Garry Cook - Clueless

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

So, we have the 'it's a business' argument arising on the thread, without a single person even attempting to rationalise that with the income/expenditure scenario in place at the club that makes making a profit, running the club as a money making exercise about as likely as David Brightwell coming back for another stint at left back.

No doubt the same people mindlessly spouting that line were the same people who swallowed Abramovich's "We'll be making a profit in three years time" routine in 2004.

The argument of wanting to make money or pay for expenditure is absolutely ridiculous in light of the events and circumstances surrounding the club.

It is clear to anyone with half a brain that the very, very, very last thing on the club's mind is making a profit. All the evidence points to being in football for a profit (unless you are a Glazer/hicks/Gillet type character) as being an extremely unlikely scenario. Being in football for a profit and running a business model like the one currently in place at City is nigh on an impossibility. It defies every rational thought.

It ain't going to happen anytime soon, and what's more, the club isn't in the business of making it happen anytime soon. Unless you somehow feel that we have seen the last of signficant spending and we are about to embark on a cost cutting spree.

Bizzbo. I would like to know who, apart from the fans, is financially worse off since the takeover. Players - certainly not. Football staff - doubt it. Normal staff - surprised if they are worse off. Agents working with the club - no. Commercial partners - no. Senior club staff - almost definitely not. Fans - yes.

If you want to factor the economic climate and inflation rates into that equation then the gap between the fans' circumstance and every other group associated with the club increases further.

So, I'll ask again, why is the club happy to see money leaving it to all of these quarters, seemingly without batting an eyelid (we all know the huge deficit which it is running at), yet feels the need to fleece the fans for some more - all the while whilst disrupting many in order to fit in 'new fans'.

Running a profit making outfit is far, far away from their current agenda.

And it goes completely against everything that they have been spouting about the fans coming first (don't get wet queueing for tickets now though and a few of us might bump into the CEO and get bought a drink, so hey, great). In economic terms, the fans comes dead last in the financial decisions associated with this club over the past 24 months, after this announcement.

That is what I mean about everybody other than the fans skimming from the club.

There has not been a single defence of the above posted on this thread and I am certain there won't be one from the "fans come first" hierarchy either.

we slag players off for being 'greedy bastards' and yet look at you. you almost appear to suggest we should be let in for nothing because our owners are so rich. tell me, what price do you think your season ticket should be?

No, I am asking why, when everyone else associated with the club is doing very nicely, financially, from the circumstances, the fans - the one group who are most financially stretched, if you watch the news - are the only people who are being asked to increase their financial commitment.

Are you going to be the person to have an answer for that?

Whilst you are at it you might also want to answer what on Earth, at a club happy to run such a massive loss, this price rise (and associated disruption) achieves for the club other than an insignificant (next to other figures) increase on the balance sheet?

I won't hold my breath.

 

[shadygiz]

So, we have the 'it's a business' argument arising on the thread, without a single person even attempting to rationalise that with the income/expenditure scenario in place at the club that makes making a profit, running the club as a money making exercise about as likely as David Brightwell coming back for another stint at left back.

No doubt the same people mindlessly spouting that line were the same people who swallowed Abramovich's "We'll be making a profit in three years time" routine in 2004.

The argument of wanting to make money or pay for expenditure is absolutely ridiculous in light of the events and circumstances surrounding the club.

It is clear to anyone with half a brain that the very, very, very last thing on the club's mind is making a profit. All the evidence points to being in football for a profit (unless you are a Glazer/hicks/Gillet type character) as being an extremely unlikely scenario. Being in football for a profit and running a business model like the one currently in place at City is nigh on an impossibility. It defies every rational thought.

It ain't going to happen anytime soon, and what's more, the club isn't in the business of making it happen anytime soon. Unless you somehow feel that we have seen the last of signficant spending and we are about to embark on a cost cutting spree.

Bizzbo. I would like to know who, apart from the fans, is financially worse off since the takeover. Players - certainly not. Football staff - doubt it. Normal staff - surprised if they are worse off. Agents working with the club - no. Commercial partners - no. Senior club staff - almost definitely not. Fans - yes.

If you want to factor the economic climate and inflation rates into that equation then the gap between the fans' circumstance and every other group associated with the club increases further.

So, I'll ask again, why is the club happy to see money leaving it to all of these quarters, seemingly without batting an eyelid (we all know the huge deficit which it is running at), yet feels the need to fleece the fans for some more - all the while whilst disrupting many in order to fit in 'new fans'.

Running a profit making outfit is far, far away from their current agenda.

And it goes completely against everything that they have been spouting about the fans coming first (don't get wet queueing for tickets now though and a few of us might bump into the CEO and get bought a drink, so hey, great). In economic terms, the fans comes dead last in the financial decisions associated with this club over the past 24 months, after this announcement.

That is what I mean about everybody other than the fans skimming from the club.

There has not been a single defence of the above posted on this thread and I am certain there won't be one from the "fans come first" hierarchy either.

as an example....how can chelsea charge around £1000 a ST and still make losses, even though they have been consistent and in chumps league for a few years now....if this is the business ideal they mean to follow, then there's no hope

 

[AustinBlue]

There has not been a single defence of the above posted on this thread and I am certain there won't be one from the "fans come first" hierarchy either.

I made the business argument first because you called Cook clueless, and his primary job is a business job.... so I'll defend your main argument that fans don't come first at City...Easy... My first and by far my most important priority as a lifelong fan of City is for the team to be better and have a chance to compete every year And on that basis, under Cook we are at least twice as well off as before. If your most important criteria is that the tickets should be cheaper and no changes are ever made to seating then you are missing the point of being a fan. We want our team to WIN.

To call Cook "clueless" is totally ignorant. He's building a world class organization and cares deeply about fans - with the first priority building a team that has a chance every week to compete at the highest level. I don't know what City team you've been supporting, but this one is the best we've had in my lifetime by a factor of about 10.

 

[badge]

so you just want to be a 'kept' supporter then. because our owners are so fabulously wealthy, you no longer feel you should have to contribute. some fan. as we all know, mr. platini has an agenda to look after the established hierarchy of BIG CLUBS, hence his insistence on all clubs becoming self sufficient. i really don't see what is difficult to understand about that.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Still no answers to the questions put forward?

And who has asked for a cut in prices? Who has asked to be 'kept'?

(Although, if you want to talk about being 'kept' then I assume you are going to explain to me why the fans are the only people at the club adjudged not to be pulling their financial weight at this time? No? Again, you can't explain it and make no effort to)

I am asking why the fans are the only people worse off?

How difficult is it to get that?

(I've just deleted from here a sentence about how of course the only priority of someone who lives on the other side of the world will be for the team to win everything and how the fan's treatment won't be an issue. Even I realise how badly and crass that comes across and how it doesn't take into account personal circumstances I can have no idea of. But from my position and faced with that last post, it is an easy, but snide comment that seems tempting to make when someone who presumable isn't going to the match is lecturing others on how they should pay whatever it takes to make the team win - especially when that payment is having absolutely no bearing on whether the team wins whatsoever)

 

[our tommy]

People are just reluctant to make changes, in a couple of years you will probably be wandering what the fuss was about. We will have a north stand full of young families ( the future of the club) and a south stand full of voiciferous fans which is exactly what we want. People who have moved will be settled where they are, with there mates. We will be watching the best football ever seen.
People should chill a bit and see what happens, you never know it may just be the best thing that ever happened to the club. The third tier isn't that bad you know! I am perfectly happy being up thare!

Furthermore, I am not aware of any of the top clubs offering discount prices for 18-21 year olds which saves me serious money on the ticket for my son.

 

[AustinBlue]

Still no answers to the questions put forward?

And who has asked for a cut in prices? Who has asked to be 'kept'?

(Although, if you want to talk about being 'kept' then I assume you are going to explain to me why the fans are the only people at the club adjudged not to be pulling their financial weight at this time? No? Again, you can't explain it and make no effort to)

I am asking why the fans are the only people worse off?

How difficult is it to get that?

(I've just deleted from here a sentence about how of course the only priority of someone who lives on the other side of the world will be for the team to win everything and how the fan's treatment won't be an issue. Even I realise how badly that comes across and how it doesn't take into account personal circumstances I can have no idea of. But from my position and faced with that last post, it is an easily, but snide comment to make)

I never said that fan's treatment doesn't matter. I'm saying the priority is that the team wins and everything else that happens is just noise. I'll stand in the rain on one leg behind a pole to watch the team win every week, and the hundreds of City fans I know feel exactly the same way. I don't think that you can look at the experience of being a City fan over the past 30 years and say that under Cook we're being shafted - exactly the opposite. Value per pound, where value is 99% calculated by winning, we're 10x better off.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

John, I usually like the cut of your jib, but elements of this post fall wide of the mark for me.

I accept that City are pouring huge resources into the project, and I accept they're not looking to pull profit from Manchester City directly. But it would be lunacy not to look at the matchday revenue of our direct competitors which is in some cases three times ours.

It would be daft not to try to make this club as self-sustaining as possible in the medium to long term.

Manchester United get 15K corporate customers, we get 2K. These are figures I'm told.

I think this is a first step to "remodelling"costs at City. I think they have shown us in the past that they'll do what they can to keep available to working class families.

I feel really sorry for anyone who is priced out of city by this move. But from what I've seen of it, if people are prepared to be a bit flexible, they aren;t going to be badly stung. I am sure the club will do what they can with cheap cup tickets and child admission and other things to keep people involved.

I don't like Cook particularly but I think it's naiave to suggest he's made this decision on a whim, with no corporate incentive.

 

[badge]

Still no answers to the questions put forward?

And who has asked for a cut in prices? Who has asked to be 'kept'?

(Although, if you want to talk about being 'kept' then I assume you are going to explain to me why the fans are the only people at the club adjudged not to be pulling their financial weight at this time? No? Again, you can't explain it and make no effort to)

I am asking why the fans are the only people worse off?

How difficult is it to get that?

(I've just deleted from here a sentence about how of course the only priority of someone who lives on the other side of the world will be for the team to win everything and how the fan's treatment won't be an issue. Even I realise how badly and crass that comes across and how it doesn't take into account personal circumstances I can have no idea of. But from my position and faced with that last post, it is an easy, but snide comment that seems tempting to make when someone who presumable isn't going to the match is lecturing others on how they should pay whatever it takes to make the team win - especially when that payment is having absolutely no bearing on whether the team wins whatsoever)

and i'm asking you, what you think is a fair price for your season ticket!

we're talking about a five percent increase in the last two years. completely fair as far as i'm concerned.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Right, if a mod wants to amend the title of the thread to Garry Cook (or whoever is responsible for the season ticket decisions) - out of order. I will go with that.

Not sure you want to be advocating the United model as one to follow, Dave.

A club that was knee deep in shitting on loyal fans before Glazer arrived and where the figure you quote is presumably only achieved by the outrageous antics he has been up to since he got there.

I'll repeat. It ain't the figures themselves. It's the decision that costs isn't an issue within a mile of the radar, never mind on it, at the club, yet someone takes the decision to whack tickets up and mess loads of fans about.

Add in the constant waffle, and this is where Cook is at the forefront, of being so fan orientated and it doesn't add up to me.