Luke Varney

arthur was and is still responsible for ALL negotiations.

his fingerprints are on EVERY botched deal in recent memory, every 'done deal' that inexplicably broke down, every failed contract negotiation, ALL the comings and goings.

i personally believe that he acted as a human shield for doughty to a large extent and took a lot of criticism that perhaps should have been aimed at the late owner. Either that or arthur ran the club as he saw fit and if that is the case there is no sane argument for saying he's done a good job

i strongly suspect strettea either is mark arthur or is a friend or relative of his, his vehement defending of arthur at every opportunity is otherwise utterly baffling

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

"And, logically, all the good ones too"


No, that was David Pleat.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by strettea red (U1462)
posted 5 minutes ago

his fingerprints are on EVERY botched deal in recent memory, every 'done deal' that inexplicably broke down, every failed contract negotiation, ALL the comings and goings.

--------

And, logically, all the good ones too
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what good ones?

there was billys loans when he first came and billys first summer where we managed to sign a lot of players and strengthen the side but even that can't be considered good business if it leaves the club losing an alledged £12m a year.

it can't be denied that the club has been run very poorly since doughty bought the club. either doughty made a lot of bad decisions and arthur carried them out for him or arthur himself was the walking disaster, most likely a little bit of both

comment by electric_boogaloo (U11761) posted 8 minutes ago

arthur was and is still responsible for ALL negotiations.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clubs do not sign every player they want to, be it Man U, Chelsea or Forest. To make someone a scapegoat for losing out on a few signings is narrow minded.

As Strett says, why criticise him for the players we missed out on, and then completely ignore the many many good players he had a hand in signing. It's completely ignorant and typical of the short sighted and blinkered attitude of many Forest fans.

comment by Hoons (U5327) posted 0 seconds ago

comment by electric_boogaloo (U11761) posted 8 minutes ago

arthur was and is still responsible for ALL negotiations.
_________________________________________

there was billys loans when he first came and billys first summer where we managed to sign a lot of players and strengthen the side

_________________________________________


So MA was responsible for the poor signings and failed transfer attempts, and BD was responsible for the loan signings and good transfers.

Genius!

I couldn't believe it when we appointed mclaren, but I genuinely don't believe that Mark Arthur picks the personnel. I read that he was opposed to the idea of appointing Mclaren, on the basis that he's always felt uncomfortable, relying on Doughty to subsidise the club, and figured out early on that it would be financially problematic for us given SMs history and salary demands, as opposed to footballing reasons.

comment by Hoons (U5327)

posted 46 minutes ago

comment by Hoons (U5327) posted 0 seconds ago

comment by electric_boogaloo (U11761) posted 8 minutes ago

arthur was and is still responsible for ALL negotiations.
_________________________________________

there was billys loans when he first came and billys first summer where we managed to sign a lot of players and strengthen the side

_________________________________________


So MA was responsible for the poor signings and failed transfer attempts, and BD was responsible for the loan signings and good transfers.

Genius!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hoons,

why have you taken a very small section of my post and used that suggest i was saying something completely different?

Luke who?

Who needs a new striker? We've got McCleary!