Why hate Mark Arthur ???

Mark, shouldn't you be busy signing players for peanuts rather than trying to find out how to make Forest fans like you?

No wonder Billy got annoyed.

People don't like him because he's a bit posh, I can't see why otherwise. He does his job, he doesn't play, he doesn't scout, train, pick or motivate players, he doesn't have to sort out tactics.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

He doesn't do his job very well though, does he?

He is in charge of the organisation that has been criticised left right and centre at the club for the last decade. This probably suggests there is something to it and he isn't just a scapegoat.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

He won't entice new players to the club with decent offers; he can't even keep the players we have or sell them for any sort of transfer fee.

(He was on holiday when Perch went to Newcastle)

Redfor50yrs, serious question re him enticing players. Imagine we have Routledge sitting in the office for negotiations. Do you think Arthur involvement is during the meeting saying "I think you're worth £x,000 per week", or beforehand saying "we can afford up to £x,000 per week"?

Now I honestly don't know but would say if it's the first one he's not qualified and if it's the second then he's doing his job.

Iagree that we don't do well in the free transfer market or extending our better players contracts (although apart from Wilson we haven't lost too much talent). Same question applies though. Maybe we need some sort of Transfer Panel to pool football brains with financial brains? Hang on, eh, what!?

the main problem I have with Arthur is that he goes on about how much money is put into the club, and many of the figures he uses seem to be grossly exaggerated. he used the number 25 million in three years recently. well that certainly isn't on transfers. if that is just general running costs, then I think is ignoring the incomings with that number. Also, whilst i agree that the club needs to be run sensibly, we are not going to get the best players, such as routledge, if we don't compete with other teams. and regardless whether people think we have lost any actually talent this summer, which i do in Earnie, the fact remains that we have let nine players go and bought in one replacement. and i don't think we have recouped a single transfer fee in that time. bad business by bad businessmen.

The fact that we haven't recouped a transfer fee is why that much money has to be pumped in. I doubt you'll be saying it's good business if we sell McGugan for £3M, £4M or whatever.

I agree about Earnie but am glad that we put a value on players and stick to it. Now look at Leicester, the fans must be loving the exciting signings and they must be one of the favourites this year. However, if say West Ham, Brum and Reading, to name but 3 strong teams, go up then they've spent £M's plus high wages for nothing. They may be fine like Cardiff seem to be after doing that last season but we'll see.

don't get we wrong, i don't want to lose mcgugan, but i would rather take 4mill for him now than lose him for free in a year or so. simple fact is that letting nine players go, well seven really cos it doesn't include the loan players, without anything in return is abysmal. if we were going to lose earnie and moussi, why not do it earlier when we would have got some money. moussi is potentially a 3million man, and we are going to lose him for nothing.
we also need to question the way these pplayers contracts have been dealt with. why have they been allowed to get to this point? if moussi, earnie, and tyson were wanted then why not offer them contracts much earlier. with tyson i can understand, as we wouldn't have wanted him if promoted, but we then offered him a contract by post. i'm not that sad to lose him, but come on, he was treated awfully.
and though i agree with the general consensus that mckenna was a player on the way down, we have nobody coming in as yet to take his place.
i find it hard to believe that anyone can think this club is being run well.