Christian Purslow

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, Steero113 said:

By who? The press? You're basing your entire diatribe on press articles?

Or are you sat around the board table at VP?

 

To be fair for most of, if not all of our major appointments CP has been front and centre. The appointment of Unai appears to have been largely down to Nas and his unveiling video was just  Unai and Nas. 

N.B. having just read the article from Marca that @blandy has just posted, I’d say that pretty much removes any doubt that Nas was the driving force for this appointment. As CP was for the previous one. 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It was the press. He (Unai) was interviewed by Marca just after we beat Man U in his first game. The article says (translated)

Marca

Which is a pretty big hint that Nas was absolutely key in the appointment (as a bare minimum). Of course the admin and detail of contracts and stuff would be CP's job, as CEO.

Like I say I'm neither a fan of nor opposed to CP, but the role of CP with Gerrard and Deano's appointments and with the Emery one was clearly very different.

Fair enough - I'd seen a few where he'd mentioned that he'd met (and meets) with Sawiris and Edens but not the blank piece of paper thing. I'm always happy to see something that backs up a point of view - there's a weird Chinese whispers thing sometimes around anything to do with how the club works where over time a point of view becomes a truth. 

 

[tomav84]

58 minutes ago, blandy said:

It was the press. He (Unai) was interviewed by Marca just after we beat Man U in his first game. The article says (translated)

Marca

Which is a pretty big hint that Nas was absolutely key in the appointment (as a bare minimum). Of course the admin and detail of contracts and stuff would be CP's job, as CEO.

Like I say I'm neither a fan of nor opposed to CP, but the role of CP with Gerrard and Deano's appointments and with the Emery one was clearly very different.

pretty sure there was a photo of nas with emery wasn't there? his involvement on emery's appointment has never been doubted. but being 'key' to an appointment is vastly different from going totally above CP's head and doing his job for him, which has been implied several times on here and simply cannot be true due to CP being a shareholder.

thing is, when it comes to footballing decisions, there will always be differing levels of involvement. the initial proposal of signing a player will come from either the manager, the DoF, the board, scouts, coaches, advisors. same as managerial appointments.

there always seems to be this ongoing narrative on here that the good gets attributed to folks that we like and the shit gets stuck to those we dont. this goes back to the dean smith & suso days. "konsa, mings - good signings, they were deanos", "wesley, trez - they're crap...clearly suso signings".

people just need to accept the board will have supported the appointment of gerrard, whether it was initiated by purslow or not

purslow would've at the very least supported the sacking of gerrard, and could well have pulled the trigger himself and absolutely would've been in full support of the emery appointment

[The_Steve]

Glad to see we are at the stage of “Purslow ate my hamster” in the villainous circular arguments that repeat over and over about Christian. 

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, The_Steve said:

Glad to see we are at the stage of “Purslow ate my hamster” in the villainous circular arguments that repeat over and over about Christian. 

Also bit the head off a bat on stage at the Christmas Party I hear. It's well documented. 

[AvfcRigo82]

20 hours ago, tomav84 said:

just did a search on greedlish in the JG thread...no mention of purslow saying it (just a few villatalkers)

Maybe if you did a search on it in this thread, you might have got different results!?.. Just a thought.

 

[AvfcRigo82]

18 hours ago, tomav84 said:

pretty sure there was a photo of nas with emery wasn't there?

You're right. There was.

 

18 hours ago, tomav84 said:

his involvement on emery's appointment has never been doubted. but being 'key' to an appointment is vastly different from going totally above CP's head and doing his job for him, which has been implied several times on here and simply cannot be true due to CP being a shareholder.

You'll be suprised to learn that owners and other members of the board of directors can override the descision of a CEO in big organisations (we're one of them).

The owners are responsible for overseeing the management of the company and can make descisions that are for the best interests of that company, Nassif did just that!

 

18 hours ago, tomav84 said:

purslow would've at the very least supported the sacking of gerrard, and could well have pulled the trigger himself

He had weeks to pull the trigger and reluctantly delayed in doing so, hence why Nassif had to act when and how he did.

Hope this clears things up a bit better.

[sidcow]

17 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

 He had weeks to pull the trigger and reluctantly delayed in doing so, hence why Nassif had to act when and how he did.

Can you provide the evidence for this please? 

[tomav84]

14 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

You're right. There was.

 

You'll be suprised to learn that owners and other members of the board of directors can override the descision of a CEO in big organisations (we're one of them).

The owners are responsible for overseeing the management of the company and can make descisions that are for the best interests of that company, Nassif did just that!

 

He had weeks to pull the trigger and reluctantly delayed in doing so, hence why Nassif had to act when and how he did.

Hope this clears things up a bit better.

purslow is not just a CEO. he is part owner, so things work differently with us. nas cannot make such decisions above his head.

hope this clears things up a bit better.

[tomav84]

Just now, sidcow said:

Can you provide the evidence for this please? 

come on man keep up...it's in the same place as the evidence that purslow was solely responsible for the drinkwater signing

[sidcow]

15 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

come on man keep up...it's in the same place as the evidence that purslow was solely responsible for the drinkwater signing

It's just so **** STUPID that this is still being spouted.

Purslow went on national television and stated quite plainly that the board had jointly come to a decision to sack Gerrard reluctantly and after letting it slide for a while 

He said a joint decision 

He said it on national television. 

It's frankly insane to honestly believe that Nassef Sawiris would stand for that if it was not the true version of events 

It would be mental for Purslow to go on television and openly lie about that.

There is zero chance Sawiris and Edens would continue with him if he just made that up. 

Yet every week it's repeated. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by sidcow

[Talldarkandransome]

I heard he shot JFK from the grassy knoll with a candlestick from the dining room

[tomav84]

3 minutes ago, sidcow said:

It's just so **** STUPID that this is still being spouted.

Purslow went on national television and stated quite plainly that the board had jointly come to a decision to sack Gerrard reluctantly and after letting it slide for a while 

He said a joint decision 

He said it on national television. 

It's frankly insane to honestly belive that Nassef Sawiris would stand for that if it was not the true version of events 

It would be mental for Purslow to go on television and openly lie about that.

There is zero chance Sawiris and Edens would continue with him if he just made that up. 

Yet every week it's repeated. 

not to mention, if your boss stepped in and literally did your job for you because he felt you weren't capable, what would your reaction be? how undermining is that...there's no way purslow would've stuck around any more than you or i would in our jobs.

whilst we weren't privy to the exact conversations, there's just so much evidence to counteract these ridiculous claims and absolutely none to support them

[romavillan]

17 hours ago, sidcow said:

Also bit the head off a bat on stage at the Christmas Party I hear. It's well documented. 

This is definitely true as I saw some "Purzy eats bats" graffitti down by the canal and at duddeston station.

[romavillan]

13 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said:

I heard he shot JFK from the grassy knoll with a candlestick from the dining room

I heard he was the weather balloon at Roswell in 1947.

[romavillan]

As has been said before, there is no way on earth one of the board would do something like replace the most important member of staff at the club without all of the board agreeing on the course of action to be taken. The idea that Nas went over CP's head is absurd, CP was freinds with Gerrard sure but Nas just can't ignore his CEO, who holds a stake int he club too, and go and sack Gerrard and get Unai without consulting anyone. That's just la-la-land stuff. 

It's *probable* Nas had had enough for a while and had been on at CP about the need to give Gerrard the boot and get someone else. When Gerrard did get the boot though it would have been a board decision involving CP.

Just because CP and Gerrard were friendly from their Liverpool days doesn't undermine all of the good work CP has done. He and the board got the Smith appointment 100% right, he and the board gambled on Gerrard, which was a huge mistake. Then he and the board hired Unai Emery, which was a total masterstroke. If Nas was key, that's amazing and great news for the future, it does not mean though that CP didn't know and approve of all that went on. It would be very hard to believe that CP did not know and did not approve.

[allani]

42 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

You'll be suprised to learn that owners and other members of the board of directors can override the descision of a CEO in big organisations (we're one of them).

The owners are responsible for overseeing the management of the company and can make descisions that are for the best interests of that company, Nassif did just that!

He had weeks to pull the trigger and reluctantly delayed in doing so, hence why Nassif had to act when and how he did.

Hope this clears things up a bit better.

To be completely honest with you - having an owner that just goes off and does his own firing and hiring without consulting anyone else in the club is almost as horrific a thought as the implication that Purslow did the same thing.  If Nas did fire Gerrard and did hire Emery on his own - we are ****ed because sooner or later he will fire or hire the wrong person and no-one will want to work for him because they know that all their hard work can be undone in seconds because the owner fancies doing his own thing. 

That is the kind of thing that Ellis would do.

Thankfully it is 98% certain that Nassif didn't behave as you describe.  He may well have decided that enough was enough and said that he wanted Gerrard gone but if he did that without consulting either Purslow or Edens our future is doomed.  Similarly it is almost certain (as a major shareholder) he would have met with Emery and been tasked with explaining the project and the vision that he (and Edens and the Board) have for the club (and probably V-Sports).  As a major shareholder he almost certainly spoke to Emery about budgets, increasing revenue, etc.  But again if he hired Emery without consulting anyone else in the business then we are screwed - because eventually all these good people we seem to be hiring will get ****ed off that the owner is interferring in their business and will leave.

Very few good businesses have owners that make ALL the key decisions or decide to just act on their own without involving anyone else in their decisions.  It might work for a while but eventually they will make the wrong call or upset enough of the wrong people and the company will implode and fail - as I am sure we will soon see with Elon Musk.

For all those reasons I really, really hope that what you claim is not an accurate reflection of what happened because if it is we should start preparing for the death of V-Sports and NSWE now.  It is every bit as worrying as thinking that Purslow could hire who he wanted and sign players without consulting anyone else.

[sidcow]

I mean the future of Gerrard MUST have been discussed at length. 

They will have regular board meetings.  What is discussed at board meetings? The main topic will be the performance of the business. 

How do they measure that performance? Each department and senior employees will have targets and key performance indicators. 

Gerrard would have been falling down on all targets and not meeting any KPI's for months. 

Do people think the board just ignore that and hope things get better? Don't discuss. What needs to happen, don't run through scenarios and plan what they are going to do if things still don't improve. 

Gerrard probably knew he was sacked by the end of the game, hell the look in his eyes on the TV pictures told the story. 

I have no doubt whatsoever that the decision would have been made before the game that it was last chance saloon. 

These are highly professional business people. They don't just lose their rag and turn the agreed business plan on its head in a fit of rage. I'm sure Edens would quickly remove himself from the investment if that was the case. 

Purslow is on the board. It was a board decision. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by sidcow

[The_Steve]

[wishywashy]

1 hour ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

He had weeks to pull the trigger and reluctantly delayed in doing so, hence why Nassif had to act when and how he did.

This just isn't realistic though, is it? Gerrard was sacked on the 20th (at 11pm), Emery (and 7 additional members of staff) were announced on the 24th (a day after Emery had to coach a Villareal game). Realistically, Emery was being tapped up and the deal being arranged for weeks beforehand (because we are quite clearly a professionally run club, unlike some in the Prem), especially considering the clearly complex discussions about the long-term vision and how it would revolve around Emery's own structure.

As for why Gerrard was kept on during this process, see Wolves for what could have happened: they sacked Bruno Lage because Lopetegui was kind of close to completion, but clearly it was too early: circumstances changed, Lopetegui had to reject Wolves, and they were in a managerial limbo for more than a month with a caretaker whose managerial experience was a stint with Crewe (and so they won 1/7). They eventually got Lopetegui, but the process was clearly rocky and chaotic.

Edited May 24, 2023 by wishywashy