Christian Purslow

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here's how Purslow saw it at the time of the appointment

But here's what Liverpool Reporters say

So take your pick.

To be fair the first quote confirms that Gerrard impressed all four key decision makers, and that it wasn’t Purslow overruling everyone (including the owners) and bringing in his mate.

It was that Gerrard had a decent record and looked and sounded the part as an up and coming manager who could take us to the next level (and then turned out to be shit).

So if people are accusing Purslow of being naive here, you’re accusing two billionaires who own multiple sports clubs of being naïve too, when the evidence suggests they’re anything but.

[sidcow]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here's how Purslow saw it at the time of the appointment

But here's what Liverpool Reporters say

So take your pick.

He was the unanimous choice following that interview process

 

So as I suspected, the whole board would have made the decision, not Purslow desperately cajoling the rest of the board to take him and pinning his whole reputation on it. 

[viivvaa66]

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

I know. The amount of people drinking the Purslow Kool aid in this thread man.

It is strange. It was clear after last season that Gerrard wasn’t going to provide us any progress + the brain of the operation left.

The Purslow fans would have us believe that we have been looking for a new manager since the summer or thereabouts , but Gerrard was left in charge until a replacement was ready. The Brentford match showed us why that was a so stupid idea. If true, we more or less threw away 16-19 points, we wouldn’t have gotten them all with Danks in charge, but maybe 10-12 points, that would have placed us in the top 4 at the moment. Still don’t understand why this is used as a defence, to me it makes the club (Purslow/owners) look even more clueless.

No matter what actually was going on, someone at the club messed up big time. Yes, the appointment of Emery is getting us back on track for some progress, but we shouldn’t have been this derailed in the first place.

[DaveAV1]

38 minutes ago, sidcow said:

He was the unanimous choice following that interview process

 

So as I suspected, the whole board would have made the decision, not Purslow desperately cajoling the rest of the board to take him and pinning his whole reputation on it. 

I agree the whole board sanctioned the appointment, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that Purslow was the instigator. No particular criticism of anyone at this point. It’s not unusual for someone to have a stronger opinion about a subject than their colleagues. After all he’d worked with him before and Gerarrd certainly came across well. 
 

Where I think the board deserves some criticism is that it doesn’t appear that any, or much at least, due diligence was carried out. It was fairly common knowledge amongst Rangers fans that Beale was the brains behind the operation and so did we really know who we were hiring? It seems unlikely that Gerrard didn’t have at least an idea that Beale had ambitions of his own, since they’d worked together for a few years.

So collective blame initially for not doing proper due diligence, even if Purslow was the driving force behind the idea. I think where Purslow deserves the lion’s share of the criticism though, is not either realising it was a mistake or refusing to realise it was a mistake and allowing more and more damage to be done. To the point that Nas appears to have felt it necessary to step in, or I’m not convinced Gerrard wouldn’t still be here now. 

[Kiwivillan]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

To be fair the first quote confirms that Gerrard impressed all four key decision makers, and that it wasn’t Purslow overruling everyone (including the owners) and bringing in his mate.

It was that Gerrard had a decent record and looked and sounded the part as an up and coming manager who could take us to the next level (and then turned out to be shit).

So if people are accusing Purslow of being naive here, you’re accusing two billionaires who own multiple sports clubs of being naïve too, when the evidence suggests they’re anything but.

It's almost like some of VT always need a Panto villain. 

[Tayls]

35 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said:

It is strange. It was clear after last season that Gerrard wasn’t going to provide us any progress + the brain of the operation left.

The Purslow fans would have us believe that we have been looking for a new manager since the summer or thereabouts , but Gerrard was left in charge until a replacement was ready. The Brentford match showed us why that was a so stupid idea. If true, we more or less threw away 16-19 points, we wouldn’t have gotten them all with Danks in charge, but maybe 10-12 points, that would have placed us in the top 4 at the moment. Still don’t understand why this is used as a defence, to me it makes the club (Purslow/owners) look even more clueless.

No matter what actually was going on, someone at the club messed up big time. Yes, the appointment of Emery is getting us back on track for some progress, but we shouldn’t have been this derailed in the first place.

But what I don’t understand, if this is indeed the case, why didn’t players play the way the did with the energy and speed in attack? Surely a lot of that doesn’t actually need coaching? It was a different bloody team on Saturday!! 

[Tomaszk]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

He was the unanimous choice following that interview process

So as I suspected, the whole board would have made the decision, not Purslow desperately cajoling the rest of the board to take him and pinning his whole reputation on it. 

If it was Barry Ferguson, he doesn't get a call about an interview. Purslow opened that door.

We know Gerrard was/is a good speaker, I'm not surprised at all he shone. You should need some credentials to get to the table as well - he had a miniscule amount. It was name and nothing else.

A terrible appointment, that was borne out of Purslow wanting to get his hero onto the wagebill. Can you imagine how smug he was when he spoke well at the interview?

I still don't trust Purslow to leave the football side of the club to people who know a lot more than him. If he does that and gets out the way, we'll be better off.

He's done OK here overall, you can argue "great" if you really want to. With the funding available, I fail to see his performance as too that far away from average. Par. Ordinary. Some sensible decisions I'd expect someone in his position to be making, some daft ones that I would think someone in his position couldn't be thick enough to carry out.

[daft]

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

Whats speculative? This is not some urban legend, it's well known Purslow adored him at Liverpool. Also well known he dabbled in signings

Neil Lennon won a few sectarian titles and only team that wanted him in England was broke Bolton. Nothing on Gerrard entire CV said he was the only candidate we could get except his Purslow connections

Just about everything related to the hiring and firing of Gerrard and Purslow's possible actions, non-actions and motives for doing things. Spe. Cu. Lation. Pronounce the last part with an annoying french accent.

[sidcow]

24 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

It's almost like some of VT always need a Panto villain. 

Oh no they don't 

[tinker]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

To be fair the first quote confirms that Gerrard impressed all four key decision makers, and that it wasn’t Purslow overruling everyone (including the owners) and bringing in his mate.

It was that Gerrard had a decent record and looked and sounded the part as an up and coming manager who could take us to the next level (and then turned out to be shit).

So if people are accusing Purslow of being naive here, you’re accusing two billionaires who own multiple sports clubs of being naïve too, when the evidence suggests they’re anything but.

Yea......they were all wrong. They should now have the nouse to employ someone who would have seen through Gerrard's weaknesses and move onto someone else. 

[TheAuthority]

15 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Oh no they don't 

He's behind you!*

*Purslow wishes Gerrard was anyway

[Demitri_C]

5 hours ago, calcifer said:

He is probably still crying that his bestie was sacked. Can't fault him for the business side of things, but he should stay out of footballing decisions, his heart ruled his head on the Gerrard appointment. 

Any evidence of this?

[Tayls]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Any evidence of this?

Fulham 3 - 0 Villa

[MaVilla]

although i dont agree with everything she said, she did make some very valid points imo.

(its not a negative video about Villa, its more about our recruitment, strategic planning etc etc)

 

 

[viivvaa66]

1 hour ago, Tayls said:

But what I don’t understand, if this is indeed the case, why didn’t players play the way the did with the energy and speed in attack? Surely a lot of that doesn’t actually need coaching? It was a different bloody team on Saturday!! 

Because Gerrard’s tactic was asking players to do things they wasn’t very good at + playing players out of form. Sunday we had a simple tactic that got the best of our players + some of the deadwood was on the bench. It isn’t magic, it is just common sense.

That just illustrates my point, why did the club drop the ball and let Gerrard be in charge when everybody could see that Gerrard couldn’t get a performance out of our players.

 

[sharkyvilla]

14 hours ago, Tayls said:

But what I don’t understand, if this is indeed the case, why didn’t players play the way the did with the energy and speed in attack? Surely a lot of that doesn’t actually need coaching? It was a different bloody team on Saturday!! 

The players have to be in the right places on the pitch to start.  Under Gerrard almost all the attacking moves would come from the full backs and the central midfielders would be filling in the gaps they left.  You'd then have two number 10s trying (and failing) to do the same job to provide 'moments of magic'.  The flaws in his system were huge.

Anyway I don't really hold it against Purslow, mistakes happen.  Gerrard was obviously the guy they headhunted, like Emery was this time.  No way you could have an open interviewing process and appoint someone so quickly after the last manager was sacked, which last time concerned me but this time seems to have come off.  Scotland wasn't really a two-team league, it was a one-team league for a decade which Gerrard broke, it just turned out he was shit and inflexible in hindsight.

[spiezels]

22 hours ago, calcifer said:

He is probably still crying that his bestie was sacked. Can't fault him for the business side of things, but he should stay out of footballing decisions, his heart ruled his head on the Gerrard appointment. 

Lol

[Pinebro]

Been in around bottom half since promotion so can't say that our recruitment has been anything other than horrendous.

And Purslow is in charge of who our sporting director is who is directly in charge of recruitment. 

Purslow hasn't just done one mistake with Gerrard he has done multiple mistakes that we can't just brush under the carpet.

Needs to be held accountable for his several mistakes. 

If he fails yet another manager he has to go. I in no shape or form trust him to get things right and he would be gone already if it was up to me but regardless. This is last chance saloon.

[Pinebro]

Should be on very thin ice. 

What a shambles this recruitment has been. 

If Emery doesn't succeed there is nowhere to hide for Purslow. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Pinebro

[AshVilla]

A massive reason why were in this mess.

Should consider himself lucky he hasn't been given the boot.