Nuno Herlander Simões Espírito Santo

[magicwoand]

Challenge it then rather than put a laughing emoji. If it's so biased you'll be able to call out the inaccuracies. Go on...

Without Marinakis pumping money in making the decisions he did we would still be in the Championship, unlike under every previous owner we've had in the past previous 23 years, who did the square root of f*** all in the end. I don't think anyone thinks Marinakis is perfect, but to literally give him zero credit for being the owner who finally got us up after what happened under a litany of bad decisions under precious owner owners is an utter joke.

 

[DocForest]

Well I'm certainly not anti EM. He's made some gaffs, I'm sure he knows, it but we've also bought some fantastic players and we're back in the PL, watching football that I'd never thought I'd see again. Some don't like it but I'd prefer to lose 15-20 games a season giving it a crack, than doing what Norwich and Sheff Utd have done. I'm not sure their fans will enjoy visits to Portsmouth/Derby/Stevenage next season. I won't.
If we do go down, and again I'll repeat I don't think we will, we can moan all we like about recruitment sending us down, or FFP sending us down but it might just be as likely that Boly's red card against Bournemouth sends us down. All them margins.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Without Marinakis pumping money in making the decisions he did we would still be in the Championship

I agree.

But it was his poor decisions which overstretched our budgets which led to him being forced to change tact and then stumbling on a guy who was available and together with a new manager achieved a miracle. None of it happened the way he planned it to happen.

In short, we were promoted in spite of Marinakis not because of him. He's lucky.

If Marinakis didn't waste £13m+ on Carvalho and didn't allow the wage bill to double on shite like Pantillimon then he'd have never have hired Dane, and we'd never have seen Cooper. If Marinakis was a bit more financially savvy and took a long term approach to club building then we'd have most likely trodden water in middle of Championship like we had been doing prior to his arrival.

I listen as intently to people claiming he's the reason for the resurgence of our club as I do to people who've won money on the lottery trying to give me investing advice. It's just pure 100% survivorship bias.

 

[Vikare]

Even Alf would have been a better steward of the club than Fawaz.

Conjecture!

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Conjecture!

I had to pick a name and I went with the guy who draws dicks in microsoft paint. It seemed an apt comparison to Fawaz.

 

[magicwoand]

I agree.

But it was his poor decisions which overstretched our budgets which led to him being forced to change tact and then stumbling on a guy who was available and together with a new manager achieved a miracle. None of it happened the way he planned it to happen.

In short, we were promoted in spite of Marinakis not because of him. He's lucky.

If Marinakis didn't waste £13m+ on Carvalho and didn't allow the wage bill to double on shite like Pantillimon then he'd have never have hired Dane, and we'd never have seen Cooper. If Marinakis was a bit more financially savvy and took a long term approach to club building then we'd have most likely trodden water in middle of Championship like we had been doing prior to his arrival.

I listen as intently to people claiming he's the reason for the resurgence of our club as I do to people who've won money on the lottery trying to give me investing advice. It's just pure 100% survivorship bias.

I don't think anyone is claiming he's the reason for the resurgence of our club, it's a combination of multiple factors. he provided the players to Hughton that couldn't do anything with them, brought in Cooper who did amazing with those same players, backed him in January when a previous owner in a similar situation didn't. Bought in a load of players to keep us up and it worked. Then has heavily backed his manager in our second season... it's yet to be determined if we stay up.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

I don't think anyone is claiming he's the reason for the resurgence of our club, it's a combination of multiple factors. he provided the players to Hughton that couldn't do anything with them, brought in Cooper who did amazing with those same players, backed him in January when a previous owner in a similar situation didn't. Bought in a load of players to keep us up and it worked. Then has heavily backed his manager in our second season... it's yet to be determined if we stay up.

1) Provided the players to Hughton:
- Brice: Yes
- Spence: No
- Worrall: No
- Cook: Yes
- McKenna: Yes
- Colback: Yes
- Garner: No
- Yates: No
- Zinckernagel: No
- Johnson: No
- Grabban: Yes

Important others: Subs: Davis: No, Lowe: No, Surridge: Yes.

So hit rate of about 50%, with the really key players (Johnson, Yates, Spence) all being no's.

2) Brought in a load of players to keep us up. Yeah. 40 of them. And that might well send us down this season. Jolly good.

 

[Shearstone]

1) Provided the players to Hughton:
- Brice: Yes
- Spence: No
- Worrall: No
- Cook: Yes
- McKenna: Yes
- Colback: Yes
- Garner: No
- Yates: No
- Zinckernagel: No
- Johnson: No
- Grabban: Yes

Important others: Subs: Davis: No, Lowe: No, Surridge: Yes.

So hit rate of about 50%, with the really key players (Johnson, Yates, Spence) all being no's.

2) Brought in a load of players to keep us up. Yeah. 40 of them. And that might well send us down this season. Jolly good.

I'm on your side but on your list you have players who came in Jan as yes's who came in Jan after Hughton.

 

[magicwoand]

1) Provided the players to Hughton:
- Brice: Yes
- Spence: No
- Worrall: No
- Cook: Yes
- McKenna: Yes
- Colback: Yes
- Garner: No
- Yates: No
- Zinckernagel: No
- Johnson: No
- Grabban: Yes

Important others: Subs: Davis: No, Lowe: No, Surridge: Yes.

So hit rate of about 50%, with the really key players (Johnson, Yates, Spence) all being no's.

2) Brought in a load of players to keep us up. Yeah. 40 of them. And that might well send us down this season. Jolly good.

Your list is a nonsense: Hughton was sacked on September 16th Those players were either all here or all signed before the end of the Transfer Window. Then the 'Subs' Davis & Surrisge were brought in the January Window, all Marinakis signed players.

 

[Statto]

1) Provided the players to Hughton:
- Brice: Yes
- Spence: No
- Worrall: No
- Cook: Yes
- McKenna: Yes
- Colback: Yes
- Garner: No
- Yates: No
- Zinckernagel: No
- Johnson: No
- Grabban: Yes

Important others: Subs: Davis: No, Lowe: No, Surridge: Yes.

So hit rate of about 50%, with the really key players (Johnson, Yates, Spence) all being no's.

2) Brought in a load of players to keep us up. Yeah. 40 of them. And that might well send us down this season. Jolly good.

Brice - signed by Lamouchi in summer 2019 so was available through the year Hughton managed us
Spence - signed in August transfer window, Cooper was not hired until middle of September, technically signed whilst Hughton was manager
Worrall - Came through the academy and made his debut under Montanier
Cook - Signed in January under Cooper so not available to Hughton
McKenna - Signed by Lamouchi in summer 2020
Colback - Signed by Karanka on loan (x2) then returned permanently in 2019
Garner - Signed by Hughton in Jan 2021 window and again for the season in summer 2021.
Yates - Came through the academy
Zinckernagel - made his debut under Hughton in the opening game of the season having been loaned in the day before.
Johnson - Academy player
Grabban - Signed by Karanka in summer (2018 I think)

Davis - signed by Cooper in January
Lowe - signed in summer 2021 window when Hughton was manager
Surridge - signed by Cooper in January

Of those players ll of them bar Cook, Davis and Surridge were signed whilst Hughton was manager or before his time, or were already in the Academy setup.

Yates played under Hughton a fair amount, including when he tried his keeping skills vs Reading and got sent off.
Johnson was loaned out to Lincoln by Lamouchi in the summer before Hughton came so couldn't play for us until he'd come back the summer after.
Hughton signed Spence though he didn't have much opportunity to play him before being fired (see also Lowe, Zinckernagel, Garner)

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Your list is a nonsense: Hughton was sacked on September 16th Those players were either all here or all signed before the end of the Transfer Window. Then the 'Subs' Davis & Surrisge were brought in the January Window, all Marinakis signed players.

No.

Marinakis took a step back from active transfer involvement in the summer after hiring Dane.

So the list is basically:
2017-2021 = Marinakis
2021-2022 = Not Marinakis
Academy = Not Marinakis

And applying that criteria you get the list I originally gave you.

Let me use this post to repeat my earlier point about survivorship bias...

 

[Strummer]

I was nodding as I read until THAT statement!
You know the one i mean
Upgrade like a Jag to a Merc!
You know how to hurt...

He’s not wrong, though.

 

[Morpeth]

Let’s be honest, this is the wrong thread to be discussing Marinskis but if you look at the appointments he’s made then I struggle to see why he gets no credit whatsoever.

• Karanka - on paper decent but is a rubbish manager and goes in a strop all the time.
• O’Neill - I didn’t like this one from the off but loads did. It didn’t work.
• Lamouchi - I liked him but he didn’t quite do it and has to go.
• Hughton - again good on paper, but wasn’t.
• Cooper - obviously a gem
• Nuno - to be seen.

None of that was a hire and fire exercise, patience was given where due, all the while looking to improve. Eventually it did with Cooper and we are where we are now.

Poor decisions, being forced to change tact and stumbling on Dane and Cooper are easy words to say if you don’t like someone but I suppose we all have different takes on things.

 

[magicwoand]

No.

Marinakis took a step back from active transfer involvement in the summer after hiring Dane.

So the list is basically:
2017-2021 = Marinakis
2021-2022 = Not Marinakis
Academy = Not Marinakis

And applying that criteria you get the list I originally gave you.

Let me use this post to repeat my earlier point about survivorship bias...

It's a nonsense list as it doesn't make much sense in that over half the players where here before Dane, but he was the owner who hired Dane and provided the funds to get those players for Dane

 

[Morpeth]

No.

Marinakis took a step back from active transfer involvement in the summer after hiring Dane.

So the list is basically:
2017-2021 = Marinakis
2021-2022 = Not Marinakis
Academy = Not Marinakis

And applying that criteria you get the list I originally gave you.

Let me use this post to repeat my earlier point about survivorship bias...

Sorry but you’re just trying to justify to yourself here. 2021-22 not being Marinakis is just plain wrong.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

I really can't get my head around all of the hatred towards our owner.
Where were we when he took over? - fighting for survival at the bottom of the championship, with a squad worth nothing
Where are we now? - In the EPL, with a squad conservatively valued at over £300m The guy has invested a large fortune in NFFC, every aspect of the club has improved immeasurably during his tenure. The plans and vision for the future is something we could only dream about before he came on board.
Have mistakes been made - Absolutely!
Give the guy a break and think back to those dark days under Fawaz

Don't mistake criticism for hatred.

As I've pointed out, we got to where we are because he actually stopped taking an interest in the club and left it to Murphy to run on a budget.

The owner also wants fans to not accept "failure".

I'm doing what he wants, and pointing out that the club have failed the more he and his son have dictated football related matters. The more they've stepped away from it, the better we've done. So I wouldn't be against them stepping away from it again and leaving it to people more capable than them, because they have very much been 2nd rate so far.

If they swing things round and prove me wrong then that's great, but they should start by buying an abacus to keep track of how many loans we have, and how much we're spending.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Sorry but you’re just trying to justify to yourself here. 2021-22 not being Marinakis is just plain wrong.

Paul and Daniel Taylor have eluded to Murphy (and Syrianos as the data expert) having full control of transfers in that period.

Again, just because Marinakis was the owner doesn't make him personally responsible for the work gone in to get us where we are.

You don't get to hog the credit for others work just because you're an owner. You either have to lift some tools or you have to set the strategy and vision and execute it.

So the question is: Was his hiring of Dane strategic or a desperate workaround for self-inflicted financial difficulties?

You're welcome to your opinion on that one but given what has transpired since promotion it should be pretty obvious what the answer is.

 

[magicwoand]

Paul and Daniel Taylor have eluded to Murphy (and Syrianos as the data expert) having full control of transfers in that period.

Again, just because Marinakis was the owner doesn't make him personally responsible for the work gone in to get us where we are.

No one is saying he is personally responsible for the work gone in to get us here, it's a culmination of multiple people that lead us to this position. You're the one who's seemingly thrives on diminishing Marinakis to having absolutely nothing to do with our success, which is frankly bizarre. When you know our history.

 

[Otis Redding]

As far as the modern game is concerned, the way Steve Cooper embraced the club, its supporters and the city was a complete one-off in my opinion, and I'll be forever grateful for his overwhelmingly positive contribution to our history. However, I didn't, and still don't expect Nuno to try and replicate that type of relationship, and as far as his attachment to the fans is concerned, it is no less than was adopted by a Forest "legend", Martin O'Neill.

 

[Statto]

No.

Marinakis took a step back from active transfer involvement in the summer after hiring Dane.

So the list is basically:
2017-2021 = Marinakis
2021-2022 = Not Marinakis
Academy = Not Marinakis

And applying that criteria you get the list I originally gave you.

Let me use this post to repeat my earlier point about survivorship bias...

That's splitting hairs a bit tbf.

First off, we have no idea at all who is responsible for which signing.

If we look at someone like James Garner for example, who had been at the club the year before, but was signed on loan for a 2nd time under Dane, who takes responsibility for that one?

So Ok, it's probably fair enough to say that Dane took overall oversight of transfers etc, and that this was to an extent delegated to him by Marinakis, though funded by his input, but we also had an experienced CH manager in Hughton with his own contacts, and presumably also scouting files on players which pre-existed Dane's time at the club. But there's also no doubt that some of the players brought in were brought in by Dane or maybe even still Marinakis, as we know also that the signing of Lingard was most likely done by MM, At a time when Dane was still at the club.

We can't simply look at all signings and say they were Dane's idea, even if he and/or the then manager sanctioned the deal.

Nor can we largely (without other evidence) look at a signing and say who made it. If we look back at the Chris Wood deal at a certain point it was almost gospel on here that it was Cooper's choice but then later on it turned out it was more Giraldi and Charnley who actually wanted him and Shelvey.

I was watching an interview with Hughton last night with Talksport, when he said 3 players were brought on deadline day and he didn't even know them, fair play he was almost out of the club by that stage anyway, but it goes to show we can't simply look at who was in charge of certain things at the club at the time and say that the incoming player was definitely "theirs".

In the time you describe it is possible any signing could've been brought in by Marinakis, Hughton or Murphy, or any combination of the three.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

No one is saying he is personally responsible for the work gone in to get us here, it's a culmination of multiple people that lead us to this position. You're the one who's seemingly thrives on diminishing him to having absolutely nothing to do with our success, which is frankly bizarre. When you know our history.

I'm just the antithesis of our egoistical overlord who gets upset about fans liking Cooper more than him. Someone needs to be.

 

[Morpeth]

Paul and Daniel Taylor have eluded to Murphy (and Syrianos as the data expert) having full control of transfers in that period.

Again, just because Marinakis was the owner doesn't make him personally responsible for the work gone in to get us where we are.

You should know as well as anyone that makes no difference. Managers are accountable for player performance and owners take responsibility for the overarching club. You can’t have it both ways and whenever you talk about Marinskis it seems like you’re denying that he’s done anything good, full stop. All I'm doing is giving credit where it’s due. He not perfect by any stretch but you’re the outlier here.

 

[magicwoand]

I'm just the antithesis of our egoistical overlord who gets upset about fans liking Cooper more than him. Someone needs to be.

How do you know if that this is true? And lets run with this to say it is, not that I believe it, it might be a case of thinking why do the fans love this guy when the football being served up is shit.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

You should know as well as anyone that makes no difference. Managers are accountable for player performance and owners take responsibility for the overarching club. You can’t have it both ways and whenever you talk about Marinskis it seems like you’re denying that he’s done anything good, full stop.

I don't think he has done anything good, I'm pretty open about that. Spending all of our money, twice, without much to show for it (without the work of someone else coming into save the day anyway) doesn't particularly endear me to him.

For what it's worth I don't think there are many "good" owners out there either. Football as an industry is utterly f**ked with the costs involved from a clubs operational POV so the best most owners can do is to get their club to tread water. It takes a special owner with a long-term horizon and plenty of strategic intellect to personally change a club for the better, like Tony Bloom has done at Brighton.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

This thread is really separating the posters who have an Athletic subscription from those who don't

First off, we have no idea at all who is responsible for which signing.

Serious question, respected reporters who could be held to account for printing incorrect info, such as Dan Taylor, have posted numerous articles attributing various signings to various people.

So how is anyone still claiming "we have no idea at all who is responsible for which signing."?

Not only do the press claim it, but then you've had people like Matildas Tweet stuff like "Don't worry, I get the job done" to when signing Lingard to Paraphrase, which backs that up.

Is there some element of questionability and doubt as to who is signing who in there? Sure. But suggesting we have "No idea" is well wide of the mark; people aren't just picking these things out of thin air.

I mean, we've been told stuff like Marinakis sacked Syrianos for buying Awoniyi from several sources....how can anyone not question an owner who signs arguably the best player we've had at the club in 23 years for signing them?