Garry Cook resigns.

Today it was announced that Garry Cook had tendered his resignation and that it had been accepted by City's Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak. In the light of recent events it was probably the best thing to do all round in all honesty.

You can read the full statements from Cook and Mubarak HERE on mcfc.co.uk.

It's no secret that Garry Cook had his fair share of detractors mostly caused by his very public gaffs. Although lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things, up to now they had not actually caused the Club any serious or lasting damage, however embarrassing they were for everyone at the time.

I've certainly been vocal of my criticism of Cook in the past but he has been a major factor in how City has been transformed since taking over as Chief Executive, something which the Chairman recognises in his own statement on the club's website. The club really has gone under a ridiculous transformation and Cook has to take some credit for that.

The resignation is undoubtedly to save face for both himself and the club and was really the only way of settling this quickly and effectively since Cookgate had been blown out of all proportion. In fact it was Cook and Marwood's strict adherence to their business principles that started this whole situation.

As I've said before, the timing of Dr Onuoha's revelations is incredibly suspect and I wouldn't rule out any other outside influences that affected it either. Whatever the case, there is now a vacancy for the club to fill so don't be surprised for a number of people to be linked with the job in the coming days and possibly weeks.

Club Director John MacBeath is temporarily filling the void, however the club will be kean to appoint a permanent replacement as quick as possible to avoid unnecessary disruption behind the scenes. One option within the club may be ex Blackburn Rovers chief John Williams, a highly respected figure within the game and already holds a senior role in the club. Peter Kenyon is also a name that has been linked with City in the past and will no doubt be linked with the club again now there is a vacancy.

Whatever happens, I hope City fans show a modicum decency and some respect for the work Garry Cook actually did for the club, as despite their feelings towards him, that surely outweighs the mistakes he's made in the grand scheme of things. However I feel this last part will be somewhat ignored by most.

Ian Wright getting it all wrong again.

Well, Ian Wright is on one about City again. No surprises really with what was thrust into the public domain yesterday. Although I must admit the timing of Mrs Onuoha's revelation is a little bit suspect as Nedum, for the first time in over two years, has a chance of working his way back into contention at City.

You just know Ian Wright has been waiting for something like this to get his torch and pitchfork out of the shed. Him along with every other sports journalist who loves to jump all over City at every chance they get. Ever since SWP's ill-advised move away from City he has blamed the club for ruining his career. Not sure how that works really when it was Ian that was pushing for the move that made his adopted son a bench warmer instead of a first team regular.

I'll just point out now that in no way is this in defence of whoever sent that email, whether it is Cook or someone else. However the stance the Ian Wright has taken smacks of someone with a massive axe to grind and as he has the IQ roughly equal (or less) to the number of England caps he has what he has to divulge is quite predictable.

He calls on the FA to act quickly over these allegations because they were quick to hand Rooney a ban for swearing into the camera last season. What exactly is he expecting them to do when at this moment in time there are only allegations and an internal investigation into the matter has only just started.

Ian then just has to mention that despite the money City have spent on new players the 'gulf in class' between City and United is still "as big as the Grand Canyon". And why is this I hear you ask?

"The greatness of a football club is not just measured by the trophies you win, but by the quality of the people you employ, from the boardroom down to the tea ladies."

Really Ian, a club's greatness is measure by every employee? You're a man who is no stranger to the police and freely admit you drove without a licence or insurance as you bombed around town in other people's cars you decided to break into. And you probably would still have been doing that had Arsenal not picked you up, so what does that say about your beloved club?

But lets see about this gulf in class you say there is with Manchester United shall we. They employed a player who freely admits he set out one game to end another professional's career (and succeeded in doing so) by breaking his leg. In any other place this would be classed as assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, but because it was on a football pitch it was just a bad and mistimed challenge.

How about their honoured manager who kicked a boot across the dressing room at a Beckham because he was hacked off? And what of Wayne Rooney who cheated on his wife with prostitutes? Should we also recall Ryan Giggs who also cheated on his wife with Imogen Thomas and his own brother's wife? These are all employees aren't they Ian? So by your thinking we should be judging the class of Manchester United by these men too. Even going further back from the present day I could mention Louis Edwards, chairman of Manchester United 1965-1980 selling condemned meat, unfit for human consumption to schools for their dinners. They're hardly shining beacons of morality are they?

I could go on about other players at other clubs as there are many examples, but I think my point has been made.

Ian continues to say that even if it wasn't Cook that sent the email it is proof that City is still "being run in a shoddy, shambolic way". Really? Because an email has been sent the whole club is shoddy and shambolic? Again this is not in defence of whoever did send it, but I can 100% guarantee that this will not be the only email in all the clubs to be sent. This is just the only one ever to have gone into the public domain.

Give it up Ian.



@MikeWalsh1880

Are City really in hot water with the new ETIHAD deal?

Well it seems the media and some clubs are well and truly spitting their dummies out over City’s new sponsorship deal, calling for UEFA to investigate and even veto the agreement. It’s no secret that City’s takeover sparked the beginnings of the Financial Fair Play rules as Europe’s top clubs choked at the thought of someone outside of their clique should be able to gatecrash their timeshare of the domestic and European honours.

Now those same clubs along with the media are crying foul that City have managed to secure what is now being touted as up to £400m over the next decade. All that money for just selling the naming rights to what was now formally known as the City of Manchester Stadium? Well not exactly, but we’ll come to that later on.

The most vociferous of the critics from the football world have been Arsenal and Bayern Munich (according to the media). Now let me see, why would Arsenal and Bayern Munich have such sour grapes over such a deal?

Arsenal have seen Manchester City buy a number of their players over the last few seasons with the latest arrival being Gael Clichy. And although certain sections of supporters and so called experts will tell you he hasn’t had a good season, the statistics tell another story showing him as one of the best in the Premiership. City have also been heavily linked with a deal for Samir Nasri.

Gael Clichy shows off his new shirt after signing of City from Arsenal

A spokesman of the Arsenal Supporters Trust has been outspoken regarding the deal with ETIHAD saying: "It's like a match where one side decides to follow the offside rule and one doesn't. The City deal drives a coach and horses through the market place."

Earlier on this week the spokesman also stated: "The deal at Manchester City stretches credulity to the limit. The numbers just don't stack up."

Forgive me if I’m wrong but this just sounds like sour grapes. City have caused a stir amongst Arsenal supporters after they not only beat them to third in the league but have also taken one of their best players and are linked with another this transfer window. Add to this that Arsenal’s board simply refuse to spend money on proven players and other club’s aiming to poach other Arsenal stars it’s likely to leave Arsenal in another ‘transitional’ state of limbo yet again.

And now for Bayern Munich whose Chief Executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge has ‘blasted’ or ‘slammed’ the deal (depending on what headline you read) saying: “Maybe they still have a trick up their sleeves but I’m not sure that they will be permitted to play in the Champions League.”

But let’s have a look at what he said moments earlier shall we?

“You have to look at it soberly – the player is under contract with Manchester City and the decision lies with them. They have demanded a price we will never be willing to pay.”

German International Jerome Boateng playing for Manchester City

Oh so Bayern aren’t bothered about the deal? No, although the papers would have you believe the first quote is talking about the ETIHAD deal. What he’s actually moaning about is that City won’t sell them Jerome Boateng on the cheap. And that, as they say Karl, is harte Scheiße.

Thank you Independent for trying to mislead us with the context in which those words were spoken by omitting the full detail. That’s a snide trick I would’ve expected the Daily Fail or the Sun to try.

So, getting back to the point, something else that the media aren’t happy about is that the owner of ETIHAD Airways is Sheikh Mansour’s half-brother and feel that the deal has been done at inflated values in order to gain an unfair advantage in the market.

Well as it was pointed out at the press conference at the unveiling of the deal, CEO of ETIHAD Airways, James Hogan made the point perfectly clear when asked if the Abu Dhabi government had invested in the deal through Sheikh Mansour. Hogan said “We’re (ETIHAD) a stand-alone business… [and] are responsible for our own commercial activities. So the funding of this deal is by ETIHAD Airways.”

Is that clear enough for everyone?

If not here’s some more from James Hogan: “We (ETIHAD) had very strong commercial requirements. If it didn’t add up we wouldn’t be doing it.”

And let us not forget that this is much more than just the sale/sponsorship of the stadium naming rights. It encompasses the shirt sponsorship and a substantial amount of ground that City own around the stadium. The ground on which major work will be done in the near future. Ground that will eventually consist of a new training ground, community football pitches, a swimming pool, a new speedway, and educational facilities and an ETIHAD call centre. Some or all of which could bare the ETIHAD logo.

Hogan describes the historic deal as “Far beyond the typical sponsorship-club agreement.” And when you actually look at it, it is!

We were initially getting figures of £120m-£150m it caused a stir but now the estimated figures have jumped to £400m sheer panic has set in. But if you break it down is it really that ludicrous?

As was mentioned earlier we have 3 major parts of this contract; the stadium naming rights, the kit sponsorship, and the naming of the campus around the stadium. Say for a moment that the naming rights are £150m which is the figure touted earlier on in the year, and the naming of the grounds around the stadium are also £150m (which seems fair if the stadium is the same). This now leaves £100m kit sponsorship deal.

Obviously these figures are complete guesses but not unrealistic in their logic. Barcelona have recently signed a kit sponsorship deal worth €150 (£125m) over 5 years with Qatar Foundation which works out at £24m a year. If the figures I used are anywhere near correct, City will make £10m a year from the kit sponsoring element. Hardly over the odds is it?

And I hate to bring “them” up but the rags already get £23m a year from Nike and there are rumours of a £400m 10 year kit sponsorship deal with them... Has anyone batted an eyelid about this? Don’t be silly, of course they haven’t. £40m a year for a kit sponsorship alone but people are up in arms about what is essentially a whole company sponsorship for the same price.

It’s impossible to think that City have gone about this blindly without checking the rules and regulations regarding such a deal. And something which all of the media has conveniently missed is that during the Q&A after the initial press conference Gary Cook specifically stated: “We have a very open dialogue with UEFA, we’ve had several meetings with UEFA about our plans.”

Cook Even went on to say the UEFA were “very supportive of Manchester City’s ambition.”

There it is in black and white, but if you don’t believe that the full press conference can be viewed on citytv on mcfc.co.uk if you want to check it out.

The hypocrisy of the press over this is truly sickening, and the obvious jealousy of sections of fans is highly laughable. Although they can both get under your skin sometimes, do we really need to care what the press and opposition fans come out with to try and knock us down? No, we know what’s going on, City are more open with its fans than any other Club in the world.

Should we be worried about being able to comply with the FFP rules UEFA created to keep the traditionally big clubs at the top and everyone else looking on in frustration? Hell no! We have owners and a boardroom who know what they’re doing when it comes to business. And that’s what football is today, a business, and it has been like that for some time whether we like it or not.

Once everyone’s 2nd favourite team because they were the plucky underdog, the team who never quite made it, the team who weren’t considered a threat, but now hatde beyond belief because they have the cheek to have a wealthy owner who has turned the club around and continues to do so in dramatic style.

As the saying goes, hated or adored but never ignored. And just like their new ETIHAD Airways A330 – 200 namesake, the blue moon will continue to rise for some time.

Kit man Les Chapman enjoying the ride on ETIHAD's A330-200 City airliner.

ETIHAD Airways' Manchester City A330-200

@MikeWalsh1880

The King is on his last legs. Crisis?

Manchester City to play hardball

The hierarchy at Manchester City have slapped a £50m price tag on the talismanic striker who has announced he must leave City this summer. It is understood that City will not be selling him on the cheap and are willing to wait out the transfer window and beyond until they get an offer they are satisfied with before parting with the Argentinean.

Tevez (27) is only 2 years into a 5 year contract at City, thought to be worth £250k a week and has already had a transfer request rejected last December. He had cited an irreparable relationship with Brian Marwood and Garry Cook as his reason for wanting to leave the club, later saying that Sheikh Mansour himself convinced him to stay at the club.

This time however, Tevez wants to leave for the good of his family as his partner refuses to move to England. This drastic change of stance has not gone unnoticed by anyone, including the fans, and they believe this is just another ploy by Tevez and his agent Kia Joorabchian to get another bumper pay day that a big money move away from the club would provide.

Out of the blue?

He has never been known for his loyalty to clubs, and headlines that Tevez “Shocked” or “Rocked” City with this new twist are blatantly sensationalist overstatements designed to make a crisis where there isn’t one.

One detail that has been slightly overlooked is that Mancini recently mentioned that "There was talk of an exchange with Eto'o, but Inter did not want to sell."

Clearly although Mancini stated that Tevez is likely to stay at the club, the latest transfer request was anticipated by the Italian and the City board alike and they had already explored certain options.

Add to this the perception that the majority of fans are tired of hearing about the transfer saga and just want it to come to a conclusion a headline of “Tevez bores City to tears with his inane whinging” would be more fitting.

Is it such a crisis?

No. Plain and simple, Tevez has 3 years left on his contract and Clubs must meet his valuation and his wage demands before he moves.

Under performing to lower his value isn’t an option for obvious reasons and would only serve to see him sat on the bench. So he really has no option other than to give his all on the pitch and so far no one at City has had reason to think he would do otherwise.

But let’s say a club does stump up the fee and match his wage demands, what then? Well City would then have £50m to spend on a replacement if they so wished. But if a direct replacement wasn’t chosen from outside the club, the Manchester outfit didn’t do too badly without him when he was injured, and actually won a higher percentage of games without him. One of these was the historic victory in FA Cup semi final against arch rivals Manchester United. Even in the FA Cup final it was Yaya Toure who came up with the goods and Mario Balotelli who was awarded man of the match.

 Who would replace him?

As far as the captaincy is concerned, there is no problem what so ever as the majority of the fans and possibly several of the players feel that Vincent Kompany should be captain anyway. Problem solved there.

And as for a replacement striker, City have been linked with a number of players across Europe since the end of the season and they certainly have the financial clout to be able to afford almost any striker on the planet.

Sergio Aguero as told Atletico Madrid he wants a move away from the Spanish club and is seen as one possible replacement.

The Napoli forward Ezequiel Lavezzi appears to be the player who most matches Tevez’s style of play but Mancini has already stated that he does not believe he is worth his £27m release clause.

David Villa is another name that has been linked with Manchester. If Barcelona goes through with their purchase of Cesc Fabregas and Alexis Sanchez they may well be forced to cash in on one or more players to balance the books now the Financial Fair Play rules have come into existence.

Of course there have been many more but do City need to buy a direct replacement when they have Mario Balotelli and Edin Dzeko already at the club?

Some would scoff at that, but let’s just consider it for a moment.

Balotelli, despite still being only 20 years old, living in a foreign country, playing in a brand new league with brand new team mates who are also new to each other, despite all the antics of this season, the injuries and suspensions he still scored 10 goals which is more goals than all of Tottenham’s strikers put together. And he is supposed to be considered a flop? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

What about Dzeko, who promised so much and ultimately under-performed last season? Again he moved after a winter break so lacked match fitness, was played out of position at times, and lacked confidence and familiarity with teammates and the new league he was in. Still he bagged 6 goals in all competitions despite aforementioned reasons.

Both Balotelli and Dzeko are expected to improve on last term along with the team in general as they began to show just what they were capable of in the last third of the season.

The truth simply is that if he goes, someone will take his place and it will be a case of "The King is dead, long live the King."