Is Vrentzos The New Mark Arthur, Should We Question Him?

[Madforit]

Can't fault the passion of Vrentzos. The voice that you could hear screaming in the background over Colin Fray's commentary on Saturday against Wycombe was Giannis. Proper Greek passion!

“Oi Hughton, get Aeomobi off and bring Lolley on!”

“Ribeiro! Why are you still here?!”

“ Colback! Pull your finger out or I’ll replace you with a kid from Olympiakos!”

:D

:D :D  Now that's funny :D :D

[Tricky]

Can't fault the passion of Vrentzos. The voice that you could hear screaming in the background over Colin Fray's commentary on Saturday against Wycombe was Giannis. Proper Greek passion!

“Oi Hughton, get Aeomobi off and bring Lolley on!”

“Ribeiro! Why are you still here?!”

“ Colback! Pull your finger out or I’ll replace you with a kid from Olympiakos!”

:D

:@ :@

:D :D :D

[ozzyten10]

Making up for me not being there!

[Widdow]

Vretzos is Marinakis right hand man and running the club as per instructions. Some are now questioning him (I did a while back, but others are now doing a Twitter out campaign but will all be fruitless. As the bugs mans guy, he is the new Mark Arthur.

Is he failing, well that’s in the eye of the beholder. A bad CEO can lack vision, or they can’t manage a team, or because they have insecurities that get in their way. It’s a tough job with lots of critics. Observers may see a bad CEO while others see a good one. It’s also easy to get fooled when you take a CEO at their word, only to discover later that it’s meaningless. They can often learn to be good CEOs, if learn from their mistakes.

A ceo in football is totally different to the business world but what makes them a success or failure remains the core good and bad traits. A dishonest or corrupt CEO often don’t think of themselves that way either. They always manage to justify their bad behavior somehow. They fire someone so they don’t have to pay a bonus that’s owed then find some way to make it okay in their head. They always find a way, but others see it.

Some have no moral compass, who got into the role largely by circumstances versus talent. In one case, nobody else wanted the job they got the role because the other partners didn’t have anyone better to pick. In another case, their parents set them up. Both CEOs I’d define as sociopaths, but they never saw themselves that way. In both cases, they think of themselves as doing what’s, “right.” They are nearly impossible to help change.

Neither one has any true sense of empathy for anyone else, even though they may claim so. They tend to focus on flash over substance and go for the gimmicks to make themselves look good.

The idea is to look the part, rather than stand for something they hold dear. Call them the ones who chase the flavor of the month or as some put it, the shiny new object. In one case, the CEO will talk the talk, but when it comes to doing the work, it’s only done if it’s easy. Never if it’s what’s necessary or important. Bad CEOs tend to be a mile wide and a millimeter deep and impossible to help, no matter how many books they read.

Bad CEOs will get in front of employees and either lie or stretch the truth about a range of things and call it for the benefit of others, when it’s a lie so they don’t have to be accountable for their own actions. They tell employees what they want to hear and seem to be in agreement on just about everything, until it’s time to follow through. Then they pretend it’s all new to them.

I know of one bad CEO who’s close to losing his job and he’s turned into a complete phony to try and save himself. It makes me wonder what was ever real. He has no idea everyone around him sees it either. The problem is, bad character is just that, and there is no changing it unless they feel the need, and they usually don’t.

Great CEOs have core guiding principals and it’s easy to know where they stand at all times. They are clear about their mission, honest about their points of view, and are always willing to stand for their beliefs. They tend to be in their role with a certain sense of humility and grace and are appreciative to be in their position. They take the responsibility seriously and are constantly striving to be better. They go out and seek help, from coaches, advisors, board members and other CEOs, because they want to improve.

The bad CEO stands for nothing beyond the empty words they say to everyone. They will change on a dime if the politics that keeps them in place changes under their feet. Bad CEOs compartmentalize people in an attempt to control the narrative. Bad CEOs have zero empathy and always have their own agenda. They regard everyone as a pawn in their game and are true text book sociopaths, but often they have no idea

[Strawberry Avenger]

Mr. V has proven to be a tough and shrewd negotiator.

Earning millions for Forest. Nothing like MA.

Players no longer leave for nothing.

There's nothing wrong with the business side of things. Heading in the right direction.

If we can marry Gary's new roll in foot ball policy with the Mr. V business side we'll really hit the next gear as a club.

And sticking with a proven manager to give this time to blossom.

SA.

[Sabricadabra]

Exactly. It isn’t Vs job to be liked. His job is to run the operational side of the business. Can’t argue with the job he’s doing.

As I said on the other thread, hopefully these players who are causing trouble and gossiping behind the scenes will be moved on in January. We don’t need bad apples poisoning the dressing room.

[Derby My Arse]

I have worked for some horrible bosses in the past but I took pride in my job and I always gave it my all.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Mr. V has proven to be a tough and shrewd negotiator.

Earning millions for Forest. Nothing like MA.

Players no longer leave for nothing.

There's nothing wrong with the business side of things. Heading in the right direction.

If we can marry Gary's new roll in foot ball policy with the Mr. V business side we'll really hit the next gear as a club.

And sticking with a proven manager to give this time to blossom.

SA.

I have worked for some horrible bosses in the past but I took pride in my job and I always gave it my all.

^^ Two good posts in my opinion and I fully agree with them both.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I can't see any comparison between Vrentzos and Arthur at all.

Arthur was a cricket man, he had a lot of cricket contacts but he had none or very few Football contacts.

Vrentzos is a Football man who has loads of contacts in Football, I dare say perhaps too many contacts!

Arthur struggled constantly to get deals struck and over the line. Pratley and Whittingham come to mind, what a comedy show that was.

Vrentzos gets deals done quickly and effeciently, once again dare I say too many deals!

Arthur struggled to get good prices for players who left the club.

Vrentzos has shown thst he's very shrewd when it comes to getting top prices for any players that leave.

So, like I said at the start I cannot see any comparison between Arthur and Vrentzos at all.

[ThePromisedLand]

How many contacts has he got in the EFL?

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I'd say judging by the number of English based players we signed in the summer quite a few.

[ThePromisedLand]

C’mon Sniff.
Marthur signed loads of English based players.
I’m certainly not having a pop at Vrentzos - but it’s a bit of a stretch in saying he has good contacts in the English game ( and almost certainly no more than the vast majority of CEO’s )