| Paul Cook Interview 13:10 - Jan 5 with 6022 views | Martus |
Completely agree with his comments.
First off I should say I was and still am a Paul Cook fan. But, when Michael O'Leary had his first interview with the club - he said Paul Cook was their choice and they were kept in the loop when the managers were being interviewed. So he was the new ownership's team and Michael O'Leary's man too.
The big difference seems to be Mark Ashton - which is funny as he kept talking about giving the team time at the start of the season - and to have 19 new signings creating a completely new starting 11 - time was essential. I could see things starting to gel in October and admittedly they also fell apart after shortly after. But to give a manager the resources and backing to create a whole new squad under his image - and then to offload him with less than half a season gone - seems ludicrous. As PC said - if he was told he needed to be near or in the playoffs at least by November - then the job wasn't right for him. That overhaul needed time to pay off.
It sounds like the team Mark Ashton employed to work with the team didn't match the ethos of Paul Cook - and that is a great shame. Because whilst I am happy there is a constant team that will be there to continue their job and create stability - Mark Ashton can move on just as quickly as previously seen and take that team with him to a new club. So that also doesn't sit right with me - Paul Cook was the manager and should be able to run how that team works with his squad.
I feel for him - and I think it shows how much the job of manager/coach has changed in recent years. I hope he gets a job again soon and does well. And i hope PC was wrong an McKenna can make this squad gel in time for a playoff push. |  |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |  |
| Paul Cook Interview on 13:27 - Jan 5 with 3392 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
If he gets a new job, he needs to massively re-think the recruitment of his coaching staff. |  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:29 - Jan 5 with 3377 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
...but regrets not leaving in the summer?! | |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:38 - Jan 5 with 3351 views | Martus |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:29 - Jan 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
...but regrets not leaving in the summer?! |
I agree the staff maybe contributed to the underwhelming start. McKenna looks like that will be his forte and well know dynamic coaches to add to his style.
But if Paul Cook knew that they wanted success by November - would he have overhauled the squad as he did? No - because he knew that his overhaul needed time to gel. So I completely agree with PC there. Seems Mark Ashton maybe had a different idea - but didn't tell the cameras that at the start of the season. | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:44 - Jan 5 with 3313 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:38 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I agree the staff maybe contributed to the underwhelming start. McKenna looks like that will be his forte and well know dynamic coaches to add to his style.
But if Paul Cook knew that they wanted success by November - would he have overhauled the squad as he did? No - because he knew that his overhaul needed time to gel. So I completely agree with PC there. Seems Mark Ashton maybe had a different idea - but didn't tell the cameras that at the start of the season. |
He must be an idiot to think that he wouldn't need to be doing better than mid table and miles off the play offs in December after all that investment.
To be fair, if he had been a couple of points off the play offs, he wouldnt have been sacked. And thats not exactly success.
The board didnt demand success, but they wanted better than the terrible league position that he was delivering. | |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 13:45 - Jan 5 with 3294 views | Churchman |
The team was sagging in the middle of L1. His team, his players. He’s not denying that bit. Two good results in 20 odd games. I was prepared to overlook the end of last season. He made a pigs ear of it in every way, but there were mitigating circumstances so let’s be generous and set that aside for a moment..
Cook chose to bomb out almost the whole squad. Ashton did challenge the necessity of it but Cook’s way forward was backed. From it we wound up with a bunch of decent L1 players. Disjointed and not a team. That’s Cook’s doing, not anyone else’s. His job was to put a team together. He didn’t.
I was in the camp of giving him more time. Not any more. The more I see and read the more wrong I was. The bloke was lucky to keep the job as long as he did. It’s a results business and Cook wasn’t getting enough of them despite having more support than just about any manager in L1.
This constant rehash of the Bristol City weirdos obsession with blaming Ashton for everything from Global warming to Norwood’s tattoos is ridiculous. When he noticeably fails (such as if McKenna fails), I’ll call him out with the best of them. Until then I’ll take as I find and leave Cook’s rather lame excuses to him and his next employers.
He made a mess of a great opportunity. It’s as simple as that. |  | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:47 - Jan 5 with 3261 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:38 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I agree the staff maybe contributed to the underwhelming start. McKenna looks like that will be his forte and well know dynamic coaches to add to his style.
But if Paul Cook knew that they wanted success by November - would he have overhauled the squad as he did? No - because he knew that his overhaul needed time to gel. So I completely agree with PC there. Seems Mark Ashton maybe had a different idea - but didn't tell the cameras that at the start of the season. |
It was pretty obvious we wanted promotion this season. You don't recruit in the manner we did, including expensive loans in Bonne, Celina, Walton and Coulsen in order to finish mid-table. Honestly, after 20 games did anyone expect to be sitting 11th, 8 points off the play offs with teams above us having 1/2 games in hand? |  | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:52 - Jan 5 with 3230 views | Martus |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:44 - Jan 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
He must be an idiot to think that he wouldn't need to be doing better than mid table and miles off the play offs in December after all that investment.
To be fair, if he had been a couple of points off the play offs, he wouldnt have been sacked. And thats not exactly success.
The board didnt demand success, but they wanted better than the terrible league position that he was delivering. |
If your CEO says to the press you have time - then I would like to trust his word. But that didn't happen.
19 new players. A whole new starting 11. To expect them to gel - with injuries and the amount of games to take in to account as well - by November is also foolish. | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:01 - Jan 5 with 3178 views | Martus |
| Paul Cook Interview on 13:45 - Jan 5 by Churchman |
The team was sagging in the middle of L1. His team, his players. He’s not denying that bit. Two good results in 20 odd games. I was prepared to overlook the end of last season. He made a pigs ear of it in every way, but there were mitigating circumstances so let’s be generous and set that aside for a moment..
Cook chose to bomb out almost the whole squad. Ashton did challenge the necessity of it but Cook’s way forward was backed. From it we wound up with a bunch of decent L1 players. Disjointed and not a team. That’s Cook’s doing, not anyone else’s. His job was to put a team together. He didn’t.
I was in the camp of giving him more time. Not any more. The more I see and read the more wrong I was. The bloke was lucky to keep the job as long as he did. It’s a results business and Cook wasn’t getting enough of them despite having more support than just about any manager in L1.
This constant rehash of the Bristol City weirdos obsession with blaming Ashton for everything from Global warming to Norwood’s tattoos is ridiculous. When he noticeably fails (such as if McKenna fails), I’ll call him out with the best of them. Until then I’ll take as I find and leave Cook’s rather lame excuses to him and his next employers.
He made a mess of a great opportunity. It’s as simple as that. |
I completely get your point.
But who would you have kept from last year? And so how many change would have meant? It still requires a lot of signings.
You have given a manager the resources to buy and construct a new team. A new team under his image and what he wanted - based on his ethos and style of play. Then after 3 months - you say that's enough and get someone new in.
With that being the case - what was the point of giving him that money and backing? If only to remove it when he probably needed it most? | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:07 - Jan 5 with 3150 views | Parsley |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:52 - Jan 5 by Martus |
If your CEO says to the press you have time - then I would like to trust his word. But that didn't happen.
19 new players. A whole new starting 11. To expect them to gel - with injuries and the amount of games to take in to account as well - by November is also foolish. |
There's a middle ground though, no one was expecting Paul Cook to have us top of the table by November but 11th in League 1, 7 points off the playoffs and no consistent signs of improvement wasn't good enough. If they felt like he had a chance of turning it around this season and challenged for the playoffs then I think he would have been given time but ultimately they decided it was best to change now rather than let the season drag on until it was too late. |  | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:19 - Jan 5 with 3092 views | SouthfieldsBlue |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:07 - Jan 5 by Parsley |
There's a middle ground though, no one was expecting Paul Cook to have us top of the table by November but 11th in League 1, 7 points off the playoffs and no consistent signs of improvement wasn't good enough. If they felt like he had a chance of turning it around this season and challenged for the playoffs then I think he would have been given time but ultimately they decided it was best to change now rather than let the season drag on until it was too late. |
I always interpreted the "will have time" comments as automatic promotion not being needed this season and as long as we were competitive for the promotion race and that being a couple of points outside of the play-offs wouldn't be a sacking. Any worse than that and he would be in danger, and we were a lot worse than that and getting visibly more disjointed on the pitch.
Thought the decision was a bit hasty at the time, but definitely a justifiable one, now we have McKenna and having seen us paly at Wycombe I'm pretty happy with the decision. As for Cook, he needs to find a new assistant manager to help him going forward, otherwise he will get the same result as here. | | | |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:24 - Jan 5 with 3052 views | ArnieM |
So who runs this team / squad then , the manager or Mark Ashton? Ive had a niggling doubt about this for a while. Ashton now gets I. A rookie manager who’ll fit in with HIS plans and ideals? |  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:27 - Jan 5 with 3011 views | Martus |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:07 - Jan 5 by Parsley |
There's a middle ground though, no one was expecting Paul Cook to have us top of the table by November but 11th in League 1, 7 points off the playoffs and no consistent signs of improvement wasn't good enough. If they felt like he had a chance of turning it around this season and challenged for the playoffs then I think he would have been given time but ultimately they decided it was best to change now rather than let the season drag on until it was too late. |
I get that - if they didn't think PC was right to do what they wanted - then they have the right to sack him. But they signed him an then they backed him. But to give him all those resources and back him with all those signings - what was the point? You gave him all those signing and let him completely rebuild your squad - only to get rid a few months later?
It seems like poor planning and poor management from our CEO. If you give him all those resources - you need to back him to see that through | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:29 - Jan 5 with 3003 views | Parsley |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:24 - Jan 5 by ArnieM |
So who runs this team / squad then , the manager or Mark Ashton? Ive had a niggling doubt about this for a while. Ashton now gets I. A rookie manager who’ll fit in with HIS plans and ideals? |
Mark Ashton runs the club as CEO and hires a manager to run the first team with input/support from various backroom staff including sports science, analysts etc. | | | |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:31 - Jan 5 with 2986 views | Martus |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:24 - Jan 5 by ArnieM |
So who runs this team / squad then , the manager or Mark Ashton? Ive had a niggling doubt about this for a while. Ashton now gets I. A rookie manager who’ll fit in with HIS plans and ideals? |
Exactly and that is scary.
I like that it can give us stability - so no matter who is manager we have some conistency so that its not always drastic changes when a new manager comes in. But Ashton can change clubs at a drop of a hat too.
I like that a lot of players came to play for Cook - e.g. Morsy, Evans, Walton & Chaplin.Then to bin him months later - seems so silly. | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:35 - Jan 5 with 2947 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:07 - Jan 5 by Parsley |
There's a middle ground though, no one was expecting Paul Cook to have us top of the table by November but 11th in League 1, 7 points off the playoffs and no consistent signs of improvement wasn't good enough. If they felt like he had a chance of turning it around this season and challenged for the playoffs then I think he would have been given time but ultimately they decided it was best to change now rather than let the season drag on until it was too late. |
THIS!!
It's not like Cook was even close to the play offs. | |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:36 - Jan 5 with 2941 views | CrockerITFC |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:24 - Jan 5 by ArnieM |
So who runs this team / squad then , the manager or Mark Ashton? Ive had a niggling doubt about this for a while. Ashton now gets I. A rookie manager who’ll fit in with HIS plans and ideals? |
To be fair he's had previous success with hiring managers with no direct managerial experience before (look no further than Brendan Rodgers), so maybe just wait and see before making assumptions. It's painfully obvious that we've had poor coaches at the club now since Terry Connor left (Matt Gill is probably the only exception) and that has been a big part of our downfall as a club. |  | | |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:38 - Jan 5 with 2923 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:31 - Jan 5 by Martus |
Exactly and that is scary.
I like that it can give us stability - so no matter who is manager we have some conistency so that its not always drastic changes when a new manager comes in. But Ashton can change clubs at a drop of a hat too.
I like that a lot of players came to play for Cook - e.g. Morsy, Evans, Walton & Chaplin.Then to bin him months later - seems so silly. |
To keep Cook just cos some players liked him would be silly.
He hardly played Chaplin.
Walton is on loan.
Morsy has improved since Cook left. | |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:39 - Jan 5 with 2924 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Paul Cook Interview on 14:24 - Jan 5 by ArnieM |
So who runs this team / squad then , the manager or Mark Ashton? Ive had a niggling doubt about this for a while. Ashton now gets I. A rookie manager who’ll fit in with HIS plans and ideals? |
The players are largely targeted/signed by the CEO/recruitment team with some input from the manager, who's job it is to coach the squad of players they have. It is how a lot of football clubs (and successful ones at that) are run. [Post edited 5 Jan 2022 14:39]
| | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:39 - Jan 5 with 2915 views | Martus |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:35 - Jan 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
THIS!!
It's not like Cook was even close to the play offs. |
I get that - but there were plenty more games to play and gel.
It only takes a good run of 5 - 10 games to completely alter your position. I would have preferred our CEO to back him and finish the job they gave him the resources for, signed him for and what he has done before. | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:42 - Jan 5 with 2868 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:39 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I get that - but there were plenty more games to play and gel.
It only takes a good run of 5 - 10 games to completely alter your position. I would have preferred our CEO to back him and finish the job they gave him the resources for, signed him for and what he has done before. |
Please stop talking about gelling.
And a run of games?...
...the best Cook managed was 2 wins in a row, and I think that only happened twice.
There were no signs of improvement. | |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:42 - Jan 5 with 2865 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:39 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I get that - but there were plenty more games to play and gel.
It only takes a good run of 5 - 10 games to completely alter your position. I would have preferred our CEO to back him and finish the job they gave him the resources for, signed him for and what he has done before. |
I guess we will never know but he didn't look like turning it around to me. Post Wycombe we were poorer than we had been all season. I see people raving about our performance at Sunderland but we had no end product/penetration and ultimately got sucker punched and lost 2-0. | | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:45 - Jan 5 with 2853 views | jayessess |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:27 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I get that - if they didn't think PC was right to do what they wanted - then they have the right to sack him. But they signed him an then they backed him. But to give him all those resources and back him with all those signings - what was the point? You gave him all those signing and let him completely rebuild your squad - only to get rid a few months later?
It seems like poor planning and poor management from our CEO. If you give him all those resources - you need to back him to see that through |
If you sign players up for 3/4 years contracts, they're more than likely to see at least 1 manager go, probably more than that.
The 12 players we signed to significant contracts were signed because they'd be valuable to the football club over time, not as presents to Paul Cook. |  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:47 - Jan 5 with 2833 views | MaySixth |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 13:38 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I agree the staff maybe contributed to the underwhelming start. McKenna looks like that will be his forte and well know dynamic coaches to add to his style.
But if Paul Cook knew that they wanted success by November - would he have overhauled the squad as he did? No - because he knew that his overhaul needed time to gel. So I completely agree with PC there. Seems Mark Ashton maybe had a different idea - but didn't tell the cameras that at the start of the season. |
Ashton for sure wasn't exactly truthful with us |  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:52 - Jan 5 with 2808 views | Parsley |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:27 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I get that - if they didn't think PC was right to do what they wanted - then they have the right to sack him. But they signed him an then they backed him. But to give him all those resources and back him with all those signings - what was the point? You gave him all those signing and let him completely rebuild your squad - only to get rid a few months later?
It seems like poor planning and poor management from our CEO. If you give him all those resources - you need to back him to see that through |
 | | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:52 - Jan 5 with 2803 views | Martus |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:42 - Jan 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Please stop talking about gelling.
And a run of games?...
...the best Cook managed was 2 wins in a row, and I think that only happened twice.
There were no signs of improvement. |
Yeah i agree - we didn't have a run of games where we even play consistently. But when it worked - we looked great e.g. Wycombe and Portsmouth. I agree with you that is not enough and we all wanted more from the team and expected more.
But my main point is - why allow a manager to completely demolish and rebuild a squad - only to sack him? Where is the thought process in that? Utterly pointless. That is a Paul Cook squad that they allowed him to build. Why allow him to do that only to sack him months later - that's the bit that confuses me the most.
If you back him in the transfer window to build a new squad - let him finish the job and give him season to try and get the squad he built to do what he planned it to. | |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
