of a job as much as he "drew" himself out of a job.

Hughes wanted a new captain last season i think, and Cook took the bullets for his manager by probably saying some things to Dunne that made him believe a certain thing. Good managers and executives do that for their people to shield them sometimes. i could be offbase, but that was always how i viewed Dunne leaving and why Lescott was so fucking expensively important to Leslie...it was as much the fucking off of Dunne for him as it was valuing Lescott at a certain price tag.

it's not hard to spin Marwood and Cook up as Darth Vader and the Emporer, but i'm just not sure what purpose it serves, and i don't believe they are going to fuck up the club. i dont think Mancini or Khaldoon will let them make poor decisions unilaterally. that's not how it works.

i think the director of football strategy can work with the right [strike]players[/strike] executives/managers/etc, and from my personal conversation with Cook those [strike]players[/strike] people and that balance is the key to success. It's something that crew is defo sensitive about in terms of building blocks and relationships.

cheers

EDIT: fixed usage of the word "players" since i didnt mean footballers, but suits. And i didnt mean Fifth Ward ballas either. Just sayin.

[Tokyo Blue]

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)

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

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

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

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

'kin 'ell. Where do you start?

Point 1. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, have to either agree with you or get psycho-analysed? You get few hundred people talking on any subject and some are going to disagree.

Point 2. It is possible to be positive overall while not liking every single aspect of what is happening at "this football club". Your words are typical of the "two camps" mentality that has pervaded this place over the last two years or so. It is facile and inadequate and it gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

Point 3. Why should I be cheering? We haven't played a match in three months. Simply buying Player X is not a cause for cheering as far as I am concerned.

"Deals ... that all the fans crave"? Really? Have you asked them all? You have done this before. Are you Dave Wallace? It gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

You feel for Cook. Well, good for you. Why should I feel anything for Cook? I disagree with him just about every time he opens his mouth. Am I allowed to do that? It gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

Point 4. Are you saying the bloke who spoke to Bellamy is feeding us a "groundless rumour"?

Why is Ant "wasting his time"? I read him and take notice of him, as I do with most people here. He won't change my mind and I am not trying to change his (or anyone else's).

I have not read or heard anything from Marwood, so I am not going to comment on him. Yet.

[Ted Hughes]

Tbf I think too much is being made of Hughes' comments. It's clear that the owner wants a big name or two in order to help the plans for the profile of the club but I don't see anywhere that Hughes can claim he was forced to sign players. They ASKED him if he wanted Robinho & he said yes & apparently they asked him to give them a shout if he wanted them to bid for Rooney.

There was a lot of stuff going on when Frank was in charge, & personally I think Hughes was nothing short of fantastic in keeping it all together pre takeover, but I don't think he has any reasonable argument for claiming interference by the present owner in signing players, nor will Mancini. Both have brought in players who are quite clearly the ones they want.

[john68]

Thanks for a very intersting take on things Doomie. It was interesting (I think) because you are from a slightly different culture than the usual English Football culture that I come from and am steeped in. It offered me much food for thought.

The usual English model is or has been to have a manager who is all powerful in control. Taggart, Wenger etc, replicated at the vast majority of English clubs throughout the leagues. Whenever a director of football has been employed at English clubs, it has usually failed, sometimes quite dramatically.
Your business background and possibly your sporting culture may leave you more open minded to the present City model, I have yet to be convinced...but that may be a result of my scepticism or my resistance to change.

I think the nearest we at City have ever got to the present model was during our successful Mercer/Allison reign. However, Mercer was considered the boss, Allison was chosen and hired by him and though Mercer often did as Allison wished, Mercer had the right of veto and the final decision lay with him. Mercer had impeccable football references and was an experienced football man who had managed previously.
Our only other excursion into a similar model was, as KK pointed out, the Swales appointment of John Maddock. Maddock was a journalist/newspaper editor, hired by Swales to oversee Peter Reid. It was quite transparent that he had been hired as an assasin to sack Reid at the 1st available opportunity. The incident started the Swales out movement which saw Lee eventually installed. It was a dramatic and traumatic period of our recent history.

The way you describe the consensual, committee style of management is fine as long as all parties are in agreement. What happens when that is not the case? What happens if Marwood wants City to move in a particular direction and Mancini in another? Who has the final say then on football matters? Mancini as an experienced football coach/trainer with excellent credentials or Marwood who, though his past was in football, has no football credentials to speak of and who's recent past has been away from the game in an active sense?

The other worry I have is that Marwood seems to have a massive amount of power behind the scenes, yet remains well out of the spotlight and away from public scrutiny and criticism. Should Marwood's policies go shite...then undoubtedly the more public mancini will be targetted with the blame.

I remain unconvinced.

[DoomMerchant]

Thanks for a very intersting take on things Doomie. It was interesting (I think) because you are from a slightly different culture than the usual English Football culture that I come from and am steeped in. It offered me much food for thought.

The usual English model is or has been to have a manager who is all powerful in control. Taggart, Wenger etc, replicated at the vast majority of English clubs throughout the leagues. Whenever a director of football has been employed at English clubs, it has usually failed, sometimes quite dramatically.
Your business background and possibly your sporting culture may leave you more open minded to the present City model, I have yet to be convinced...but that may be a result of my scepticism or my resistance to change.

I think the nearest we at City have ever got to the present model was during our successful Mercer/Allison reign. However, Mercer was considered the boss, Allison was chosen and hired by him and though Mercer often did as Allison wished, Mercer had the right of veto and the final decision lay with him. Mercer had impeccable football references and was an experienced football man who had managed previously.
Our only other excursion into a similar model was, as KK pointed out, the Swales appointment of John Maddock. Maddock was a journalist/newspaper editor, hired by Swales to oversee Peter Reid. It was quite transparent that he had been hired as an assasin to sack Reid at the 1st available opportunity. The incident started the Swales out movement which saw Lee eventually installed. It was a dramatic and traumatic period of our recent history.

The way you describe the consensual, committee style of management is fine as long as all parties are in agreement. What happens when that is not the case? What happens if Marwood wants City to move in a particular direction and Mancini in another? Who has the final say then on football matters? Mancini as an experienced football coach/trainer with excellent credentials or Marwood who, though his past was in football, has no football credentials to speak of and who's recent past has been away from the game in an active sense?

The other worry I have is that Marwood seems to have a massive amount of power behind the scenes, yet remains well out of the spotlight and away from public scrutiny and criticism. Should Marwood's policies go shite...then undoubtedly the more public mancini will be targetted with the blame.

I remain unconvinced.

that's why it's a team John. You are correct in terms of American sporting culture. No one has the ultimate authority, and almost always when a manager of a team either in the NFL or in the NBA is given what we call "General Manager" duties (the guy who decides who comes and goes and how much we pay them, etc) they fail miserably. The best sporting franchises in America have a really good blend of experienced coaching, management experience at the top level, and teamwork and culture that is focused on winning and fandom. The contintental model you folks describe is completely reasonable and modern to most Americans. The English standard of one man with a huge responsibility seems really really hard to manage. As Ant mentioned above or in another thread -- i can't keep track of this conversation now! -- the job(s) are too big, the mission too bold for one or two...it's just scalability and span of control.

I am not only a Cook-licker, but a fan of the model we're trying to put into place. A smart team of 3-4 brains are going to make good decisions if they have a healthy relationship, common goals, and the right vision. That's what happens in American sports. it's typical and desirable. it's what everyone is trying to achieve. One person can't manage all that a global brand in any sporting endeavor has to contend with. it's not possible. Maybe that arbitrary complexity isn't palatable. Does it seem like much ado about nothing when people like me or Ant talk about the amount of work we imagine this "enterprise" entails? if it was just 25 dudes kicking a ball then it probably would be a lot simpler. but i'd suggest it's nothing like that and hasn't been since the takeover. A lot of money creates a lot of opportunity but also a lot of potential distraction for everyone...pluses and minuses for sure.

Could it all go tits up? it already has once with Hughes. Could Cook or Marwood find themselves out of favor in this model if the chemistry and mix is wrong? for fucking sure. But all i can ask is that they work together to get in top players, make sure that they are fielding the best product in a top environment, and sell the team in ways that are acceptable in terms of community, history and culture, etc. Maybe i'm not the best judge of the last couple items but i can't see where you can fault them on any of those points.

cheers

[mcfc1632]

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)

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

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

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

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

'kin 'ell. Where do you start?

Point 1. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, have to either agree with you or get psycho-analysed? You get few hundred people talking on any subject and some are going to disagree.

Point 2. It is possible to be positive overall while not liking every single aspect of what is happening at "this football club". Your words are typical of the "two camps" mentality that has pervaded this place over the last two years or so. It is facile and inadequate and it gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

Point 3. Why should I be cheering? We haven't played a match in three months. Simply buying Player X is not a cause for cheering as far as I am concerned.

"Deals ... that all the fans crave"? Really? Have you asked them all? You have done this before. Are you Dave Wallace? It gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

You feel for Cook. Well, good for you. Why should I feel anything for Cook? I disagree with him just about every time he opens his mouth. Am I allowed to do that? It gets on people's wicks to be told what they think and what they should think.

Point 4. Are you saying the bloke who spoke to Bellamy is feeding us a "groundless rumour"?

Why is Ant "wasting his time"? I read him and take notice of him, as I do with most people here. He won't change my mind and I am not trying to change his (or anyone else's).

I have not read or heard anything from Marwood, so I am not going to comment on him. Yet.

Sounds a bit irrational all that - there are different views / opinions etc - there seems to be a need for some people to find fault with the club at this time when it would seem to be a bit of a situation in which fans would / should be backing the club to the hilt - a lot of people might think.

But I accept that some will just want to find fault - that is their right - as is the right of fans with a different view to comment that perhaps this is a good time to be positive about CITY rather than just look for reasons to be critical - based on some peoples 'analysis ' - which it seems is frowned upon? or input from a poison agenda driven media

And I most certainly was not suggesting that people should not have their own views etc - so apols to anyone who thought that I was saying anything that sounded like that

But also surely for those of us that just want to simply 'enjoy the journey' and be very grateful to our owner and management team can make comments in that vein without being attacked

[john68]

Cheers for that Doomie, I know very little about how the US sporting clubs organise themselves and it was very informative. It is also great that we can get an interchange of opinions on here without having to call each other a cunt...even though we both probably are...:-)
A couple of point arise mate...I can understand the role Cook plays and like you have no problems with him. Guys who have met him and know him quite well have always spoken highly of him and the job he is trying to do. I can aslo see Cook's credentials and experience are beneficial to the job he does and again those who know him better reckon that he has had lot to learn about the club but has learnt it quickly and well.
I can also see why Mancini was employed. His record and experience were excellent and his credential seem to stand up to the test.

But why Marwood? Again I reiterate that I have no axe to grind against him personally and despite what you have eloquently posted, I remain unconvinced. He has no great record as a football man, yet he appears to stand above Mancini in the hierarchy. He does not seem to have any qualifications to do so. Neither is he a public figure, rather a shadowy power behind the throne, almost immune from public criticism. I would much rather that role, should we need to have that role at all, be played by someone who appears to have the qualificationds to do so.

One last point but possibly the most important was your comment "...make sure they are fielding the best product in a top environment and sell the team in ways that are acceptable in terms of community, history and culture..." Personally, I agree that that is what they are trying to do...AND THEY WOULD BE SO WRONG TO TRY AND DO THIS.
Manchester City is NOT a product to be sold to the community. They do not have to find ways to be acceptable to our community and culture. By doing this, they will first have to take the club away from us. Manchester City is NOT theirs to do this with. Manchester City is an integral part of that community and culture.
We were born out of the community's gutters and together with the community, City evolved into what it is now. The club and the supporters have always been one entity and on occasion it has been the supporters who have ensured the club's survival. We are not customers buying a product. WE ARE THE CLUB...THEY JUST ADMINISTER IT FOR US.

[Erwin Rommel]

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.

Are we supposed to feel all sentimental that we are getting more players in like Boeteng etc so there is no room for a player like Nedum?
You need to have a think about what kind of club you want to support, it is either a club challenging for the top trophys or one struggling to exist with the likes of Croft and Flood in midfield

[ant london]

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.

Are we supposed to feel all sentimental that we are getting more players in like Boeteng etc so there is no room for a player like Nedum?
You need to have a think about what kind of club you want to support, it is either a club challenging for the top trophys or one struggling to exist with the likes of Croft and Flood in midfield

I have to agree to a great extent with this.

I'm not sure where some of the negativity towards the likes of Cook & Marwood from posters such as Tokyo, CtK, NQDP, KK, John68 stems from.

Some of it obviously comes from a whistful desire for a more wholesome and less commercially prostitutional City but some of it appears to be a bit of a left wing Trotskyist..."we don't want these flash capitalist bastards running our club" thing.

Each to their own and, honestly, I am not having a go at any of the above for this but I just don't genuinely get what they want instead.

We either have the choice of the route we are heading down which to me is scaling up for the big time with the club still making massive efforts to factor us, the fans and our needs, in (even if, admittedly, some of that "fan-focus" is aimed at extracting more money from people). The major bonus being that it looks likely that we will win some trophies at some point

or

We stayed as we were, increasingly potless and a laughing stock as "little siddy". The only likely bonus being winning a few promotions over the rest of my lifetime and/or staying in business.

For me there is no "third way".

I'd love any of the above to explain, in light of their palpable distaste towards all things Cook / Marwood / Khaldoon / Mansour (as, face facts, they are the ones who have the ultimate say so in this) what could be done differently which would be more to their liking and how, possibly, this could be done hand in hand with actually getting us to a position where we could maybe taste some success.

To re-iterate...I am not having a pop at any of the above posters....I genuinely would like to hear their view on how this could be done and/or confirmation that they would be happier as City fans if we had stayed as we were?

[irblinx]

Cheers for that Doomie, I know very little about how the US sporting clubs organise themselves and it was very informative. It is also great that we can get an interchange of opinions on here without having to call each other a cunt...even though we both probably are...:-)
A couple of point arise mate...I can understand the role Cook plays and like you have no problems with him. Guys who have met him and know him quite well have always spoken highly of him and the job he is trying to do. I can aslo see Cook's credentials and experience are beneficial to the job he does and again those who know him better reckon that he has had lot to learn about the club but has learnt it quickly and well.
I can also see why Mancini was employed. His record and experience were excellent and his credential seem to stand up to the test.

But why Marwood? Again I reiterate that I have no axe to grind against him personally and despite what you have eloquently posted, I remain unconvinced. He has no great record as a football man, yet he appears to stand above Mancini in the hierarchy. He does not seem to have any qualifications to do so. Neither is he a public figure, rather a shadowy power behind the throne, almost immune from public criticism. I would much rather that role, should we need to have that role at all, be played by someone who appears to have the qualificationds to do so.

One last point but possibly the most important was your comment "...make sure they are fielding the best product in a top environment and sell the team in ways that are acceptable in terms of community, history and culture..." Personally, I agree that that is what they are trying to do...AND THEY WOULD BE SO WRONG TO TRY AND DO THIS.
Manchester City is NOT a product to be sold to the community. They do not have to find ways to be acceptable to our community and culture. By doing this, they will first have to take the club away from us. Manchester City is NOT theirs to do this with. Manchester City is an integral part of that community and culture.
We were born out of the community's gutters and together with the community, City evolved into what it is now. The club and the supporters have always been one entity and on occasion it has been the supporters who have ensured the club's survival. We are not customers buying a product. WE ARE THE CLUB...THEY JUST ADMINISTER IT FOR US.

430 club appearances (7 clubs) and 1 England cap

Surely the fact that Marwood played the game makes him a football man? Couple that with his time at Nike for business acumen and he seems like an obvious choice for that sort of role.

When it comes to shipping players in and out he is part of a team that includes Mancini, I assume as the deciding vote, but having selected and then spoken the player the contractual side of things is handed to Marwood and Cook. This seems like the perfect model to me. As for snide tactics, players that have been told they are surplus to requirements just as the club starts to become a giant seem to be saying they're not happy? Big surprise? Unless one of these players comes out and details what they see as being snide I don't see why we should be kicking up a shit-storm based on hearsay.

As for John's sentiments regarding City and the community, I know it's hard to accept but that just isn't true any more. The best we can hope for is that the club continues to respect the spirit and responsibility that City have always shown and that as we go through the transformation to silverware winning corporate entity that there are enough positives to be garnered by the loyal and that there is still a place for us in the future, particularly at COMS

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Cheers for that Doomie, I know very little about how the US sporting clubs organise themselves and it was very informative. It is also great that we can get an interchange of opinions on here without having to call each other a cunt...even though we both probably are...:-)
A couple of point arise mate...I can understand the role Cook plays and like you have no problems with him. Guys who have met him and know him quite well have always spoken highly of him and the job he is trying to do. I can aslo see Cook's credentials and experience are beneficial to the job he does and again those who know him better reckon that he has had lot to learn about the club but has learnt it quickly and well.
I can also see why Mancini was employed. His record and experience were excellent and his credential seem to stand up to the test.

But why Marwood? Again I reiterate that I have no axe to grind against him personally and despite what you have eloquently posted, I remain unconvinced. He has no great record as a football man, yet he appears to stand above Mancini in the hierarchy. He does not seem to have any qualifications to do so. Neither is he a public figure, rather a shadowy power behind the throne, almost immune from public criticism. I would much rather that role, should we need to have that role at all, be played by someone who appears to have the qualificationds to do so.

One last point but possibly the most important was your comment "...make sure they are fielding the best product in a top environment and sell the team in ways that are acceptable in terms of community, history and culture..." Personally, I agree that that is what they are trying to do...AND THEY WOULD BE SO WRONG TO TRY AND DO THIS.
Manchester City is NOT a product to be sold to the community. They do not have to find ways to be acceptable to our community and culture. By doing this, they will first have to take the club away from us. Manchester City is NOT theirs to do this with. Manchester City is an integral part of that community and culture.
We were born out of the community's gutters and together with the community, City evolved into what it is now. The club and the supporters have always been one entity and on occasion it has been the supporters who have ensured the club's survival. We are not customers buying a product. WE ARE THE CLUB...THEY JUST ADMINISTER IT FOR US.

430 club appearances (7 clubs) and 1 England cap

Surely the fact that Marwood played the game makes him a football man? Couple that with his time at Nike for business acumen and he seems like an obvious choice for that sort of role.

When it comes to shipping players in and out he is part of a team that includes Mancini, I assume as the deciding vote, but having selected and then spoken the player the contractual side of things is handed to Marwood and Cook. This seems like the perfect model to me. As for snide tactics, players that have been told they are surplus to requirements just as the club starts to become a giant seem to be saying they're not happy? Big surprise? Unless one of these players comes out and details what they see as being snide I don't see why we should be kicking up a shit-storm based on hearsay.

As for John's sentiments regarding City and the community, I know it's hard to accept but that just isn't true any more. The best we can hope for is that the club continues to respect the spirit and responsibility that City have always shown and that as we go through the transformation to silverware winning corporate entity that there are enough positives to be garnered by the loyal and that there is still a place for us in the future, particularly at COMS

I have to say I fully agree with John.

Regarding his playing days and working in shoe industry. I've got degree in engineering and worked in ground floor in a factory during my studies. Now I've done different sort of engineering for fair few years. Yet I don't feel I'd be capable of being a director of a factory.

I don't think Manchester City right now is kind of organization where you come to learn your ropes in a new job. We are in position where all our key positions should be filled with people who have previous experience of similar jobs elsewhere. Now this goes for playing staff and management...... why does it not include Chairman and Director of Football??

[irblinx]

He has a knowledge of how football works both from his time in the game and from working with modern pros whilst selling shoes and lots of experience of sorting contracts out, exactly what else do you think he needs in that role. He is a damned site better suited to the role than most of the directors of football in the game and is certainly better suited than the usual type of person put into the role in the UK (old managers).

[john@staustell]

I am pretty sure Marowood wasn't just plucked off SKY to work for City. There would've been some lengthy interview process and analysis of qualities and qualifications, much of which we are ignorant about. At the time there were nasty rumours we would get Peter Kenyon - Arrrrhhhh!

As Erwin Rommell says above, there is a little bit too much sentiment kicking about on here, especially about academy players. If we want to play with the big boys we have to get mean. Sorry but it goes with the territory.

Players not good enough to win the league must go - we are not a charity for City academy players.

[johnny crossan]

I am pretty sure Marowood wasn't just plucked off SKY to work for City. There would've been some lengthy interview process and analysis of qualities and qualifications, much of which we are ignorant about. At the time there were nasty rumours we would get Peter Kenyon - Arrrrhhhh!

As Erwin Rommell says above, there is a little bit too much sentiment kicking about on here, especially about academy players. If we want to play with the big boys we have to get mean. Sorry but it goes with the territory.

Players not good enough to win the league must go - we are not a charity for City academy players.

word is Kenyon's on the market again - Garry better look out

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I am pretty sure Marowood wasn't just plucked off SKY to work for City. There would've been some lengthy interview process and analysis of qualities and qualifications, much of which we are ignorant about. At the time there were nasty rumours we would get Peter Kenyon - Arrrrhhhh!

As Erwin Rommell says above, there is a little bit too much sentiment kicking about on here, especially about academy players. If we want to play with the big boys we have to get mean. Sorry but it goes with the territory.

Players not good enough to win the league must go - we are not a charity for City academy players.

Errrr..... he was Gary Cook's mate in Nike. Probably only one he knew who knows ANYTHING about foo....sorry....I mean soccer.

[mcfc1632]

At the risk of causing offence again at words like 'crave' - I would suggest that soooo many of the CITY fan base are really desperate for this potential for a successful period actually happens...... I would suggest that is the majority - but I am going off opinion - I have not spoken to them all...

For this to happen (IMO) we do have to become a different club than we used to be - and terms like 'product' will just be part of the modern vocabulary - we are a business now and the only way back is for us to fail - the Sheik sell up and we are happy to have another 35 years.....

Yes - we have won the lottery - but some fans seem to be like those lottery winners who say "......it will not change my life...." - well how lacking in ambition / realism is that - there are bound to be changes - and yes there may be some hankering for the good old simpler days - but heh - after 40+ years as a dedicated CITY fan - I will take the lottery win - recognise some things will change and hope that I (CITY) still remain 'good at heart' - whilst going on a winning streak that lasts for many many years

And just what is all this about Marwood???? - I do not know him - I do not need to defend him - the more important question is why do others need to attack without any REAL reasons?

Why was he appointed? is he qualified? - well clearly yes he is - because as those that have run major businesses or worked at exec level will know - he has the one credential that goes before all others - the confidence of the key decision maker. That is how it works - people at the top turn to people they know and have confidence in. The Sheik chose Khaldoon - for the very same reasons - Khaldoon gave Cook and Hughes a chance and has decided to continue to back one and not the other - and so on

Why the negativity here really? - I was (perhaps rightly with hindsight) criticised for suggesting that it is just an 'old CITY mentality' - but where does it end?? Do we want a poll on mancityfans to select the assistant ground-staff manager - the physio? - the security chaps - moonchester? - do we get pissed off because someone in the catering has chosen someone they have worked with before and have confidence in to do a key job waiting on?

Yes I know that Marwood is a key role - that is why it is even more important that selection into that role is made by the 'accountable officer' directly - Cook - he is the person that will carry the can for failure. I have no love for Marwood - I do have some admiration for Cook - but I have absolute love for CITY - (I am not saying that anyone with a different view has any less love for the club) - and I love the implications of this lottery win - and because for the win to be a life changing event (in terms of trophies etc) there needs to be success by the business execs - well I am right behind them - their failure means CITY fail and the dream does not materialise.

And there is no use (again IMO) to 'hanker' after the past - it is an illusion -the game has changed since 1992 and is only going one way!!

And when it comes to the challenge that Cook and his team (Marwood is just someone in that team) face in growing the revenues of the club to meet the levels required to meet the restrictions we will face - well that is a enormous challenge and it will be bigger if the fan base does not respond positively.

As an example - I drove up from Berkshire for the Valencia game - took 5 family members who would not normally go to matches - and I know several other groups who were similarly 'enlarged' - so on a day that we were at home for the first time and introducing some top players - I was surprised at the size of the crowd. I am not using words like 'disappointing' or criticising fans in a tough economic climate - but it did clearly show the commercial challenge the clubs faces - and Cook and his team will need support - and Marwood will have to some 'dirty work' - that is his job.

[the_georgian_genius]

No one has a clue what Marwood does, i have an idea but i don't have a clue what decisions he has made.

So until i do i have no opinion on him. He must be doing a good job though as he's still here working with Mancini.

[Rag_hater]

From reading the comments on this thread it seems to me that the people who don't like Marwood or are yet to be convinced by him, seem to want some dictator kind of character in charge of team and squad matters.Although I'm not a big fan of Cook and Marwood they seem to be part of our evecutive team and therefore from my viewpoint should be given our support.Questions obviously need to be asked of how things are developing.
But as we seem to be achieving all we set out to then the complaints about it being the wrong approach seem somewhat unfounded.
What the exec team are doing seems to be working so regardless of peoples dislike for certain people surley the results they have attained cannot be argued with.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

From reading the comments on this thread it seems to me that the people who don't like Marwood or are yet to be convinced by him, seem to want some dictator kind of character in charge of team and squad matters.Although I'm not a big fan of Cook and Marwood they seem to be part of our evecutive team and therefore from my viewpoint should be given our support.Questions obviously need to be asked of how things are developing.
But as we seem to be achieving all we set out to then the complaints about it being the wrong approach seem somewhat unfounded.
What the exec team are doing seems to be working so regardless of peoples dislike for certain people surley the results they have attained cannot be argued with.

Honestly, I believe that in business like football that is male dominated, certain amount of dictatorship isn't all that bad. Decisions need to be made and there should be people who, for better or for worse, shoulder the blame or take the credit. I myself work in a male dominated industry and fucking hell, there are loads of people about who need to be told in no uncertain terms what to do.

I hate people who on these sort of enviroments hide behind other people and shoot from the bushes.

[Rag_hater]

From reading the comments on this thread it seems to me that the people who don't like Marwood or are yet to be convinced by him, seem to want some dictator kind of character in charge of team and squad matters.Although I'm not a big fan of Cook and Marwood they seem to be part of our evecutive team and therefore from my viewpoint should be given our support.Questions obviously need to be asked of how things are developing.
But as we seem to be achieving all we set out to then the complaints about it being the wrong approach seem somewhat unfounded.
What the exec team are doing seems to be working so regardless of peoples dislike for certain people surley the results they have attained cannot be argued with.

Honestly, I believe that in business like football that is male dominated, certain amount of dictatorship isn't all that bad. Decisions need to be made and there should be people who, for better or for worse, shoulder the blame or take the credit. I myself work in a male dominated industry and fucking hell, there are loads of people about who need to be told in no uncertain terms what to do.

I hate people who on these sort of enviroments hide behind other people and shoot from the bushes.

I think that each individual and set of circumstances have to be dealt with as an individual case.For certain people being told what to do by an authorative figure might be how to achieve things.(I tend to think thats somewhat outdated approach myself).Being democratic and listening to other people seems a much more amicable way to do things I think .I'm sure this day and age when there is more oppurtunity for people to be more expansive you would be told to go and swivel if one wasn't given the chance to have ones say.
I'm sure if you want to keep people who you think are right for the job you need doing(whether you like them or not),one has to accept and be willing to bend to a particular persons idosincrasies.