Purslow parts company with Liverpool FC

[stringvest]

Ritchie's point isn't about whether Benitez should/shouldn't have been sacked, it's about the fact that the only reason Purslow has people defending him as a 'legend' is because he sacked Benitez, which is bang on.

 

Find me any other reason for excusing his relentless and inappropriate supererogation; his interference in transfer dealings; his lies about net spend; his lies about the SOS minutes etc...

 

He was a fucking duplicitous scumbag from start to finish. Fortunately, circumstances eventually led to that helping us out, but that doesn't excuse his previous conduct as MD which was completely out of line and symptomatic of the exact kind of thing that is wrong with modern owners, CEOs, and certain football strategy directors who basically live out their frustrated dreams of never having 'made it' in one of the more glamorous roles within football.

 

it's a cartoon world, isn't it?

[Graham Smith]

Benitez had been pissing petrol all over us for months. Him leaving was seen as a prerequisite in selling the club. And not just by Purslow. Benitez had lost the dressing room, the boardroom and the fucking bathroom. He had to go when he did. Paying Benitez a huge amount of money was necessary - it was damage limitation.

 

Putting Dalglish in the managers seat would have been the right thing to do. Picking Hodgson was a massive mistake. Everyone acknowledges that now. We had no money, we had terrible owners. Whoever we were going to employ as manager was going to be a stopgap. It had to be someone who was going to keep his head down and concentrate on trying to stabilise a chaotic situation for a short period. Hodgson in theory should have been able to do it. He failed miserably.

 

We're never going to agree on this Graham, because you fail to understand or acknowledge the breadth and the seriousness of the issues under Benitez.

 

Respect your views but I'd still say that with no money and a change of ownership imminent it wasn't a burning requirement to get rid of the manager at that time unless you got someone better.

 

Even ignoring hindsight Purslow made the error of getting rid when leaving it as it was for the change of ownership would have been the right thing to do.

 

Another reason to wait is that whoever was sitting in the seat when new owners were coming in was not the new owners appointee and as such history shows you don't last beyond your first blip because the new owners always get the first one for free.

[TheResonator]

Seriously; do people think the Purslow 'legend' stuff is real?

 

Do you think it's not? Some of the terms used might be designed to draw a reaction, but there are those who defend him without even a shred of irony. It was a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' for a good few people on here.

 

Even those who don't defend him are often vitriolic in their attacks on the former manager and his players, but conspicuous by their absence when talking about a man whose actions were far less mitigable.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Benitez had been pissing petrol all over us for months. Him leaving was seen as a prerequisite in selling the club. And not just by Purslow. Benitez had lost the dressing room, the boardroom and the fucking bathroom. He had to go when he did. Paying Benitez a huge amount of money was necessary - it was damage limitation. 'Sitting tight' wasn't an option.

 

Putting Dalglish in the managers seat would have been the right thing to do. Picking Hodgson was a massive mistake. Everyone acknowledges that now. We had no money, we had terrible owners. Whoever we were going to employ as manager was going to be a stopgap. It had to be someone who was going to keep his head down and concentrate on trying to stabilise a chaotic situation for a short period. Hodgson in theory should have been able to do it. He failed miserably.

 

We're never going to agree on this Graham, because you fail to understand or acknowledge the breadth and the seriousness of the issues under Benitez.

 

Surely the buyers would be the ones setting a prerequisite for a sale? And at that point they weren't talking to NESV.

 

Hodgson in theory matched reality, you being clueless thought he'd work out. The vast majority of people knew it would never work out as his 35 year career to date suggested just that.

[goatboy59]

Respect your views but I'd still say that with no money and a change of ownership imminent it wasn't a burning requirement to get rid of the manager at that time unless you got someone better.

 

Even ignoring hindsight Purslow made the error of getting rid when leaving it as it was for the change of ownership would have been the right thing to do.

 

Another reason to wait is that whoever was sitting in the seat when new owners were coming in was not the new owners appointee and as such history shows you don't last beyond your first blip because the new owners always get the first one for free.

 

Trouble is, the new owners would have been fighting Rafa (or even worse, Kenny) straight out of the gate and that would not have been any kind of a selling point.

 

Is it even remotely possible that Purslow or more likely Broughton recognised this and made the decision then?

 

Making Hodgson a patsy?

 

Let's be honest, when John Henry said "to fuck with this owl twat" in January there were street parties and a general sense of unity and purpose, especially with Kenny coming in.

 

Hand on heart, do people think that would have happened with Rafa still at the helm?

 

Civil war more like, because the eternal arguments about giving Rafa what he wants and then he will triumph would have become even louder at a time when it's clear they want to keep their powder dry for the summer (Torres bombshell notwithstanding).

 

Hate, legend, etc - black and white words in what had become an increasingly grey situation, apart from getting rid of The Cunts.

[goatboy59]

Do you think it's not? Some of the terms used might be designed to draw a reaction, but there are those who defend him without even a shred of irony. It was a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' for a good few people on here.

 

 

Or is that just a handy excuse to vilify anyone else who doesn't tag along with the cartoon demonising? My enemy's friend is my enemy?

 

And as such further 'diminishes' the idea that some wanted Rafa to leave because they genuinely believed it best for the club?

[lifetime fan]

I must be making up this memory of Purslow trying to play championship manager behind the managers, destabalising the entire club back when we were dicking all over Real madrid in the CL and pushing for the league title.

[Graham Smith]

Trouble is, the new owners would have been fighting Rafa (or even worse, Kenny) straight out of the gate and that would not have been any kind of a selling point.

 

Is it even remotely possible that Purslow or more likely Broughton recognised this and made the decision then?

 

Making Hodgson a patsy?

 

Let's be honest, when John Henry said "to fuck with this owl twat" in January there were street parties and a general sense of unity and purpose, especially with Kenny coming in.

 

Hand on heart, do people think that would have happened with Rafa still at the helm?

 

Civil war more like, because the eternal arguments about giving Rafa what he wants and then he will triumph would have become even louder at a time when it's clear they want to keep their powder dry for the summer (Torres bombshell notwithstanding).

 

Hate, legend, etc - black and white words in what had become an increasingly grey situation, apart from getting rid of The Cunts.

 

Patsy? No way.

 

Purslow gambled on his centimetre depth of knowledge of football and thought the appointment "safe".

 

Cock up not conspiracy.

 

I happen to think that FSG are probably harder nosed than we think and that it would have been their way or the Steve Heighway for Benitez if he didn't buy into their approach and deliver on the pitch pretty quickly.

[lifetime fan]

Trouble is, the new owners would have been fighting Rafa (or even worse, Kenny) straight out of the gate and that would not have been any kind of a selling point.

 

Is it even remotely possible that Purslow or more likely Broughton recognised this and made the decision then?

 

Making Hodgson a patsy?

Let's be honest, when John Henry said "to fuck with this owl twat" in January there were street parties and a general sense of unity and purpose, especially with Kenny coming in.

 

Hand on heart, do people think that would have happened with Rafa still at the helm?

 

Civil war more like, because the eternal arguments about giving Rafa what he wants and then he will triumph would have become even louder at a time when it's clear they want to keep their powder dry for the summer (Torres bombshell notwithstanding).

 

Hate, legend, etc - black and white words in what had become an increasingly grey situation, apart from getting rid of The Cunts.

 

 

I'm glad people on both sides of the argument can now see I was right.

[goatboy59]

Patsy? No way.

 

Purslow gambled on his centimetre depth of knowledge of football and thought the appointment "safe".

 

Cock up not conspiracy.

 

I happen to think that FSG are probably harder nosed than we think and that it would have been their way or the Steve Heighway for Benitez if he didn't buy into their approach and deliver on the pitch pretty quickly.

 

Safe was all we could wish for at the time though.

 

My way or the heighway wasn't much use for the vermin in November 2007!

[TheResonator]

it's a cartoon world, isn't it?

 

No, it's a real world, and if you use rationale to analyse things rather than simply forming your opinions based on who you like/dislike you will have a better view of the picture.

 

Simple principle should tell you that you are wasting your time arguing your point, because even if it was 'right' to get rid of Benitez when he was gotten rid of, who the fuck is Christian Purslow to make that decision? What about the appalling decisions to bring in Cole and Hodgson; making the decision to sell Benayoun, and so on.

 

The thing for me is that I don't dislike Purslow because he got rid of Benitez, I dislike him because he is just like Mike Ashley, Roman Abramovich, Gold and Sullivan and so on and so forth, basically businessmen who stick their noses into the dressing room and serve as a reminder that football is - more and more - becoming a rich man's plaything.

 

Conversely, your whole argument is focussing on why it was 'correct' to get rid of Benitez. You're not interested in looking logically at whether or not Purslow was good at his job and behaved appropriately within it, rather you are basing your defence of him around the merits of dismissing Benitez following the 2009/10 season, and trying to legitimise their war of words in the press, and so on.

 

When you can respond to Ritchie's argument with a counter which is based on points of principle and lists cogently and reasonably exactly why you believe that it is right, in principle rather than outcome, for a man who holds no footballing qualifications to conduct transfers without a manager, to suggest players to be gotten rid of and to actively attempt to offload them, and to lie to fans through the press about how much is being spent on transfers, then there might be debate to be had. But just listing the reasons why he was right to get rid of Benitez is a bollocks argument and goes no way towards tackling the issue of why most people dislike him.

[ritchie]

Why all this "love" and "hate"? Is that how it has to be in your world? I don't love Purslow and I don't hate Benitez.

And if you really really believe Purslow was more incompetent than David Moores, then there's no point in discussing this any further.

 

Football wise, yes. Moores was a fool, but under his chairmanship Liverpool were generally always in the top 4, or at least the top 6, because he got the hiring and firing right - manager wise - and stayed out of team affairs.

 

Evans, Houllier and Benitez were generally all good appointments and he replaced Evans and Houllier at the right time. Other than going right back to Souness,tThe only mistake was the Evans and Houllier joint managership, but that was soon ended.

 

Compare that to the Hodgson catastrophe. Purslow didn't have an igloo about football matters, that much has been proven, yet he meddled in them with disastrous consequences. David Moores has a hell of a lot to answer for, but Purslow was completely clueless about football, yet thought he was the man.

[TheResonator]

Or is that just a handy excuse to vilify anyone else who doesn't tag along with the cartoon demonising? My enemy's friend is my enemy?

 

And as such further 'diminishes' the idea that some wanted Rafa to leave because they genuinely believed it best for the club?

 

Rubbish.

 

Firstly, 'cartoon demonising'? Take a look at a couple of my posts in the thread about the stuff Purslow is proven to have done - not conjectured, proven. I've already listed them further up the thread and can't be arsed to do so again, but there are considerable causes for reproach.

 

Secondly, it is fine to 'genuinely believe' that Rafa's dismissal was best for the club. That really is a marginal part of what was wrong with Purslow's behaviour within his professional capacity. Also, and I can't stress this enough, just because Purslow was somewhat of a nemesis to Rafa doesn't mean he ought to be defended. It is far more reasonable to have wanted Rafa gone from the club and also thought that Purslow was a malign influence.

[stringvest]

No, it's a real world, and if you use rationale to analyse things rather than simply forming your opinions based on who you like/dislike you will have a better view of the picture.

 

Simple principle should tell you that you are wasting your time arguing your point, because even if it was 'right' to get rid of Benitez when he was gotten rid of, who the fuck is Christian Purslow to make that decision? What about the appalling decisions to bring in Cole and Hodgson; making the decision to sell Benayoun, and so on.

 

The thing for me is that I don't dislike Purslow because he got rid of Benitez, I dislike him because he is just like Mike Ashley, Roman Abramovich, Gold and Sullivan and so on and so forth, basically businessmen who stick their noses into the dressing room and serve as a reminder that football is - more and more - becoming a rich man's plaything.

 

Conversely, your whole argument is focussing on why it was 'correct' to get rid of Benitez. You're not interested in looking logically at whether or not Purslow was good at his job and behaved appropriately within it, rather you are basing your defence of him around the merits of dismissing Benitez following the 2009/10 season, and trying to legitimise their war of words in the press, and so on.

 

When you can respond to Ritchie's argument with a counter which is based on points of principle and lists cogently and reasonably exactly why you believe that it is right, in principle rather than outcome, for a man who holds no footballing qualifications to conduct transfers without a manager, to suggest players to be gotten rid of and to actively attempt to offload them, and to lie to fans through the press about how much is being spent on transfers, then there might be debate to be had. But just listing the reasons why he was right to get rid of Benitez is a bollocks argument and goes no way towards tackling the issue of why most people dislike him.

 

Your second paragraph - a few corrections:

 

1. It was not Purslow's decision to get rid of Benitez. He may have wanted him to go, but he was not in a position to make the decision on his own.

 

2. Benayoun was already going. He had made his mind up to join Chelsea. If we're going to blame Purslow for bringing in Hodgson and Cole (who many on here thought would turn out to be a good buy), you have to acknowledge that Benayoun was out of here.

 

These are points of fact.

 

The point of principle? Purslow was in a position of leadership within the club. There was no manager. Cole became available. If we are to play the simplistic game, Purslow made a judgement call. He was entirely within his rights - and the remit of his role at that time - to do that. The likelihood is of course, that this was a decision borne of a 'committee'. Hodgson's appointment was not made solely by Purslow, that's for sure - same with the misguided rejection of Dalglish's initial approach.

 

This list of players to offload? Well, it may or may not have existed on a bit of paper or in Purslow's head, but as soon as we got a manager in, that was ditched, as Purslow deferred to the manager and Commolli on all footballing matters. Entirely correct and reasonable.

 

In the absence of a manager, someone had to make decisions. Purslow as far as I'm concerned, behaved appropriately and within his remit.

 

You can demonise him all you want, but he's not a cartoon character, wanting to play football manager. That's a naive and stupud view. He's not Mike Ashley. He's a businessman who was placed in a difficult position and made some mistakes. Those mistakes imo are dwarved by the fact that he stood up against the former owners and forced through the sale of the club.

[stringvest]

Purslow didn't have an igloo about football matters, that much has been proven, yet he meddled in them with disastrous consequences. David Moores has a hell of a lot to answer for, but Purslow was completely clueless about football, yet thought he was the man.

 

"Thought he was the man"? It's this sort of thing that makes any discussion pointless. Who told you that's what he thought? Is it because he smirked? Id it because he had a big car? Or a big tie? And when you say he 'meddled', what does that mean? When he 'hasn't got a clue' what scale are we using to judge him? Are we comparing him to you? Rick Parry? Andy Gray? Ian Ayre?

[Graham Smith]

The point of principle? Purslow was in a position of leadership within the club. There was no manager. Cole became available. If we are to play the simplistic game, Purslow made a judgement call. He was entirely within his rights - and the remit of his role at that time - to do that.........................

 

...............In the absence of a manager, someone had to make decisions. Purslow as far as I'm concerned, behaved appropriately and within his remit.

 

But that isn't true. It wasn't in his remit, ever.

 

He said in the February meeting with us that his only role was to secure investment.

 

There was a search going on for a CEO all the time.

 

It was never announced or confirmed that this was within his remit. In fact he was challenged continually by the Union on this point (remember the proposed doorstepping at the event that got cancelled in town?) with requests for him to confirm what his role was and what he was doing.

 

Nothing. Silence. While you might say he didn't owe the Union an answer he owed the supporters an answer so we could find out what was going on.

 

He stepped into the vaccuum without qualifications and while the search for a CEO was going on - there was no announcement and no explanation and simply because of this no accountability or warning that he suddenly had the control.

[ritchie]

"Thought he was the man"? It's this sort of thing that makes any discussion pointless. Who told you that's what he thought? Is it because he smirked? Id it because he had a big car? Or a big tie? And when you say he 'meddled', what does that mean?

 

He thought he was the man who could make the big football decisions, when he's proved with the decisions he made that he wasn't.

 

He meddled by going into the dressing room at half time and by telling Hodgson who to sell and buy for starters. Roy Hodgson's favourite quote last summer was: "Christian Purslow is dealing with that".

 

 

"When he 'hasn't got a clue' what scale are we using to judge him? Are we comparing him to you? Rick Parry? Andy Gray? Ian Ayre?

 

The fact that his judgement was disastrous, certainly regarding Hodgson and Joe Cole.

[stringvest]

Rubbish.

 

Firstly, 'cartoon demonising'? Take a look at a couple of my posts in the thread about the stuff Purslow is proven to have done - not conjectured, proven. I've already listed them further up the thread and can't be arsed to do so again, but there are considerable causes for reproach.

 

Secondly, it is fine to 'genuinely believe' that Rafa's dismissal was best for the club. That really is a marginal part of what was wrong with Purslow's behaviour within his professional capacity. Also, and I can't stress this enough, just because Purslow was somewhat of a nemesis to Rafa doesn't mean he ought to be defended. It is far more reasonable to have wanted Rafa gone from the club and also thought that Purslow was a malign influence.

 

I was glad to see Rafa go, but I didn't see Purslow as a malign influence in the commonly accepted definition of the word. I didn't see him as a legend. I was glad to see him go too. That way we can move on, see.

[Antynwa]

But that isn't true. It wasn't in his remit, ever.

 

He said in the February meeting with us that his only role was to secure investment.

 

There was a search going on for a CEO all the time.

 

It was never announced or confirmed that this was within his remit. In fact he was challenged continually by the Union on this point (remember the proposed doorstepping at the event that got cancelled in town?) with requests for him to confirm what his role was and what he was doing.

 

Nothing. Silence. While you might say he didn't owe the Union an answer he owed the supporters an answer so we could find out what was going on.

 

He stepped into the vaccuum without qualifications and while the search for a CEO was going on - there was no announcement and no explanation and simply because of this no accountability or warning that he suddenly had the control.

 

So what? It's like when you lot kicked off about Broughton making footballing decisions. Chairmans Sack managers, Broughton was our chairman. Purslow was here to find investment, for someone who too highly valued his asset.

[stringvest]

He thought he was the man who could make the big football decisions, when he's proved with the decisions he made that he wasn't.

 

He meddled by going into the dressing room at half time and by telling Hodgson who to sell and buy for starters. Roy Hodgson's favourite quote last summer was: "Christian Purslow is dealing with that".

 

 

 

 

The fact that his judgement was disastrous, certainly regarding Hodgson and Joe Cole.

 

Well in that case we didn't have anyone capable of making big football decisions the previous season either, as Rafa proved with the decisions he made.

 

did you think Joe Cole was a disastrous buy at the time ritchie? I have to admit I had my doubts, but I was a little bit excited. Do we not criticise Ayre for Hodgson's appointment then? I think it's only fair, as he must have agreed it. And what did Purslow say in the dressing room at half time? Did he get on the chalkboard do you think? Maybe a motivational speech? A quiet word about the winger in the ear of Carragher?

[ritchie]

So what? It's like when you lot kicked off about Broughton making footballing decisions. Chairmans Sack managers, Broughton was our chairman. Purslow was here to find investment, for someone who too highly valued his asset.

 

"If you want to know about transfer targets, and how things are progressing, you'll have to ask [managing director] Christian Purslow because he's the man looking after those discussions, not me."

 

What did signing Joe Cole and telling Hodgson who to sell and buy have to do with getting investment?

[ritchie]

did you think Joe Cole was a disastrous buy at the time ritchie??

 

I expected him to be another Harry Kewell. Good when fit, but injured a lot and not as good as he used to be. I wasn't happy with a 4 year contract being offered to a 29-year-old, but I never expected him to be this bad, I just didn't expect him to play enough. The contract was bad business particularly on his level of wages. If he signed for 2 or 3 years I wouldn't have been as bothered. If we get him off the wage bill this summer then that's good business.

 

We only got him because Purslow - who was in charge of contracts - offered him a better contract than everyone else. A stupidly extravagent contract, yet he was a player who the manager didn't particularly want or know what to do with. How stupid is that?

 

I have to admit I had my doubts, but I was a little bit excited. Do we not criticise Ayre for Hodgson's appointment then? I think it's only fair, as he must have agreed it. And what did Purslow say in the dressing room at half time? Did he get on the chalkboard do you think? Maybe a motivational speech? A quiet word about the winger in the ear of Carragher?

 

Purslow, Ayre and Broughton can all take the rap for Hodgson. It was clear Kenny was against it, which is why he put his own hat in the ring for the job.

 

But Broughton and Ayre didn't meddle in team affairs and try to buy and sell players over the manager's head.

[Antynwa]

Purlsow was fucking negotiating the fucking deal.

 

Is it that hard to comprehend the concept that a man has two roles at a club which is in the middle of a power struggle?

 

There wasn't a peep when Rafa was afforded a 5 year contract by Hicks and Co.

 

Not a fucking peep. They're only un-qualified to make football decisions when them football decisions are unpopular to people. I didn't see fuck all protests about that. Fuck all.

 

Purslow was brought here to find investment

 

1. He nearly succeeded

2. Hicks knocked it back

 

The whole club was in the middle of a shit storm. A manager who wanted money that wasn't there. A CEO running a divided club with no money.

 

The simple fact of the matter is, we have new owners, we have Kenny as manager, and it's part thanks to Purslow that we find ourself in the situation we find ourself today.

[stringvest]

But that isn't true. It wasn't in his remit, ever.

 

He said in the February meeting with us that his only role was to secure investment.

 

There was a search going on for a CEO all the time.

 

It was never announced or confirmed that this was within his remit. In fact he was challenged continually by the Union on this point (remember the proposed doorstepping at the event that got cancelled in town?) with requests for him to confirm what his role was and what he was doing.

 

Nothing. Silence. While you might say he didn't owe the Union an answer he owed the supporters an answer so we could find out what was going on.

 

He stepped into the vaccuum without qualifications and while the search for a CEO was going on - there was no announcement and no explanation and simply because of this no accountability or warning that he suddenly had the control.

 

Jesus Graham, you're not a stupid man, why are you acting like one? It clearly was in his remit, which is why he did it. His remit changed. He was temporarily given additional responsibilities, as no doubt was Ayre and Broughton. Just because it wasn't communicated to you or the fans doesn't mean it didn't happen. Of course it did.

 

Of course there was accountability - it's not a bloody hobby, it's a serious and seriously regulated business - he and Broughton understand only too well the importance of governance and due process, yet you and some of your less worldly wise chums believe that these very experienced businessmen were running wild like kids locked in a toyshop. It's mind-boggling that people can be so naive, even in their rush to demonise the man.

[Antynwa]

We don't know the rationale for sacking Rafa and bringing in Hodgson.

 

If they made it for pure footballing reasons they got it wrong.

 

If they made it because they needed someone to toe the line for a few months, then they made a judgement call. Which ultimately paid off.