Prestwich_Blue said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Never was a truer word spoken.
Are you adding internet grudges to sit alongside name dropping in your repertoire.
Or, perhaps you might actually add something that shows what I have typed to be nonsense.
Be sure to try to impress the star struck with tales of some mid management non entity you've dealt with in the past.
I don't believe I've ever dealt with you.
I was having a bit of fun and would have done that to anyone who posted it. I have no beef whatsoever with you but you clearly have with me. So let's take it from there.
You haven't a clue what Cook does. You and I have nothing to judge him on other than what we see. I've seen a bloke who I think is sincere enough and you think he's a shallow tosser.
But whatever we think, he's a CEO of a commercial business not head of a charity. And I've said enough times that as we become successful we'll have to pay for that, literally. We need to pull in £2m gate money a game minimum to match the other top teams whereas we only pull in half that now. He's responsible for delivering that increase and prices will rise. However, he's been reasonably fair about it so far. If you sit near or behind the goal you pay less. If you want to sit in Tier 2 and/or near the half-way line you pay more.
However you can still get a value seasoncard and you can still take your kid for £5 per game. That doesn't seem unfair to me but he doesn't have to be fair - he has to maximise revenue.
OK, perhaps I misread the intention and I'll apologise for that and my poor response. Not needed. Apologies.
My issue is that, as you say, his prime, possibly only, objective is to maximise revenue. Yet
I struggle to remember anyone else associated with the club in the past who, whilst ramping up that objective more than ever (which can only mean squeezing the fans) attempts to present completely the opposite image.
Whether it be football or other walks of life, I don't like people who attempt to disguise their actions by presenting a contrary image. It is too much like cheap politicking for my liking.
On top of that, I don't subscribe to the notion held by most on here that a successful football club must be paid for by the fans and that huge buys must be funded by increased prices. I don' remember any owner of a club ever stating that this is part of the deal if they are to fund success (then again, they aren't going to say that).
However, more to the point, I don't think we'll see a drastic reduction in prices if Tevez gets sold for £50m, in the way that many on here say that we must ramp up prices for purchases.
I don't recall many clubs putting prices down when their club slips down the league.
Simply put, successful clubs use the 'paying for success' mantra when they are doing well in order to squeeze every penny. They drop it when they suffer a downturn in fortunes - maybe they might make a cursory reduction in prices if they are relegated, but it never matches the increase they leap at in a successful period.
Particularly at a club like City, where the success has been funded in a way that the club could never achieve, even with mile high ticket prices, it makes me laugh that I am supposed to believe that a 50% rise in season ticket sales will act as a significant counter to all the silly money buys and contracts that have been handed out. It won't.
But, I am fairly alone in that view. Most seem to think that the club's recent success and continued success has a direct correlation to ticket prices. I'm sure Mr Cooke is delighted with that.
