New CEO

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Mancio,
My post was NOT a personal attack on you Mate. Nor was it meant in any way disrespectful. I too thought this debate had come to an end and was more than happy to allow it to die a quiet natural death. However, over a number of subsequent posts, you continued to chip away with what I felt were unsubstantiated accusations against Marwood.

If a man is to be accused, there must surely be some hard evidence to find him guilty, I was merely trying to ascertain what, if any hard evidence you had to prove that he was solely to blame for the failure to sell Ade, RSC et al. What hard evidence there was to prove he was solely to blame for the failure to buy Hazard, Van Persie and others, what hard evidence that there wqas to prove that this and other failures were the sole responsibility of Marwood.

I am not defending Marwood per se, I am simply seeking the truth and as yet, in amongst the opinion and innuendo, NONE has been provided.

Prove he wasn't.

I am a truth searcher, not an accuser. Not denying he is shit,just wanna know what the factual evidence is that is driving all this negative stuff about him,

Apart from it being in his job description? I am not really one way or the other on Marwood, I think this Summer has been a let down for both clearing the dead wood and bringing in new faces to freshen the lineup. Whether that lies solely with Marwood or is down to Mancini, Marwood, Khaldoon and Platt(because I still need a reason) is no matter, it still lies at least in some part, at Marwood's feet.

I don't understand why people are constantly trying to look past that. I mean it has been mentioned time and time again by different people in the organization that Marwood is essentially in charge of making the deals happen. That is not guesswork nor anyone trying to put anything on his shoulders. That's his job description. Whether he is doing good, bad or average job is up for debate and how much help he gets for what things from who IS indeed bit of guesswork but his area of duty is quite clear.

In fact, if it wasn't his job then why the hell would we have him in the organization in the first place? If there was someone else doing that job then there'd be absolutely no reason to keep him. There are two types of people working under the "director of football" title. Those who are in charge of contract negotiations and player transfers and club ambassador types (Charlton, Zidane). I think we can fairly say that Marwood isn't the latter (in fact we have Buzzer working in that role for us).

[Slim]

I don't understand why people are constantly trying to look past that. I mean it has been mentioned time and time again by different people in the organization that Marwood is essentially in charge of making the deals happen. That is not guesswork nor anyone trying to put anything on his shoulders. That's his job description. Whether he is doing good, bad or average job is up for debate and how much help he gets for what things from who IS indeed bit of guesswork but his area of duty is quite clear.

In fact, if it wasn't his job then why the hell would we have him in the organization in the first place? If there was someone else doing that job then there'd be absolutely no reason to keep him. There are two types of people working under the "director of football" title. Those who are in charge of contract negotiations and player transfers and club ambassador types (Charlton, Zidane). I think we can fairly say that Marwood isn't the latter (in fact we have Buzzer working in that role for us).

I do love his complete one-eyed view of everything City. When they get him on as a pundit, I roll on over to the oppositions forum and cackle like a mad witch when they mention him, it's not usually complimentary.

[Swales4ever]

Mancio,
My post was NOT a personal attack on you Mate. Nor was it meant in any way disrespectful. I too thought this debate had come to an end and was more than happy to allow it to die a quiet natural death. However, over a number of subsequent posts, you continued to chip away with what I felt were unsubstantiated accusations against Marwood.

If a man is to be accused, there must surely be some hard evidence to find him guilty, I was merely trying to ascertain what, if any hard evidence you had to prove that he was solely to blame for the failure to sell Ade, RSC et al. What hard evidence there was to prove he was solely to blame for the failure to buy Hazard, Van Persie and others, what hard evidence that there wqas to prove that this and other failures were the sole responsibility of Marwood.

I am not defending Marwood per se, I am simply seeking the truth and as yet, in amongst the opinion and innuendo, NONE has been provided.

John, Sir,
You might never, ever, be disrespectful to anyone, let alone me, cause I am just one of many residential pricks on here which hardly get harmed by a gentleman's post.
You are too much of a true born gentleman and, what count even more to me, pillar of utter logic to an extent that one could even wonder if You were not Immanuel Kant in disguise. I am serious. no attack/offence deemed and not perceived/taken.

On topic I am trying to stand by the promise I've made to the whole forum and to You first, My Lord, to the effect of not engage myself anymore in this Marwood saga. Thus, while I genuinely confirm my love and utter respect, I'm gonna do a Ted (in general, not towards just one single, tho) and refuse to be engaged any further in the pantomime.
My limits are pretty well known, but I am still succeding to hold on the promise despite I saw, several officers of the pro-truth brigade, still spreading all threads with quite humorous but yet provocative posts on the matter.

Just, John, in case any further occasion should arise, please let me know where I should have to apply for a position of senior director at a world leading company, with relevant salary, bonuses and benefits, absolutely unconstrained by results and backed by a huge brigade of mercyful costumers always keen on give me the so called benefit of doubt, in the wise knowledge that the truth itself is a very hard acheivement in this valley of tears.
Also, please, workplace level or above 50th parallel north will do me great because, as getting old, I tend to suffer torrid climates.

luv and hugs
M4e

[john68]

@ Slim,
I agree that Marwood has a senior role to play in all of this, but not the senior role. I don't think that those above him have ever considered him good enough to do that job. Though senior, I see him more as the "fetch me, carry me" man, operating under strict instructions from above, within the parameters set by his masters.
I think that he may have an input in this but the final decision on wage deals, player valuation etc are decided by those who hold the financial purse strings and define City's spending and investment policy.

We know from statement made by Khaldoon that we are trimming our spending and I think our owners (maybe with one eye on the FFP) have put upper limits on the market. The market simply went too high for what the club was willing to spend.


"Here's £60 Love, go and buy yourself a new frock"...."Didn't get one, the only ones I liked were too dear."

[Slim]

@ Slim,
I agree that Marwood has a senior role to play in all of this, but not the senior role. I don't think that those above him have ever considered him good enough to do that job. Though senior, I see him more as the "fetch me, carry me" man, operating under strict instructions from above, within the parameters set by his masters.
I think that he may have an input in this but the final decision on wage deals, player valuation etc are decided by those who hold the financial purse strings and define City's spending and investment policy.

We know from statement made by Khaldoon that we are trimming our spending and I think our owners (maybe with one eye on the FFP) have put upper limits on the market. The market simply went too high for what the club was willing to spend.


"Here's £60 Love, go and buy yourself a new frock"...."Didn't get one, the only ones I liked were too dear."

He isn't buying a frock for himself though, he is buying one for Mancini. Do you think he is given carte blanche to go out and buy whoever he wants? No, of course not. But let's do another analogy shall we? They're fun and all.

Mancini: I need a new frock(themed) for the upcoming ball, I'd like this one or this one or this one.
Marwood: They are all too expensive, choose something else.
Mancini: Well maybe if you did your fucking job you fucktard and sold some of the old clothes, we could afford the frock I like.
Marwood: Wait, that's not in my job description.
Mancini: And from your performance in the offseason, neither is buying new frocks.
Marwood: I will have to consult john, apparently he knows what the fuck I am supposed to be doing.
Mancini: Actually it's in the title of your fucking job you know?
Marwood: Yeah, but john is the expert and he seems to think I am doing nothing wrong.
Mancini: What? Exactly what is john's job?
Marwood: He's a cab driver.
Mancini: Oh, my mistake, he is of course, the expert on everything.

[Swales4ever]

who's who recently told this theater lost appeal in humour and character?

I tell You what, Bob should charge all of us an admitance fee, ffs!

[john68]

You're right Slim. they are fun.

The reason Marwood was employed was well documented at the time. So was his role within the club. It was all stated publicly.
But maybe around that time, some people where too busy calling for Cook's head to have bothered to notice.

[Slim]

You're right Slim. they are fun.

The reason Marwood was employed was well documented at the time. So was his role within the club. It was all stated publicly.
But maybe around that time, some people where too busy calling for Cook's head to have bothered to notice.

So was the amalgamation of his and cookie's job into one role when he was ravaged by it, RAVAGED BY IT!

[john68]

You're right Slim. they are fun.

The reason Marwood was employed was well documented at the time. So was his role within the club. It was all stated publicly.
But maybe around that time, some people where too busy calling for Cook's head to have bothered to notice.

So was the amalgamation of his and cookie's job into one role when he was ravaged by it, RAVAGED BY IT!

I am pretty certain that no amalgamation of jobs took place Mate.

[Socrates]

You're right Slim. they are fun.

The reason Marwood was employed was well documented at the time. So was his role within the club. It was all stated publicly.
But maybe around that time, some people where too busy calling for Cook's head to have bothered to notice.

So was the amalgamation of his and cookie's job into one role when he was ravaged by it, RAVAGED BY IT!

I am pretty certain that no amalgamation of jobs took place Mate.

Me too, they actually split Cook's job into 2, already filled the commercial part and Galbraith filled the CEO temporarily until the permanent appointment. People just making up shit to suit their biased viewpoints.

[Slim]

You're right Slim. they are fun.

The reason Marwood was employed was well documented at the time. So was his role within the club. It was all stated publicly.
But maybe around that time, some people where too busy calling for Cook's head to have bothered to notice.

So was the amalgamation of his and cookie's job into one role when he was ravaged by it, RAVAGED BY IT!

I am pretty certain that no amalgamation of jobs took place Mate.

Me too, they actually split Cook's job into 2, already filled the commercial part and Galbraith filled the CEO temporarily until the permanent appointment. People just making up shit to suit their biased viewpoints.

Like I said, I have no thoughts on Marwood one way or another, but I do remember reading that when it all went to pot over Onuoha's ravaged mum. Maybe you shouldn't make up shit about my viewpoint to suit your biased viewpoint.

[DoomMerchant]

this is so fucking queer....

WHAT THE FUCK DOES BRIAN MARWOOD DO?

serious question...some people think he doesn't have the job of "Director of Football" so i decided to do a little bit of research using a laptop, google's world-renowned search engine and a keen sense of experience in the matters of "finding shit i'm looking for" (Thank you St Anthony!!!)

After about, okay well, EXACTLY .28 seconds i found a really interesting link that i needed to look into further. A google search result with corporate info for the Executive team at mcfc.co.uk. After some momentary glancing at other results, i poked into said link and found that the page was actually a link to Khaldoon's profile (interesting! more on that later i think). I craftily navigated through the menu bar on the right side of the page to find one "Brian Marwood", who is the subject we're tackling, and then clicked on his executive profile.

and BOOM! Here's his title from the OS:

Football Administration Officer

which basically to me says "Khaldoon's Piss Boy", not Director of Football, not "Guy with a 10-inch cock to slam in other Drs of Footy from big huge clubs around the world", but..."administration officer." It's a seemingly unique, bullshit type of title for which i could find no other significant club in the world using in their org chart.

I'm still researching this but i wanted to share this news with people to help maybe "crowdsource" the answer to the question i've posited above.

stay tuned

[Swales4ever]

(Thank you St Anthony!!!)

terrone!