Re: Garry Cook resigns
I'm under the impression it was a mixture of both. If I were to put a bet down, it would be that she and that cancer, Ian Wright, (Yes I see what I did there. ;) ) probably told Cook et al. they had damaging information on him to try and force a move. When it didn't work out for both players, they pulled this after the window closed.moomba said:mackenzie said:Moomba, I'm not thick. Of course the press would run with it. My post clearly points to the motivations behind why it was 'sat on' and the driving forces behind it.
I can think of two reasons why it may have been "sat on". First, it's a valuable bargaining chip in a particularly nasty game. A shame, but I don't think think it's a tactic that only one side of the agent/club relationship would use.
Second, and one I hadn't really considered before today, was it held off on to protect someone? Maybe SWP with the Ian Wright link, maybe Nedum with a hope to get back on side at the club. Doesn't make sense to piss off the CEO of a club when there is still something to lose.
If I was twenty years younger, I'd probably use the expression "don't hate the player, hate the game".
But I don't believe this is some conspiracy designed to get at the club and Cook. The press would be onto this story regardless of the clubs (except the rags).