Nottingham Forest’s response to criticism should concern all football fans..

In partnership with

Just Arsenal News

·25 May 2025

Nottingham Forest’s response to criticism should concern all football fans..

Twelve months ago, I wrote that if survival were based on how a club is run, Nottingham Forest did not deserve to avoid relegation. Last week, I added that they certainly do not warrant the honour of representing England in the Champions League.

If I worked for the mainstream media, perhaps those comments would have seen me banned from the City Ground. That is exactly what has happened to Gary Neville, who has confirmed he will not be granted press accreditation.

OneFootball Videos

The pundit revealed that Sky Sports wanted him to commentate on Forest versus Chelsea this weekend, but the club will not provide him with access to the stadium. While no formal statement has been made by Forest regarding their reasons, it appears clear the 50-year-old believes this is a response to his criticism of Evangelos Marinakis, who came onto the pitch to confront his manager at full-time following the Leicester fixture.

Forest’s PR team were quick to clarify at the time that their owner was frustrated with the medical team and how Taiwo Awoniyi had been managed. They insisted this was not him lecturing Nuno Santos about the result. Days later, another statement was released making it clear that the club were unhappy with how the media had reported what they called “fake news”.

Suppressing opinions sends the wrong message

Some may ask what this has to do with Arsenal. Others might dislike Mr Neville’s punditry and feel relieved he will not be on television this Sunday. I know many who are tired of seeing him everywhere. Yet this affects not just Gooners, but all football fans.

Gary Neville being divisive is not the issue. Debate and disagreement are a vital part of football discourse. We learn from hearing different views, even if we do not agree with them. The former right-back was not even in Nottingham when the incident occurred. He was preparing to work at Anfield and was given a few minutes to share his reaction to what he had just seen. That is his job, and it is one he is paid well to do.

Like many in his profession, he will sometimes be right, sometimes wrong, but many fans pay significant money for football coverage. When a club owner enters the pitch after full-time and appears visibly unhappy, it is a broadcaster’s duty to provide commentary and context. Ignoring such scenes would be negligent.

Producers at Sky Sports would have insisted on Neville’s viewpoint because data shows that viewers are interested in what he has to say. Sky, like any business, are driven by profit. Engagement, reach and relevance are all part of that equation. That is why Neville has his own podcast, is hired by ITV for international coverage, and runs a successful YouTube channel, The Overlap.

Marinakis

Forest’s actions damage their own image

If a broadcaster knows one of its pundits drives traffic and conversation, why would they not ask for his opinion on major talking points?

Ironically, this decision by Mr Marinakis only reinforces the perception many hold about his ownership style. Legally, he is within his rights to deny entry to his stadium. However, it sends a poor message and makes both him and Nottingham Forest appear overly sensitive. It is quite possible that many within the club disagree with the decision but feel unable or unwilling to challenge it.

The 57-year-old has a history, both in England and at Olympiakos, of acting impulsively and emotionally. In this instance, it is not Gary Neville who is damaged, but the public image of a proud football club. This should be a time of celebration for the team and the city, not a PR misstep dominating headlines.

Banning a pundit because he expressed an opinion sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests freedom of speech is only permitted when it aligns with the views of those in power. Fans turn to football as an escape from exactly this sort of control. If pundits are pressured into speaking only in approved terms, then coverage becomes meaningless.

Sky will still cover the match, but the entire Super Sunday team will now present from the studio instead of the stadium. Neville will be fine, perhaps even using this as content for his other platforms. But what happens when the next person offends Mr Marinakis?

With Neville’s broadcasting portfolio, this exclusion barely touches him. The real damage is to Forest’s credibility. One of the greatest personalities the game has ever known is someone Forest fans will remember well. A man who never feared confrontation or criticism and was loved for it.

What would Brian Clough make of Nottingham Forest banning a pundit for sharing an opinion?

Dan Smith

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

ADMIN COMMENT

So here are some simple rules which I must insist commenters follow….

You agree not to give any personal abuse to other Arsenal fans. Everyone is allowed to hold their own opinions even if you disagree with them. It COSTS NOTHING TO BE POLITE TO OTHER ARSENAL FANS.

CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…