Tuesday, 24 February 2009

City to appoint new 'Football Administrator'

From Daniel Taylor in Tuesday's Guardian:
Mark Hughes is to be joined at Manchester City by Brian Marwood, the one-time ­England winger, who is expected to be appointed with the title of football ­administrator. Marwood had ­initially been lined up as a director of football, but City have offered him a ­different role because Hughes did not want anybody brought in above him....

Cook initially floated the possibility that Marwood could work as director of football but Hughes was opposed to the idea. The talks were amicable and Cook accepted Hughes's view that there were many examples at other clubs when the creation of such a position had done more harm than good.
As the article also points out, Marwood worked with Garry Cook at Nike and so would strengthen the position of the rather under-fire Executive Chairman. But the introduction of someone with real footballing experience would surely be a boost to Hughes as well. As football knowledge within the boardroom is increased, I imagine the more likely the club is to stick with Hughes for at least another season. Which, for me at least, is a good thing.

The fact that Hughes is being consulted on club appointments looks quite significant. If we were definitely going to get Louis van Gaal or Roberto Mancini or whoever in the summer presumably we wouldn't have gone through this process? The worrying thing is that the back end of this season is beginning to resemble the end of the last one - unsure of the future, desperately scanning all club announcements trying to read into them insights into the manager's long term position. I can't take another summer of chaos.


jfell said...

...but chaos is what we do best!

Jack said...

Brian Marwood is the best co-commentator on Sky. I always respect his opinions far more than Andy 'I'd walk up the M6 to play for United' Gray. The foamers and press can think what they like, Mark Hughes is here for the duration, and I too welcome it. Stability is definitely what we need. If you appoint a manager, then unless he is a complete disaster, he should be given 3 years at least.

tommytheblue said...

someone who can deal with players and not just a pr man like cook, it seems, who failed in several bids to buy players. This guy will be doing transfers.

and jack of course it's right to give a manager time, but to give 3 years becuase he hasnt been an absolute disaster is moronic! YOu cant hold on to someone for the sake of preservation and patients if they are not right, they have to earn patients at MoB did at villa and hughes can do now if our form continues.

clevblue said...

Another summer of chaos is what sharpens your pencil Jack. Keep up the good work