the flapping thread.

[Soulboy]

agreed. overall there is just an air of uncertainty around the club and i dont like it.

Dont say that mate or the flappers will be flapping.
They will be thinking the Arabs are pulling out.

nah but i think bob is using his new contract to oust marwood from his job.

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Dont say that mate or the flappers will be flapping.
They will be thinking the Arabs are pulling out.

nah but i think bob is using his new contract to oust marwood from his job.

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Dont say that mate or the flappers will be flapping.
They will be thinking the Arabs are pulling out.

nah but i think bob is using his new contract to oust marwood from his job.

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

Can't see it. I think Bob is massively pissed off with Marwood. Any club watching how desperate we are to get a player in would instantly up the price and Bob knows that.

"three months and still nothing" says it all. In this respect our flappers were right.

 

[Soulboy]

nah but i think bob is using his new contract to oust marwood from his job.

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

 

[MadchesterCity]

ok so we have a brilliant squad and yes we are champions but is anyone else worried about the strengthening our opponents are doing as we twiddle our thumbs? i do trust bob and i do trust mr marwood but i have a funny funny feeling the ffp is causing us to lose our targets, sooner or later they will sign for other clubs, i.e. rvp hazard etc.

can someone put my mind at rest.

ps only fellow flappers need reply :)

fap fap fap, not worried about our rivals but we need central defense and midfield cover

may want to merge my thread into here

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=263987" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=263987</a>

 

[Cobwebcat]

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

Mancini could walk away during his last contract or this one as he did at Inter his influence remains the same. There is only a difference if we are looking to sack him which we are not.

Plus Bob doesn't have to be happy about every aspect of the club to sign a new contract.

It is what it is....he doesn't rate Marwood.

 

[Rammy Blue]

If that's the case, then why not during the negotiations?

It's a bit late now, isn't it?

I have a sneaky feeling that Mancini likes to create an atmosphere of chaos to get the best out of his players, a siege mentality. He did it brilliantly back end of last season, even the Tevez scenario worked to his benefit in the end.

A bit Mourinho-ish like?

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

I agree with most you say mate, was just throwing the other opinion in there.

Was having a good chat with a few good blues over a round of golf yesterday and we were all saying the same, there is still some fundamental flaws in the hierarchy at City. Crackers that we still haven't employed a CEO with some decent clout, if memory serves me correctly even that Potts bloke has finished his notice at Tesco now yet still no appointment.

Again you would have thought that Bob would have had confirmation of funds available, with winning the title, and considering Bob spat his dummy out last season about being hamstrung by Hughes and Marwood's deadwood, the same has happened once more.

It's all very strange, unless it's one hell of a cunning plan.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

I agree with most you say mate, was just throwing the other opinion in there.

Was having a good chat with a few good blues over a round of golf yesterday and we were all saying the same, there is still some fundamental flaws in the hierarchy at City. Crackers that we still haven't employed a CEO with some decent clout, if memory serves me correctly even that Potts bloke has finished his notice at Tesco now yet still no appointment.

Again you would have thought that Bob would have had confirmation of funds available, with winning the title, and considering Bob spat his dummy out last season about being hamstrung by Hughes and Marwood's deadwood, the same has happened once more.

It's all very strange, unless it's one hell of a cunning plan.

It's not a cunning plan.

 

[Soulboy]

Surely it's better for him to have signed a new 5 year deal before he starts kicking up a fuss, if the owners got that pissed off they wanted to get rid then he is quids in.

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

Mancini could walk away during his last contract or this one as he did at Inter his influence remains the same. There is only a difference if we are looking to sack him which we are not.

Plus Bob doesn't have to be happy about every aspect of the club to sign a new contract.

It is what it is....he doesn't rate Marwood.

I agree that Mancini doesn't have to like everything about the club to sign a new contract, but when one of the things he supposedly "hates" is the guy responsible for transfers, then I'm sure Mancini would have resolved this at the time of signing his new contract.

It's a bit like the owners saying they want to bring Ray Wilkins in as first team coach, and to play Abdulramah a handful of games every season... I'm sure Mancini would not accept that, no matter what the contract!

So, by the same token, he had a chance to clear Marwood out and chose not to.

Everybody that Mancini has wanted out, to date, has gone. I'm sure if Mancini went to the owners and insisted on Marwood going they would comply. I mean, they gave the reserves manager job to his mate, so they clearly want to keep Mancini sweet.<br /><br />-- Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:58 am --<br /><br />

But the power he had while negotiating his 5 year deal has now gone. He can't "threaten" the club over Marwood now, whereas while he held the power prior to the contract signing, he could have imposed his own demands.

I'm sure he can now kick off... but the club can just ignore him now if they choose. The club can righly point out that he "agreed" to these arrangements when he signed the new contract.

I suspect this is all smoke and mirrors. If not, then Mancini really shouldn't have extended his contract if he so fundamentally disagreed with Marwood being responsible for deals. I think Mancini is just winding up a fellow employee and pressurising the board to move things on... which I'm sure will happen over the next couple of weeks.

I agree with most you say mate, was just throwing the other opinion in there.

Was having a good chat with a few good blues over a round of golf yesterday and we were all saying the same, there is still some fundamental flaws in the hierarchy at City. Crackers that we still haven't employed a CEO with some decent clout, if memory serves me correctly even that Potts bloke has finished his notice at Tesco now yet still no appointment.

Again you would have thought that Bob would have had confirmation of funds available, with winning the title, and considering Bob spat his dummy out last season about being hamstrung by Hughes and Marwood's deadwood, the same has happened once more.

It's all very strange, unless it's one hell of a cunning plan.

It's not a cunning plan.

Go on then, what's your take on it then? And no youtube 80's pop videos either!

 

[Cobwebcat]

I would think that Mancini got his way on a lot of things before he signed and was also made one of the highest paid managers in the world. I also think he would have been given assurances that we would do our best to bring in a couple of the players he wanted. Those players haven't arrived and Mancini blames Marwood. I don't think it's a cunning plan if anything it will put asking prices up.