The term ‘football man’ might seem like some anachronistic comment uttered by flat-capped luddites who still believe that football should be played in hob-nail boots on mudbaths, but in all reality it merely refers to people who’s lives have been spent living and breathing the game. You could be a football man (or woman for that matter). I AM a football man. And the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson and Harry Redknapp, like them or not, are proper football men.
Garry Cook is not a football man. He is a sports marketing man, primarily a US-created sports marketing man, who over 12 years with Nike ran the ‘Jordan’ brand. Yet it is Garry Cook (along with Brian Marwood, who probably does count as a football man, just not a very good one) who decided that Mark Hughes (most certainly a proper football man) was not going to get ‘the job’ done at City.
The executive chairman of Manchester City came bounding in from Oregon, USA some three years ago at the behest of another personal favorite of mine, Thaksin Shinawatra. Call me old-fashioned, but when an accused human rights violator of that magnitude offers you a job, it should fill the head and heart with anxiety that such a total and utter bastard wants to employ you. Not Cook. He leapt at the chance (money/power). He wasn’t there too log before City tried (and failed) to sign Kaka, a failure which Cook loudly proclaimed was down to AC Milan ‘bottling it.’ A true diplomat who was already showing a lack of class.
So having watched Mark Hughes sign a few of the players he appeared to want (Barry, Given, Bellamy, Santa Cruz, De Jong), deal with a few of the players Cook and his Master wanted (Robinho, Tevez, Lescott, Adebayor) with a couple signed who it’s frankly hard to assign responsibility to (Bridge, SWP, Toure) and have to sell the one player he didn’t really want to (Dunne – who was apparently informed there would be no testimonial and who was not given the contract he felt his service deserved) we watched with a mixture of laughter and horror as Hughes went from pillar to post trying to get this lot working together whilst constantly hearing how he had the club’s undivided support. I’m sorry, when they started saying that you could almost see Agent Marwood reporting back to Cook and his Master on how many more days the incumbant should get.
Cook found he had dropped more than one of his bollocks on the floor after Roberto Mancini’s appointment, when the latter casually let slip that the job had been his for longer than the 48 hour ‘offer-and-interview’ period Cook had suggested. Indeed, the word was that Mark Hughes had been a dead-man walking for three matches. And then it just got worse, with Cook yesterday coughing up the wonderful little gem that there had already been some ‘contingencies’ put in place during the close-season. Remarkable really. Especially when Cook then tried to justify such corporate stench-soaked activities by pointing out that Sven Goran Eriksson was replaced in the same manner.
“I seem to recall Sven was still our manager but he knew he was being replaced before the last game of the season,” parped the corporate executioner, “Weren’t they identical circumstances to the way we went about executing our decision to appoint a new manager?”
Cook has obviously not heard the cliche ‘two wrongs don’t make a right.’ Just in case there’s any confusion, let us be clear. Sacking two managers by plotting their replacements behind their backs does not make the action acceptable. It merely amplifies what a disgustingly souless corporation Manchester City has become. And briefly, for those who have sought to draw comparison with Tottenham’s treatment of Martin Jol, whilst undeniably shabby in it’s execution, the fact remains that Jol twice looked at other jobs behind his then-employers backs (Newcastle and Ajax). And as for the Ramos departure, it was as much in the interests of the outgoing manager as the club, thus a mutually-agreed situation. To the best of my knowledge, Mark Hughes never looked beyond Eastlands.
These are testing times for football. Players appear to have more money and more power but less brains and less integrity, supporters have the patience of a crack addict and the attention span of gnats (or crack addict again come to think of it), and big-money cowboys mill around prodding and poking at potential cash cows to strap with their debts or their dreams. It is a time when however much we might personally dislike certain ones, ‘football men’ should be respected and celebrated. That means the Harry Redknapps, the Sir Alex Fergusons, the Martin O’Neil’s, the David Moyes, Arsene Wengers, and Steve Bruces of the world. For it is men like these who understand. And behind them are the likes of Randy Lerner, Niall Quinn and Bill Kenwright who have all shown if not the old-school ‘football men’ gene, the ability to comprehend what the game means to those who love it. How to behave. How to ‘expect’ in the face of investment.
Garry Cook doubtless gets paid a handsome sum of money to behave as he does. And as such, his well-cloaked, but surely inevitable, obsequiousness to Sheikh Mansour takes him four steps away from the fundamental world of football before he’s even had a chance to stretch. When the boss holds your money, power and balls in a hand that doesn’t really view the ‘property’ as much more than a hobby, then you’re in trouble. Unless, of course, you yourself are driven by other motivations beyond the football club you represent.
“Roberto has been caught up in a language issue,” Cook bleated to The Guardian yesterday. “In truth, he has been shafted.”
No. In truth, Mark Hughes was shafted. Shafted essentially by the hand of a non-football superstar sportswear executive with little knowledge of football, a man who could really do with swapping out one of the ‘O’s in ‘Cook’ for a ‘C’.
I give Roberto Mancini 18 months if he’s lucky. And Roberto? Between now and then I’d edge backwards out of boardrooms after meetings with Cook and co if I were you. I give him 18 months unless he brings Manchester City the crown jewels…
###


