carl_feedthegoat wrote:Btajim.
Hi Garry,I just wanted to shake your hand and ask you a question.I go to COMS as mucha as possible but sometimes I cannot leave the house as Sophie.....sorry..Sophie is my Cat...... needs a carer when Im away and sometimes I cannot find one.
My question is ; Is it possible to bring Sophie to matches at COMS in her kitten box and can she come in for free?
Scatman wrote:something important is missing
jimmygrimble2 wrote:Scatman wrote:something important is missing
yep...
chinners out!
Chinners wrote:Brian Marwood's role in spotlight as Manchester City deny discontent
Are there signs of renewed discontent at Manchester City? The sacking of Mark Hughes caused upheaval although the measured start Roberto Mancini has made – plus a relatively comfortable run of games – has calmed matters.
But now there are rumours – flatly rejected by the club – of tensions and claims that City missed out on January transfers targets and ended up, in Adam Johnson, with a player the manager did not regard as essential.
City refute the claims as the work of disenchanted agents and those frozen out of the new regime. They point out that Mancini watched DVDs of Johnson, a player he was not overly familiar with, and sanctioned the move and that attempts to sign the likes of Fernando Gago were thwarted by inflated demands. That may well be true although the fact that there are murmurings of unhappiness, from whatever quarter, inevitably leads the debate back to the role at City played by Brian Marwood, who, certainly, championed the signing of Johnson.
Marwood is the City's "football administration officer", a title that does not exist at any other club. What does it signify? And is Marwood really a problem at City or merely the victim of those feeling sore because of Hughes's departure?
The truth may lie between the two. City certainly feel there is a vendetta against Marwood, who is part of the club's curiously named "executive leadership team" (does that mean board?) established by chief executive Garry Cook, who brought the former winger from Nike, where the pair had worked together.
Apparently it was Hughes who insisted that Marwood was not referred to as the club's director of football. That sounded too grand. It was also a clear sign that the manager did not really want the new man. Who could blame him?
This was Marwood's first job at a club since he retired from playing in 1994.
And Hughes had his own ideas. The 'vision thing' à la Arsène Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson, is a solo task. It is not a collective. Whatever protests City make, it is undeniable that Marwood played a central role in Hughes's departure and therefore is an important player at the club and in its politics.
Scatman wrote:something important is missing
BobKowalski wrote:Chinners wrote:Brian Marwood's role in spotlight as Manchester City deny discontent
Are there signs of renewed discontent at Manchester City? The sacking of Mark Hughes caused upheaval although the measured start Roberto Mancini has made – plus a relatively comfortable run of games – has calmed matters.
But now there are rumours – flatly rejected by the club – of tensions and claims that City missed out on January transfers targets and ended up, in Adam Johnson, with a player the manager did not regard as essential.
City refute the claims as the work of disenchanted agents and those frozen out of the new regime. They point out that Mancini watched DVDs of Johnson, a player he was not overly familiar with, and sanctioned the move and that attempts to sign the likes of Fernando Gago were thwarted by inflated demands. That may well be true although the fact that there are murmurings of unhappiness, from whatever quarter, inevitably leads the debate back to the role at City played by Brian Marwood, who, certainly, championed the signing of Johnson.
Marwood is the City's "football administration officer", a title that does not exist at any other club. What does it signify? And is Marwood really a problem at City or merely the victim of those feeling sore because of Hughes's departure?
The truth may lie between the two. City certainly feel there is a vendetta against Marwood, who is part of the club's curiously named "executive leadership team" (does that mean board?) established by chief executive Garry Cook, who brought the former winger from Nike, where the pair had worked together.
Apparently it was Hughes who insisted that Marwood was not referred to as the club's director of football. That sounded too grand. It was also a clear sign that the manager did not really want the new man. Who could blame him?
This was Marwood's first job at a club since he retired from playing in 1994.
And Hughes had his own ideas. The 'vision thing' à la Arsène Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson, is a solo task. It is not a collective. Whatever protests City make, it is undeniable that Marwood played a central role in Hughes's departure and therefore is an important player at the club and in its politics.
Love the way it opens with a question rather than a statement and then meanders through a forest of 'rumours', 'mays' and 'apparentlys' all leading to the conclusion that the author has as much idea as I do on Marwood.
Cookie will be pleased that its someone elses turn to get it in the neck though.
Chinners wrote:Scatman wrote:something important is missing
Ooops ... sorted now!
Scatman wrote:jimmygrimble2 wrote:Scatman wrote:something important is missing
yep...
chinners out!
On a separate note, who was it who wanted the team photo you have at the bottom of your posts?
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Bear60, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 53 guests