Steve Cook

I’m also not buying into the Nat Phillips is inferior malarkey as it’s far too early to tell. It’s also up to those running the football club on who they want around the place and if the decision was made on footballing reasons then that’s fair enough regardless of if I agree with it or not.

But it’s pretty clear it wasn’t made for financial reasons, as we ended up keeping him and paying him for 4/5 months. Signed Gary Cahill on wages that are probably very similar for 12 months and then paid Liverpool £1.5 million for 120 odd days of football.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
He wanted a long contract and the club wanted rid of long expensive contracts. They said they wouldn't stand in his way so he went to a direct rival. What would you have done?
Click to expand...

He seemed pretty happy to run out his contract with us and see where we are at the end of the season. Would've saved us a few bob and an own goal.
 
DJ said:
I’m also not buying into the Nat Phillips is inferior malarkey as it’s far too early to tell. It’s also up to those running the football club on who they want around the place and if the decision was made on footballing reasons then that’s fair enough regardless of if I agree with it or not.

But it’s pretty clear it wasn’t made for financial reasons, as we ended up keeping him and paying him for 4/5 months. Signed Gary Cahill on wages that are probably very similar for 12 months and then paid Liverpool £1.5 million for 120 odd days of football.
Click to expand...

There's not wanting to sign him on a long contract and there's not wanting to deny a club legend a move to secure his family's future. One of these is for financial reasons and one isn't.
 
Posted this on the wrong thread #doh


At the end of the day, there are two certainties here... Firstly, Cook wanted to stay. Secondly, the club (and I use the term 'club' to mean someone or collective parties in the football club) didn't want him to stay.

That is all we know... Everything else is purely speculative...

Cook has offered an interview in the ECHO this week and there are some interesting comments on why he left... I find it strange that he used the phrase, "I have my own opinions on what happened and why it happened..."

Almost makes it sound like he wasn't even sure why he was frozen out...

Some snippets here...


“I was obviously available to leave the club in the summer through different reasons. I didn’t play for a long time,” said the defender.

“I saw a lot of opinions and reasons why I wasn’t playing.

“It was quite interesting to read, some of these reasons why I wasn’t playing!

“Maybe they know more than me, but I don’t have to prove anything. I came back into the (Cherries) team after a while. I think I helped the team when I did play.

“I don’t think I need to show anything to the management staff. I need to try to manage my emotions, myself and try to play as best as I can for my team, rather than the opposition manager and staff.

“There’s nothing to prove, there’s no resentment of me trying to prove to people that I should still be playing for Bournemouth.

“I have got my own opinions on what happened and why it happened and that will stay between me.
 
dragonm8 said:
What a shyte thing to say.

He played with his heart on his sleeve every time he put the jersey on.
Click to expand...

Was confused with your response so I reread my post.

I guess you think I meant "happy to run out his contract" to mean sit on his hands taking a pay cheque like Fraser? Maybe "play out" would've been a better choice of words, my mistake.

I meant was he wasn't kicking off about getting a move, seemed invested in proving his value over the remainder of the contract with a view that a decision would be made at the end of the season depending on performance and our league status.
 
Kudos said:
Was confused with your response so I reread my post.

I guess you think I meant "happy to run out his contract" to mean sit on his hands taking a pay cheque like Fraser? Maybe "play out" would've been a better choice of words, my mistake.

I meant was he wasn't kicking off about getting a move, seemed invested in proving his value over the remainder of the contract with a view that a decision would be made at the end of the season depending on performance and our league status.
Click to expand...


Not his fault he got handed a good contract.

He was always willing to get in the trenches for AFCB.......and for that he is a bit of a legend.
 
dragonm8 said:
Not his fault he got handed a good contract.

He was always willing to get in the trenches for AFCB.......and for that he is a bit of a legend.
Click to expand...

Completely agree and I think he can (and probably does) feel aggrieved that his good contract and then some were spent on temporary cover for his exit on a free.
 
afcdibby said:
You need to get with the agenda. That just doesn’t fit.
Click to expand...

TBF it's the loan deal spin which is why they're hard to value.

Loans are made up of loan fee, wages and add-ons.

Apparently, Liverpool pay his wages but we pay them £1.5M for the 16 week loan which is much more than it would've costed to keep Cook.
 
Kudos said:
TBF it's the loan deal spin which is why they're hard to value.

Loans are made up of loan fee, wages and add-ons.

Apparently, Liverpool pay his wages but we pay them £1.5M for the 16 week loan which is much more than it would've costed to keep Cook.
Click to expand...
Lol a nearly a hundred grand a week!.....we should have asked them for Van Dyke!
 
Kudos said:
TBF it's the loan deal spin which is why they're hard to value.

Loans are made up of loan fee, wages and add-ons.

Apparently, Liverpool pay his wages but we pay them £1.5M for the 16 week loan which is much more than it would've costed to keep Cook.
Click to expand...
Apparently…………is the only thing anyone knows for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;