Purslow parts company with Liverpool FC

[goatboy59]

Graham

 

Don't Purslow's infamous remarks to SoS indicate that he felt they were fucked well before Broughton came on the scene? Or was that just bravado on his part?

 

When they became public knowledge thanks to the union, and he still wasn't sacked for them, some felt they were already in a less powerful position.

[Graham Smith]

Which is all fair enough I just dont see the point in a continuing hate campaign. Its over and done with. I do think purslow is a genuine Liverpool fan and excluding his involvement with ousting the owners I think his role with the club was a poor one and he done more harm than good but why waste the energy going over it all. He may not of pioneered the ousting of the last owners but he played his role for me thats enough to just leave him alone, no abuse just consign him to history. Feels like the passion in football is mostly converted to hatred as opposed to anything else.

 

Quite agree.

 

Time for the Club to heal itself, which is happening.

 

My posts on here were just a reaction to Purslow's role being represented as something between Joan of Arc and the Terminator when in reality he failed in almost everything he touched at LFC.

[Graham Smith]

Graham

 

Don't Purslow's infamous remarks to SoS indicate that he felt they were fucked well before Broughton came on the scene? Or was that just bravado on his part?

 

When they became public knowledge thanks to the union, and he still wasn't sacked for them, some felt they were already in a less powerful position.

 

Pretty much - there was a suspsicion at the time that HE was an RBS placement to obtain investment.

 

He was supremely confident in that February that he would secure investment by Easter (in the previous September he had said by the new year 2010).

 

To be fair to him he might well have got the offer of £100m but the terms were not acceptable to the owners. That's a failure as his brief (from the owmers) would have been get £100m but on acceptable terms.

 

His loose tongue in the February didn't get him the sack (the owners might be kicking themselves in retrospect now that they did not) which might have been more about retaining RBS confidence (with a refinance date looming) than anything else.

 

I don't think we can underestimate that the owners were managing only the big picture for the Club. Purslow made it clear in our meeting that telephone board meetings would be short, centred on the investment search and when they turned to this new contract or that new contract they would ring off. The problem was that this created a vaccuum which was filled by the investment banker morphing into a combination of Shankly, Alan Sugar and Alan Hansen.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Graham Smith

[stringvest]

 

To be fair to him he might well have got the offer of £100m but the terms were not acceptable to the owners. That's a failure as his brief (from the owmers) would have been get £100m but on acceptable terms.

 

 

I don't think we can underestimate that the owners were managing only the big picture for the Club. Purslow made it clear in our meeting that telephone board meetings would be short, centred on the investment search and when they turned to this new contract or that new contract they would ring off. The problem was that this created a vaccuum which was filled by the investment banker morphing into a combination of Shankly, Alan Sugar and Alan Hansen.

 

That first paragraph is ridiculous, but entirely typical. Purslow got the best offer to be had at the time. It was a failure on H&G's terms, yes, but so was the NESV offer. And any other offer that did not see H&G come out of it with a large profit. Purslow and Broughton both knew that the club would be sold in October come what may. He helped bring a buyer to the table.

 

The second paragraph is interesting, since you acknowledge there was a power vacuum which had to be filled. Someone needed to make the decisions, and apart from employing Hodgson, (something I thought might work at the time), Purslow didn't do too badly at. It wasn't an ego trip, it was a requirement to keep the football club running. Purslow is no messiah, but he's no idiot either.

[PaulMcC]

He was buying and selling players. He didn't have to do that.

[stringvest]

He was buying and selling players. He didn't have to do that.

 

Cole was offered to the club and he took the decision to bring him in

Benayoun wanted to go to Chelsea, so he did a deal with them

 

we were stagnating , and we had a want away player, and we had no money. I don't know how much he got wrong there tbh

[PaulMcC]

Cole was offered to the club and he took the decision to bring him in

Benayoun wanted to go to Chelsea, so he did a deal with them

 

we were stagnating , and we had a want away player, and we had no money. I don't know how much he got wrong there tbh

 

He gave away Insua and Aquilani for nothing for a year. He was telling managers which players should be bought and sold. He lied about the club spending money on players.

[Graham Smith]

That first paragraph is ridiculous, but entirely typical. Purslow got the best offer to be had at the time. It was a failure on H&G's terms, yes, but so was the NESV offer. And any other offer that did not see H&G come out of it with a large profit. Purslow and Broughton both knew that the club would be sold in October come what may. He helped bring a buyer to the table.

 

In actual fact it needed a bit of a better explanation. What he actually said at the meeting (bravado maybe?) was (actual quote follows):

 

CP - It is not a given that £100 million will buy 25%. I need to find £100 million, and if this is for 1% or 100% I don't care.

 

Clearly he wasn't being serious but it underlined the fact that he hadn't either agreed with Hicks and Gillett what £100m would acquire (and therefore been able to say to them they were living in cloud cuckoo land) or he got the offer they wanted but they backed away.

 

On any terms unless the rug was pulled from under him, and he has never said it was, he failed to raise the investment he was tasked to bring in.

 

By the time of the NESV offer Hicks and Gillett were sidelined and it was a race for Broughton (who was managing the process with Barcap) to get the best deal they could. Purslow (fair enough again) had his misgivings but ultimately luct have come on board for it as he voted for it.

 

The second paragraph is interesting, since you acknowledge there was a power vacuum which had to be filled. Someone needed to make the decisions, and apart from employing Hodgson, (something I thought might work at the time), Purslow didn't do too badly at. It wasn't an ego trip, it was a requirement to keep the football club running. Purslow is no messiah, but he's no idiot either.

 

"Purslow didn't do too badly at all"?

 

I've no concern about the manager being sacked but when you do change you trade up not down. Hodgson was trading down for this Club on any analysis. The right decision would have been to leave Benitez and see where we went once new owners were in and if he didn't fit in with the new owners ethos and attitude get rid then.

 

The player acquisitions and the infamous list of those going out (confirmed by Hodgson) plus the public politicking (in which Benitez participated as well) was an investment banker thinking he knew about football.

 

Leave aside his treatment of his "mate" over getting the job and in my view "didn't do too badly" can't be sustained as a credible position.

[coop]

If someone comes in with an offer of £20m for Reina in the summer there is nothing we can do to stop him moving.

 

Who agreed that deal then.

 

Cole should not have been sanctioned regardless of us stagnating or not because that is the decision of the manager not the MD.

 

Coming to the then new manager with a list of who should stay and who should be sold is again not the remit of an MD.

 

Again well done for voting against the owners but no way will i thank him for anything else.

[ritchie]

Quite agree.

 

Time for the Club to heal itself, which is happening.

 

My posts on here were just a reaction to Purslow's role being represented as something between Joan of Arc and the Terminator when in reality he failed in almost everything he touched at LFC.

 

He drew a very good salary out of the club, yet was one of the most incompetent employees in Liverpool history. His terrible decisions (Hodgson and Joe Cole in particular aren't even debatable. The Carragher contract extension and Benitez compensation are more debatable considering the timing and sums involved and Benitez proceeding to walk straight into a job with the European champions) cost the club a lot of money. Then there was the fact he was telling Hodgson who to buy and sell. Hodgson said how Purslow gave him a list of players to get rid of. And he was a proven liar, as shown with what happened with the Union. What a cracking fella!

 

So why is he treated as a demi-god on here by the likes of Ant and his followers? Yes he voted with Broughton, although as Graham pointed out what was his other options? Side with Gillett and Hicks and still show his face at Anfield? Plus, Ian Ayre voted with Broughton as well and he doesn't get the hero status from the Ant crowd that Purslow does.

[Bogman]

He drew a very good salary out of the club, yet was one of the most incompetent employees in Liverpool history. His terrible decisions (Hodgson and Joe Cole in particular aren't even debatable. The Carragher contract extension and Benitez compensation are more debatable considering the timing and sums involved and Benitez proceeding to walk straight into a job with the European champions) cost the club a lot of money. Then there was the fact he was telling Hodgson who to buy and sell. Hodgson said how Purslow gave him a list of players to get rid of. And he was a proven liar, as shown with what happened with the Union. What a cracking fella!

 

So why is he treated as a demi-god on here by the likes of Ant and his followers? Yes he voted with Broughton, although as Graham pointed out what was his other options? Side with Gillett and Hicks and still show his face at Anfield? Plus, Ian Ayre voted with Broughton as well and he doesn't get the hero status from the Ant crowd that Purslow does.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more mate.

[coop]

He drew a very good salary out of the club, yet was one of the most incompetent employees in Liverpool history. His terrible decisions (Hodgson and Joe Cole in particular aren't even debatable. The Carragher contract extension and Benitez compensation are more debatable considering the timing and sums involved and Benitez proceeding to walk straight into a job with the European champions) cost the club a lot of money. Then there was the fact he was telling Hodgson who to buy and sell. Hodgson said how Purslow gave him a list of players to get rid of. And he was a proven liar, as shown with what happened with the Union. What a cracking fella!

 

So why is he treated as a demi-god on here by the likes of Ant and his followers? Yes he voted with Broughton, although as Graham pointed out what was his other options? Side with Gillett and Hicks and still show his face at Anfield? Plus, Ian Ayre voted with Broughton as well and he doesn't get the hero status from the Ant crowd that Purslow does.

 

Ayre was not outspoken against Rafa.

[stringvest]

Ayre was not outspoken against Rafa.

 

No. That's why I didn't love him as much.

[ritchie]

Ayre was not outspoken against Rafa.

 

Logic would dictate that those on here who love Purslow, love him because he was Rafa's nemesis. They cover their tracks with laughable statements that he saved the club, when he just put his vote in the same as Ian Ayre, who doesn't get the same worship on here.

 

The funny thing is the Purslow lovers claim that those who don't like him don't like him because he undermined Rafa, or played his part in sacking him. It correlates more that those who do like him like him for that reason, more than the ones who don't not liking him for that reason.

 

Purslow was a menace. Bearing in mind the Hodgson disaster, the disgraceful treatment of Dalglish, the Joe Cole disaster, the outright lies and telling the manager who to buy and sell - can anyone say they'd want Purslow at Liverpool in any decision making position whatsoever?

 

The best achievement Purslow made at Liverpool was being a worse employee than Rick Parry and even more incompetent than David Moores. And that really is an achievement.

 

"But he's a cracking fella and he's a massive red really".

[Guest ShoePiss]

Logic would dictate that those on here who love Purslow, love him because he was Rafa's nemesis. They cover their tracks with laughable statements that he saved the club, when he just put his vote in the same as Ian Ayre, who doesn't get the same worship on here.

 

The funny thing is the Purslow lovers claim that those who don't like him don't like him because he undermined Rafa, or played his part in sacking him. It correlates more that those who do like him like him for that reason, more than the ones who don't not liking him for that reason.

 

Purslow was a menace. Bearing in mind the Hodgson disaster, the Joe Cole disaster and telling the manager who to buy and sell - can anyone say they'd want Purslow at Liverpool in any decision making position whatsoever?

 

The best achievement Purslow made at Liverpool was being a worse employee than Rick Parry and even more incompetent than David Moores. And that really is an achievement.

 

"But he's a cracking fella and he's a massive red really".

 

Great post.

[stringvest]

In actual fact it needed a bit of a better explanation. What he actually said at the meeting (bravado maybe?) was (actual quote follows):

 

CP - It is not a given that £100 million will buy 25%. I need to find £100 million, and if this is for 1% or 100% I don't care.

 

Clearly he wasn't being serious but it underlined the fact that he hadn't either agreed with Hicks and Gillett what £100m would acquire (and therefore been able to say to them they were living in cloud cuckoo land) or he got the offer they wanted but they backed away.

 

On any terms unless the rug was pulled from under him, and he has never said it was, he failed to raise the investment he was tasked to bring in.

 

By the time of the NESV offer Hicks and Gillett were sidelined and it was a race for Broughton (who was managing the process with Barcap) to get the best deal they could. Purslow (fair enough again) had his misgivings but ultimately luct have come on board for it as he voted for it.

 

 

 

"Purslow didn't do too badly at all"?

 

I've no concern about the manager being sacked but when you do change you trade up not down. Hodgson was trading down for this Club on any analysis. The right decision would have been to leave Benitez and see where we went once new owners were in and if he didn't fit in with the new owners ethos and attitude get rid then.

 

The player acquisitions and the infamous list of those going out (confirmed by Hodgson) plus the public politicking (in which Benitez participated as well) was an investment banker thinking he knew about football.

 

Leave aside his treatment of his "mate" over getting the job and in my view "didn't do too badly" can't be sustained as a credible position.

 

You completely fail to acknowledge that in any realistic terms Benitez's retention was untenable. Failure on the pitch, madness in the transfer market, agitating and destabilising a cub already in turmoil, senior players losing all respect for him, supporting Hicks - the new owners would not have wanted Benitez anywhere near the club and the consensus amongst the decision makers and the banks was that because of all that he had to go to give us the best chance of selling the club. He had become a liability, and that was his fault, no-one else's. Benitez had to go, and the reasons he had to go were all under Benitez's control. You can blame Purslow, or whoever you want, but the reality is different.

[Guest TK-421]

Spot on from ritchie. He's a hero for doing the clean sweep. Taking out Gillett and Hicks was great, but getting Benitez too was a sweet, sweet bonus.

[stringvest]

Logic would dictate that those on here who love Purslow, love him because he was Rafa's nemesis. They cover their tracks with laughable statements that he saved the club, when he just put his vote in the same as Ian Ayre, who doesn't get the same worship on here.

 

The funny thing is the Purslow lovers claim that those who don't like him don't like him because he undermined Rafa, or played his part in sacking him. It correlates more that those who do like him like him for that reason, more than the ones who don't not liking him for that reason.

 

Purslow was a menace. Bearing in mind the Hodgson disaster, the disgraceful treatment of Dalglish, the Joe Cole disaster, the outright lies and telling the manager who to buy and sell - can anyone say they'd want Purslow at Liverpool in any decision making position whatsoever?

 

The best achievement Purslow made at Liverpool was being a worse employee than Rick Parry and even more incompetent than David Moores. And that really is an achievement.

 

"But he's a cracking fella and he's a massive red really".

 

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.

[coop]

You completely fail to acknowledge that in any realistic terms Benitez's retention was untenable. Failure on the pitch, madness in the transfer market, agitating and destabilising a cub already in turmoil, senior players losing all respect for him, supporting Hicks - the new owners would not have wanted Benitez anywhere near the club and the consensus amongst the decision makers and the banks was that because of all that he had to go to give us the best chance of selling the club. He had become a liability, and that was his fault, no-one else's. Benitez had to go, and the reasons he had to go were all under Benitez's control. You can blame Purslow, or whoever you want, but the reality is different.

 

For me Benitez had had his time and i was happy to see him replaced.

 

What we needed at the time more then anything was for an appointment to galvanize the fans and the players and for us all to be moving in one direction.

 

The appointment of Hodgson completely blew that out of the water and put the clubs into realms it had not though possible since Shanks first came through the door and that was looking realistically at relegation.

 

Dalglish has since been appointed and whilst the recent performance have not been up to scratch at least all the fans are as one group now and we can look forward to an exciting summer.

 

Kenny wanted the job last summer but someone thought that appointing a manager with a shocking away record, had dropped his then current team down 5 places and his renowned for his boring, mundane defensive football would be a better idea.

[Dicko]

You completely fail to acknowledge that in any realistic terms Benitez's retention was untenable. Failure on the pitch, madness in the transfer market, agitating and destabilising a cub already in turmoil, senior players losing all respect for him, supporting Hicks - the new owners would not have wanted Benitez anywhere near the club and the consensus amongst the decision makers and the banks was that because of all that he had to go to give us the best chance of selling the club. He had become a liability, and that was his fault, no-one else's. Benitez had to go, and the reasons he had to go were all under Benitez's control. You can blame Purslow, or whoever you want, but the reality is different.

 

You get rid of a manager only if you can replace him with someone better.

We couldn't.

Benitez position was only untenable if someone better was being lined up to replace him.

It wasn't.

 

And that's all there is to it, everything else is just superfluous rhetoric.

 

You never, ever trade downwards.

[Graham Smith]

You completely fail to acknowledge that in any realistic terms Benitez's retention was untenable. Failure on the pitch, madness in the transfer market, agitating and destabilising a cub already in turmoil, senior players losing all respect for him, supporting Hicks - the new owners would not have wanted Benitez anywhere near the club and the consensus amongst the decision makers and the banks was that because of all that he had to go to give us the best chance of selling the club. He had become a liability, and that was his fault, no-one else's. Benitez had to go, and the reasons he had to go were all under Benitez's control. You can blame Purslow, or whoever you want, but the reality is different.

 

I can assure you I'm not a star struck Benitez disciple but at a time of turmoil like we had last Summer the last thing you do is add to it.

 

What you do is reduce the turmoil. I'll accept that if the replacement manager being brought in was an upgrade then that would have had a chance of reducing the turmoil and giving the Club a lift at a time when it was desperately needed.

 

For instance, announcing Dalglish in July as Benitez's replacement would have reduced the turmoil, but guess what? Purslow picked Hodgson. The minimum you do (especially bearing in mind last Summer's context) is get a better manager. You don't appoint a safe pair of hands because this is a football club and needs the best manager possible because what we do is football and players can see through an imposter quicker than us.

 

If there was no one available (but there was - Dalglish) then you sit tight until someone better comes along.

 

On top of all of this you pay a fortune to get rid of a bloke who was clearly going to walk into another top job and you pay silly money to spring a below average manager to come in.

 

You get sacked in other jobs for this sort of performance (and I haven't even gone into Cole, selling players lists etc).

 

I'd stress again Benitez leaving in July or leaving in January would have made little difference in the scheme of things and that isn't hindsight, it's something that anyone with half an idea could see. And I won't have the losing the dressing room argument - if someone wants to go because of the manager staying then see yer lad, players don't run this Club.

 

If the house is on fire you don't throw more petrol on - you throw water on. Purslow reached for the bucket of water but through his own negligence picked up the petrol can.

[stringvest]

You get rid of a manager only if you can replace him with someone better.

We couldn't.

Benitez position was only untenable if someone better was being lined up to replace him.

It wasn't.

 

And that's all there is to it, everything else is just superfluous rhetoric.

 

You never, ever trade downwards.

 

Right, ok Dicko. Let's ignore the fact that we were on our arses, no money, trading downwards on players, lunatic owners, and the manager was dragging us into oblivion. A monkey in a tracksuit would have had a better chance of steadying the ship (and getting the club sold) than Benitez. And would probably have done a better job than Hodgson.

[TheResonator]

You completely fail to acknowledge that in any realistic terms Benitez's retention was untenable. Failure on the pitch, madness in the transfer market, agitating and destabilising a cub already in turmoil, senior players losing all respect for him, supporting Hicks - the new owners would not have wanted Benitez anywhere near the club and the consensus amongst the decision makers and the banks was that because of all that he had to go to give us the best chance of selling the club. He had become a liability, and that was his fault, no-one else's. Benitez had to go, and the reasons he had to go were all under Benitez's control. You can blame Purslow, or whoever you want, but the reality is different.

 

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.

[goatboy59]

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.

 

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

[stringvest]

I can assure you I'm not a star struck Benitez disciple but at a time of turmoil like we had last Summer the last thing you do is add to it.

 

What you do is reduce the turmoil. I'll accept that if the replacement manager being brought in was an upgrade then that would have had a chance of reducing the turmoil and giving the Club a lift at a time when it was desperately needed.

 

For instance, announcing Dalglish in July as Benitez's replacement would have reduced the turmoil, but guess what? Purslow picked Hodgson. The minimum you do (especially bearing in mind last Summer's context) is get a better manager. You don't appoint a safe pair of hands because this is a football club and needs the best manager possible because what we do is football and players can see through an imposter quicker than us.

 

If there was no one available (but there was - Dalglish) then you sit tight until someone better comes along.

 

On top of all of this you pay a fortune to get rid of a bloke who was clearly going to walk into another top job and you pay silly money to spring a below average manager to come in.

 

You get sacked in other jobs for this sort of performance (and I haven't even gone into Cole, selling players lists etc).

 

I'd stress again Benitez leaving in July or leaving in January would have made little difference in the scheme of things and that isn't hindsight, it's something that anyone with half an idea could see. And I won't have the losing the dressing room argument - if someone wants to go because of the manager staying then see yer lad, players don't run this Club.

 

If the house is on fire you don't throw more petrol on - you throw water on. Purslow reached for the bucket of water but through his own negligence picked up the petrol can.

 

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.