So that's settled then...
As most of us all suspected the man is a Legend and should always be remembered for what he did for our club..
Garry Cook on the Take over..
- Thread starter Kippax.
- Start date
So that's settled then...
As most of us all suspected the man is a Legend and should always be remembered for what he did for our club..
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Not in one posters eyes mate.;)
S04
Well-Known Member
Have we missed the point that Cook is still working for the Sheikh´s family in another capacity.. ?
They sorted him out a top job with UFC as they got a stake there.
They sorted him out a top job with UFC as they got a stake there.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
LOL. Give it up mate. Just - for once - accept you've got this one wrong.
Matty
Well-Known Member
Imagine, rather than it being you that's just written that, that it was another poster and you're reading it. Can you now see how biased and unaccepting of basic facts it is? You've just been told, by someone with a huge amount of trust when it comes to "behind the scenes" City information, that he spoke personally to Khaldoon, and was specifically told that Garry Cook was "one of the main reasons that ADUG bought City" and that "he was the most impressive element in the negotiations", and you've chosen to ignore it and stick to your own opinion. You've downgraded the above into "he was likeable and could use powerpoint". Surely you can see that you're basically ignoring the facts of the situation (the fact Khaldoon said these things is pretty much indisputable)? You're essentially claiming to "know what Khaldoon really meant" and claiming he was just talking Cook up. For me I'd find the actual words of the someone intimately involved to be more believable than someone on the outside looking in translating them into what they think he probably meant.
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 37,545
Gary and I have talked about what was said over PM on several occasions, mate. I stand my my opinion. You don't spend hundreds and hundreds of million pounds on a business because you rate one of it's senior managers, trust me. If you know anything about business you will know that is a laughable idea. They might have liked his presentation and energy, and Khaldoon might have wanted to "big him up" in an interview to motivate him, but that's not the same.
Gary James
Well-Known Member
I said I wouldn't say any more, but guess I need to add...
Whenever I do an interview, research, write a book I do triangulation of sources to ensure I get the facts. I have interviewed every chairman since 1972 except Thaksin (though I did have 2 discussions with him and he also came to buy my books - paid cash!) and know when they are telling me lies, spinning the truth, exaggerating an incident, selling a story etc. If I was gullible and took everything I was told at face value then I'd have been spouting on here for the last decade that Peter Swales told me he loved City and never, ever made any money from the club; the Junior Blues was his idea; everything would have been perfect had Tommy Hutch not scored that OG; Maine Road was a much better stadium when he left than when he started etc. Khaldoon was only one voice and Garry had no idea of what our conversation was about or what was said (I still haven't told him - Garry if you're reading this let me know;-)). I also talked with figures who were in those first meetings (predating Khaldoon's official involvement). Everyone had a different view of course, but the central theme and thread was the same.
Had the new owners not been impressed with Garry they would have replaced him at the earliest opportunity, not after extending his contract a couple of times. In the end he had to go, but let's remember that the owners did change a lot of personnel between the takeover and Garry's departure, and that others brought in were moved on at times, showing that if they make a mistake they rectify it asap. The continued employment of Garry in one of Khaldoon's businesses suggests that either he is bonkers for employing someone he really does not trust, respect etc. or that he actually does trust him, respect his judgement and appreciates his skills - warts and all!
DD it's clear you've got your view and that's fine, but it is not my view or the view of those I've interviewed. If I were you and believed Cook to be so poor I'd be asking "well, if Cook was the most impressive part of MCFC at takeover time, then how bad was the rest?" Maybe, that's where the real answer lies for those critical of Cook?
Whenever I do an interview, research, write a book I do triangulation of sources to ensure I get the facts. I have interviewed every chairman since 1972 except Thaksin (though I did have 2 discussions with him and he also came to buy my books - paid cash!) and know when they are telling me lies, spinning the truth, exaggerating an incident, selling a story etc. If I was gullible and took everything I was told at face value then I'd have been spouting on here for the last decade that Peter Swales told me he loved City and never, ever made any money from the club; the Junior Blues was his idea; everything would have been perfect had Tommy Hutch not scored that OG; Maine Road was a much better stadium when he left than when he started etc. Khaldoon was only one voice and Garry had no idea of what our conversation was about or what was said (I still haven't told him - Garry if you're reading this let me know;-)). I also talked with figures who were in those first meetings (predating Khaldoon's official involvement). Everyone had a different view of course, but the central theme and thread was the same.
Had the new owners not been impressed with Garry they would have replaced him at the earliest opportunity, not after extending his contract a couple of times. In the end he had to go, but let's remember that the owners did change a lot of personnel between the takeover and Garry's departure, and that others brought in were moved on at times, showing that if they make a mistake they rectify it asap. The continued employment of Garry in one of Khaldoon's businesses suggests that either he is bonkers for employing someone he really does not trust, respect etc. or that he actually does trust him, respect his judgement and appreciates his skills - warts and all!
DD it's clear you've got your view and that's fine, but it is not my view or the view of those I've interviewed. If I were you and believed Cook to be so poor I'd be asking "well, if Cook was the most impressive part of MCFC at takeover time, then how bad was the rest?" Maybe, that's where the real answer lies for those critical of Cook?
Just to clear up something here;
Khaldoon is the chairman of the Executive Affairs Authority who own Flash Entertainment who own a 10% stake in Zuffra who own UFC. Dana White owns 9% in Zuffra, the Fertitta brothers own 45% with Dana White as the Chairman and Fertitta as the CEO.
The idea that UFC "is one of his companies" is somewhat ludicrous. They are a minority shareholder in the parent company with little influence and seen more as an external investor. Whilst Khaldoon might give Gary Cook a reference, he wouldn't really have the power to place him even if he wanted to
Gary James
Well-Known Member
True, but Zuffa pointed out that the deal is more than having 10%, it's about global influence, so Zuffa & co are keen to listen and learn from Mubadala etc. As part of that I think they'd listen pretty carefully to what Mubadala said about GC - you wouldn't talk about credibility coming from the UAE and then go off and appoint someone not supported by those people (GC has since been promoted of course). White talks about the deal here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...fc-plans-to-ko-boxing/article578226/?page=all
Last edited:
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,116
True, but he'd certainly have the power to tell them to steer well clear of him if he thought the man was a buffoon.
That said, I can actually understand DD's point regarding Cook being one of the main reasons for the takeover. They may well have thought very highly of him and I've no doubt he impressed them greatly (this has been borne out), but I struggle to believe that one of the main reasons they chose to invest hundreds of million pounds into City was because they liked one of our employees. If his mere presence was that influential, they could have just recruited him to head another football club. Much more important reasons were the stadium, the scope for development around the ground, the relatively cheap acquisition cost, the size of the fan base, the fact that the rags are our neighbours, and the global kudos that would be associated with turning around English football's perennial underachievers.