The logic of the burn and Perkins signings were completely different given they had proven they could play at the level they were signed at Champ and L1. They weren't being asked to step up several levels.
At a lot of clubs now the manager doesn't have the final say and it isn't their job to scout and recruit players. Sure they may have an input but it isnt their decision. Of course the chairman could have overruled him without affecting the relationship - there should be boundaries and professionalism on both sides. Cook has never managed at this level remember. If he wished to quit because we hadn't sanctioned the signing of someone aged 27 who'd only played one season at the level below unspectacularly on a lengthy contract then that would be unprofessional and more fool him. We all know the difference in quality between L1 and the Championship, just because he knocked a few in against Cheltenham in L2 under Cook doesn't mean he can step up two leagues and do so against much better teams, especially given his age when there won't be much improvement in ability. His judgement to sign him was flawed based on emotion, a bit like the Gomez and mcmanaman signings second time around because they'd previously played for us. A bit like Holt we are now lumbered with him for three years as he won't get the same salary elsewhere. It's time for change in how we go about identifying and recruiting players and hopefully the high number of ineffective signings we make will be dramatically reduced going forward.
But the logic wasn't that different in regards that on paper all 3 had not been playing well for their previous clubs - Perks had been in decline for years and looked like his legs had gone and Burn was the Fitz Hall of Fulham tall but totally calamity prone - neither looked good enough for the level we were buying them for - they looked like nailed on flops without any hindsight. If we started vetoing players we don't think fit the bill, we would've not allowed Caldwell to buy Burn or Perks if he came and asked for them. And then it becomes a case of where do you draw the line, managers need to have the ability to take a chance on players if they feel strongly enough - sometimes they are right and the form book wrong. But every signing is a risk we spent millions on players who looked good on paper and flopped miserably so a free, likely cheap wages left winger isn't a singing i'd die on the hill to block.
Regarding the manager not having final say at other clubs, that is true with Brentford being a great example of the manager having minimal involvement in recruitment. But the big difference is we currently don't have that structure in place, when Cook joined we didn't tell him we were going to do that and he never agreed to it. You can't really throw that curve ball in after previously saying he'd have freedom to bring in who he saw fit without it causing issues. Espceically when at that point in the 12 months he'd been in charge he got so much right and had so much success he had done enough to deserve the trust we placed in him. Imagine if you were Cook and you had just enjoyed such a strong season, you were willing to work in a small budget and you go to the chairman who previously promised to back you and he suddenly says from now on him or others are going to have final say over your choice of signings - you wouldn't be very happy.
When you say Cook if decided to go Sunderland over not signing Naismith it would be more fool him - the thing is it wouldn't be over a 27 year old L1 winger, it would be because of general interference, and once you feel the chairman doesn't trust you, you feel less valued despite delivering promotion. So when a big club like Sunderland with the budget they have by L1 standards come in and say they will give you the level of control you feel Wigan took away from you it becomes more appealing. We've just been through so many bad managers we know how hard it is to find one. Now we've got one who's done so well losing him and starting from scratch after promotion would've been a disaster for us in the summer. If we lost Cook because we decided to pull the rug from under him and tell him he no longer has final say on signings it would be more fool us.
If we get a better recruitment team in place, if we tell Cook we are going to change the way we do signings moving forward in advance and he is happy with that or whoever the next manager ends up being joins knowing they don't have final say then fair enough blocking a signing like Naismith. But none of that is currently the case so it's hard to try and suddenly start acting like it. If that structure is built and Cooks record in the market doesn't look so good then we should reevaluate - but we aren't at that point yet.
It's easy to say Naismith is bad on paper and constantly say our club and manager were stupid for signing him if it doesn't work out. But when we sign a bad on paper player who turns out to defy the form book and turns out to be absolute gem the fans previously slating the decision don't constantly say 'i was wrong, my judgement was way off, thank God they didn't listen to me and they clearly knew what they were doing' - but chances are we've all had a couple of those.
That's the thing we all say we should or shouldn't sign a certain player and we've probably all got some right and wrong - including Cook. When it's a game of judgement mistakes will be made and it appears on evidence so far it was a mistake from Cook to sign Naismith - but we were right to let him make that judgement on his own without trying to step in at the time.
Regarding the 3 year contract - that is the strangest thing, as we've hardly given any of those out. I was pretty shocked he got 3 years too, i didn't understand how that happened, but i suspect that is more down to Jonathan Jackson than Cook, as i suspect once the manager give his list of players over to the financial people they handle the money side of things. That for me is the bigger issue than backing Cooks judgement on bringing Naismith in.
