AVTuco Posted November 6, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted November 6, 2021 1 minute ago, tom_avfc said: Why? It got us £100m for a player that we’d otherwise have been lucky to get half of that for. He wasn’t signing a long term contract without that clause. I think it was pretty clear we didn't want to lose Jack. Edens is an American, and an NBA team owner. He probably saw Jack as something like Giannis. In the NBA you need a superstar to succeed. Jack was it and we wanted to build around him and market him. Now we have no-one to build around. I think whoever sanctioned the move to include the clause is in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 7 minutes ago, AVTuco said: I think it was pretty clear we didn't want to lose Jack. Edens is an American, and an NBA team owner. He probably saw Jack as something like Giannis. In the NBA you need a superstar to succeed. Jack was it and we wanted to build around him and market him. Now we have no-one to build around. I think whoever sanctioned the move to include the clause is in trouble. He was going anyway. He’d either have ran his contract down and moved on the cheap or we got £100m for him. If we can’t reinvest that £100m effectively then that’s where the issue lies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 (edited) He is being way too hands on for what I expect from a CEO. Needs to stick with the business side of things and stay out of the football side of things. Edited November 6, 2021 by villalad21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 6, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2021 3 minutes ago, villalad21 said: He is being way too hands on for what I expect from a CEO. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: How so? His direct involvement with the Ings signing as been highlighting above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 4 minutes ago, villalad21 said: His direct involvement with the Ings signing as been highlighting above. Surely Purslow, Lange, Smith & McKennie all have a say in the signings we make and be involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 3 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said: Surely Purslow, Lange, Smith & McKennie all have a say in the signings we make and be involved? No the CEO should not be involved with the footballing side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted November 6, 2021 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2021 35 minutes ago, villalad21 said: His direct involvement with the Ings signing as been highlighting above. Oh, so based on which rumours you choose to believe. The CEO will always have an involvement in transfers, he's the one who signs off the cheques. There's nothing at all that suggests that Purslow is picking signings. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, villalad21 said: His alleged involvement with the Ings signing that Dave’s dog walkers second cousin told Andy M’s mate who heard it whilst ordering tripe in the village butchers where Purslow lives. FTFY. Edited November 6, 2021 by jim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted November 6, 2021 Share Posted November 6, 2021 Well Norwich are about to appoint a new manager. If it's between Michael Bailey and Purslow to find the best new manager, I know who I'd back. Norwich slightly different setup from us whereby Bailey is almost like Purslow and Lange rolled into one. He's director of football with a lot more control of finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted November 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2021 So Smith went because we didn't "continually improve " I hate this kind of bollox . Purslow let Jack stick his release clause in and he should take some of the blame for our lack of improvement. Purslow was also instrumental in buying 3 players to replace 1 which I never quite grapsed how that worked tbh. Purslow will be responsible for our new manager and with this in mind and his Liverpool connections I can't see past Gerrard, I hope it works out but feel we will need alot of luck. Purslow doesn't impress me , he talks the talk but I don't think he's going to bring us success 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, tinker said: Purslow was also instrumental in buying 3 players to replace 1 which I never quite grapsed how that worked tbh. I assumed it was why we went for that camo khaki colour for our bench gear, so we could sneak two extra players onto the pitch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerner's Driver Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 (edited) 50 minutes ago, tinker said: Purslow let Jack stick his release clause in How was he supposed to stop him? Edited November 7, 2021 by Lerner's Driver 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted November 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2021 15 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said: How was he supposed to stop him? It was a contract extension and Jack would have still had 2 years left on his existing contract now , it was a bad move. Quite how bad remains to be seen but if we do get relegated the £100m will seem like penny's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 Difficult decision but I respect Purslow for the call. I still love Dean Smith and always will, but the CEO wouldn't be doing his job if he let it go on any longer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 On 06/11/2021 at 15:21, villalad21 said: No the CEO should not be involved with the footballing side of things. Sorry but with the Ings transfer , reported wages, and signing on fee - probably close to a £50m outlay I think the CEO of most clubs would be involved. The problem is if he bulldozed the signing through against or without fully consulting DS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 1 hour ago, tinker said: So Smith went because we didn't "continually improve " I hate this kind of bollox . Purslow let Jack stick his release clause in and he should take some of the blame for our lack of improvement. Purslow was also instrumental in buying 3 players to replace 1 which I never quite grapsed how that worked tbh. Purslow will be responsible for our new manager and with this in mind and his Liverpool connections I can't see past Gerrard, I hope it works out but feel we will need alot of luck. Purslow doesn't impress me , he talks the talk but I don't think he's going to bring us success You are drifting a long way from the epicentre of the failure if you are blaming Purslow for the performances on the pitch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, ciggiesnbeer said: Difficult decision but I respect Purslow for the call. I still love Dean Smith and always will, but the CEO wouldn't be doing his job if he let it go on any longer. Yes - we only have half the story at the moment. If we rock up with Remi Garde 2 then the "change" will have been a poor one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 On 06/11/2021 at 15:48, OutByEaster? said: Oh, so based on which rumours you choose to believe. The CEO will always have an involvement in transfers, he's the one who signs off the cheques. There's nothing at all that suggests that Purslow is picking signings. Purslow has previous, though - the Joe Cole signing at Liverpool was definitely his idea. Hard to know exactly what’s happened, but given his Chelsea connections, and multiple sources saying it, it does seem likely he was involved in bringing Drinkwater and Barkley in. Whether that was “interference” or just him throwing his own contacts into the transfer mix, depends on your perspective. He’s clearly done loads of good things for this club, and allowed Smith plenty of influence over transfers (Konsa, Watkins, Jota, presumably Targett and Cash too) so it’s hardly a horror story. But doubts set in for me when he started pushing this nonsense idea that we were replacing Grealish with Buendia, Ings and Bailey. The way he explained it was just so “unfootball” like it was a line you’d only expect American owners to swallow. I hope there’s a bigger plan here, with a transfer kitty for the incoming coach, and a real commitment to driving things forward with the investment needed 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 Apparently he was spotted in London with Lampard last week. Make of that what you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts