By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
cook extension official ✅ on 08:51 - May 13 by BrianMcCarthy
I'm not sure that there's much wrong said here, but it seems that it's what's not said. It just seems stilted, somehow.
A simple exercise was to add a few phrases like below (in brackets):
"(We are delighted to announce that) STEVE Cook is to remain with QPR after an extension clause was triggered in the defender’s contract. "(Our) Centre-half (and Captain) (Steve) ( delete Cook), 34, joined Rangers almost two years ago following highly-successful spells with both AFC Bournemouth and Nottingham Forest."
Chat BrianMC does a much better job than ChatChrisNou!!
Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man
1.) We're losing a bunch of first-team experience this season, especially if (as expected) Dunne, Paal and Fox all leave at the end of their contracts. Even if he's on a chunk of cash, and even if he's old and increasingly injured, then having a really solid senior pro in the dressing room for what's likely to be a transitional season at best, and a vicious relegation scrap at worst, shouldn't be underestimated.
2.) The statement we've put out feels very uncomfortable to me, for two reasons. Firstly, it makes clear that, contrary to everything we usually claim, we're perfectly happy to release extremely specific details about contract renewals when it serves our purposes. Two, how would you feel if you were Steve Cook, looking at the club very publicly saying "yeah we didn't want to do this, but we were forced into it"? Why risk pissing off a high-earning senior player, when you could have just been a bit more diplomatic?
It's the same principle as putting Marti on gardening leave and letting all the acrimony spill out into the open rather than sitting tight and hoping you can get him out the door quietly.
Regardless of whether or not the Cook deal is good value, the whole approach here feels (yet again) like the people in charge of the club are trying to be too clever, and are also very keen for everyone outside the club to see how clever they are, rather than taking a step back, putting the egos to one side, and working out what would best serve the interests of QPR itself.
[Post edited 13 May 18:00]
16
cook extension official ✅ on 18:43 - May 13 with 2103 views
cook extension official ✅ on 17:57 - May 13 by ed_83
Two main thoughts with this:
1.) We're losing a bunch of first-team experience this season, especially if (as expected) Dunne, Paal and Fox all leave at the end of their contracts. Even if he's on a chunk of cash, and even if he's old and increasingly injured, then having a really solid senior pro in the dressing room for what's likely to be a transitional season at best, and a vicious relegation scrap at worst, shouldn't be underestimated.
2.) The statement we've put out feels very uncomfortable to me, for two reasons. Firstly, it makes clear that, contrary to everything we usually claim, we're perfectly happy to release extremely specific details about contract renewals when it serves our purposes. Two, how would you feel if you were Steve Cook, looking at the club very publicly saying "yeah we didn't want to do this, but we were forced into it"? Why risk pissing off a high-earning senior player, when you could have just been a bit more diplomatic?
It's the same principle as putting Marti on gardening leave and letting all the acrimony spill out into the open rather than sitting tight and hoping you can get him out the door quietly.
Regardless of whether or not the Cook deal is good value, the whole approach here feels (yet again) like the people in charge of the club are trying to be too clever, and are also very keen for everyone outside the club to see how clever they are, rather than taking a step back, putting the egos to one side, and working out what would best serve the interests of QPR itself.
[Post edited 13 May 18:00]
Don’t get this at all, the statement includes references to how Cook has become a hugely important figure at the club. Nourry states that cook was vital to the club maintaining championship status.
So, is it because the reference to the clause being triggered is the headline that has gotten peoples knickers in a twist?
Be weird to suggest Cook has signed a contract extension when he hasn’t!
2
cook extension official ✅ on 19:38 - May 13 with 2008 views
cook extension official ✅ on 17:57 - May 13 by ed_83
Two main thoughts with this:
1.) We're losing a bunch of first-team experience this season, especially if (as expected) Dunne, Paal and Fox all leave at the end of their contracts. Even if he's on a chunk of cash, and even if he's old and increasingly injured, then having a really solid senior pro in the dressing room for what's likely to be a transitional season at best, and a vicious relegation scrap at worst, shouldn't be underestimated.
2.) The statement we've put out feels very uncomfortable to me, for two reasons. Firstly, it makes clear that, contrary to everything we usually claim, we're perfectly happy to release extremely specific details about contract renewals when it serves our purposes. Two, how would you feel if you were Steve Cook, looking at the club very publicly saying "yeah we didn't want to do this, but we were forced into it"? Why risk pissing off a high-earning senior player, when you could have just been a bit more diplomatic?
It's the same principle as putting Marti on gardening leave and letting all the acrimony spill out into the open rather than sitting tight and hoping you can get him out the door quietly.
Regardless of whether or not the Cook deal is good value, the whole approach here feels (yet again) like the people in charge of the club are trying to be too clever, and are also very keen for everyone outside the club to see how clever they are, rather than taking a step back, putting the egos to one side, and working out what would best serve the interests of QPR itself.
[Post edited 13 May 18:00]
Although if they didn't want to keep him, they could have avoided triggering the one-year extension clauses. As they didn't presumably, they were happy to have him for another year.
1
cook extension official ✅ on 22:05 - May 13 with 1720 views
cook extension official ✅ on 18:43 - May 13 by loftupper
Don’t get this at all, the statement includes references to how Cook has become a hugely important figure at the club. Nourry states that cook was vital to the club maintaining championship status.
So, is it because the reference to the clause being triggered is the headline that has gotten peoples knickers in a twist?
Be weird to suggest Cook has signed a contract extension when he hasn’t!
It ridiculous isn’t it? Looking forward to EVERY SINGLE WORD of every QPR news release this summer being pored over for every perceived hidden message to knock the club with.
Re Not wanting to give Cook a new deal then the club could’ve just not played him so that the appearances required to trigger the extra year weren’t met.
3
cook extension official ✅ on 22:25 - May 13 with 1646 views
cook extension official ✅ on 22:05 - May 13 by Ned_Kennedys
It ridiculous isn’t it? Looking forward to EVERY SINGLE WORD of every QPR news release this summer being pored over for every perceived hidden message to knock the club with.
Re Not wanting to give Cook a new deal then the club could’ve just not played him so that the appearances required to trigger the extra year weren’t met.
Yes the club could have agreed to stop playing him after 59 league games if our head coach and director of football were in agreement that it was for the best of the club. That would have been risky with relegation still a possibility and before his current injury making him less appealing for next season.
0
cook extension official ✅ on 23:19 - May 13 with 1540 views
cook extension official ✅ on 22:25 - May 13 by QPR_Jim
Yes the club could have agreed to stop playing him after 59 league games if our head coach and director of football were in agreement that it was for the best of the club. That would have been risky with relegation still a possibility and before his current injury making him less appealing for next season.
Our DOF and Head Coach were not in agreement on many matters.
2
cook extension official ✅ on 00:09 - May 14 with 1474 views
cook extension official ✅ on 18:43 - May 13 by loftupper
Don’t get this at all, the statement includes references to how Cook has become a hugely important figure at the club. Nourry states that cook was vital to the club maintaining championship status.
So, is it because the reference to the clause being triggered is the headline that has gotten peoples knickers in a twist?
Be weird to suggest Cook has signed a contract extension when he hasn’t!
I mean each to their own, but I read the club’s part of the statement as extremely muted - “we are pleased to be working together” hardly screams enthusiasm, does it?
And yes, if you’ve made a point about never releasing any details about any player contracts ever, because it’s apparently a strategic necessity, if you then suddenly make an exception to that rule in order to make clear that this particular extension was forced on you, then that clearly carries a pretty hefty and obvious subtext. It’s either a deliberate attempt to distance themselves, or they’re so bad at comms that they haven’t spotted how badly it comes across. Neither are ideal.
4
cook extension official ✅ on 00:43 - May 14 with 1442 views
cook extension official ✅ on 22:05 - May 13 by Ned_Kennedys
It ridiculous isn’t it? Looking forward to EVERY SINGLE WORD of every QPR news release this summer being pored over for every perceived hidden message to knock the club with.
Re Not wanting to give Cook a new deal then the club could’ve just not played him so that the appearances required to trigger the extra year weren’t met.
Not every criticism of your darling Christian is part of some sinister plot in to do him in, though. I think he’s done some good stuff, and I hope he succeeds as CEO. Even if I have some concerns, I’m perfectly willing to judge him on what he actually does in the role.
Taking all emotion out of it, I simply think it’s strange for the club to refuse to talk about contract details under any circumstances, only to reverse that position suddenly for this one specific case. That’s not a “hidden message” - that’s a very simple factual observation about the conspicuously different amounts of information we’ve been given about Varane’s contract last week, and Cook’s this week.
If the club don’t want us discussing or drawing conclusions from these inconsistencies in how they’re communicating, maybe the answer is for them to be a bit more open with us in general?
13
cook extension official ✅ on 01:18 - May 14 with 1413 views
cook extension official ✅ on 00:43 - May 14 by ed_83
Not every criticism of your darling Christian is part of some sinister plot in to do him in, though. I think he’s done some good stuff, and I hope he succeeds as CEO. Even if I have some concerns, I’m perfectly willing to judge him on what he actually does in the role.
Taking all emotion out of it, I simply think it’s strange for the club to refuse to talk about contract details under any circumstances, only to reverse that position suddenly for this one specific case. That’s not a “hidden message” - that’s a very simple factual observation about the conspicuously different amounts of information we’ve been given about Varane’s contract last week, and Cook’s this week.
If the club don’t want us discussing or drawing conclusions from these inconsistencies in how they’re communicating, maybe the answer is for them to be a bit more open with us in general?
Grow up mate 🤣
-13
cook extension official ✅ on 10:51 - May 14 with 1030 views
If the club had simply announced Steve Cook has extended his contract, there would have been a backlash from many due to his injury record, his form in between injuries last season and with him likely being the highest paid player.
0
cook extension official ✅ on 11:15 - May 14 with 967 views
cook extension official ✅ on 10:51 - May 14 by francisbowles
If the club had simply announced Steve Cook has extended his contract, there would have been a backlash from many due to his injury record, his form in between injuries last season and with him likely being the highest paid player.
That's also true, fb, to be fair.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Regardless of how it came about, I'm glad he's staying.
It's mad how much the standards drop when he and Field don't play.
He's 34, he's not dead. He's always been about his reading of the game, which is top notch and will be influential for Morrison to play alongside next season.
Prepared to play through injury which I don't actually think is a long term good thing, but shows the character of the man
2
cook extension official ✅ on 11:44 - May 14 with 869 views
cook extension official ✅ on 10:51 - May 14 by francisbowles
If the club had simply announced Steve Cook has extended his contract, there would have been a backlash from many due to his injury record, his form in between injuries last season and with him likely being the highest paid player.
These aren’t the only two options though? The club could have said that this was an auto-renewal, while also framing things a bit more positively. Maybe that’s just semantics, but I think the way this stuff is communicated matters.
Also the bigger point is that none of this would have been an issue in the first place if they were a bit more transparent generally. Being so secretive about everything just makes it harder when there’s information they do want to share.
4
cook extension official ✅ on 14:39 - May 14 with 684 views
cook extension official ✅ on 22:05 - May 13 by Ned_Kennedys
It ridiculous isn’t it? Looking forward to EVERY SINGLE WORD of every QPR news release this summer being pored over for every perceived hidden message to knock the club with.
Re Not wanting to give Cook a new deal then the club could’ve just not played him so that the appearances required to trigger the extra year weren’t met.
Great point that the micro analysts have missed. If the club didn't want to offer Cook a new deal they would've simply not selected him for 10 matches in order to avoid triggering the extension clause. Indeed, they were presented with the perfect opportunity when Steve injured his foot. None of us would've thought it unusual had Steve remained on the sidelines for a little longer. As it was, Steve looked like he was rushed back from that injury as his performances fell below his usual high standards for a few weeks.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
