The Times Give Their View On Garry Cook and Mancini

[Gary Is God]

Cook's PR disaster, understanding how football works and Mancini doesn't lie:
Gabriele Marcotti

Funny how, when the weather gets cold, Garry gets cooking. Last winter it was the Kaka extravaganza when the Manchester City chief executive turned a transfer coup (even just getting to the point where Milan agreed a sale was a huge achievement and one for which he and his advisors should have received more credit than they did) into a public relations fiasco with his absurd accusations of "bottling it" and the low blow directed at Kaka's father, Bosco, whom Cook deemed not "sophisticated" enough to represent his son. (Never mind the fact that Bosco is a civil engineer, whereas Cook spent most of his adult life flogging shoes and sports apparel).

Manchester City's handling of the sacking of Mark Hughes was, simply put, terrible. The idea, peddled by Cook on Monday, that Hughes wasn't told he was being sacked until after the Sunderland game because the chairman, Khaldoon Al-Mubarak wanted to tell him in person and was so busy that he couldn't physically be in Manchester until 10am on Saturday, is not an acceptable explanation for such uncivil behaviour. For a start, there is little question that Hughes had heard the rumours by that point. I can only imagine what was going through his head as he showed up at the stadium to take charge of the game, too dignified and too professional to hunt down Cook or his sidekick, Brian Marwood and shake a straight answer out of them.

We'll never know, unless Al-Mubarak tells us, which is unlikely, since the man doesn't do too much public speaking. But to me it smacks of passing the buck. I'd love to ask him the following question: "Hey, if you heard rumours that your boss, Sheikh Mansour, had decided to sack you and put you out of work, would you rather get confirmation from one of the Sheikh's minions who are all around you or would you rather be left in limbo for twelve hours, with no choice but to go about your job in front of tens of thousands of people (and millions watching around the world), because hearing it straight from the Sheikh's mouth will mitigate the pain and the humiliation?"

My guess - but heck, I could be wrong - is that Al-Mubarak would choose the former. But, yes, if we want to follow the Cook line and blame Hughes's public humiliation entirely on Al-Mubarak let's go ahead and do so. The only thing I wonder is whether, at any point, it crossed Cook's mind to say: "Gee, Khaldoon, are you sure it's such a good idea? I appreciate the gesture of telling him face-to-face, but we're heading for a PR disaster here and maybe we really should think about sparing him some embarassment ..." Maybe Cook did suggest that and was overruled. Maybe he did not. We may never know.

Understanding how football works

I do feel a teeny, tiny speck of sympathy for Cook on one point though. Manchester City and Cook feel the furore and the accusations of him "lying" over when Roberto Mancini was approached is unfair.

You probably know the story by now: Cook's statement claims Mancini was only offered the job last Thursday (December 17), but Mancini, when asked directly, said he had met Al-Mubarak two weeks before that. Technically, Cook is correct: his statement is not inconsistent. (Watch video of the man here, it's at 5:45). Cook says that "the decision to seriously look at other options" was made "three weeks earlier", presumably around the time that Al-Mubarak met Mancini.

That's fine and I'm sure it would stand up in a court of law. But, from a PR perspective, it was far from clever and pretty much characteristic of how Cook communicates. Had he been straight - rather than pulling out the usual "carefully worded" legalese sludge - everything would have been fine. All he had to do was say: "The decision to seriously look at other options was made three weeks ago. We met Roberto and had an informational interview so that we could have a contingency in case things did not work out with Hughes. By last Thursday we decided we had to act, so we went back to Roberto and offered him the job."

I think most reasonable people would have accepted (though perhaps not agreed with) that explanation. You want to sack your manager, but you can't do so until you have somebody ready to replace him. And, because you're not sure if Mancini (or anybody else) is the right man for the job, you sit down and have a chat with him, so you get to know him better. If you don't like him, that's the end of that. If you do like him, you know you have something in the bag when you finally do decide to change managers.

That's how football, generally, works, sackings don't come out of thin air, clubs need to have a Plan B. A person who understands how football works would probably have realized that being fully transparent on this point (rather than trying to sneak the technically-correct-but-practically-misleading "seriously look at other options" verbal acrobatics past the media) would have been the way to go. A person who understands how the press work would have probably foreseen the possibility that Mancini would, at some point, be asked when he was first approached by the club. A person who knows and understands Mancini, who has been on the footballing scene for three decades, would have probably realized that the former Inter boss was not going to lie.

A person whose crowning professional achievement before joining City was managing the "Michael Jordan brand" several years after the great man had retired (different sport, different country, different job) might not.

Mancini doesn't lie

One final Cook-related point. He said that: "Roberto [Mancini] was caught up in the language issue; in truth he has been shafted."

Ummm ... no, actually. Mancini was not caught up in the language issue. He understood the question perfectly and he answered it truthfully. Nobody has shafted him. In fact, he hasn't been shafted since Massimo Moratti, the Inter boss, met Jose Mourinho six months before ditching Mancini and offering the Special One the Inter job. Personally, I think he's been shafted enough by certain people in his own country and I hope history does not repeat itself here...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/thega...oesnt-lie.html

[Gary Is God]

Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Cook - Shortlist made in summer

Manchester City chief executive Garry Cook has conceded the club discussed possible candidates to replace Mark Hughes before the season had even started.

The beleaguered City chief has been widely criticised for the role he played in Hughes' departure, but has remained unrepentant throughout the affair.

City have been accused of carrying out a cover-up operation with regards to when Roberto Mancini was first approached about the role, with it being suggested they had spoken to the Italian as early as 2nd December.

Cook has since rubbished these reports and issued a staunch retort to what he feels has been a gross overreaction on the press' part in terms of the level of criticism.

It is unlikely though that his latest concession, that the club had considered viable alternatives to Hughes in the summer, before handing him an unprecedented £125million transfer budget, will placate those that feel the Welshman has been treated shabbily.

"Before the season started we went about our business plan for the year meticulously," said Cook.

"We did our scenario planning, mapping out the season, the results we were seeking, and in those plans we looked at the options open to us if we were in a position when we needed to look for a new manager before Christmas.

"Even at that point we looked at the managers who could be available in a World Cup year, and those who might definitely be available. We had no intention of replacing Mark Hughes, but surely as a business we are entitled to examine all the options?"

Cook is adamant the club has no apology to make and on the contrary, points to the fact Sven Goran Eriksson was dispensed with in a familiar fashion under the previous regime of Thaksin Shinawatra.

"I seem to recall Sven was still our manager but he knew he was being replaced before the last game of the season. Weren't they identical circumstances to the way we went about executing our decision to appoint a new manager?"