Real 'Bottled It'

[The Man In Blue]

does anyone trust Valdano, or anybody at Madrid to give an unbiased view of what happened?

[Socrates]

well thats all well and good but an explanation as to why it was left until the last 40 minutes of the transfer window is still not forthcoming (which is what they are complaining about in principle) Ronald McDonald should have been sorted way, way before the last day of the window to avoid situations like this

and soccs - no I haven't hacked your account, just sometimes difficult answers need questions :D

More like you've hacked into my brain! You sound like me a few months ago - I'm almost phiosophical about it now, just "Typical Cookie" as far as I'm concerned.

[the_georgian_genius]

Did Gago want to come? Yes
Did Real want to sell? Yes
Did Mariga want to sign? Yes
Did Parma want to sell? Yes
Could Mariga have gotten a work permit if we had our act together? Yes

Did Gago or Mariga sign? No.

But its not our fault. Its a press conspiracy.

you're missing the whole point, AGAIN.

[dazby]

I'm happy we didn't get any of them. It would have made our squad too big.

[Florida Blue]

I found this pretty spot on...

http://blogs.soccernet.com/soccernetcomments/archives/2010/02/cook_failing_to_provide_the_re.php

Cook failing to provide the recipe for success

Having failed to clinch a deal for Kaka in January 2009, Manchester City chief executive Garry Cook claimed AC Milan “bottled it”.

"He clearly was for sale but we never got to meet with the player,” Cook said at the time. “The behaviour of AC Milan got in the way."

It was a curious remark. City’s £100 million deal for Kaka was understandable for an ambitious, mega-rich club looking to reach parity with the big four, but it was always unlikely. For one thing, Brazilians rarely seem keen to move to England for whatever reason and Kaka, like Cristiano Ronaldo, had long seemed destined for a move to Real Madrid.

Cook, who arrived after 12 years with sportswear giant Nike, confirmed he had tried to negotiate with Kaka’s father on setting up humanitarian projects for the player, but said “financial demands came to the fore”. The suspicion then, as it is now, is that Cook hadn’t quite come to terms with the fact that City remain a work in progress on the field.

The point was brought home once more last month when Santos youngster Paulo Henrique Gansu suggested he was unhappy about City potentially getting first option on his signature as part of the Robinho loan. "I don't want to play for Manchester City,” he said. “I'd prefer to play for a big club in Europe such as Milan, Real Madrid or Barcelona." For Cook to insult Milan seemed naive to say the least and eyebrows have been raised ever since.

Reports have emerged in the national press that Cook’s position at City is under scrutiny. The Milan remark was not Cook’s only PR error. He had previously claimed former owner Thaksin Shinawatra - the former Thai PM accused of, among other things, corruption, tax evasion and authoritarianism - was “a great guy to play golf with” (perhaps Kaka’s father had been less than convinced about the motive behind the proposed humanitarian projects). More recently, the sacking of Mark Hughes in December was justifiable but its handling was wretched, and Cook attracted plenty more criticism after his explanation as to when exactly Roberto Mancini had been offered the post.

While trying to help City become “the biggest and best football club in the world”, Cook was last month helping Mancini strengthen in defensive midfield. Real Madrid’s Fernando Gago was the big target but, after early negotiations showed few signs of progress, they turned to Parma’s Kenya international McDonald Mariga. The move, according to Kenya PM Raila Odinga, fell through as City did not leave enough time to force through a work permit.

When it emerged that Mariga would not arrive, City went back in for Gago. However, as Real Madrid director general Jorge Valdano revealed this week, the bid was made so late in the day that there was no conceivable hope of the move being concluded. "They had nothing prepared, not even one document signed," he told El Pais. "They had not reached an agreement with the player and they would have had to have done everything in 40 minutes."

Some of the criticism that has come Cook’s way may well have been unfair and it is likely that many of the situations involved more complexities than we have been privy to, but the regularity of the avoidable bad press is alarming and it is hard to imagine that City’s owners are content. The club’s public image is souring and, unlike Peter Kenyon's time at Chelsea, targets have not been secured. If City are to become the biggest and best football club in the world, they may well be looking at someone with a background in the sport to help take them there.

[ronk]

Yes, it was because of a "humanitarian project" that negotiations didn't go well between Kaka's father and Cook.

They refused to talk details, just wanted a headline salary offer for bringing into the Real deal that they were really interested in. You really have to wonder who comes up with this stuff.

We've never been the ones to leak news of transfer targets and we've always been honest (to my knowledge) where we've mentioned details. But somehow people tend to believe everything that Real want to say about it being nothing to do with them.

I'd rather us miss out on the odd player (subject to the occasional exceptional find) than desperately pay a huge premium just because we HAVE TO HAVE HIM. Best thing really would be to have a few high profile deals fall apart when the other side pushes too hard.

[Alex Sapphire]

No idea who's right and who's wrong
Milan and Real have both now found it hard to do business with us, (maybe you could add Barca) and these are the kind of clubs I'd expect us to be dealing with.
Cook takes home one and a half million pounds.
Our newest sponsors are all Arab.
Except Manchester's Humphrey Brothers who have a very long City history.
In football spending terms, is he giving good value?

[ant london]

Our newest sponsors are all Arab.

Just what on earth does that have to do with anything in any way other than I take it you're trying to allude to the fact that Cook's role in securing the deals with Etihad, Etisalat and Ferrostaal was no more than token on the basis that they are all beholden to the Sheikh?

[Alex Sapphire]

Our newest sponsors are all Arab.

Just what on earth does that have to do with anything in any way other than I take it you're trying to allude to the fact that Cook's role in securing the deals with Etihad, Etisalat and Ferrostaal was no more than token on the basis that they are all beholden to the Sheikh?

this^ although I would choose a different word than beholden ;-)
did he land Singha Beer too under the old regime?

[ant london]

Our newest sponsors are all Arab.

Just what on earth does that have to do with anything in any way other than I take it you're trying to allude to the fact that Cook's role in securing the deals with Etihad, Etisalat and Ferrostaal was no more than token on the basis that they are all beholden to the Sheikh?

this^ although I would choose a different word than beholden ;-)
did he land Singha Beer too under the old regime?

well we shall have to agree to disagree again....I think you're wrong, you think likewise

(although not re singha I agree...)

EDIT: and I stand by beholden ;-)

[Alex Sapphire]

Our newest sponsors are all Arab.

Just what on earth does that have to do with anything in any way other than I take it you're trying to allude to the fact that Cook's role in securing the deals with Etihad, Etisalat and Ferrostaal was no more than token on the basis that they are all beholden to the Sheikh?

this^ although I would choose a different word than beholden ;-)
did he land Singha Beer too under the old regime?

well we shall have to agree to disagree again....I think you're wrong, you think likewise

(although not re singha I agree...)

EDIT: and I stand by beholden ;-)

to disagree with me you'd really need to know what I think.

I don't think that when City were acquired Cook had a list of UAE companies he was negotiating with already.
I do think he would have been expected to have a list of potential sponsors in advanced discussion (after his time in role), and don't think our new owners would throw it away for lack of UAE names on it.
I don't think that Khaldoun needed Cook's help to close the UAE deals, although I do think he would have had input.
I do think we have a potentail exposure to new UEFA Financial fair Play regs if our sponsors are owned by the UAE Royal Family
I do think it's disappointing that on Cook's shift we have signed 1 Thai and 3 UAE sponsors, but at least he hasn't fucked off Key103.
I do think Umbro is the right kit manufacturer, but think 10 years too long and 50 mill too little (bearing in mind our trajectory).
I don't think that hgis has been a world class, 1.5 mill per year performance.
Do you disagree with all of that or just some?
beholden: obliged, grateful, endebted, liable.
Low hanging fruit I think you call it

[ant london]

Funnily enough Alex I have followed your views as set out above in the various previous threads when you have set them out in full or alluded to them.

So I think I had a fair enough grasp of them to be in a position to say that I disagree. And I stand by that in the main. You don't think Cook is largely doing a good enough job (as illustrated by your points) and it is that overarching point that I fundamentally disagree with.

And I know full well what beholden means (and now who is trying to be patronising?). It was in reference to the sponsors being "obliged" or influenced by their owner into cosey commercial partnerships with City. Clear now?

In terms of the specifics...

Khaldoon is chairman. Whilst he would be capable of doing much of the work that Cook has concluded he doesn't have the degree of day to day involvement at City to do so. He sits on several other corporate boards of directors as well as being involved in more than a couple of state level bodies in the Gulf. So whilst, if he was CEO (or whatever Cook's actual title is) I agree Khaldoon could have done what Cook has, fact is that he didn't and Cook did.

Low hanging fruit is true to an extent but using that simplistic analysis ignores the commercial benefit to all of those groups that the commercial exposure via City brings about. It is not a one sided trade by any means. Brands like Etisalat have aspirations to move outside their traditional operating zones (geographically) and their sponsorship of City is a great start to augmenting their profile.

The point re the UEFA Fair Play regs is debateable. Whilst it theoretically has the teeth to stymie us I am pretty certain that the current structure of the holdings (above the level of MCFC) in Abu Dhabi will be such that (or will be configured so as to be) resistent to those challenges. Or at least rendered suitably impenetrable to the authorities so as to make it impossible to prove a suitable "connection" between City, the Sheikh and those companies. It will remain a concern but not a problem which is insurmountable.

Cook earns GBP 1.5million a year as you say. Just under 30k a week. Do I think he has done brought as much to the club as some of the players who will have been earning around that level. Overall I would say so.

Point re Umbro possibly has some merits, we could have got more I'd imagine if we'd waited another year before signing that deal and not had to cancel the LCS deal.

Point re the list of sponsors Cook had when the takeover happened, for me, is largely irrelevant (in light of the points I make above re one sided trades etc).

[Wooders]

Did Gago want to come? Yes
Did Real want to sell? Yes
Did Mariga want to sign? Yes
Did Parma want to sell? Yes
Could Mariga have gotten a work permit if we had our act together? Yes

Did Gago or Mariga sign? No.

But its not our fault. Its a press conspiracy.

you're missing the whole point, AGAIN.

No, you're just assuming we do everything perfectly ok without actually knowing - unless you're present for all the transfer deals and see how they are conducted you really can't tell me that I've "missed the whole point" (again???) because yours is based on an assumption on your part whilst mine is based on quotes and facts.
It is a fact that we left it until the last day of the window to submit a work permit for mariga and we didn't have time to do it, when it was quite clear a sale was there to be made a week before the window shut, it is also a fact that we only went back in for Gago when there wasn't enough time to make any sort of proper deal with the player
We've been criticised before about the way we handle transfers whereas no-one has ever come out and praised the way we've done business with them and as other people have said, there is a lot more to it than "trying to make city look bad"

[Alex Sapphire]

Funnily enough Alex I have followed your views as set out above in the various previous threads when you have set them out in full or alluded to them.

we're in complete agreement about nearly all the facts then Ant.
I do not know that Maldhoun delegated the negotiations to Cook, you say he did, and of course that would more normally be an Exec Chairman/CEO's role rather than that of a non-Exec Chairman.

For the record, I am delighted that we have sponsors of the quality we do, and appreciate that there is something in it for them. I'm just surprised that we don't have any that look like Cook's idea.

Here's my problem:

Listing his failures is not productive, or supportive, so after >21 months with the club, with a very generous owner and an open minded, ambitious Chairman, what have been Garry's big achievements?

[ant london]

Funnily enough Alex I have followed your views as set out above in the various previous threads when you have set them out in full or alluded to them.

we're in complete agreement about nearly all the facts then Ant.
I do not know that Maldhoun delegated the negotiations to Cook, you say he did, and of course that would more normally be an Exec Chairman/CEO's role rather than that of a non-Exec Chairman.

For the record, I am delighted that we have sponsors of the quality we do, and appreciate that there is something in it for them. I'm just surprised that we don't have any that look like Cook's idea.

Here's my problem:

Listing his failures is not productive, or supportive, so after >21 months with the club, with a very generous owner and an open minded, ambitious Chairman, what have been Garry's big achievements?

For me his achievements are in maintaining the upward curve of our process and not allowing the trajectory of our progress be stalled, sent off course of de-railed by the disruptive influences that have affected us.

His leadership (and yes, I do attribute this leadership to him as I am a strong believer in the premise that a strong corporate culture and strength of collective motivation and focus is driven from the top-down) has allowed the club not to be unduly buffeted by:

the largely and vehemently anti-City press, an indifferent period of form (which saw us drop down to the relegation zone last season and then through our stalling of form this season), changing manager, dealing with the influence of disruptive players in the press, raising the profile of City internationally, taking on the big boys (sometimes winning, sometimes losing and sometimes just bloodying noses),

Bringing the club closer to the fans than I've ever seen it - Again you can credit the owners for endorsing and even originating these initiatives. But Cook is the man on the ground, the guy with executive control over the nuts and bolts. A massive achievement.

Being the very visible and vilified fall guy for the Hughes dismissal - Partly by design partly by accident I can accept but (specifically) his public handling of the Mancini appointment/Hughes sacking allowed the owners (bar a few (funny) headlines such as "Desert Rats") to save face and come through it largely unscathed in the public eye. Sacking Hughes was not GC's call ultimately but he was mullered publically as if it was.

Raising the club's profile and ramming home the fact that we are contenders now - Some of this has been done on the pitch and via financial backing but a lot of the touchy feely stuff in terms of the media/event side of the club (which have quite an american marketing style feel) are clearly Cook's work. He deserves due credit

and lastly (and I'm not expecting widespread agreement)...for me, I quite like his captain chaos gaffes. I like the fact that Cook becomes a figure of derision at times rather than City. Sure some of it doesn't cover us in glory. But if you can't laugh at some of his Cook-Ups then, well that's a pity.

I'm pleased with Cook. I'd rather have him than any other of the chairmen in the Premiership. I like the fact that he's quite brash...he's just what we need. Maybe time will come when we would prefer a more dignified and "establishment" figure who ruffles fewer feathers and raises less hackles. But for now, for me, Garry Cook is "fit for purpose"

[Alex Sapphire]

If that was presented as a CV, it would be truly shit... no specifics/dates/amounts/measurables. No evidence.

[Beeks]

[
No, you're just assuming we do everything perfectly ok without actually knowing - unless you're present for all the transfer deals and see how they are conducted

Perhaps you should follow that mantra yourself Wooders...you seem to be assuming the worst 'without actually knowing' and now today we have Citys take on the whole affair...you can believe who you like...Real or City...but like you said you will never know as you were not present at the time...so don't be so quick to judge our transfer dealings in the future without a shred of evidence bar the word of Real Madrids less than clean president and an agent looking after his clients interests

Without evidence either way you would think that a fan of a club would jump to it's defence...seems a few on here enjoy going the other way with relative ease

[Socrates]

Our newest sponsors are all Arab.

Just what on earth does that have to do with anything in any way other than I take it you're trying to allude to the fact that Cook's role in securing the deals with Etihad, Etisalat and Ferrostaal was no more than token on the basis that they are all beholden to the Sheikh?

this^ although I would choose a different word than beholden ;-)
did he land Singha Beer too under the old regime?

Pretty sure Singha predated Cookie?

[BobKowalski]

[
No, you're just assuming we do everything perfectly ok without actually knowing - unless you're present for all the transfer deals and see how they are conducted

Perhaps you should follow that mantra yourself Wooders...you seem to be assuming the worst 'without actually knowing' and now today we have Citys take on the whole affair...you can believe who you like...Real or City...but like you said you will never know as you were not present at the time...so don't be so quick to judge our transfer dealings in the future without a shred of evidence bar the word of Real Madrids less than clean president and an agent looking after his clients interests

Without evidence either way you would think that a fan of a club would jump to it's defence...seems a few on here enjoy going the other way with relative ease

I guess the lesson here is wait until we got both sides of the story and then pass judgement but then where would we be without kneejerk threads laced with seething outrage at how the club keeps cocking up :)

[ant london]

If that was presented as a CV, it would be truly shit... no specifics/dates/amounts/measurables. No evidence.

Now you are clutching at straws mate.

Did you ask me to role play with myself as Garry Cook and write his CV as I thought it appeared detailing precisely what role HE had played in each project. No, thought not and nor could I do so.

I've seen plenty of "evidence" as to GC's big achievements and I have set out what they are in my opinion. They'll do for me. I am not saying that you should buy into my belief that Cook is doing a great job but equally don't expect me to buy into your slant on things.