Christian Purslow

[Demitri_C]

Im team purslow in. Think he is doing a great job

He is going nowhere 

[allani]

I think I read that Edens did something similar in the NBA though - appointed a young coach who they hoped would step up and be the "next big thing" and then built a team around a potential star.  It proved pretty successful.  In many ways the appointment of Gerrard was not dis-similar (and also similar to our approach to buying young players with the potential to step up to the next level).  The only difference is that it worked in the NBA and it didn't work here.  Maybe more red flags should have been spotted earlier - but most of the media / pundits / so called experts at the time seemed to think that the "risk" for us was more that Gerrard would walk out as soon as the Liverpool job was available rather than that he would prove to be rubbish as a manager.

I don't think that it necessarily follows that there should be a continuity in style between managers - especially if someone has just been sacked because their style hasn't been working - signing someone who tries the same thing is risky (just ask Spurs).  It reduces the risk of having to recruit heavily each time the manager changes because the new man wants to impose a new system / style that requires different attributes that maybe the players don't have.  But I think Emery has proved that if the manager is good enough then he can manage the team through the transition (although it is unlikely that many will manage to do that whilst getting the results that Emery has).

I think that the Board are hoping that with Emery we won't need to worry about finding a replacement for a long time and that hopefully we can nurture his ultimate replacement through the club in the meantime.  I think they've also probably realised that "going all in" and getting the best man you can is probably better than trying to sign someone who might become the next Pep / Klopp / Emery.  We're moving into a space where they have more options to do that but I think we're also building more of a "brand" whereby we will become known for a style of football, a way of doing things off the field, etc - that will appeal to certain managers who buy into the "project" but is probably less likely to appeal to those whose style or personality is less aligned.  So to that extent I do think we're at the start of a journey where the flow of managers is smoother just by the nature of the way that the whole club works.  Which (getting back to Purslow) is why I think that the alignment between the owners, the Board, Purslow, Alemany, Emery, etc is going to be crucial.  The way that Purslow represents the club from an administrative point of view, will match the way that Alemany is recruiting, which will match the way that our manager conducts himself on and off the pitch.  Purslow has probably had to do too much of the groundwork so far but I think we are going to reap the rewards of the work he has done as we grow and build a senior team of specialists who are united around the "project".  It is going to be a while before we can compete financially with the Sly 6 - but by being better run we can hopefully find ways of competing on the field by being better off the field.

[fightoffyour]

19 hours ago, allani said:

I think that a triumvirate of Alemany, Purslow and Emery is a pretty formidible group to be running any football club. 

18 hours ago, sidcow said:

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. 

Clearly never seen Succession

[maqroll]

3 minutes ago, Don_Simon said:

See this point all the time. Do you have any quotes to suggest this is any more than far-fetched speculation? 

No quotes, just deductive reasoning that could very well be flawed. But the way Sawiris axed Gerrard in person, at Fulham, just minutes after the game and his solo meeting with Emery makes me think he reached the point where he decided to take matters into his own hands.

[villa4europe]

40 minutes ago, maqroll said:

No quotes, just deductive reasoning that could very well be flawed. But the way Sawiris axed Gerrard in person, at Fulham, just minutes after the game and his solo meeting with Emery makes me think he reached the point where he decided to take matters into his own hands.

but that implies that sawiris went out on a limb and made that decision alone which Purslow has already said isnt the case, just because Nas swung the axe doesnt mean the decision was his and his alone, just means fair play to him he was willing to put his big boy pants on and get his hands dirty rather than let someone else do it

not sure why there's such a clamour to undermine purslow and lange all the time, we have great owners and a great infrastructure at the club which is about to get even better, just enjoy the ride and take the positives rather than look for the negatives 

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, maqroll said:

The fact that Sawiris completely bypassed Purslow to bring Emery in himself.

That's not a fact.

[Guest av1]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's not a fact.

Not just Purslow, the idea that he just reacted in a fit of rage and didn’t consult his business partner (Edens) is also difficult to believe. 

[maqroll]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's not a fact.

You're right, that was a misstatement. It is pure speculation on my part.

[ender4]

4 hours ago, av1 said:

Not just Purslow, the idea that he just reacted in a fit of rage and didn’t consult his business partner (Edens) is also difficult to believe. 

It can be both. He probably discussed it with Edens and Purslow that if we lost at Fulham we’d sack Gerrard.  

Then he was angry enough during the match that he decided he wasn’t going to wait for Purslow to do it the next morning.

[Sulberto21]

There was talk of us trying to get pochettino about 3/4 weeks before Gerrard was sacked.  There is no way Purslow wasn’t involved with the sacking of Gerrard and subsequent hiring of Don Unai. 

[maqroll]

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

not sure why there's such a clamour to undermine purslow 

I'm certain nobody on here wants to undermine Purslow in any way. Most of us understand that he's a valuable asset to the club on the whole. I think the primary thing that bothers (or bothered) people about Purslow is (was) his sentimental, ill conceived hiring of Gerrard and how it stunted our progress to the point of being near the drop zone in November. Just a reckless appointment that might have been catastrophic had Emery not rescued us.

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, maqroll said:

I'm certain nobody on here wants to undermine Purslow in any way. 

 

[AvfcRigo82]

14 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Purslow has already said isnt the case,

From the Sky News interview, right?

 

[villa4europe]

Just now, AvfcRigo82 said:

From the Sky News interview, right?

 

Yeah can't remember the exact wording but he said it was a board decision and fully communicated between them all

Maybe he's deflecting, no doubt more than that happened but without knowing I don't see the benefit of casting aspersions and negativity personally, I'm not sheepishly following him I just don't see what good it does while the club is flying and looking forward to constantly be trying to drag it back to rumours of what purslow did or didn't do with Gerrard

[AvfcRigo82]

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Yeah can't remember the exact wording but he said it was a board decision and fully communicated between them all

You're right. Probably saving face?

The same interview he also denied being a Liverpool fan, worded as 'supported'.

Sceptical what comes from this guy's mouth really.

[Pinebro]

Footballing decisions was always my main gripe with Purslow.

If Nassef is now taking over and Purslow sticks to administrative stuf I have no issues with the guy.

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

You're right. Probably saving face?

The same interview he also denied being a Liverpool fan, worded as 'supported'.

Sceptical what comes from this guy's mouth really.

If we only employed Villa fans we would have a rather limited talent pool.

[TRO]

On 27/04/2023 at 17:30, Stephen_Evans said:

He's clearly has his wings clipped and is out of favour with the owners.

Not so sure about that.

I think its more horses for courses.

Top people recognise when execs like Purslow, may be involved in too much and in some cases areas where others could do better.

He clearly got it wrong with Gerrard, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

We as fans, don't always know how much work is involved in projects like the new stand.....maybe he was trying to do too much?

Purslow always comes accross to me as competent and professional, has a inside track on FFP and a wide knowledge of the game.

I don't think our owners would stick with him, if they had doubts.

I do think there is a danger with top football execs anxious to get involved with the " Hollywood" side of the business, when they are not qualified to do so...we saw it with HDE

Christian Purslow is a good CEO, who needs to stick to what he does best, and leave the football to the experts.

Edited May 15, 2023 by TRO

[villanmac]

It would have obviously been a board decision that Gerrard was gone if we lost to Fulham.

The Sawiris losing his head thing was him just wanting it announced there and then rather than in the morning because he couldn't take another hour of him being in charge. He probably sends a text to Wes at the 70 min mark saying "**** tomorrow morning,  we are sacking the useless scouse basterd now" and Wes replys "yeah, ok Nas".

 

[AvfcRigo82]

14 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

If we only employed Villa fans we would have a rather limited talent pool.

We would, but that wasn't the point I was making.