Rumour Busters: Club Statement on Cooper Departure

By Albatross
May 6 2005

With the local media at least seeming to be reaching fever pitch, Hartlepool United have issued a statement about Neale Cooper's departure. Anyone looking for why he went will be disappointed though; it concentrates on refuting much of the speculation that has appeared since.

I hadn't intended to post anything else regarding the Cooper debate until after the weekend at least, but the club statement released at Lunchtime is worth highlighting as it addresses a number of issues.

First of all, what it doesn't say is why Cooper left; in fact it makes clear that the club has no intention of talking about why, now or in the future. That may well be a disappointment to many, but it's clear they are not going to budge on this; and in some ways there's a catch-22 situation they may be getting caught in. If Cooper has left for personal reasons for example, what right do the club have to reveal those reasons to the world? At the same time, how can we know whether the reasons should be kept private without knowing what they are? In some ways it's reminiscent of one of the classic quotes from "Yes Minister" about the need to know: how do we know what we don't need to know, unless we know what we don't need to know?

What the statement does do is to address some of the wilder speculation in the press and elsewhere, and clarify a number of points. Cooper's contract was not running out; instead, he was on a rolling contract with a six month notice period. The club specifically denies that Cooper had fallen out with Hodcroft; and also denies that they had refused to give money to Cooper when asked. In fact, they go further: no manager has been specifically denied funds for players since IOR took charge more than seven years ago. I suspect this doesn't mean that Cooper, Turner etc could spend what they liked; it's more likely that they're given a budget and it's up to them how they use it. That's reasonable enough, and the figures in the accounts (available from Companies House if you want them badly enough) for wages indicate it's hardly a budget of pennies.

It also indicates Cooper hadn't talked to Hodcroft about taking a job in Scotland, although presumably he's now free to go and talk to anyone about positions; and on the subject of jobs, they also deny that Scott has already been promised the Pools job, although you'd have to say he's the hot favourite at the moment and will become a shoo-in if we progress as far as the Playoff Final.

One of the most bizarre reasons mooted for the parting of the ways has also been scotched: that Hodcorft didn't like Cooper's body language. I have to say this sounded laughable from the moment it first appeared: if only for the image of Hodcroft talking to Cooper along the lines of "I can sense real bad Karmic influences coming from you Neale..." Hodcroft is a businessman, and has shown himself to be pretty hard-nosed at times; the idea that he'd get rid of someone purely on body-language suggests someone has been watching "The Apprentice" too closely. I can't say as I wasn't there, but if body-language was in any way involved I suspect it will have been along the lines of recognising that Cooper wasn't exactly happy and starting a discussion about what might be the cause.

Above all - and possibly most importantly - the statement tries to clarify precisely what was said to the Hartlepool Mail. Did Hodcroft really say that if fans didn't like what they were doing they should go elsewhere? The club's statement (and there must be no doubt Hodcroft had a big role in it's preparation) makes it clear that those words were just part of a much longer quote, effectively saying that IOR can't force people to watch the team, and fans are perfectly entitled to withdraw their financial support if they don't like what IOR are doing with the club. That's a heck of a long way from saying "Get Lost", and you have to wonder what the Hartlepool Mail's motivation is - after all, it seems pretty rare that they actually bother to praise the club for the good things that have gone on.

What IOR are saying is that they want to be judged on their record at Pools, and to be honest it's one that is almost unassailable. It's been over seven years since they took charge, and no-one can deny that we've made huge strides as a club. They didn't save the club as Harold Hornsey did - and we are forever in his debt - but it's doubtful whether even he had the resources to take us to where we are now. The playing side has improved spectacularly, and off the pitch we have seen a number of changes, including two that spring to mind this season that many fans had been suggesting for years: the building of a dedicated Ticket Window next to the Club Shop, and obtaining a license to serve alcohol in some parts of the ground. Small things? Maybe, but the club is learning and progressing; another example is the way that they have endeavoured this season to try and avoid the sort of problems with ticketing should we reach the playoffs by asking fans to keep their ticket stubs from all of our home games in April.

IOR seem to be saying that they won't stay where they're not welcome; I personally think that if they are forced out, before long a lot of people will regret it. They have invested in the club over a number of years, and if progress has been slower than some wanted - well, at least we are making progress, unlike so often in the past. And anyone thinking of suggesting someone else could do a better job had better know exactly who that someone else is - beacause I know I can't think of many if any that would have the necessary funds to sustain our current position, never mind move forward. Judge them on their record - and don't forget, that includes (so far) four seasons in the playoffs and an automatic promotion in less than eight years, with no relegations either. What more can we realistically expect of our owners?