Evangelos Marinakis and Pie Cannons (sponsored by Carlos)

[Gyros Peter]

Marinakis has plenty of flaws, no doubt about it. But if he sold up we could just as easily end up with an asset-stripper whose only aim is to make money out of the club.

If you said to me now you could keep the Greeks or flip a coin, 50/50 chance of a good owner or a shite owner, then I'm keeping that coin in my pocket thank you.

The way the game has gone my worry is more about being owned Iran, Syria or (and it's only a matter of time surely) China.

 

[Gyros Peter]

I think, „ruined by money“ is the answer there.

Well yes, though even when I was saying this 30+ years ago I couldn't quite envisage clubs being owned by states. Crazy.

 

[Lady Penelope]

Outside of the Marinakis debate, I'd be interested to know which teams fan's think they have good owners - I can't think of too many candidates (Luton perhaps given their journey, Brighton?).

Can't imagine the City fans are that keen on theirs despite the success they bought - you wouldn't be would you?

Genuine question - in the top two tiers who has 'good owners'?

Edit: and the clue they're probably arseholes has always been in the term 'billionaire owner'. You've got to be an tight fisted egomaniac f*** to get that far surely.

I used to think that Leicester had the best owners. Good decisions on managerial appointments at the right time; good recruitment (buy low sell high); foresight in developing their training facilities: long term plans for the stadium; actually winning things ..... but then, we now find out that they too are in a financial mess. I think that the Thai people have done well overall but, perhaps more recently, it's gone badly wrong.

 

[REDDERS78]

Not really. But it does show you don't actually bother to read things you know you will disagree with before you try to shoot them down.

It was obviously tongue in cheek, everyone knows that despite the price increase, he was already the worst owner we could possibly hope to have anyway

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Marinakis has plenty of flaws, no doubt about it. But if he sold up we could just as easily end up with an asset-stripper whose only aim is to make money out of the club.

If you said to me now you could keep the Greeks or flip a coin, 50/50 chance of a good owner or a shite owner, then I'm keeping that coin in my pocket thank you.

And we could equally land a fantastic, Forest-loving owner who genuinely wants to see the club do well.

I get the concern, if Marinakis put us up for sale I'd be somewhat worried too, but the suggestion that it's "madness" because someone feels that another owner could do a better job just isn't true. The people who'd like another owner are basing it on logical points which stack up.

I mean, I know fans who don't want Marinakis here simply on the basis of his pro-Russian oil stance, and his role in allowing Greece to avoid EU sanctions with shipping Russian oil.

 

[Strummer]

Well yes, though even when I was saying this 30+ years ago I couldn't quite envisage clubs being owned by states. Crazy.

I think the issue there is that clubs have been effectively co-opted as public-relations exercises for certain nation-states, as they seek to use the reach and influence of the football club to whitewash, or sportswash, their „image“.

Especially some of the petro-states, some of whose records on topics like human rights are not exactly glowing.

But, you are absolutely right, even when Abramovich took over at Chelsea in 2003 wasn’t it, over twenty years ago, that tilted the Premier League playing field, but now, you have actual states getting involved, many of whom have more money than God.

 

[Gyros Peter]

I used to think that Leicester had the best owners. Good decisions on managerial appointments at the right time; good recruitment (buy low sell high); foresight in developing their training facilities: long term plans for the stadium; actually winning things ..... but then, we now find out that they too are in a financial mess. I think that the Thai people have done well overall but, perhaps more recently, it's gone badly wrong.

Having a reasonable insight into Thai society/culture I always expected it to - Chansiri at Weds is a pretty good example of how I expected Leicester to go, which it kind of is doing now albeit after a tragedy.

King Power have been involved in so e very dodgy dealings since before (including and after) their Leicester days btw - they're corrupt.

 

[Gyros Peter]

I think the issue there is that clubs have been effectively co-opted as public-relations exercises for certain nation-states, as they seek to use the reach and influence of the football club to whitewash, or sportswash, their „image“.

Especially some of the petro-states, some of whose records on topics like human rights are not exactly glowing.

But, you are absolutely right, even when Abramovich took over at Chelsea in 2003 wasn’t it, over twenty years ago, that tilted the Premier League playing field, but now, you have actual states getting involved, many of whom have more money than God.

And you're right on the issue, but I find it frightening and while we are within the top two levels the idea that we might be picked up by a (dare I say it) Clewes type is well out of reach. Too much money involved for that to happen, and greedy nations/people are going to price out anyone with a genuine attachment to the club or even good intentions.

 

[magicwoand]

Didn't read the post I was responding to, I take it?

I obviously didn’t, that’ll teach me to just read the very last post and reply just as I was about to go to bed. Apologies.

 

[Gyros Peter]

And you're right on the issue, but I find it frightening and while we are within the top two levels the idea that we might be picked up by a (dare I say it) Clewes type is well out of reach. Too much money involved for that to happen, and greedy nations/people are going to price out anyone with a genuine attachment to the club or even good intentions.

And I guess that puts me in the 'careful what you wish for camp', if I was previously undecided.

 

[Ashley]

I obviously didn’t, that’ll teach me to just read the very last post and reply just as I was about to go to bed. Apologies.

No worries mate. And fair play for the apology.

 

[andover red]

Well for me there seemed to be less interference from EM and others associated with him (such as Vrentzos and his son), and the transfer policy seemed to fit Murphy's MO. The managerial appointment was his choice too. Off the pitch drama was also minimal compared to before and after Murphy.

So, your perception based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence. All of which could just as easily be interpreted in a very different way.

I'm honestly not having a go. If that's your belief of what happened, you're as entitled to it as I am of mine. It just highlights an increasing trend of personal opinion being posted, then repeated or mirrored by others, to the extent that it eventually gets presented as fact. And is then used (not by you in this post I might add) to argue down or deride people who take a different view.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[congo_red_49]

So, your perception based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence. All of which could just as easily be interpreted in a very different way.

I'm honestly not having a go. If that's your belief of what happened, you're as entitled to it as I am of mine. It just highlights an increasing trend of personal opinion being posted, then repeated or mirrored by others, to the extent that it eventually gets presented as fact. And is then used (not by you in this post I might add) to argue down or deride people who take a different view.

Perception is reality.
In business, you have to manage both.

 

[Robertson]

My vote will change if EM either a) attempts to take us away from the city ground or b) fails to implement the pie cannon within a sensible timeframe.

 

[Strummer]

So, your perception based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence. All of which could just as easily be interpreted in a very different way.

It isn‘t all circumstantial though, is it?

There has been plenty of clear, public evidence, that (for one example) Mitladis Marinakis is involving himself in decision making at the football club, particularly in the recruitment of players, and often in conflict (or, it appeared) with those whose roles were actually to do that.

Great, his dad owns the club and wants to give him some work-experience, but is he really qualified for such things? (Serious question that, I have no idea, he may have an MBA or something or clear business and management experience).

 

[Gyros Peter]

It isn‘t all circumstantial though, is it?

There has been plenty of clear, public evidence, that (for one example) Mitladis Marinakis is involving himself in decision making at the football club, particularly in the recruitment of players, and often in conflict (or, it appeared) with those whose roles were actually to do that.

Great, his dad owns the club and wants to give him some work-experience, but is he really qualified for such things? (Serious question that, I have no idea, he may have an MBA or something or clear business and management experience).

Aside from the wider debate, I found the suggestion that Miltiadis was one of the good guys and keeping Cooper in a job at one point interesting. I expected the son of a billionaire to be, well, a massive twat if I'm honest.

 

[Strummer]

Aside from the wider debate, I found the suggestion that Miltiadis was one of the good guys and keeping Cooper in a job at one point interesting. I expected the son of a billionaire to be, well, a massive twat if I'm honest.

As you say, it was a bit odd; personally, I know nothing about Mitladis, bar that he does seem to wield some influence at the football club (which is not surprising, given the owner, of course) and he may well be an absolute business genius, but he has not in all honesty come across that way so far (but that is based mostly on his social media presence, and enthusiasm, the latter of course you can excuse a bit, given his age).

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Well for me there seemed to be less interference from EM and others associated with him (such as Vrentzos and his son), and the transfer policy seemed to fit Murphy's MO. The managerial appointment was his choice too. Off the pitch drama was also minimal compared to before and after Murphy.

Vrentzos did actively stand down from his role, and moved back to Greece. He remained on the board, but in a detached capacity, and Murphs was allowed to run things his way.

This is what I'd like to see happen again. Hell, with Coops gone, I'd even take Murphs himself back.

As you say, it was a bit odd; personally, I know nothing about Mitladis, bar that he does seem to wield some influence at the football club (which is not surprising, given the owner, of course) and he may well be an absolute business genius, but he has not in all honesty come across that way so far (but that is based mostly on his social media presence, and enthusiasm, the latter of course you can excuse a bit, given his age).

I'm sure that DT tweeted or printed an article saying that Mitladis is essentially 2nd in commend at the club.

 

[Gyros Peter]

As you say, it was a bit odd; personally, I know nothing about Mitladis, bar that he does seem to wield some influence at the football club (which is not surprising, given the owner, of course) and he may well be an absolute business genius, but he has not in all honesty come across that way so far (but that is based mostly on his social media presence, and enthusiasm, the latter of course you can excuse a bit, given his age).

He was certainly involved in player recruitment at one point - seems like he can sell a project is all I could honestly say in his favour.

With regards the endless 'great when X was here, terrible with Y' debates that run on (and always will), I've always found it odd that collaboration isn't thought of as the model, since it has been everywhere else I've worked. Yes there's a main man/woman, but they move things forward in collaboration with others.

We've been a cluster f*** for years and I very much see that as a group effort.

 

[Ashley]

So, your perception based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence. All of which could just as easily be interpreted in a very different way.

I'm honestly not having a go. If that's your belief of what happened, you're as entitled to it as I am of mine. It just highlights an increasing trend of personal opinion being posted, then repeated or mirrored by others, to the extent that it eventually gets presented as fact. And is then used (not by you in this post I might add) to argue down or deride people who take a different view.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

At the end of the day, it's just a matter of opinion really, as is almost everything on this forum. You have a different interpretation or view of what has happened at the club to what I do, which is fine and I genuinely respect that.

I don't believe in deriding anyone over their opinions, whether they are pro or anti Marinakis or somewhere inbetween (I reckon most people fall into this camp). Some people who have disagreed with me in this thread are people who I have a lot of time and respect for, and have presented their opinion excellently even if it isn't one I agree with. I have time and respect for anyone's opinion as long as it doesn't descend into petty insults, whether they agree with me or not.

This is clearly a topic where people have a range of different opinions, and I think everyone (regardless of their opinion) should be able to discuss and debate without having to worry about some of the behaviour we've seen in this thread.

 

[Gyros Peter]

At the end of the day, it's just a matter of opinion really, as is almost everything on this forum. You have a different interpretation or view of what has happened at the club to what I do, which is fine and I genuinely respect that.

I don't believe in deriding anyone over their opinions, whether they are pro or anti Marinakis or somewhere inbetween (I reckon most people fall into this camp). Some people who have disagreed with me in this thread are people who I have a lot of time and respect for, and have presented their opinion excellently even if it isn't one I agree with. I have time and respect for anyone's opinion as long as it doesn't descend into petty insults, whether they agree with me or not.

This is clearly a topic where people have a range of different opinions, and I think everyone (regardless of their opinion) should be able to discuss and debate without having to worry about some of the behaviour we've seen in this thread.

Respectfully, I think when you have folk from all walks of life posting you can't expect everyone to adhere to your own level of standards in terms of behaviour...

I very quickly learned that the word **** was not the endearment I thought it was after leaving Long Eaton, and that the way I spoke and acted when I worked in a factory wasn't really welcome in later workplaces.

Tongue in cheek and yet still a true story - the point being one person's standards often bear no relation to the next person's.

(And to be clear I'm not suggesting you do anything with that point, just making it).

 

[Erik]

I'm not sure if you're being serious there or not

Let's just say that about 50% of my posts are tongue in cheek, 25% I'm just having a laugh, 20% taking the piss and 1% being serious. The other 4% I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

90% of the above contain sarcasm. Of which most is directed inwardly.

It's up to the reader to decide what's what. If you don't like it, don't respond.

It's amazing how many people can be up their own arses - and yes, including me. I only have to look at some of the replies I got last night to see that.

There are more important things in life than getting het up and insulting people on an internet forum. Especially when ultimately we all want the same thing, which is to see Forest winning.

 

[Gyros Peter]

Let's just say that about 50% of my posts are tongue in cheek, 25% I'm just having a laugh, 20% taking the piss and 1% being serious. The other 4% I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

90% of the above contain sarcasm. Of which most is directed inwardly.

It's up to the reader to decide what's what. If you don't like it, don't respond.

It's amazing how many people can be up their own arses - and yes, including me. I only have to look at some of the replies I got last night to see that.

There are more important things in life than getting het up and insulting people on an internet forum. Especially when ultimately we all want the same thing, which is to see Forest winning.

Well I hope haven't been to far up my own arse, especially today as Ive got the shits.

 

[REDDERS78]

This was yesterday…

View attachment 38475

In the interests of democracy, I would like the 1991 FA Cup final to be replayed until the result I want happens, then the deal ends.

 

[Grass]

Assuming you didn't rate Davis, Zinckernagel, Lowe, Surridge etc. And getting them all for pretty much next to nothing?

Also, appointing Steve Cooper is a pretty big deal. Certainly a more successful appointment than Marinakis ever managed. Marinakis couldn't even make the playoffs - never mind win them - with his chosen managers, despite investing far much more money than Murphs did.

Oh come on ALF, Sabri and Karanka were both decent managers and had we had a bit more luck with both of them we could have been promoted with both of them.
They were both the catalyst for the feel good factor at the ground and the real engagement with fans and the club which is down to Marinakis.

He did appoint Haughton too so you know not all good.