maineroadman said:
Project said:
I don't see how you can look at the legacy of his work at the club as CEO and conclude anything other than he did a fantastic job.
A CEO should provide leadership and build an excellent team around him. He did that in spades. We win awards left right and centre. Whether it is the website, social media, CiTC, and now seemingly the playing staff. That's testament to the people he put in place.
Gaffs aside, he and Khaldoon made an excellent partnership. I hope we bring in someone to replace him with the same innovative streak - CityTV, Inside City, City Square, the Umbro partnership, Vieira as an ambassador..the community pitch in the US etc.. ideas are allowed to flourish when you have the right man in charge.
An excellent, reasoned post. It seems to me that any time the word Cook appears in a thread title you can bet your house that JMA is amongst the first contributors spouting his usual inane tripe on the subject.
There is something personal and sinister about this. The vitriol goes beyond opinion. I wonder if Cook has done something unspeakable with JMA's wife!!
Peoffrey is another who jumps on the same bandwagon.,
I bet you can't find many, if any, threads I have started about Garry Cook.
All I do is respond to the massively over the top praise and cult of personality stuff that gets spouted about him on here. I assure you I have no connection with the bloke, whatsoever. But it isn't me that constantly invites a discussion on how 'brilliant' he is/was.
But apparently I am the 'crank' because I don't, based on very little knowledge of his day to day effectiveness in his role, buy into hero worshipping of him. Yet those who constantly hark back to him and want to deify him, based on nothing more than thinking he came across as a 'top bloke' are judging things rationally? I doubt it somehow. There's only one side there confusing their opinion of his public personality with how good he was for City.
Project's post is worth ten of usual Garry Cook fan club merchants as he actually attempts to begin to think about Cook's role and separates it from this 'top bloke' crap. It's still based on speculation though, isn't it?
Project could be right and it could be true that no-one other than Cook could have done such a job for City. I suspect that actually there are many, many skilled businessmen who, if they found themselves in the fortunate job position he was in after the takeover, with the opportunities available, might have at least have done an equally good job. (It actually reminds me of what the 'Hughes debate' used to sound like, with Hughes fans not wanting him criticised because he had overseen a tremendous change in the structure of the footballing side of the club - whilst failing to realise that this would have happened regardless of who was manager at the time)
The truth is probably somewhere in between. And that is why you don't find me starting thread after thread going on about how Cook was shit at his job (apart from the public facing, bullshiter aspect of it, I have no reason to think he was). But, overwhelmingly based on the same lack of knowledge about his real efficiency, it is de rigour on here to start regular threads doing the complete opposite. And then it is a crime to respond to them questioning that mad stance? Laughable.
