Christian Purslow

[tomav84]

2 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

We he have changed the transfer structure for any other head coach? Highly unlikely in my book.

 

eh? you back the manager...simple as. your transfer structure reflects manager demands and it's changed each manager that we've had under NWSE + purslow

bruce - experience combined with good loan moves

deano - 1st season try and find value on the continent then moving to the top talent from the championship

gerrard - proven PL experience over a period of time

each manager has had a different 'structure'. emery will in turn have his own and it's looking like it will be la liga focussed

[tomav84]

2 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I don't think he had a say in the matter imo.

possibly not. or possibly he was stood right next to nassif when gerrard was given his marching orders. unless you were present, you don't know.

[AvfcRigo82]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

possibly not. or possibly he was stood right next to nassif when gerrard was given his marching orders. unless you were present, you don't know.

Reading between the lines.

If I had to put £5 on what I think the scenario was, it would be the former you mention.

[AvfcRigo82]

4 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

eh? you back the manager...simple as. your transfer structure reflects manager demands and it's changed each manager that we've had under NWSE + purslow

bruce - experience combined with good loan moves

deano - 1st season try and find value on the continent then moving to the top talent from the championship

gerrard - proven PL experience over a period of time

each manager has had a different 'structure'. emery will in turn have his own and it's looking like it will be la liga focussed

I thought it was the structure that was set regardless who was coach.

It raised a few eyebrows why it seemed to be different for Gerrard.

Signing Coutinho who had no sell on value was a daft idea. It should have been left as a loan and then thank you very much, all the best.

But he couldn't wait to parade him at the player awards.

As a whole before we going down little avenues, it was a grave mistake by Purslow who himself told how public what Aston Villa' s transfer strategy was, it was just surprising why the goalposts were moved to accomdate Gerrard.

[tomav84]

4 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

Reading between the lines.

If I had to put £5 on what I think the scenario was, it would be the former you mention.

my money would actually be on the latter. if an owner felt his CEO was so incapable of making a decision that he felt he had to step in and make it for him, i don't see a scenario where said CEO continues in that role...either he resigns due to feeling undermined or sacked

how would you feel if your boss stepped in and did your job for you because he/she felt you weren't able to? don't know about you, but i'd be looking for my next move

[sidcow]

19 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

He would have trusted Purslow and the rest of the collective if you will, given that is/was one of Purslows roles, to hire the right man for the job.

He also would have trusted Purslow and the collective to fire the guy when it became evident that he wasn't the right man for the job.

The latter didn't happen when it should have long before it did. Nassif made the descision to sack Slippy - something that Purslow and Co. should have done many weeks before but failed to do so.

Why wasn't Purslow and Co. anywhere near the appointment of Emery?..

Let's not also forget, Purslow changed the rules he had set to only hire young promising talent, to then go against that and break his own rules to sign Coutinho on a stupid contract.

Would he (Purslow) have changed the transfer structure for any other head coach? Highly unlikely in my book.

 

For **** sake. I can't stress this enough. 

Not in a million years, not ever, could Purslow sack the manager of this football club without the authority to do so of The Board. 

The manager is THE most important position at the club. 

If Gerrard was appointed it would have been a board decision to appoint him.

If Gerrard is sacked it will be a board decision to sack him. 

Sawiris may have got angry and sacked him on the night but you can 100% guarantee it would have been a pre agreed board decision that he's be sacked if he lost that game. 

I can't imagine how furious Edens would be if he heard that Sawaris just went lone wolf and sacked the most important employee at the club without his agreement. 

People live in cloud cuckoo land fantasising how the Gerrard sacking came about. 

1 man gets angry and sacks someone if he's lock stock and barrel the bona fide owner and sole decision maker in a business. That just doesn't happen in a large company with a full. Board or directors and a joint ownership model. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by sidcow

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

my money would actually be on the latter. if an owner felt his CEO was so incapable of making a decision that he felt he had to step in and make it for him, i don't see a scenario where said CEO continues in that role...either he resigns due to feeling undermined or sacked

how would you feel if your boss stepped in and did your job for you because he/she felt you weren't able to? don't know about you, but i'd be looking for my next move

This 100%. People have got this odd idea Purslow wouldn't sack him and will not budge on it despite the fact it makes no sense and would also guarantee Purslow's own sacking. 

The appointment of Gerrard was a joint board decision and the sacking of Gerrard would have been a joint board decision. Anything else goes against proper business practice and our owners are top business men. 

My CEO is an idiot and I have to step in and do his job? On top of him being responsible for appointing a bad manager that I also blame him for? 

I'll keep him in situ and keep him away from the media as punishment.  It's actually laughable to believe that. 

[allani]

16 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

He would have trusted Purslow and the rest of the collective if you will, given that is/was one of Purslows roles, to hire the right man for the job.

He also would have trusted Purslow and the collective to fire the guy when it became evident that he wasn't the right man for the job.

The latter didn't happen when it should have long before it did. Nassif made the descision to sack Slippy - something that Purslow and Co. should have done many weeks before but failed to do so.

Why wasn't Purslow and Co. anywhere near the appointment of Emery?..

Let's not also forget, Purslow changed the rules he had set to only hire young promising talent, to then go against that and break his own rules to sign Coutinho on a stupid contract.

We he have changed the transfer structure for any other head coach? Highly unlikely in my book.

 

If Purslow had free reign to hire managers, sign players and change transfer approach without having to get any approval from anyone else at the club - then the owners need to take a load of flak too for allowing that to happen.  It didn't, so they don't.  They took a gamble, they gave the guy a chance to turn it around, they got rid of him when they knew he couldn't and they've decided that rather than gamble on potential again they should go straight to the top and bring in an elite team hungry to succeed and build something really special.

If it took Gerrard to help them realise that then if we could go back in time, I'd hire him again.  A "better" appointment at the time probably wouldn't have us where we are today. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by allani

[tomav84]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

This 100%. People have got this odd idea Purslow wouldn't sack him and will not budge on it despite the fact it makes no sense and would also guarantee Purslow's own sacking. 

The appointment of Gerrard was a joint board decision and the sacking of Gerrard would have been a joint board decision. Anything else goes against proper business practice and our owners are top business men. 

My CEO is an idiot and I have to step in and do his job? On top of him being responsible for appointing a bad manager that I also blame him for? 

I'll keep him in situ and keep him away from the media as punishment.  It's actually laughable to believe that. 

but people believe exactly this! the number of times we've seen on here along the lines of "it's no surprise that purslow isn't in the limelight anymore" when he actually isn't...i've seen more of him since gerrard's sacking if anything

[AvfcRigo82]

2 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

my money would actually be on the latter. if an owner felt his CEO was so incapable of making a decision that he felt he had to step in and make it for him, i don't see a scenario where said CEO continues in that role...either he resigns due to feeling undermined or sacked

how would you feel if your boss stepped in and did your job for you because he/she felt you weren't able to? don't know about you, but i'd be looking for my next move

I get what you're saying and I agree with you in part.

My take is that probably one of the reasons the new lad has landed from Barcelona.

Purslow has perhaps been silently and astutely moved to a more non-footballing role in the club with a view of the long term aim of the club without causing a big hoohar in doing so.

Nas and Wes don't strike me as a Bohely type clown to encourage any negative fanfare it would bring to the club if they made a big deal of it or sacked him.

Given Purslow also has a minority share in the club, I don't think it would suit for him to resign either, given he has strength in other areas (FFP etc.) -  - Which I have stated before he knows his way round that side of the game well. He has perhaps bitten the bullet and held his hands up to the whole Gerrard situation (is my take)

Alot of this does happen behind closed doors and I think the owners have done very well to conduct the running of the club how they are doing so without bringing the unwanted negativity the media would be all over.

They know CP is respected in the game and it suits to keep him here rather than dispose of him.

[sidcow]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

but people believe exactly this! the number of times we've seen on here along the lines of "it's no surprise that purslow isn't in the limelight anymore" when he actually isn't...i've seen more of him since gerrard's sacking if anything

I expect it's been written on Twitter a lot so is now factual in many peoples minds in the same was many people will never back down from saying the American election was stolen.

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I get what you're saying and I agree with you in part.

My take is that probably one of the reasons the new lad has landed from Barcelona.

Purslow has perhaps been silently and astutely moved to a more non-footballing role in the club with a view of the long term aim of the club without causing a big hoohar in doing so.

Nas and Wes don't strike me as a Bohely type clown to encourage any negative fanfare it would bring to the club if they made a big deal of it or sacked him.

Given Purslow also has a minority share in the club, I don't think it would suit for him to resign either, given he has strength in other areas (FFP etc.) -  - Which I have stated before he knows his way round that side of the game well. He has perhaps bitten the bullet and held his hands up to the whole Gerrard situation (is my take)

Alot of this does happen behind closed doors and I think the owners have done very well to conduct the running of the club how they are doing so without bringing the unwanted negativity the media would be all over.

They know CP is respected in the game and it suits to keep him here rather than dispose of him.

what do you mean by non-footballing role though? the guy is CEO - the buck stops with him, footballing and non-footballing.

as has been said by others, CP is a shareholder/part owner...transfers, backroom appointments, manager hirings/firings will all require his approval (unless a change has been made that has yet to be submitted to companies house)

[allani]

3 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I get what you're saying and I agree with you in part.

My take is that probably one of the reasons the new lad has landed from Barcelona.

Purslow has perhaps been silently and astutely moved to a more non-footballing role in the club with a view of the long term aim of the club without causing a big hoohar in doing so.

Nas and Wes don't strike me as a Bohely type clown to encourage any negative fanfare it would bring to the club if they made a big deal of it or sacked him.

Given Purslow also has a minority share in the club, I don't think it would suit for him to resign either, given he has strength in other areas (FFP etc.) -  - Which I have stated before he knows his way round that side of the game well. He has perhaps bitten the bullet and held his hands up to the whole Gerrard situation (is my take)

Alot of this does happen behind closed doors and I think the owners have done very well to conduct the running of the club how they are doing so without bringing the unwanted negativity the media would be all over.

They know CP is respected in the game and it suits to keep him here rather than dispose of him.

Now this post I can mainly agree with.  I don't think that Alemany is arriving to remove / reduce Purslow's influence.  But I do think that Alemany will be much more heavily involved in transfer dealings / recruitment - possibly supported by Lange doing more of the data analysis / grunt-work and Purslow will be doing more in terms of club administration.  With Emery as well - that seems like a pretty strong team running the club under the direction of the Board. 

[AvfcRigo82]

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

what do you mean by non-footballing role though? the guy is CEO - the buck stops with him, footballing and non-footballing.

as has been said by others, CP is a shareholder/part owner...transfers, backroom appointments, manager hirings/firings will all require his approval (unless a change has been made that has yet to be submitted to companies house)

@allani has answered it for me before I got there.

1 minute ago, allani said:

I don't think that Alemany is arriving to remove / reduce Purslow's influence.  But I do think that Alemany will be much more heavily involved in transfer dealings / recruitment - possibly supported by Lange doing more of the data analysis / grunt-work and Purslow will be doing more in terms of club administration.  With Emery as well - that seems like a pretty strong team running the club under the direction of the Board. 

 

[villa4europe]

Just change the terminology to reflect the same businesses that we all work in

Purslow is the MD

Lange / alemany is the operations director

We'll also no doubt have a financial director who we never really hear of

Edit - our CFO is a guy called Ian Hopson

Edited May 3, 2023 by villa4europe

[sidcow]

Can't believe this, I've just started watching the Sky Interview with Purslow and he's directly asked about the Gerrard sacking. 

His exact response was "We have to do the right thing and the board thought about things, I think we let things ride for a while and then made that tough decision"

So there you have it. A board decision, taken after some delay and consideration (as we would hope) and a joint decision made. 

Can we move on from this nonsense now please? 

Edited May 3, 2023 by sidcow

[MaVilla]

7 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Can't believe this, I've just started watching the Sky Interview with Purslow and he's directly asked about the Gerrard sacking. 

His exact response was "We have to do the right thing and the board thought about things, I think we let things ride for a while and then made that tough decision"

So there you have it. A board decision, taken after some delay and consideration (as we would hope) and a joint decision made. 

Can we move on from this nonsense now please? 

yeah but Bob in the Dog & Duck told me it wasnt like that bruv, also, Tommy at the bookies just round the corner backed up Bob so its gotta be true what they said bruv.

Does your source hold the weight of Bob at the Pub and Tommy from the Bookies?

thought not.

[MrBlack]

Does seem a bit needless to call out Purslow at this moment in time. The club is in the best place it's been for decades.

He's fighting the good fight against the corruption of state ownership, and is a respected man in the industry. 

Along with the rest of our leadership, he's helping steer us to a place at the top of the table.

If we're signing Alemany, there's plenty more to keep Purslow occupied outside of the director of football role that will now fall on Alemany's shoulders. Having a dedicated person in this role (one of the most highly rated DoFs in the world), is not a slight on Purslow. It is a recognition that having someone do that role alongside all the other non football stuff is not the way a top club operates.

The contracts for our kit makers, sponsorships, game regulations, stadium expansion, public transport and local government battles, etc, etc. We don't want Alemany doing that. And Purslow being taken away from our brand of football and playing style is just a natural progression  now we're fighting for Europe.

Lange on the other hand may find his role a little too small now.  Maybe he supports Alemany finding the players that for his remit, outside of Spain, maybe he becomes the go to man for Scandinavian targets. Not sure there's much room for them both but guess we'll see. 

[allani]

14 hours ago, MrBlack said:

Does seem a bit needless to call out Purslow at this moment in time. The club is in the best place it's been for decades.

He's fighting the good fight against the corruption of state ownership, and is a respected man in the industry. 

Along with the rest of our leadership, he's helping steer us to a place at the top of the table.

If we're signing Alemany, there's plenty more to keep Purslow occupied outside of the director of football role that will now fall on Alemany's shoulders. Having a dedicated person in this role (one of the most highly rated DoFs in the world), is not a slight on Purslow. It is a recognition that having someone do that role alongside all the other non football stuff is not the way a top club operates.

The contracts for our kit makers, sponsorships, game regulations, stadium expansion, public transport and local government battles, etc, etc. We don't want Alemany doing that. And Purslow being taken away from our brand of football and playing style is just a natural progression  now we're fighting for Europe.

Lange on the other hand may find his role a little too small now.  Maybe he supports Alemany finding the players that for his remit, outside of Spain, maybe he becomes the go to man for Scandinavian targets. Not sure there's much room for them both but guess we'll see. 

My understanding is that Alemany is pretty into data analysis to try and uncover players early - I think there will be plenty of work to do on that side (which I think is probably Lange's bag) so I think that there is enough work to do for them both.  I think it is more a question of whether Alemany brings people with him - if he does then it may be more tricky for Lange unless the plan is to come up with one central network looking after all the V-Sports members in which case maybe Lange's focus will be more on getting players into the "fold" whilst Alemany is more focussed on Villa? 

I am pretty sure that in a couple of seasons we are going to have a whole production line of recruits entering the V-Sports empire at different levels, commercial deals being struck whereby we can earn more money by having a presence in multiple countries, etc. So Purslow and the rest of our senior team are going to be pretty busy.

[The Fun Factory]

Purslow must be busy as I received a letter from him for my free drinks voucher at the soon to be closed Ramsey's bar in the Holte.