Christian Purslow

[sidcow]

6 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

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.

Wow. I hadn't appreciated in hindsight just how quickly Emery was appointed. 

Yes he'd clearly been in discussions for some while. No way does that get done from first contact to signing so quickly.  Would have taken days if not weeks merely to negotiate compensation with Villareal. 

Not only that but Villareal appointed their new manager THE NEXT DAY. How did they do that? This had all been lined up way before Fulham. 

[wishywashy]

17 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Wow. I hadn't appreciated in hindsight just how quickly Emery was appointed. 

Yes he'd clearly been in discussions for some while. No way does that get done from first contact to signing so quickly.  Would have taken days if not weeks merely to negotiate compensation with Villareal. 

Not only that but Villareal appointed their new manager THE NEXT DAY. How did they do that? This had all been lined up way before Fulham. 

This board (that Purslow as CEO is going to have a big role in!) have a really good record when it comes to making swift managerial changes: Smith was appointed in 8 days, Gerrard appointed in 4 days, and Emery in 3 days (4 if you include the 10pm sacking). It's clear that the reason why Villa seemingly tend to keep managers around for a few games after they're clearly toast is to ensure that the new manager is 100% done and that there's no long period of uncertainty with caretaker managers.

Compare this process to some Premier League clubs this season alone: looking at Chelsea, Spurs, Leicester and Wolves just off the top of my head. All of these clubs have quite evidently suffered because the way they approached their managerial changes wasn't right.

Edited May 24, 2023 by wishywashy

[Sulberto21]

I don’t like Purslow’s hair. 

[Indigo]

12 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

I don’t like Purslow’s hair. 

Yet more conjecture with no evidence to back it up.

[markc]

Nassif had to sack Gerrard because at the time Christian Purslow was driving to Spain in is Lambo to pick up Emery. Fact!  

 

 

Well at least that's what i've  heard. 

[cheltenham_villa]

1 hour ago, Sulberto21 said:

I don’t like Purslow’s hair. 

its not his hair mate. Wes Edens gave it to him.

[KMitch]

3 hours ago, allani said:

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.

Even Elon doesn't even operate this way (I worked for Tesla for ~7 years).  He may give that impression to the public with his whole "sleeping in the factory" nonsense, but how is he shitposting on Twitter all day, playing video games, and hooking up with models if he's truly working as much as he makes himself out to be?  The truth is that he has an inner circle of executives/project managers/engineers he trusts completely to carry out and execute his vision at this point in his life.  He only really gets involved and takes over things in a crisis.  He's kind of like the Eye of Sauron and only ever really focuses in on the one most critical thing to his business at that point in time.  If you're the one in his gaze, God help you, because you're most likely already getting served your severance with someone like the Wolf from Pulp Fiction on his way to clean up your mess.  

Taking this back to Villa, I'm 100% in agreeance with you.  Our board is made up of 3 people -> Sawiris, Edens, AND Purslow.  As co-chairman, Sawiris most likely can't unilaterally step in and sack the manager who reports to the CEO like that, nor would he unilaterally go out and appoint Emery himself.  It's not how it works in the real world in a $750m company like Aston Villa.  I'm positive both decisions were talked about at length among the three of them for months before they were carried out.  It doesn't fit the narrative some want to believe, but it's the most logical likely scenario.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

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. 

Imagine this scenario, and then tell me it's "mental

Nas (at Fulham): " This is dreadful, Gerrard's got to go -  I'll call Wes and see if he thinks the same"

Calls Wes: "Wes, this is dreadful, he's got to go hasn't he?"

Wes: "Yes mate"

Nas: "Christian, I'm fuming with this, Wes the same. He's got to go"

CP thinks to himself, the owners want him gone, I can see why: "Yes, you're both right, you own the club, He's my Hero, but I'm not going to argue against it, it's not going well"

CP to the telly: "The board has jointly /unanimously decided to hoof him" [or whatever the words were].

It may or may not have gone like that, but it's a reasonable a line of thinking as any other. It's not "mental".

 

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Imagine this scenario, and then tell me it's "mental

Nas (at Fulham): " This is dreadful, Gerrard's got to go -  I'll call Wes and see if he thinks the same"

Calls Wes: "Wes, this is dreadful, he's got to go hasn't he?"

Wes: "Yes mate"

Nas: "Christian, I'm fuming with this, Wes the same. He's got to go"

CP thinks to himself, the owners want him gone, I can see why: "Yes, you're both right, you own the club, He's my Hero, but I'm not going to argue against it, it's not going well"

CP to the telly: "The board has jointly /unanimously decided to hoof him" [or whatever the words were].

It may or may not have gone like that, but it's a reasonable a line of thinking as any other. It's not "mental".

 

But it doesn't fit in with:

a) The board having inevitably talked about the managers performance and probable need to sack him.  There is just no way those discussions wouldn't have happened. No way

b) The fact that Emery was appointed in 4 days

c) The fact that Villareal had their new manager in 1 day

 

Your scenario could possibly have brought a decision forward but not ultimately have been the whole and entire conversation.  I'm sure professional business people would agree to speak again in the morning once the dust had settled and they'd had time to reflect.  Maybe insane is OTT but very very unlikely.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

  I'm sure professional business people would agree to speak again in the morning once the dust had settled and they'd had time to reflect.

He was sacked at 10 pm straight after the game, before the team coach had even left the ground. It wasn't "speak again in the morning once the dust has settled"

On your other points, we have to remember, I think, that the two owners and particularly Nas are the decision makers on all the serious stuff. Not just the manager, but make the ground bigger, extend the training ground, do the new training thing next to Witton station... they decide, CP as the CEO is then tasked with executing the plan and managing the detail and staff and so on to make it happen.

If Nas and Wes want something done, they get CP to do it. That's his job. CP is not "an equal". He's their employee, albeit one with skills and knowledge and ability and contacts and...etc. and is one of the 3 board members, but don't kid yourself (not that you are) that he's got an equal say to the 2 owners.

That Nas was fuming at Fulham is fact. That the manager was immediately sacked is fact. No doubt they (as a good board and CEO would do) always have a fallback list of "who do we get if this [role] leaves or is fired" that will apply to scouts, coaches, managers, physios and execs and so on. Same as with potential player signings.

I believe that Nas was both the driver for firing SG and for recruiting UE. CP did the admin and PR side of it..

[sidcow]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

He was sacked at 10 pm straight after the game, before the team coach had even left the ground. It wasn't "speak again in the morning once the dust has settled"

On your other points, we have to remember, I think, that the two owners and particularly Nas are the decision makers on all the serious stuff. Not just the manager, but make the ground bigger, extend the training ground, do the new training thing next to Witton station... they decide, CP as the CEO is then tasked with executing the plan and managing the detail and staff and so on to make it happen.

If Nas and Wes want something done, they get CP to do it. That's his job. CP is not "an equal". He's their employee, albeit one with skills and knowledge and ability and contacts and...etc. and is one of the 3 board members, but don't kid yourself (not that you are) that he's got an equal say to the 2 owners.

That Nas was fuming at Fulham is fact. That the manager was immediately sacked is fact. No doubt they (as a good board and CEO would do) always have a fallback list of "who do we get if this [role] leaves or is fired" that will apply to scouts, coaches, managers, physios and execs and so on. Same as with potential player signings.

I believe that Nas was both the driver for firing SG and for recruiting UE. CP did the admin and PR side of it..

That was my point? I'm sure the decision to sack him had already been made. Nas might have decided to tell him there in anger and then but I don't think they made the decision at the final whistle. 

[tomav84]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

He was sacked at 10 pm straight after the game, before the team coach had even left the ground. It wasn't "speak again in the morning once the dust has settled"

On your other points, we have to remember, I think, that the two owners and particularly Nas are the decision makers on all the serious stuff. Not just the manager, but make the ground bigger, extend the training ground, do the new training thing next to Witton station... they decide, CP as the CEO is then tasked with executing the plan and managing the detail and staff and so on to make it happen.

If Nas and Wes want something done, they get CP to do it. That's his job. CP is not "an equal". He's their employee, albeit one with skills and knowledge and ability and contacts and...etc. and is one of the 3 board members, but don't kid yourself (not that you are) that he's got an equal say to the 2 owners.

That Nas was fuming at Fulham is fact. That the manager was immediately sacked is fact. No doubt they (as a good board and CEO would do) always have a fallback list of "who do we get if this [role] leaves or is fired" that will apply to scouts, coaches, managers, physios and execs and so on. Same as with potential player signings.

I believe that Nas was both the driver for firing SG and for recruiting UE. CP did the admin and PR side of it..

i doubt you meant this how it sounds, but this idea that purslow is some glorified secretary/PR guy just supports the narrative that nas went over his head to both sack SG and appoint UE, which is the main thing some of us are strongly disagreeing with. as was mentioned above, if we have owners that take such important matters into their own hands without support of the CEO and other key personnel within the club then we are in trouble. if (hypothetically) the move from SG to UE was 100% driven by nas and/or wes, then cracking, well done them, they got that one right. but it's only a matter of time before they get a decision wrong because they're not football people. they've not worked in the game for long and don't know the ins and outs well enough to make footballing decisions. fortunately i don't think that this is happening. if people believe this to be the case, then i'm surprised they're not a somewhat concerned. as someone posted above, it's ellis-esque

almost certainly SG knew he would be gone if he lost to fulham. it would've been agreed with the board before the squad even travelled down most likely hence the swiftness of the decision.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That was my point? I'm sure the decision to sack him had already been made.

OK. I thought you were suggesting they would wait until the next morning. I misunderstood what you were suggesting.

I don't think it had already been made. I think he was on thin ice and replacement plans were formed, but the decision was made during the game, basically, confirming all the cons and none of the pros.

10 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

i doubt you meant this how it sounds, but this idea that purslow is some glorified secretary/PR guy just supports the narrative that nas went over his head

Nas is  permanently "over his head" he's his boss, basically. You can't (in my understanding of the phrase) go over the head of someone who is lower in the hierarchy. But anyway, CP is employed in the role of CEO, whose job it is to execute the wishes of the owners. He is a board member, but the junior one. He's not, and nor have I said "a lackey". He does do (some) media PR and he does almost certainly handle paperwork and administration - not counting paperclips and typing up the gaffer's dictation, but the FFP paperwork, contract paperwork, Premier League compliance paperwork or whatever.

[tomav84]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Nas is  permanently "over his head" he's his boss, basically. You can't (in my understanding of the phrase) go over the head of someone who is lower in the hierarchy. But anyway, CP is employed in the role of CEO, whose job it is to execute the wishes of the owners. He is a board member, but the junior one. He's not, and nor have I said "a lackey". He does do (some) media PR and he does almost certainly handle paperwork and administration - not counting paperclips and typing up the gaffer's dictation, but the FFP paperwork, contract paperwork, Premier League compliance paperwork or whatever.

so this is where we disagree. i think the owners entrust purslow and his team to take care of the footballing decisions. he's been in the game a long time and has probably forgotten more about football than nas and wes know. so i don't think they have 'wishes' per se that purslow then goes off to do...they will have metrics/KPIs that are agreed and it's down to purslow to ensure those are met. where the club is failing to meet these objectives, the board (including purslow) will collectively decide on how to turn things around which may or may not include a managerial change.

when i say 'over his head' i dont mean in the literal org chart sense, i meant in the sense that they did his job for him by sacking SG, which a number of people have suggested

[Adam2003]

6 hours ago, tomav84 said:

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

Not even just feelings/reactions. If the Board sacked someone so key to the business over the CEOs head, they’d be planning the extra millions for constructive dismissal of that CEO. 

Honestly though there is no way of explaining this that cuts through. 

[Sam-AVFC]

49 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

so this is where we disagree. i think the owners entrust purslow and his team to take care of the footballing decisions. he's been in the game a long time and has probably forgotten more about football than nas and wes know. so i don't think they have 'wishes' per se that purslow then goes off to do...they will have metrics/KPIs that are agreed and it's down to purslow to ensure those are met. where the club is failing to meet these objectives, the board (including purslow) will collectively decide on how to turn things around which may or may not include a managerial change.

when i say 'over his head' i dont mean in the literal org chart sense, i meant in the sense that they did his job for him by sacking SG, which a number of people have suggested

He really hasn't been in the game that long. About a year as CEO at Liverpool, less than a year staying on as an advisor then a few years at Chelsea as head of commercial before joining us.

As far as the 'football people', I can point you to a fair number of vastly experienced football administrators who have ruined one or more clubs through their terrible decision making. 

[Eastie]

On 24/05/2023 at 12:48, tomav84 said:

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.

Purslow very minor stake in villa and believe me both nas and Wes can make any decisions they want whether purslow likes it or not 

[KMitch]

1 hour ago, Eastie said:

Purslow very minor stake in villa and believe me both nas and Wes can make any decisions they want whether purslow likes it or not 

They can, but they have to include him in the conversation when they make the decision...  He's a member of the board of directors AND the CEO, so he has to:

1. Be included in the decision making conversation (because he's on the board as an owner, however small his stake is) per the bylaws of the company
2. Carry out/execute the vision of the board of directors as the CEO

It's very clear that many on here who are spinning the narrative of "Nas is Purslow's boss!  He can do whatever he wants and make Purslow do whatever he tells him to!" have no idea how large companies operate.  Purslow runs the club for NSWE.  Everything at he club is under his purview (or was until Chris Heck was added to the team recently). 

The truth is none of us know what happened behind closed doors in the sacking of Gerrard/hiring of Emery, so everyone is speculating what happened.  The thing is a lot of the speculation on here being paraded around as fact is actually very unlikely to have happened because of basic company operations knowledge.

 

[DaveAV1]

34 minutes ago, KMitch said:

They can, but they have to include him in the conversation when they make the decision...  He's a member of the board of directors AND the CEO, so he has to:

1. Be included in the decision making conversation (because he's on the board as an owner, however small his stake is) per the bylaws of the company
2. Carry out/execute the vision of the board of directors as the CEO

It's very clear that many on here who are spinning the narrative of "Nas is Purslow's boss!  He can do whatever he wants and make Purslow do whatever he tells him to!" have no idea how large companies operate.  Purslow runs the club for NSWE.  Everything at he club is under his purview (or was until Chris Heck was added to the team recently). 

The truth is none of us know what happened behind closed doors in the sacking of Gerrard/hiring of Emery, so everyone is speculating what happened.  The thing is a lot of the speculation on here being paraded around as fact is actually very unlikely to have happened because of basic company operations knowledge.

 

Billionaires don’t invest hundreds of millions into a relatively small company and then ask permission from anyone about what they can or can’t do.

Football although very high profile is still a relatively small business. FTSE 100 companies have market capital in the tens of billions and some over a hundred billion. They have to answer to millions of shareholders and so individuals don’t have such a huge say in things. For example Nas is the biggest shareholder in Adidas but he only owns 6%.  
 

NAS and Wes own near 100% of AVFC the minor stake that CP holds may be an incentive arrangement but certainly doesn’t give him any control, outside the remit he has as the CEO of Aston Villa, which NSWE have a controlling interest in. Having a few shares in any company doesn’t give you any executive power. I have a few shares in Aviva and I’m yet to me invited to the boardroom.

I wrote them a letter once to ask if I could come to a board meeting. They wrote back to say, no you can’t and they even spelt can’t wrong. 

[allani]

4 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Billionaires don’t invest hundreds of millions into a relatively small company and then ask permission from anyone about what they can or can’t do.

Football although very high profile is still a relatively small business. FTSE 100 companies have market capital in the tens of billions and some over a hundred billion. They have to answer to millions of shareholders and so individuals don’t have such a huge say in things. For example Nas is the biggest shareholder in Adidas but he only owns 6%.  
 

NAS and Wes own near 100% of AVFC the minor stake that CP holds may be an incentive arrangement but certainly doesn’t give him any control, outside the remit he has as the CEO of Aston Villa, which NSWE have a controlling interest in. Having a few shares in any company doesn’t give you any executive power. I have a few shares in Aviva and I’m yet to me invited to the boardroom.

I wrote them a letter once to ask if I could come to a board meeting. They wrote back to say, no you can’t and they even spelt can’t wrong. 

The trouble with that argument is that if, as an owner, the way you behave is to just ignore the people you employ to do a job and do your own thing without including them - very soon all the good people that work for you leave, you gain a reputation for being difficult and no-one else will come near you.  Why do you think Spurs are having so much trouble hiring a manager?  I mean how bad must things be for a manager to turn down working for a Sly 6 team to stay in the Netherlands?  Levy has p1ssed off so many managers now that he's really going to struggle to convince anyone to join - they will almost certainly have to hire someone out of a job who is desperate to get back to work.  We really don't want to be associated with the next Levy.

Nas sacking and appointing managers on his own because he can is even more scary than the idea that Purslow was able to sign a manager on his own.