Christian Purslow

[Demitri_C]

19 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

The important bit translated:

'CEO Christian Purslow didn't always take kindly to owners relationship with the sporting director. In case Dean Smith had to be replaced he was asked for advice (Suso suggested Javi Gracia, Chris Hughton, Bruno Lage, Purslow wanted Steven Gerrard or John Terry)

This was written in 2020. A respected journalist who had contacts with our sacked sporting director. 

It's not crazy made up rumours that Purslow clearly wanted Gerrard as our manager. 

Purslow would have wanted gerrard in 2020 when gerrard still hasnt won anything in scotland? I think thats bullshit personally mate

[sidcow]

14 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Ooo, pick me, I'll do it.

Not sure what's upsetting you about it?

If he stays away from football, we'll be better off. Or would you like him involved? Why, if so?

Nothings upsetting me. I just don't understand people making accusations when they have no ideas what's happened. I feel like a stuck **** record on this. 

If he's **** up and done wrong then absolutely yes. He should he held accountable. But I feel very uncomfortable with this pitchfork mob mentality constantly attacking him and making accusations when they don't know Jack shit about what he has or hasn't done. 

The "no football decisions" thing is ludicrous anyway. He's CEO of a football club. Of course he'll get involved in major football decisions in tandem with Lange and almost certainly Sawiris as well. Every big signing, every management appointment will be a board decision they'll all be involved with. 

No company and therefore no football club is going to spend multiple millions on anything without The CEO and the whole board involved. It's a laughable concept that he should stay away from it really. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by sidcow

[DCJonah]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Isnt the evidence that he hasnt been axed jonah?? Thats fundamentally the proof we need

It's not evidence that the owners aren't annoyed or that he takes a lot of responsibility for how he turned out. 

I don't think it's a sackable offence. 

I think the evidence shows Gerrard was clearly someone Purslow really wanted. 

And then the way it ended suggests the owners weren't too pleased. The stuff I said earlier, and also compare to when Smith was sacked and Gerrard appointed. Purslow was all over both of those decisions and the clear mouth piece of the for both. 

Then nothing when Gerrard is sacked and Pictures of Nas with Emery before the official unveiling. 

[sharkyvilla]

Anyway the two biggest criticisms you can throw at Purslow are his choice of Gerrard and the recruitment.  We now have Emery so hopefully he won't need to help choose a new manager for years and actually, with a proper manager at the helm, the players we recruited in the last couple of years don't look too shabby after all.

[nick76]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

I'd say it's a crazy theory to think the sacking had zero to do with Nas being annoyed. 

1) Gerrard under pressure for weeks, sacked after the 1 game the owner saw live. 

2) journalists saw him storm off during the game.

3) we sacked him before he had to travel home on the bus. You don't do that if you're not pissed off. You wait till the next morning. 

Again, this isn't just made up nonsense. It's speculation based on the available evidence but it makes sense to me.

I think Gerrard was going to be sacked anyway they were just waiting for the new manager to confirm he was coming. TheTrees confirmed Wes was in Vienna mid October and also Villareal and Emery were also in Vienna then which gives an indication discussions were happening then.  

The fact that Emery said himself he told his boss on Friday that he’d accepted Villa which is too quick after Thursday night defeat to Fulham to suggest the look for the new manager had only just started at 10pm Thursday night.  

I’m guessing Nas after the game just said something like “no point keeping Gerrard because he’s having no positive effect on the team, probably even detrimental and he’s going soon, may as well send him off now”. I’m sure there was some anger in it and Purslow got the brunt of it.

[DCJonah]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Purslow would have wanted gerrard in 2020 when gerrard still hasnt won anything in scotland? I think thats bullshit personally mate

Come on. Bullshit that just happened to come true 12 months later?

What a random guess/lie by a respected journalist talking to Suso. Now that's a crazy theory. 

If anything it adds to the idea that Purslow was convinced Gerrard was the next big thing in management. He's quite clearly thought highly of him since their Liverpool days. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by DCJonah

[Demitri_C]

Just now, DCJonah said:

It's not evidence that the owners aren't annoyed or that he takes a lot of responsibility for how he turned out. 

I don't think it's a sackable offence. 

I think the evidence shows Gerrard was clearly someone Purslow really wanted. 

And then the way it ended suggests the owners weren't too pleased. The stuff I said earlier, and also compare to when Smith was sacked and Gerrard appointed. Purslow was all over both of those decisions and the clear mouth piece of the for both. 

Then nothing when Gerrard is sacked and Pictures of Nas with Emery before the official unveiling. 

Yeah i agree that its definitely not a sackable offence for getting one managerial appointment wrong - it would be ridiculous and stupid to do that. Thats why fans dont run football clubs thankfully. 

Whether he was purslows choice independently we wont know however i dind it hard to believe it was not discussed with lange nassef and edens. I think they would have gone through the pros and cons together and made the decision together that gerrard was the ideal candidate at the time.

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

Come on. Bullshit that just happened to come true 12 months later?

What a random guess/lie by a respected journalist talking to Suso. Now that's a crazy theory. 

If anything it adds to the idea that Purslow was convinced Gerrard was the next big thing in management. He's quite clearly though lt highly of him since their Liverpool days. 

Getting gerarrd in 2020 would have been a bigger gamble than the appointment at the time. Gerrard hadnt even won the title yet. Why would we go for him?

12 months later he won a totle and tokk they far in europe

[DCJonah]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Yeah i agree that its definitely not a sackable offence for getting one managerial appointment wrong - it would be ridiculous and stupid to do that. Thats why fans dont run football clubs thankfully. 

Whether he was purslows choice independently we wont know however i dind it hard to believe it was not discussed with lange nassef and edens. I think they would have gone through the pros and cons together and made the decision together that gerrard was the ideal candidate at the time.

So do I. I don't think many are suggesting otherwise. 

 

[DCJonah]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Getting gerarrd in 2020 would have been a bigger gamble than the appointment at the time. Gerrard hadnt even won the title yet. Why would we go for him?

12 months later he won a totle and tokk they far in europe

Because he thought he'd be a superb manager. 

Why would either suso or balague make up a lie? And then coincidently that complete lie come true 12 months later. What are the chances of that? 

[sidcow]

That's it for me. He almost certainly did have heavy involvement in getting Gerrard in. It would have been a joint decision but I'll definitely agree he had a strong hand in that. 

It was a bad appointment. Many on here welcomed it.  Many objected to his Liverpool connections but nevertheless accepted it anyway.  A big number were dead set against it.  It split opinion. 

I don't thin Purslow, Sawiris, Edens, Lange or anyone on here, even the people who didn't really want him thought it would be THIS bad though. It was a disaster. 

So for me he probably had a heavy hand in the appointment of a bad manager. That's it though.

Football clubs make bad management appointments all the time. It's a known fact about how many managers lose their jobs and tenures are briefer and briefer. 

It's **** stupid to call for a CEO to be sacked or banned from any football involvement ever again because of a bad management appointment. 

Otherwise football clubs would be losing CEO's at a hell of a rate. 

[Condimentalist]

I do think Purslow would have been heavily involved with Gerrard's hire, and he was probably reluctant to move him on as quickly as he might have having risked sacking Dean in the way he did.

However, I'm not going to hold one mistake against him - he's been a big part of a far more professional and impressive Aston Villa senior management approach than I've seen in 25 years supporting the club. 

 

 

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, Stephen_Evans said:

Purslow reports to an Executive Chairman and the rest of the Board.  His position as a Director ultimately depends on the support of the two major shareholders.  He cannot "go rogue", as it were.

The Board take responsibility for the appointment of Gerrard, for the length of his tenure and the termination of his employment.

There is simply no evidence that Purslow appointed his "mate" and that no-one else had a say until Sawiris suddenly lost his rag at the Fulham game.

I agree that ultimately the board takes responsibility for all big decisions. Whilst this is true they put people in place to advise them and run the business. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that given the fact that Purslow had worked with Gerrard in the past and knew him personally, they would be inclined to listen to the CEO when he made the suggestion to appoint him. 

The club and so therefore the board as a whole made the decision and so ultimately take collective responsibility for the failure of his appointment. Although there is always somebody who proposes an initial idea and therefore usually takes the lead. The board,  obviously ultimately NSWE, gave it the thumbs up so of course take the blame and the financial hit. 
 

We don’t honestly know the fine details of his sacking but it is equally reasonable to conclude that Nas felt the need to put the project to an end without further delay. Equally the owners felt a need to take the reins in regards to appointing our next manager. To the point that the normally publicity shy Nas was happy to make it abundantly clear that he was responsible for the appointment of Unai. Whereas the limelight seeking Christian Purslow was notable in his absence, unless he was taking the photograph?

[Teale's 'tache]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is a forum, a place where people discuss and speculate(oh the horror) on matters regarding the club.

I'm not sure why we're not allowed to speculate about Mr Purslow?

We get precious little "evidence" from the boardroom which is a good thing, but such a void of information is always likely to be filled with speculation.

I don't think it's a wild stab in the dark, given what little we know, that Purslow may have pushed the Gerrard appointment, but the truth is we will likely never 100% know, or simply not care by the time any actual evidence came out. If he was the driving force behind it then he'll take the lions share of the blame, but the owners agreed to the appointment, I'm less sure about Lange, all of them will accept their share of the blame and by all accounts have already made the best appointment possible to correct their error.

I don't think Mr Purslow would be sacked over one misstep anyway, he's valuable to the club in many ways.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is a forum, a place where people discuss and speculate(oh the horror) on matters regarding the club.

I'm not sure why we're not allowed to speculate about Mr Purslow?

We get precious little "evidence" from the boardroom which is a good thing, but such a void of information is always likely to be filled with speculation.

I don't think it's a wild stab in the dark, given what little we know, that Purslow may have pushed the Gerrard appointment, but the truth is we will likely never 100% know, or simply not care by the time any actual evidence came out. If he was the driving force behind it then he'll take the lions share of the blame, but the owners agreed to the appointment, I'm less sure about Lange, all of them will accept their share of the blame and by all accounts have already made the best appointment possible to correct their error.

I don't think Mr Purslow would be sacked over one misstep anyway, he's valuable to the club in many ways.

Its not the speculation its the insults, and pettiness towards purslow thats ridiculous 

[Zatman]

34 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Purslow would have wanted gerrard in 2020 when gerrard still hasnt won anything in scotland? I think thats bullshit personally mate

Why would Suso randomly mention Gerrard and then we hired him a year later. Its not a coincidence or Suso is Nostradamus

[DaveAV1]

29 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Its not the speculation its the insults, and pettiness towards purslow thats ridiculous 

I’ve not heard any real insults or pettiness aimed at Purslow. When compared to the abuse handed out in here towards players and managers anyway. In fact the abuse that Gerrard got before he was even appointed was massively worse and unnecessary. 

Not wanting someone to come here is one thing but some of the stuff was a bit much to be honest. In the end it was a terrible appointment but we didn’t know that then and dragging up footage of bad tackles etc was just pointless and unnecessary. 

[Teale's 'tache]

37 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Its not the speculation its the insults, and pettiness towards purslow thats ridiculous 

Oh I agree there's no need for insults, though I can't say I've seen all that many, certainly there's other threads on here that have much worse.

[sidcow]

44 minutes ago, est1874 said:

I can only imagine this is essentially how the Gerrard appointment played out, in the eyes of some.

Others might say Purslow went into the board meeting pleading and snivelling for his best mate to be given the job but Lange and Sawiris said no, but Purslow burst into tears and begged some more and said he would leave unless he got his own way so Lange and Sawiris eventually just gave in. 

Probably far more people on here believe that's how it went down. 

[thunderball]

No one is perfect. Purslow has a personality type that puts himself in the limelight so he is therefore also an easy target. Gerrard was a mistake, everyone sees that in hindsight, but it could’ve worked out, but was definitely more likely to fail than perhaps Emery, but Emery might also fail, time will tell. It wasn’t a totally stupid decision in fairness.

He makes the big calls, and on the whole they work to the benefit of the club, he will always make mistakes, all of us do, but I believe he is serious operator and working through this too. We are massively better off because of his stewardship as all that money could’ve gone horribly, embarrassingly wrong.