Steve Cook

SlowDownDerek said:
How did his replacements cost more? It seemed pretty clear it was for financial reasons did it not?
Click to expand...

No. It was pretty clear it wasn’t at the time, although you did argue otherwise then.

Steve Cook

Not really mate.... tinpot and frustrated, those that want to see the club progress off the field. Unfortunately, I think it is clear by now that the people that run our football club have no intention or ambition for progress and improvement off the field. I don't think there was ever any...
bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk
 
DJ said:
No. It was pretty clear it wasn’t at the time, although you did argue otherwise then.

Steve Cook

Not really mate.... tinpot and frustrated, those that want to see the club progress off the field. Unfortunately, I think it is clear by now that the people that run our football club have no intention or ambition for progress and improvement off the field. I don't think there was ever any...
bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk
Click to expand...

Surely it's clear that Cook needed to not be on the books earning that sort of money after the 2021/22 season. The actual wages in the year we were still recieving parachute payments wasn't the issue as much as the wages after that. Of all of the high PL earners only Jefferson Lerma wasn't either let go or renegotiated a lower contract.
 
Neil Dawson said:
It wasn’t the cardigans fault. Cook refused a move as wages would have dropped even though the club had decided he had to move on as they couldn’t afford him. Hence the pariah treatment, no testimonial, train with the kids. Parker wanted to use him and indeed got his way in an injury crisis.

Says a lot about Cook he came in and played like he did. The upper echelons at this club didn’t deserve him.
Click to expand...

Lol, nice try.

So after Cooks moves fell through, in the summer, why did Parker not use him more than he did?
 
MB1980 said:
Lol, nice try.

So after Cooks moves fell through, in the summer, why did Parker not use him more than he did?
Click to expand...
I might be remembering incorrectly, but I believe Kelly was preferred over Cook. I think Ibsen Rossi played for Cahill in the early part of the season and then Mepham in other times Cahill was out
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Surely it's clear that Cook needed to not be on the books earning that sort of money after the 2021/22 season. The actual wages in the year we were still recieving parachute payments wasn't the issue as much as the wages after that. Of all of the high PL earners only Jefferson Lerma wasn't either let go or renegotiated a lower contract.
Click to expand...

And what’s your point? He was out of contract at the end of the season.

So we froze him out for 5 months whilst being paid and brought in a replacement on similar wages. So that’s a football decision not a financial one. I’m not really wishing to repeat the same debate as before. :)
 
DJ said:
And what’s your point? He was out of contract at the end of the season.

So we froze him out for 5 months whilst being paid and brought in a replacement on similar wages. So that’s a football decision not a financial one. I’m not
really wishing to repeat the same debate as before. :)
Click to expand...

Waz afcb said:
We paid a 1.5m pound loan fee for Nat Phillips, not to mention his wages and Cahill’s. It absolutely cost more to get them in than to keep Cook for the season.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that?
 
Neil Dawson said:
It wasn’t the cardigans fault. Cook refused a move as wages would have dropped even though the club had decided he had to move on as they couldn’t afford him. Hence the pariah treatment, no testimonial, train with the kids. Parker wanted to use him and indeed got his way in an injury crisis.

Says a lot about Cook he came in and played like he did. The upper echelons at this club didn’t deserve him.
Click to expand...
Yet the club decided to spend 1.5m to loan Nat Phillips for six months, not to mention playing Cahill? If it was financially motivated then Cook must have been on around 100k per week lol
 
Waz afcb said:
Yet the club decided to spend 1.5m to loan Nat Phillips for six months, not to mention playing Cahill? If it was financially motivated then Cook must have been on around 100k per week lol
Click to expand...
Cook went to forest for an undisclosed fee - might have been enough to cover the loan fee
 
USCherry said:
Cook went to forest for an undisclosed fee - might have been enough to cover the loan fee
Click to expand...

Even knowing how they do deals eg Harry Arter… I don’t think so. Cook only had 5 months on his contract left and most reports said it was a free transfer.
 
USCherry said:
I might be remembering incorrectly, but I believe Kelly was preferred over Cook. I think Ibsen Rossi played for Cahill in the early part of the season and then Mepham in other times
Click to expand...
That's right Rossi played in some of the earlier matches as did Meps. I can't remember if Kelly was injury free at the start of the season. Cahill then came in snd formed a solid partnership with Kelly. Then Phillips came in after the January window when Cahill was struggling with an injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
Expect he was told 'surplus to requirements in the summer and the ckub expected him to move on before September.

Whether it was Parker from football perspective or financial, not sure.

Doubt he was paid much more, if any more at all than Cahill, so leaning towards 'footballing reasons'.

Perhaps Parker didn't deem him suitable, or quite as suitable/good as cahill so had to choose one of the other at the time.

Or perhaps the not entirely unusual thing of manager wanting 'influential' players from previous regimes out the dressing room. Or simply wanted to freshen things up and inject new blood.

Cook was told he had no future and to move on, and hed been training with reserves (tgink that happened) again not implausible. Some managers only want players with future around tge squad... particularly one who held a fair anlunt of influence amongst players.

Bearing in mind he selected Rossi aheas of him after the window, my feeling is the relationship was frayed, or parker took hardkine approach of not wanted 'surplus to requirements' players that close to squad, despitrle cook being a better player than others... regardless of what the initial reason was in summer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;