Marina (from the GU) lays into our Garry

I too felt uncomfortable with Gary Cooks remarks. The comments are all well and good for private conversation but look petty and lack class in the public arena. I cannot understand why GC didn't appreciate that with the background to the talks being both emotional and testing for Kaka and his family he didn't try to speed up the talks and make a full offer. If it was unsuucessful, we then walk away with no loss financially or to our reputation. But the comments have burned our bridges with Kaka and Milan. What have we gained from that?
 
In fairness to Cook in general it seemed to work, if he had given a subdued interview it wouldn't have got a mention in the press and they would have stayed with the story about how Kaka and AC told us to do one. His 'bottler' comment started getting the media to talk about in the whole episode in slightly different terms. It's no longer Kaka rejected us merely City were unsuccessful. I think Cook knew exactly what he was doing. He'd probably invite all this personal criticism to take any negativity away from the club.

ps.I was going to make this a longer post but I thought I'd bowdlerise it. (Does this make me sound clever?)
 
Firstly, great thread fella's, some really astute well reasoned arguement.

My main point is this. GC fell down, in my view, in one area of this negotiation only.
Having been involved in many complex, extremely high value sport related deals in the past, he expected that after terminating this one, his clients would be afforded the same confidentiality which concludes the vast majority of failed business deals.
What he failed to appreciate was that football deals do offer recrimination much more regularly than 'normal' business, and that in the political football world of latin countries there is always a Berlusconi wanting to score points/secure votes.
His riposte was ill timed and more importantly unprofessional. I believe he will learn from it and we can all move on.
The deal was a great letter of intent from us, so it failed. Next time we get it right.

As for Ms Marina's article/blog, someone indicated it was an attempt at satire or humour, if that is her typical attempt I for one won't bother reading her again. Whatever her personal agenda is with GC, I think its deeper than this article; hell hath no fury .....
 
MCFCinUSA said:
Article from Marina Hyde's blog on Cook below if it's not been posted yet:-

Does anyone know where we are on those Manchester City-branded energy drinks proposed by Garry Cook, the club's mesmerically ghastly executive chairman? Mr Cook caught his new owners' eye with an 83-page thesis entitled A New Model for Partnership, a sort of footballing Das Krapital, wherein he predicted City's full-spectrum dominance of planet Earth, within the structure of a Premier League of 10 to 14 clubs, with no promotion or relegation.

Among his many brainwaves was the creation of three City energy drinks – City Powered, City Energy and City 24/7 – and one could not help but feel that Garry might have drunk deep from an experimental sample of one this week, when he fumed that Milan had "bottled it" over the Kaka transfer.

How else to explain his being reduced to such emotional language? How else to explain the needy blitzkrieg of post-Milan briefings, in which he detailed the venal and amateurish nature of his adversaries – and the lack of pastries in their lawyers' offices – while attempting to occupy the moral high ground? It all seems most out of character. After all, until this week's fiasco, Garry had cultivated the air of the type of affectless sports executives grown in petri dishes in Nike's Oregon labs.

It was Nike whence he came, of course, where he was in charge of Michael Jordan's brand, another chap – how to put this? – who has never allowed himself to be held back by the dead weight of principle. When the segregationist Republican senator Jesse Helms ran against a black Democrat in his home state of North Carolina, Jordan famously declined to take sides on the basis that "Republicans buy sneakers too".

And no sooner had Garry been lured to Eastlands by the erstwhile owner Thaksin Shinawatra than he revealed himself to be a similarly gifted fence-sitter. Asked how he felt about working for the former Thai PM, condemned by Human Rights Watch as a "human-rights abuser of the worst kind", Garry replied: "Is he a nice guy? Yes. Is he a great guy to play golf with? Yes. Does he have plenty of money to run a football club? Yes. I really care only about those three things. Whether he is guilty of something over in Thailand, I can't worry … I worked for Nike who were accused of child-labour issues and I managed to have a career there for 15 years. I believed we were innocent of most of the issues. Morally, I felt comfortable in that environment."

<textarea name="message" rows="15" cols="76" tabindex="3" onselect="storeCaret(this);" onclick="storeCaret(this);" onkeyup="storeCaret(this);" style="width: 98%;">
MCFCinUSA said:
Article from Marina Hyde's blog on Cook below if it's not been posted yet:-

Does anyone know where we are on those Manchester City-branded energy drinks proposed by Garry Cook, the club's mesmerically ghastly executive chairman? Mr Cook caught his new owners' eye with an 83-page thesis entitled A New Model for Partnership, a sort of footballing Das Krapital, wherein he predicted City's full-spectrum dominance of planet Earth, within the structure of a Premier League of 10 to 14 clubs, with no promotion or relegation.

Among his many brainwaves was the creation of three City energy drinks – City Powered, City Energy and City 24/7 – and one could not help but feel that Garry might have drunk deep from an experimental sample of one this week, when he fumed that Milan had "bottled it" over the Kaka transfer.

How else to explain his being reduced to such emotional language? How else to explain the needy blitzkrieg of post-Milan briefings, in which he detailed the venal and amateurish nature of his adversaries – and the lack of pastries in their lawyers' offices – while attempting to occupy the moral high ground? It all seems most out of character. After all, until this week's fiasco, Garry had cultivated the air of the type of affectless sports executives grown in petri dishes in Nike's Oregon labs.

It was Nike whence he came, of course, where he was in charge of Michael Jordan's brand, another chap – how to put this? – who has never allowed himself to be held back by the dead weight of principle. When the segregationist Republican senator Jesse Helms ran against a black Democrat in his home state of North Carolina, Jordan famously declined to take sides on the basis that "Republicans buy sneakers too".

And no sooner had Garry been lured to Eastlands by the erstwhile owner Thaksin Shinawatra than he revealed himself to be a similarly gifted fence-sitter. Asked how he felt about working for the former Thai PM, condemned by Human Rights Watch as a "human-rights abuser of the worst kind", Garry replied: "Is he a nice guy? Yes. Is he a great guy to play golf with? Yes. Does he have plenty of money to run a football club? Yes. I really care only about those three things. Whether he is guilty of something over in Thailand, I can't worry … I worked for Nike who were accused of child-labour issues and I managed to have a career there for 15 years. I believed we were innocent of most of the issues. Morally, I felt comfortable in that environment."

Alas, there isn't the space to wonder what handicap some of history's less-alluring leaders played off, or indeed to speculate whether they'd have stood their round in the clubhouse. But what we can say is that Garry has been looking distinctly less comfortable this week. Quite understandable – without the figleaf of a big-name signing, the big-talking chairman must feel a little exposed in front of his owners. (That his earlier scalp, Robinho, should choose this very moment to go awol from City's winter training camp is an instance of curious synchronicity.)

Less understandable is the manner in which he has chosen to "move on" from it all. For a while, the role of cretinous lightning rod at Eastlands was taken by Sheikh Mansour's deal frontman, Dr Sulaiman al-Fahim with comments about the imminent acquisition of Cristiano Ronaldo. But with Dr al-Fahim now stood down from jester duties, it seems to have fallen to Garry to step into his shoes – and what a quick understudy he has proved.

Your ears did not deceive you. Following the collapse of the Kaka "deal", the club chairman really did return from Milan in high dudgeon, affecting distaste that money had been mentioned so often. He really did gabble something semi-intelligible about City's emphasis on "humanitarian potential factors". He really did synthesise confusion that Kaka should have chosen to miss out on the opportunity to come "on a journey". And he really did suggest Milan lacked dignity. This would be disingenuous were it being spouted by Ron Manager. Coming from a man whose public credo has hitherto been bowdlerised Nietzsche, it begins to look like a demented form of self-parody.

Of all the poses Garry Cook should now choose to adopt, that of a gentleman ambushed by cowardly vulgarians is easily the most preposterous. Is this how real big hitters behave? When he eventually comes down off his City Energy high, the City chairman would do well to admit that for all its vaingloriousness, and for all its farce, nothing about the entire Kaka saga has made the club look more amateurish than his charmless bleating about it afterwards.

marina.hyde@guardian.co.uk
Somebody needs to put away their thesaurus.
 
"Someone needs to put down her thesaurus"

Can you really criticise someone's ability to write well? The woman has a large vocabulary. Do you need to be semi-retarded to be accepted? I was going to say monosyllabic but feared that I may be accused of using big words.

Humour, particularly written humour, is constructed by creating images, scenarios and situations. Using specific terminology enables writers to create a more detailed picture rather than using lots of conversational tones. Satire is to do with excessively presenting an unbalanced argument a la the jokes we have about Blair etc. It wouldn't be funny if we didn't exagerrate and weren't biased to his shortcomings.

By the way, I'm a misogynist, but I think Marina actually has ability which makes her ok in my book, whether she has a failed attempt at trying to satirise Cookie.
 
MDLVKM3 said:
"Someone needs to put down her thesaurus"

Can you really criticise someone's ability to write well? The woman has a large vocabulary. Do you need to be semi-retarded to be accepted? I was going to say monosyllabic but feared that I may be accused of using big words.
Oh come on!!! Anyone who uses the phrse "Coming from a man whose public credo has hitherto been bowdlerised Nietzsche" needs a serious slap. That's not "showing you've got a large vocabulary", that's showing off that you know something that 99% of people don't. I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but I've no idea what bowdlerised means, or who Nietzsche is/was (at a guess he was one of these Freud types). She's well aware virtually no-one who reads this article which is, essentially, about a man in the football World, will know what this means and you can see her sitting back smuggly after she typed it, all pleased with her own supposed superiority.

I'll bet she hasn't got a clue how to change a car tyre.
 
I didn't find her article that offensive really, think people are over-reacting a little.

There's quite a funny email exchange going on between Marina and brooklandsblue though, I think they secretly quite like each other.
 
I thought 'bowdlerised Nietzsche' was quite a good line (so I'll slink back off into my corner). Incidentally, a lot of bowdlerising goes on on here some times... ;-)

And Brooklands reading the Guardian? Bloody hell, I thought his computer and/or head would have exploded the moment he attempted to access the website.
 
I don't know what it means either but learning new things makes the world more beautiful.

I dont see the point in reading or listening to people who know less than me. Like MoTD. Back in the day I used to enjoy listening to Hansen explain shite defending but listening to Shearer talk about crap teams needing to play 'hard' makes me sad.

Like commentators who talk of keane being 'determined' and 'up for the challenge'. I'd pay more attention if he bowledrised nietzche...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.