Jump to content

Christian Purslow


villan-scott

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Purslow has done a great job at Villa since he came in, and is far superior to many who have performed similar roles at the club.

But he comes across as a bit of a prat in that interview... a sort of Jeremy Kyle / Robert Kilroy / Richard Madeley hybrid. It's hard to see what he's achieved by getting into an argument with Simon Jordan on TalkShite.

but he didn't, in the main Simon Jordan was nodding profusely, the whole time CP was talking, it was only the odd point they disagreed on.

I thought he carried himself very well.

There will always be questions about the media in general, but it what it is.....Opinions on it, will always exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that tickles me is.....fans want multi-million pound footballers to join us and then some want to moan about the morality surrounding Money.

Money, will always be the root of all evil. It's just a universally held view and us mere mortals have diddly squat chance of changing it...so,why be so preoccupied by it?

I just want a good winning football team, and I think the majority of fans do to.

I say let the folk who are employed to deal with the world of high finance, do their thing.....and leave us to enjoy the game.

For years we have watched the Chelsea's and Man city's out trump us, and probably still will, but if we can close the gap a bit and develop a competitive team, who can give them a game.....bring it on.

Edited by TRO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in a better world, we'd realise that Burton Albion are Tesco too, that Gillingham are Tesco too, and that the company we are all in is football.

That's not the world we live in, it's a selfish, dog eat dog, nasty world where if Burton and Gillingham going out of business helps Aston Villa's bottom line, then Aston Villa is in favour - and indeed Aston Villa has to be in favour, from an FFP standpoint, from a company regulation standpoint, and from the standpoint of remaining competitive. Liverpool would kill Burton or Gillingham if it was good for Liverpool, Chelsea would kill Burton of Gillingham if it was good for Chelsea.

it's a horrible cutthroat business, and to succeed in it, you need men of a certain type; those that can plan ahead, those that have a strategy, those with clear calculating minds and those that can make cold unpleasant decisions without losing a wink of sleep - the success of clubs is dependent on those men and our man is strong. 

Kindness, care and fairness are the luxury of fans.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TRO said:

The things that tickles me is.....fans want multi-million pound footballers to join us and then some want to moan about the morality surrounding Money.

Money, will always be the root of all evil. It's just a universally held view and us mere mortals have diddly squat chance of changing it...so,why be so preoccupied by it.

I just want a good winning football team, and I think the majority of fans do to.

I say let the folk who are employed to deal with the world of high finance, do their thing.....and leave us to enjoy the game.

For years we have watched the Chelsea's and Man city's out trump us, and probably still will, but if we can close the gap a bit and develop a competitive team, who can give them a game.....bring it on.

Whilst I agree with you for the most part, I would ask your opinion on the Super League that was recently rejected, and how that squares with the above post (ie. we as fans shouldn't get involved with money).

The Super League came about because of the folk employed to deal with high finance. From a finance perspective it made sense. 

But it would have killed the heart of football.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing comes down to squaring what we as fans want to be a meritocracy, and what those that run the finances of clubs want it to be, which is a closed shop. To a finance guy at a top team the idea that relegation might interrupt revenue streams is a horrifying thought, and using their power to enact rules that prevent this is justifiable. To fans this is unthinkable, because this is sport, and sport has to be fair to have worth. 

What do we want football to be? If the answer, as fans, is a meritocracy, then we absolutely have to protect the pyramid. The PL could not have become the best league in the world without it.   

Edited by HKP90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

The whole thing comes down to squaring what we as fans want to be a meritocracy, and what those that run the finances of clubs want it to be, which is a closed shop. To a finance guy at a top team the idea that relegation might interrupt revenue streams is a horrifying thought, and using their power to enact rules that prevent this. To fans this is unthinkable, because this is sport, and sport has to be fair to have worth. 

What do we want football to be? If the answer, as fans, is a meritocracy, then we absolutely have to protect the pyramid. The PL could not have become the best league in the world without it.   

But the Championship and the lower leagues couldn't have become the best supported lower tier leagues in the world without the PL as well. Both benefit from each other. 

I agree with your sentiment, but please answer the below:

1. How should the PL help lower leagues?
2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?
4. And would you do it at the expense of Aston Villa? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mic09 said:

But the Championship and the lower leagues couldn't have become the best supported lower tier leagues in the world without the PL as well. Both benefit from each other. 

I agree with your sentiment, but please answer the below:

1. How should the PL help lower leagues?
2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?
4. And would you do it at the expense of Aston Villa? 

Well I think some distribution of wealth is reasonable, but mostly it is providing management support, perhaps by ensuring that the right folks (ie those that can manage responsibly) are involved. To me that is a beefed up 'fit and proper persons' system. 

And to me, despite supporting Villa for nearly 30 years, it's about more than Aston Villa football club. 

Those that stood on the sidelines (including myself) decrying the creation of the super league, can't then also complain about the PL being exempt from any responsibilities to the EFL, because that would suggest that the only reason we called out the super league was because we were not invited to be in it. It would be massive hypocrisy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Well I think some distribution of wealth is reasonable, but mostly it is providing management support, perhaps by ensuring that the right folks (ie those that can manage responsibly) are involved. To me that is a beefed up 'fit and proper persons' system. 

And to me, despite supporting Villa for nearly 30 years, it's about more than Aston Villa football club. 

Those that stood on the sidelines (including myself) decrying the creation of the super league, can't then also complain about the PL being exempt from any responsibilities to the EFL, because that would suggest that the only reason we called out the super league was because we were not invited to be in it. It would be massive hypocrisy. 

The PL can't even get their own owners properly tested so that might not work.

The only way the PL can help is by the use of $$$. If it's building grassroot facilities, supporting lower league players, whatever it is, the PL has to throw $$$ at it. There is now other way.

And once it does, you will need to answer questions 2 & 3:

2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?

And no one has the right answer to that question.

And should the PL start taking too much money from Crystal Palace, Villa or Liverpool in order to help lower leagues, I can assure you, the clubs will simply build a new model along the lines of the ESL. 

Again, I agree with your sentiment, but it's too complex of an issue, especially as the PL is already doing a lot for English football. Is it enough? I don't know. But taking more will not go down well with the Purslow's of this world. 

Edited by Mic09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think in a better world, we'd realise that Burton Albion are Tesco too, that Gillingham are Tesco too, and that the company we are all in is football.

That's not the world we live in, it's a selfish, dog eat dog, nasty world where if Burton and Gillingham going out of business helps Aston Villa's bottom line, then Aston Villa is in favour - and indeed Aston Villa has to be in favour, from an FFP standpoint, from a company regulation standpoint, and from the standpoint of remaining competitive. Liverpool would kill Burton or Gillingham if it was good for Liverpool, Chelsea would kill Burton of Gillingham if it was good for Chelsea.

it's a horrible cutthroat business, and to succeed in it, you need men of a certain type; those that can plan ahead, those that have a strategy, those with clear calculating minds and those that can make cold unpleasant decisions without losing a wink of sleep - the success of clubs is dependent on those men and our man is strong. 

Kindness, care and fairness are the luxury of fans.

 

 

 

I don't believe the demise of other clubs like Bury for example, is ignored by big clubs like ours.

I do no believe that Christian Purslow and his peers are so insular as to ignore the challenges of the lesser clubs...We have had our own moments in 1968 and 2018 when we nearly went bust.

What I do believe as you say, is Aston Villa is his priority, CP is not a Social worker,but he does live in a world where synergy is an important component, so the football Pyramid is important to him, but any benevolence has the be measured, with reality.

The Animal world is dog eat dog too, so self survival is still a prime concern for everyone.....Sure we are the superior race, and social elements of our existence, is paramount.....I think essentially that is easily identifiable in our structure.

However, we are a competing species too, and that has to be factored in, with all the other bits and pieces of our social Make up.

I agree with you, that we do need men capable of looking after us, its too easy to just see strength of character as a bogey man.....There are plenty of men in History, that without their leadership and ability to get the job done, under extreme circumstances, many of our ancestors would have perished.

I am happy with Christian Purslow, and our owners,they are the bulwark of our existence,  but I am not expecting them to be right on every issue they face....but coming close, is good for me.

Edited by TRO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The PL can't even get their own owners properly tested so that might not work.

The only way the PL can help is by the use of $$$. If it's building grassroot facilities, supporting lower league players, whatever it is, the PL has to throw $$$ at it. There is now other way.

And once it does, you will need to answer questions 2 & 3:

2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?

And no one has the right answer to that question.

And should the PL start taking too much money from Crystal Palace, Villa or Liverpool in order to help lower leagues, I can assure you, the clubs will simply build a new model along the lines of the ESL. 

Again, I agree with your sentiment, but it's too complex of an issue, especially as the PL is already doing a lot for English football. Is it enough? I don't know. But taking more will not go down well with the Purslow's of this world. 

Its for another thread but I think both sides of the story can be looked at, teams like Bury the Premier League money could have kept them alive. I dont think the Premier League should be keeping everybody afloat or funding teams reckless spending but in certain instances

We are apparently one of the better clubs when dealing with lower league teams and Purslow deserves credit for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KentVillan said:

<snip>

But he comes across as a bit of a prat in that interview... a sort of Jeremy Kyle / Robert Kilroy / Richard Madeley hybrid. It's hard to see what he's achieved by getting into an argument with Simon Jordan on TalkShite.

No such thing as bad publicity brother. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The PL can't even get their own owners properly tested so that might not work.

The only way the PL can help is by the use of $$$. If it's building grassroot facilities, supporting lower league players, whatever it is, the PL has to throw $$$ at it. There is now other way.

And once it does, you will need to answer questions 2 & 3:

2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?

And no one has the right answer to that question.

And should the PL start taking too much money from Crystal Palace, Villa or Liverpool in order to help lower leagues, I can assure you, the clubs will simply build a new model along the lines of the ESL. 

Again, I agree with your sentiment, but it's too complex of an issue, especially as the PL is already doing a lot for English football. Is it enough? I don't know. But taking more will not go down well with the Purslow's of this world. 

Well yeah, but again the amount of money involved is related to the mismanagement of lower league clubs. If you get the right folks in, who can manage responsibly, then you will not have to fork out loads to prop up mismanaged clubs. 

I can't tell you exactly how much money would be involved, because I honestly don't know, but what I would say is that if the disparity between the PL and lower league teams is massively high, then the risks and stakes involved with a lower league team trying to compete with them is also going to be high, as is the risk of financial collapse, and having to bail them out. 

TRO was right in that it has to be looked at holistically, because we are all part of the structure. We can't ignore the foundations. 

And for what it's worth I think the Super League in one form or another is inevitable, sadly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Well yeah, but again the amount of money involved is related to the mismanagement of lower league clubs. If you get the right folks in, who can manage responsibly, then you will not have to fork out loads to prop up mismanaged clubs. 

I can't tell you exactly how much money would be involved, because I honestly don't know, but what I would say is that if the disparity between the PL and lower league teams is massively high, then the risks and stakes involved with a lower league team trying to compete with them is also going to be high, as is the risk of financial collapse, and having to bail them out. 

TRO was right in that it has to be looked at holistically, because we are all part of the structure. We can't ignore the foundations. 

And for what it's worth I think the Super League in one form or another is inevitable, sadly.

 

 

I hope you are very wrong with your conclusions :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

But the Championship and the lower leagues couldn't have become the best supported lower tier leagues in the world without the PL as well. Both benefit from each other. 

I agree with your sentiment, but please answer the below:

1. How should the PL help lower leagues?
2. If it's money, then how much?
3. If it's an 'x' amount, why that much?
4. And would you do it at the expense of Aston Villa? 

And also, if the Premier League were to filter more money down through the leagues, what are we doing to discourage them from simply spending the equivalent amount on more Ross McCormacks? 

Simply asking for more money isn’t going to wash. Football needs a complete rethink of how it and vast sums of money can coexist. Revolution, not evolution. Which is where an independent body would come in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

And also, if the Premier League were to filter more money down through the leagues, what are we doing to discourage them from simply spending the equivalent amount on more Ross McCormacks? 

Simply asking for more money isn’t going to wash. Football needs a complete rethink of how it and vast sums of money can coexist. Revolution, not evolution. Which is where an independent body would come in. 

100% agree

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, it probably doesn't help that the Premier League and the EFL are different entities. 

As DDID suggests, an independent body may be at least part of the solution (if there is one). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

Whilst I agree with you for the most part, I would ask your opinion on the Super League that was recently rejected, and how that squares with the above post (ie. we as fans shouldn't get involved with money).

The Super League came about because of the folk employed to deal with high finance. From a finance perspective it made sense. 

But it would have killed the heart of football.  

I think no matter how much a proposal is presented to any group of similar thinking people with similar motives, there will always be some that benefit more and some benefit less.

Some clubs in Europe, Barcelona is one, had more benefit to be gained, because their finances were under more pressure than most, that in the main was manifested by poor financial management....so they was all for the Super League, clubs with the most to gain, will always propose deals like this....its self survival, kicking in.

The Premier League is the most financially successful league in Europe, so for our clubs,it was more of a risk, in terms of disruption and alienation.....When the reaction from the fans was declared, and the notion that the "Golden Goose" could be killed, the attraction dissolved...and second thoughts took over.

The morality and spirit of our great game is paramount, no denying that from me....but to dismiss the reality of the financial aspects at the same time is folly.

We have, 42, 000 fans every week turning up to watch us play, with 18,000 on the waiting list and the enjoyment that brings is hard to evaluate, but the reality is, due to financial mismanagement, we went kicking and fighting to save our club from Administration....those are the cold hard facts, that's the nasty side of the reality of the game.....the prospect of 100+ years of our history down the drain....and none of the thousands of fans, with their hearts beating with good intention, could save us.

However, 2 strangers, who happened to be powerful businessmen, saw fit, to save us......That for me is a very emotional call, because they seen investment in us, sure, but it was still a risk for 2 guys with no emotional attachment, to us...they could have put their cash in to someone else....that means a lot to me.

They saved us, and I will never forget that, until I meet my maker.....I am under no illusions, they didn't do it randomly, they had a motive, but at the time we needed them more than they needed us, that will never be lost on me.

And if ever I got to meet them, Billionaires or not....I would tell them how grateful, I was and still am, for them saving my beloved club.

 

Edited by TRO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TRO said:

I think no matter how much a proposal is presented to any group of similar thinking people with similar motives, there will always be some that benefit more and some benefit less.

Some clubs in Europe, Barcelona is one, had more benefit to be gained, because their finances were under more pressure than most, that in the main was manifested by poor financial management....so they was all for the Super League, clubs with the most to gain, will always propose deals like this....its self survival, kicking in.

The Premier League is the most financially successful league in Europe, so for our clubs,it was more of a risk, in terms of disruption.....When the reaction from the fans was declared, and the notion that the "Golden Goose" could be killed, the attraction dissolved.

The morality and spirit of our great game is paramount, no denying that from me....but to dismiss the reality of the financial aspects at the same time is folly.

We have, 42, 000 fans every week turning to watch us play, with 18,000 on the waiting list and the enjoyment that brings is hard to evaluate, but the reality is due to financial mismanagement, we went kicking and fighting to save our club from Administration....those are the cold hard facts, that's the nasty side of the reality of the game.....100+ years of our history down the drain....and none of the thousands of fans, with their hearts beating with good intention could save us.

However, 2 strangers, who happened to be powerful businessmen, saw fit, to save us......That for me is a very emotional call, because they seen investment in us sure, but it was still a risk for 2 guys with no emotional attachment, to us...they could have put their cash in to someone else....that means a lot to me.

They saved us, and I will never forget that, until I meet my maker.....I am under no illusions, they didn't do it randomly, they had a motive, but at the time we needed them more than they needed us, that will never be lost on me.

And if ever I got to meet them, Billionaires or not....I would tell them how grateful, I was and still am.

 

Fair points, but I would add again that a 'fit and proper persons' test might have saved us from Xia, and from the financial mess of the time.

Had we been liquidated, should the football hierarchy have saved us?  Would they have? Tough questions, but ultimately it should never ever have got that far. Xia saw the massive increase in equity he could get from taking us up, and took the risk. He was leveraged up to the eyeballs. Again should there have been mechanisms in place to prevent that gamble with our history as you put it? In my mind definitely. That is what I mean by protection of the pyramid, not necessarily throwing money at it. You wouldn't need to throw loads of money at it if it's done right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Fair points, but I would add again that a 'fit and proper persons' test might have saved us from Xia, and from the financial mess of the time.

Had we been liquidated, should the football hierarchy have saved us?  Would they have? Tough questions, but ultimately it should never ever have got that far. Xia saw the massive increase in equity he could get from taking us up, and took the risk. He was leveraged up to the eyeballs. Again should there have been mechanisms in place to prevent that gamble with our history as you put it? In my mind definitely. That is what I mean by protection of the pyramid, not necessarily throwing money at it. You wouldn't need to throw loads of money at it if it's done right. 

......but regulators are nothing new, they are scattered about our lives in abundance, another bunch of bureaucratic baggage and tax burden for the tax payer.....They are in the energy industry as OFGEM, some use they seem to be, in times of need.

My undertstanding is Xia was subjected to due dilligence, but the question is how deep do they go?....evidently not deep enough, or you could say " alls well that ends well"

As CP explained on Talk sport, Mel Morris, would probably tick all the boxes, but look how that has gone....sometimes all the governance and scrutiny cannot stave off unforeseen events...The "Titanic" is an example of the sinkless ship.

What we also have to consider is......who motivates the owners, right now, we are in a place we have always strived for, good owners with good intentions and deep pockets.....Too much regulation and they could say, it just isn't worth it.

I am not saying they will, but they could.

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TRO said:

......but regulators are nothing new, they are scattered about our lives in abundance, another bunch of bureaucratic baggage and tax burden for the tax payer.....They are in the energy industry as OFGEM some use they seem to be in times of need.

My undertstanding is Xia was subjected to due dilligence, but the question is how deep do they go?....evidently not deep enough, or you could say " alls well that ends well"

As CP explained on Talk sport, Mel Morris, would probably tick all the boxes, but look how that has gone....sometimes all the governance and scrutiny cannot stave off unforeseen events...The "Titanic" is an example of the sinkless ship.

What we also have to consider is......who motivates the owners, right now, we are in a place we have always strived for, good owners with good intentions and deep pockets.....Too much regulation and they could say, it just isn't worth it.

I am not saying they will, but they could.

That's why fit and proper persons needs to be stronger. And I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss regulation. I spend my working life cleaning up sites that were destroyed as a result of unregulated historical industry. The same level of damage does not happen to nearly the same extent now due to industrial regulation. 

Without regulation people act solely to serve their own interests (or what they perceive as their own interests). Or put another way- weak regulation=super league. 

If regulation makes it harder for wealthy benefactors to come in and buy clubs...well we'll only get the most motivated ones- ie those who can manage in a more considered way.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â