Topic: Roy ignored advice from LFC board (Purslow) over selling players.

[petrichor]

Is that cock banner hanging around? It should be at every game in my opinion, the man should never be allowed near Anfield again.

hope they are not making one for roy
that will really rub his face off

[Graham Smith]

The Hodgson debate will rage until he goes or settles and is accepted. However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.

The first thing to recognise about him is that from the outset Purslow worked in the margins to a large extent while he was here, changing from time to time exactly what it was that he was actually doing and his specific role.

In February when the Union met with him he was there solely to raise investment, but it was soon clear that he was working in a vacuum created by the fallout between Hicks and Gillett.

Hicks and Gillett weren't talking to each other, they didn't attend Board meetings other than by telephone and other than asking the big questions in their eyes about the bank balance, the investment search and the banks' attitude they rang off when the day to day stuff was to be discussed (that is a confirmed fact).

This vacuum left Purslow in a position to suddenly become that most dangerous of people - someone who doesn't know what they don't know.

No doubt he courted the senior players, listened to what they said, Dalglish of course and probably more crucially he swallowed the media rubbish fed by his journalist acolytes.

Allied to all of this he had a manager who saw through him as a mouthpiece for the owners, who regularly (but not necessarily as his fault) was the delivery boy of yet another financial promise being withdrawn but who could not be trusted to give the manager sufficient cover at his back.

So, in this power vacuum, you have an MD who is disconnected from the most important person at the Club, the person who should be giving and getting accepted the football advice. The Manager.

So what is the alternative? The worst possible thing happens - Purslow goes it alone, his well getting poisoned maybe by players who have half an eye on their own careers (rather than the LFC long term) and a press who hate the manager.

He decides that the manager has to go - but why? He's a bright person so we can assume that he thinks the replacement will be better, but on what basis? Better for the Club long term? Better in terms of being able to attract top players? Better in winning trophies or better in that the new man can be moulded to Purslow's will with a different relationship and level of power for that new manager?

Well, the result for all to see is that Hodgson comes in and is immediately the neutered manager - "You'll have to ask Christian about that" - Purslow has it sorted. No difficult Benitez, no driven doing it his own way Benitez, no Benitez still around with a vision (as imperfect as that might have been) of where the Club should be going and how. No, we end up with a yes man, limited but pliable and unlikely to rock the boat as he can't believe he's been told he's won the football lottery and he's also been told "This is how it will be Roy, take it or leave it".

I would love to know what went through Purslow's mind in those few weeks around Benitez going and Hodgson being appointed. If he was honest would he say that while he might stick by getting rid of Benitez the forward planning left lots to be desired. Did he have a plan? Was it Hodgson from earlier in the year as has been suggested? He clearly didn't realise the strength of feeling Dalglish would have about being the right man for the job or (unbelievably) he didn't have private chats with Dalglish beforehand saying what he was going to do.

So we end up with Dalglish (his mate evidently) wanting the job, Pelligrini and Deschamps are sounded out. Suddenly Purslow panics. He's made it clear that Dalglish isn't getting the job presumably on the basis that Pelligrini or Deschamps (or someone else) will come in. But they don't. So he's left scrambling around and we get Hodgson. Or maybe he actually felt from the word go that Hodgson was the guy for us. If so who advised him that he was? It wasn't Dalglish as he wanted the job and clearly had at least one person, himself, ahead of Hodgson. Who else did Purslow consult or did he do it totally off his own bat?

These questions weren't being asked by the Union as that level of detail is not within our remit. But the questions we asked about who was running the show, how were decisions made and who was being consulted etc were all dismissed as the takeover gathered pace. Purslow went into hiding and we had the stage managed LFC TV appearance and then Broughton muddying the waters by being around (and implicated) in the unveiling of Hodgson.

But don't be fooled - Hodgson is here due to one person and one person only - Purslow.

A Purslow who if he had sat tight, left Benitez where he was, would have seen Henry and Werner having to make the decision about stick or twisting with Benitez. The Club was clearly going to be either sold or go into administration in the Autumn so a manager change wasn't high on the agenda of the important things to worry about. But he didn't sit tight. He decided to make the change no matter what.

So we ended up with a Club in enough crisis already being plunged deeper, but why? One man's ego allied to a know better attitude based upon six months in a job he'd never done before but who considered 30 years of watching the team ample experience.

We now have a Club that is looking like coming out of its crisis off the pitch and which but for Purslow's decision would have seen the owners given some breathing space to decide about Benitez rather than inheriting someone who doesn't get the Club, the supporters, the City or frankly the expectations.

Thanks Christian.

[JohnBarnesBigToe]

If it is true that it was Roy’s 35 years of experience which identified the value of these players for the chop, then why were they still hawking Lucas around up until the end of the transfer window?
Also presumably Aquliani and Insua were on the list of the damned, but they were deemed by Roy worse players than Poulsen and Konchesky.

[The 5th Benitle]

Thanks for posting that Graham. Makes so much sense. I am still embarrassed that there was a thread on here with people suggesting banners praising Purslow. The man is an egomaniac and I think your assessment that he's set us back a season is bang on.

[Guz-kop]

The Hodgson debate will rage until he goes or settles and is accepted. However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.

The first thing to recognise about him is that from the outset Purslow worked in the margins to a large extent while he was here, changing from time to time exactly what it was that he was actually doing and his specific role.

In February when the Union met with him he was there solely to raise investment, but it was soon clear that he was working in a vacuum created by the fallout between Hicks and Gillett.

Hicks and Gillett weren't talking to each other, they didn't attend Board meetings other than by telephone and other than asking the big questions in their eyes about the bank balance, the investment search and the banks' attitude they rang off when the day to day stuff was to be discussed (that is a confirmed fact).

This vacuum left Purslow in a position to suddenly become that most dangerous of people - someone who doesn't know what they don't know.

No doubt he courted the senior players, listened to what they said, Dalglish of course and probably more crucially he swallowed the media rubbish fed by his journalist acolytes.

Allied to all of this he had a manager who saw through him as a mouthpiece for the owners, who regularly (but not necessarily as his fault) was the delivery boy of yet another financial promise being withdrawn but who could not be trusted to give the manager sufficient cover at his back.

So, in this power vacuum, you have an MD who is disconnected from the most important person at the Club, the person who should be giving and getting accepted the football advice. The Manager.

So what is the alternative? The worst possible thing happens - Purslow goes it alone, his well getting poisoned maybe by players who have half an eye on their own careers (rather than the LFC long term) and a press who hate the manager.

He decides that the manager has to go - but why? He's a bright person so we can assume that he thinks the replacement will be better, but on what basis? Better for the Club long term? Better in terms of being able to attract top players? Better in winning trophies or better in that the new man can be moulded to Purslow's will with a different relationship and level of power for that new manager?

Well, the result for all to see is that Hodgson comes in and is immediately the neutered manager - "You'll have to ask Christian about that" - Purslow has it sorted. No difficult Benitez, no driven doing it his own way Benitez, no Benitez still around with a vision (as imperfect as that might have been) of where the Club should be going and how. No, we end up with a yes man, limited but pliable and unlikely to rock the boat as he can't believe he's been told he's won the football lottery and he's also been told "This is how it will be Roy, take it or leave it".

I would love to know what went through Purslow's mind in those few weeks around Benitez going and Hodgson being appointed. If he was honest would he say that while he might stick by getting rid of Benitez the forward planning left lots to be desired. Did he have a plan? Was it Hodgson from earlier in the year as has been suggested? He clearly didn't realise the strength of feeling Dalglish would have about being the right man for the job or (unbelievably) he didn't have private chats with Dalglish beforehand saying what he was going to do.

So we end up with Dalglish (his mate evidently) wanting the job, Pelligrini and Deschamps are sounded out. Suddenly Purslow panics. He's made it clear that Dalglish isn't getting the job presumably on the basis that Pelligrini or Deschamps (or someone else) will come in. But they don't. So he's left scrambling around and we get Hodgson. Or maybe he actually felt from the word go that Hodgson was the guy for us. If so who advised him that he was? It wasn't Dalglish as he wanted the job and clearly had at least one person, himself, ahead of Hodgson. Who else did Purslow consult or did he do it totally off his own bat?

These questions weren't being asked by the Union as that level of detail is not within our remit. But the questions we asked about who was running the show, how were decisions made and who was being consulted etc were all dismissed as the takeover gathered pace. Purslow went into hiding and we had the stage managed LFC TV appearance and then Broughton muddying the waters by being around (and implicated) in the unveiling of Hodgson.

But don't be fooled - Hodgson is here due to one person and one person only - Purslow.

A Purslow who if he had sat tight, left Benitez where he was, would have seen Henry and Werner having to make the decision about stick or twisting with Benitez. The Club was clearly going to be either sold or go into administration in the Autumn so a manager change wasn't high on the agenda of the important things to worry about. But he didn't sit tight. He decided to make the change no matter what.

So we ended up with a Club in enough crisis already being plunged deeper, but why? One man's ego allied to a know better attitude based upon six months in a job he'd never done before but who considered 30 years of watching the team ample experience.

We now have a Club that is looking like coming out of its crisis off the pitch and which but for Purslow's decision would have seen the owners given some breathing space to decide about Benitez rather than inheriting someone who doesn't get the Club, the supporters, the City or frankly the expectations.

Thanks Christian.

Thanks for that. Do you know if he is still at the club? Is he still in the ear of the new owners?

[Graham Smith]

Thanks for that. Do you know if he is still at the club? Is he still in the ear of the new owners?

I don't know. Hopefully not.

[Dave D]

Purslow always has been and always will be, a calamitous fucktard. Keep him as far away from our club as possible.

[Cassiel]

Thanks Graham - an eminently plausible and clear-eyed account of one man's hubris and its affect on us all. I think the role of his journalistic pals was critical in all of this - he listened to them rather than fans, and look where it got us. An important lesson for us all. I hope Purslow has the humility to say away from Anfield for the damage he has done, or at least issue an apology for the fallout from his deluded meddling.

[Crosby Nick]

Cheers for the summary Graham - makes for depressing reading though but good to get an informed opinion on it.

[Strummer77]

I don't like Cecil, but Roy is one venomous prick just unnecessarily getting a dig in at someone else to try and make himself like better, similar to how he said Benitez banned Kenny from Melwood. 

I think it's safe to say I completely disagree with everything that Roy Hodgson says in public

It's more similar to how Benitez slagged off Purslow. For all the stupid things Roy has said, this isn't one in my opinion.

[LFCfan4Life]

Cecil is a fucking idiot and has no business being anywhere near the inner running of our club

should stick to the stands and leave football to those that have a fucking clue

[Torpedo Tommy]

Regardless of Roy's inadequaces if he's the manager he should make the decisions on who goes and stays.

Graham Smith sums things up pretty well but I thought this.......

I don't like Cecil, but Roy is one venomous prick just unnecessarily getting a dig in at someone else to try and make himself like better, similar to how he said Benitez banned Kenny from Melwood. 

I think it's safe to say I completely disagree with everything that Roy Hodgson says in public

.....had been concluded as bullshit fabricated by Roy to drive a wedge between the fans and their feelings for Benitez?

[walshys_mullet]

Shame he didnt ignore Purslow when he asked him to become manager.

[Hannibal]

It does make sense though, Hodgson pretty much saying that Purslow is clueless when it comes to footballing matters.   Kinda explains how he got the job as our manager.

[blert596]

It's more similar to how Benitez slagged off Purslow. For all the stupid things Roy has said, this isn't one in my opinion.

Disagree with this. The agendas behind Benitez' disagreements with Purslow, and Hodgsons remarks are completely different.

It's just my opinion but Benitez was continually showing Purslow up for what he was doing to the club. Hodgson is just trying to big himself up. His statement isnt even completely true.

[Graham Smith]

Disagree with this. The agendas behind Benitez' disagreements with Purslow, and Hodgsons remarks are completely different.

It's just my opinion but Benitez was continually showing Purslow up for what he was doing to the club. Hodgson is just trying to big himself up. His statement isnt even completely true.

This ^^^^

[thechulloran]

just a blind man leading another blind man

[xerxes1]

The Hodgson debate will rage until he goes or settles and is accepted. However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.Etc......................................................

A  really good piece  Graham . I particularly like the section about Purslow’s rise to prominence being by default – I agree entirely.

You ask the key question ,“He decides that the manager has to go - but why?” I offer you this explanation.

When Rafa signed his new contract G&H’s duplicity, unfolding financial vulnerability, and inability to run a football club were apparent. So why did he do it? I think for three reasons. Firstly a footballing optimism that we were on the cusp of something big on the pitch, secondly it was the mother of all contracts in duration, and thirdly because he thought that he would outlast them. Furthermore he was doing G&H a favour by helping them out, it shored up their regime, assisted refinance , and retained value for the asset through stability- a quiet life in return beckoned.

Your observation of the power vacuum at the Club is spot on, and I believe that it was filled by Purslow AND Rafa. He had the worst of jobs, and the best of jobs – because no-one around him knew what they were doing.

Then that summer unfolds. The refinancing problems demonstrate that the finances are worse than he imagined. The “control” of the transfer budget turns out to be a three card trick. And what budget there is redefined to include new contract deals – including his own! So the truth dawns on him – he has been done. And the assistance he gave G&H by signing a new contract rather than by heaping pressure on them by allowing it to wind down has blown up in his face.

The result? An enraged Rafa who spent the entire season dog-fighting with Purslow, whom he rightly had no respect for, and by default the Board. This leaves both parties worn down by the season’s end. Rafa patently can’t work with a Board which is incompetent, but he isn’t going to walk out on a lucrative contract. Purslow is faced with a manager whom he can’t sack- but with whom he cannot work. Inevitably the “pay-off” ensues.

The tragedy is that what happened last summer suited no-one. Rafa didn’t want to go- but could no longer work with G&H&P. Purslow didn’t need the hassle of a managerial change – but couldn’t put up with a Manager who had no confidence in him or the Board. G&H lost out because it made their asset even more vulnerable, after they thought that they had “bought Rafa off” with the contract. The fans lost out with the departure of a great manager leaving us with the open question, what if?

[jDJ]

The most horrifying thought these comments inspire is Purslow ringing Hodgson and having a little giggle about how right Hodgson was to ignore Purslow's suggestion to get rid of the likes of Lucas, N'Gog, etc.  Sorry but what a pair of fcking clowns?  And we still see Stevie sharing a little giggle with Purslow at Anfield - it's like some sick joke this.

[R.A.La]

The most horrifying thought these comments inspire is Purslow ringing Hodgson and having a little giggle about how right Hodgson was to ignore Purslow's suggestion to get rid of the likes of Lucas, Ngog, etc.  Sorry but what a pair of fcking clowns?  And we still see Stevie sharing a little giggle with Purslow at Anfield - it's like some sick joke this.

The two faced bastard was chatting away with Lucas aswell.
He should be locked out of anfield.

[Gnurglan]

However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.
...
A Purslow who if he had sat tight, left Benitez where he was, would have seen Henry and Werner having to make the decision about stick or twisting with Benitez. The Club was clearly going to be either sold or go into administration in the Autumn so a manager change wasn't high on the agenda of the important things to worry about. But he didn't sit tight. He decided to make the change no matter what.

So we ended up with a Club in enough crisis already being plunged deeper, but why? One man's ego allied to a know better attitude based upon six months in a job he'd never done before but who considered 30 years of watching the team ample experience.

We now have a Club that is looking like coming out of its crisis off the pitch and which but for Purslow's decision would have seen the owners given some breathing space to decide about Benitez rather than inheriting someone who doesn't get the Club, the supporters, the City or frankly the expectations.

Thanks Christian.

Well put. CP deserves credit for helping to get rid off G&H, but I think that was a one off.  CP was responsible for quite shocking management and his decisions cost the club millions and millions of pounds. All effects are yet to be seen.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Brilliant post that Graham, and one that needed making. 

It is disheartening that Purslow is still listed on the board of the club, still dares to show his face at games and through whatever face-saving role he was given by the owners perhaps still has their ear.  Thankfully the speed with which they moved to remove him from any position of power suggests that they have seen through him and he will be gone soon enough though.  No point making controversial decisions at the outset, get a new CEO in and then quietly set the venomous little shitehawk adrift down the Mersey. 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Well put. CP deserves credit for helping to get rid off G&H, but I think that was a one off.  CP was responsible for quite shocking management and his decisions cost the club millions and millions of pounds. All effects are yet to be seen.

I think I could have done what Martin told me and remember to vote the right way at the right times.

[subroc]

The Hodgson debate will rage until he goes or settles and is accepted. However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.

The first thing to recognise about him is that from the outset Purslow worked in the margins to a large extent while he was here, changing from time to time exactly what it was that he was actually doing and his specific role.

In February when the Union met with him he was there solely to raise investment, but it was soon clear that he was working in a vacuum created by the fallout between Hicks and Gillett.

Hicks and Gillett weren't talking to each other, they didn't attend Board meetings other than by telephone and other than asking the big questions in their eyes about the bank balance, the investment search and the banks' attitude they rang off when the day to day stuff was to be discussed (that is a confirmed fact).

This vacuum left Purslow in a position to suddenly become that most dangerous of people - someone who doesn't know what they don't know.

No doubt he courted the senior players, listened to what they said, Dalglish of course and probably more crucially he swallowed the media rubbish fed by his journalist acolytes.

Allied to all of this he had a manager who saw through him as a mouthpiece for the owners, who regularly (but not necessarily as his fault) was the delivery boy of yet another financial promise being withdrawn but who could not be trusted to give the manager sufficient cover at his back.

So, in this power vacuum, you have an MD who is disconnected from the most important person at the Club, the person who should be giving and getting accepted the football advice. The Manager.

So what is the alternative? The worst possible thing happens - Purslow goes it alone, his well getting poisoned maybe by players who have half an eye on their own careers (rather than the LFC long term) and a press who hate the manager.

He decides that the manager has to go - but why? He's a bright person so we can assume that he thinks the replacement will be better, but on what basis? Better for the Club long term? Better in terms of being able to attract top players? Better in winning trophies or better in that the new man can be moulded to Purslow's will with a different relationship and level of power for that new manager?

Well, the result for all to see is that Hodgson comes in and is immediately the neutered manager - "You'll have to ask Christian about that" - Purslow has it sorted. No difficult Benitez, no driven doing it his own way Benitez, no Benitez still around with a vision (as imperfect as that might have been) of where the Club should be going and how. No, we end up with a yes man, limited but pliable and unlikely to rock the boat as he can't believe he's been told he's won the football lottery and he's also been told "This is how it will be Roy, take it or leave it".

I would love to know what went through Purslow's mind in those few weeks around Benitez going and Hodgson being appointed. If he was honest would he say that while he might stick by getting rid of Benitez the forward planning left lots to be desired. Did he have a plan? Was it Hodgson from earlier in the year as has been suggested? He clearly didn't realise the strength of feeling Dalglish would have about being the right man for the job or (unbelievably) he didn't have private chats with Dalglish beforehand saying what he was going to do.

So we end up with Dalglish (his mate evidently) wanting the job, Pelligrini and Deschamps are sounded out. Suddenly Purslow panics. He's made it clear that Dalglish isn't getting the job presumably on the basis that Pelligrini or Deschamps (or someone else) will come in. But they don't. So he's left scrambling around and we get Hodgson. Or maybe he actually felt from the word go that Hodgson was the guy for us. If so who advised him that he was? It wasn't Dalglish as he wanted the job and clearly had at least one person, himself, ahead of Hodgson. Who else did Purslow consult or did he do it totally off his own bat?

These questions weren't being asked by the Union as that level of detail is not within our remit. But the questions we asked about who was running the show, how were decisions made and who was being consulted etc were all dismissed as the takeover gathered pace. Purslow went into hiding and we had the stage managed LFC TV appearance and then Broughton muddying the waters by being around (and implicated) in the unveiling of Hodgson.

But don't be fooled - Hodgson is here due to one person and one person only - Purslow.

A Purslow who if he had sat tight, left Benitez where he was, would have seen Henry and Werner having to make the decision about stick or twisting with Benitez. The Club was clearly going to be either sold or go into administration in the Autumn so a manager change wasn't high on the agenda of the important things to worry about. But he didn't sit tight. He decided to make the change no matter what.

So we ended up with a Club in enough crisis already being plunged deeper, but why? One man's ego allied to a know better attitude based upon six months in a job he'd never done before but who considered 30 years of watching the team ample experience.

We now have a Club that is looking like coming out of its crisis off the pitch and which but for Purslow's decision would have seen the owners given some breathing space to decide about Benitez rather than inheriting someone who doesn't get the Club, the supporters, the City or frankly the expectations.

Thanks Christian.

  Well-written summary!

[Always_A_Red]

Purslow always has been and always will be remembered as a total twat who made desisions based on his own ego. I hate the c*nt, i really do. Imagine the players Rafa would attract in January or the summer if he was still here...instead we're stuck with a stupid facerubbing clueless twat who couldnt see a decent signing if it smacked him in the face.

Thanks Purslow you bellend!

[Danny_]

I doubt it was Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa.  However, given what we've learned about him, I'm glad he is gone.  He should have given Dalglish the manager's job after Rafa was axed but maybe, he thought he could control things more with Roy.  I can't really feel bitter towards him though as he is a genuine fan and was partially responsible for getting rid of G&H.  We owe him some respect for this alone.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I doubt it was Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa.  However, given what we've learned about him, I'm glad he is gone.  He should have given Dalglish the manager's job after Rafa was axed but maybe, he thought he could control things more with Roy.  I can't really feel bitter towards him though as he is a genuine fan and was partially responsible for getting rid of G&H.  We owe him some respect for this alone.

Who else was in a position to make that decision at the time?

[R.A.La]

I doubt it was Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa.  However, given what we've learned about him, I'm glad he is gone.  He should have given Dalglish the manager's job after Rafa was axed but maybe, he thought he could control things more with Roy.  I can't really feel bitter towards him though as he is a genuine fan and was partially responsible for getting rid of G&H.  We owe him some respect for this alone.

If it's white and in a bottle....

[Always_A_Red]

I doubt it was Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa.  However, given what we've learned about him, I'm glad he is gone.  He should have given Dalglish the manager's job after Rafa was axed but maybe, he thought he could control things more with Roy.  I can't really feel bitter towards him though as he is a genuine fan and was partially responsible for getting rid of G&H.  We owe him some respect for this alone.

 

[Trada]

Dalglish does not expect Reina or Torres to leave Reds

Kenny Dalglish does not expect any of Liverpool's star players to leave in the foreseeable future, insisting: "I don't think there's anybody trying to get away".

Liverpool slumped to ninth in the Premier League table after their 3-1 defeat at Newcastle, which leaves them with just six wins from 17 league games. The Reds finished the weekend nine points adrift of a Champions League qualifying spot, and they have won one away game all season.

Such a poor run of form has seen the likes of Fernando Torres and Pepe Reina linked with a move away from Anfield, and both players have fanned those flames at times by warning the club that it must show signs of improvement.

Dalglish, a Liverpool ambassador, is not concerned about the future though, pointing to the fact that the Reds' key players all recently signed long-term deals. Reina penned a six-year contract in April, Dirk Kuyt and Steven Gerrard both extended their agreements in 2009, while Torres is tied in until 2013.

"I wouldn't see that as a problem," Dalglish said when asked by Sky Sports News of his fears over a player exodus. "I don't think there's anybody trying to get away.

"They've all committed themselves to the club for a long time, we were delighted when they did, and I can't see any reason why they would change their minds."

Dalglish does admit that results need to improve under Hodgson, but he called for calm, insisting the former Fulham boss is guiding the club through a tough time.

"It's a transitional period for the club, Roy came in very late on in the summer, his players were away on international duty, he took a while to assess the staff, and by the time he did that he had run out of time in the transfer market.

"Through no fault of Roy Hodgson's, it is a transitional period. The takeover rightly took precedence over everything else. The club has settled down a lot more now and has some stability. Now we need to get results on the pitch.

"Roy Hodgson will decide if he needs to improve the squad. If he sees a weakness I'm sure he'll ask the owners for finance."

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/62168.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

[Gnurglan]

A  really good piece  Graham . I particularly like the section about Purslow’s rise to prominence being by default – I agree entirely.

You ask the key question ,“He decides that the manager has to go - but why?” I offer you this explanation.

When Rafa signed his new contract G&H’s duplicity, unfolding financial vulnerability, and inability to run a football club were apparent. So why did he do it? I think for three reasons. Firstly a footballing optimism that we were on the cusp of something big on the pitch, secondly it was the mother of all contracts in duration, and thirdly because he thought that he would outlast them. Furthermore he was doing G&H a favour by helping them out, it shored up their regime, assisted refinance , and retained value for the asset through stability- a quiet life in return beckoned.

Your observation of the power vacuum at the Club is spot on, and I believe that it was filled by Purslow AND Rafa. He had the worst of jobs, and the best of jobs – because no-one around him knew what they were doing.

Then that summer unfolds. The refinancing problems demonstrate that the finances are worse than he imagined. The “control” of the transfer budget turns out to be a three card trick. And what budget there is redefined to include new contract deals – including his own! So the truth dawns on him – he has been done. And the assistance he gave G&H by signing a new contract rather than by heaping pressure on them by allowing it to wind down has blown up in his face.

The result? An enraged Rafa who spent the entire season dog-fighting with Purslow, whom he rightly had no respect for, and by default the Board. This leaves both parties worn down by the season’s end. Rafa patently can’t work with a Board which is incompetent, but he isn’t going to walk out on a lucrative contract. Purslow is faced with a manager whom he can’t sack- but with whom he cannot work. Inevitably the “pay-off” ensues.

The tragedy is that what happened last summer suited no-one. Rafa didn’t want to go- but could no longer work with G&H&P. Purslow didn’t need the hassle of a managerial change – but couldn’t put up with a Manager who had no confidence in him or the Board. G&H lost out because it made their asset even more vulnerable, after they thought that they had “bought Rafa off” with the contract. The fans lost out with the departure of a great manager leaving us with the open question, what if?

Could be. That would make some sense to the lunacy.

Unfortunately, CP didn't stop there. Take the appointment of the new manager. That too was a farce. And as I have said many times before, I don't blame Hodgson for taking the job. However, the people who were responsible for the scouting/selection process must also be accountable. I wonder what they did, if they did anything at all? Other than taking the easy way out. Whoever thought Hodgson was the right man, with a worse track record than quite a few other known candidates, cannot have made much of an analysis. And when Roy was presented, he was "cosmopolitan" and one to "steady the ship". They could not even find a proper argument as to why he was selected. It appeared they had not even discussed the transfer budget before he signed. But they were actually impressed that Hodgson didn't speak about money. Then CP presents a list of his desired transfer exits. Roy doesn't know if players will stay or not. So by then CP has not only sacked Rafa, hired a manager who he can't "sell" to us, he's actively trying to influence that same manager on how to do his job. Seems to me CP wanted to run the club himself. But he needed a front for it.
IMO Roy was just their guy to take the fall. And as much as I want Roy out, the real blame should be directed towards CP&Co. With them out, Roy is held responsible for their incompetence.

[Gnurglan]

I think I could have done what Martin told me and remember to vote the right way at the right times.

"OK, Christian, vote against G&H, alright?"


Yeah, I think most of us could have done it. Even without Martin telling us. Fair point.

[Graham Smith]

I doubt it was Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa.  However, given what we've learned about him, I'm glad he is gone.  He should have given Dalglish the manager's job after Rafa was axed but maybe, he thought he could control things more with Roy.  I can't really feel bitter towards him though as he is a genuine fan and was partially responsible for getting rid of G&H.  We owe him some respect for this alone.

I think it was totally Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa. However xerxes1 has got it right too.

The cocktail of a strong willed and stubborn Benitez standing his ground and fronting Purslow plus a Purslow working in a power vacuum left it completely within Purslow's power to engineer Benitez's removal.

I've no doubt towards the end it was made easier by Benitez deciding to cut his losses (some losses!) and go.

[Eeyore]

I think it was totally Purslow's decision to get rid of Rafa. However xerxes1 has got it right too.

The cocktail of a strong willed and stubborn Benitez standing his ground and fronting Purslow plus a Purslow working in a power vacuum left it completely within Purslow's power to engineer Benitez's removal.

I've no doubt towards the end it was made easier by Benitez deciding to cut his losses (some losses!) and go.

Shouldn't the question be given the anti Benitez dressing room leaks, how much influence the senior players had in the removal of Benitez and the coronation of Hodgson.

Purslow has virtually no input at the Club now and is now being conveniently used as a scapegoat for all the Club's ills. We should be asking why the senior players allowed a man with absolutely no football knowledge or experience to run the Club.

They had no trouble allowing the likes of Collymore, Durham and Bascombe to attack the last manager using their names in the process, why were they so reticent to speak out about Purslow's actions, indeed they did the reverse and continually praised him.

[vicgill]

The Hodgson debate will rage until he goes or settles and is accepted. However, the euphoria and kudos that Purslow received after the court case needs to be tempered by the fact that he has set us back at least a season through his own ego and limitations.

The first thing to recognise about him is that from the outset Purslow worked in the margins to a large extent while he was here, changing from time to time exactly what it was that he was actually doing and his specific role.

In February when the Union met with him he was there solely to raise investment, but it was soon clear that he was working in a vacuum created by the fallout between Hicks and Gillett.

Hicks and Gillett weren't talking to each other, they didn't attend Board meetings other than by telephone and other than asking the big questions in their eyes about the bank balance, the investment search and the banks' attitude they rang off when the day to day stuff was to be discussed (that is a confirmed fact).

This vacuum left Purslow in a position to suddenly become that most dangerous of people - someone who doesn't know what they don't know.

No doubt he courted the senior players, listened to what they said, Dalglish of course and probably more crucially he swallowed the media rubbish fed by his journalist acolytes.

Allied to all of this he had a manager who saw through him as a mouthpiece for the owners, who regularly (but not necessarily as his fault) was the delivery boy of yet another financial promise being withdrawn but who could not be trusted to give the manager sufficient cover at his back.

So, in this power vacuum, you have an MD who is disconnected from the most important person at the Club, the person who should be giving and getting accepted the football advice. The Manager.

So what is the alternative? The worst possible thing happens - Purslow goes it alone, his well getting poisoned maybe by players who have half an eye on their own careers (rather than the LFC long term) and a press who hate the manager.

He decides that the manager has to go - but why? He's a bright person so we can assume that he thinks the replacement will be better, but on what basis? Better for the Club long term? Better in terms of being able to attract top players? Better in winning trophies or better in that the new man can be moulded to Purslow's will with a different relationship and level of power for that new manager?

Well, the result for all to see is that Hodgson comes in and is immediately the neutered manager - "You'll have to ask Christian about that" - Purslow has it sorted. No difficult Benitez, no driven doing it his own way Benitez, no Benitez still around with a vision (as imperfect as that might have been) of where the Club should be going and how. No, we end up with a yes man, limited but pliable and unlikely to rock the boat as he can't believe he's been told he's won the football lottery and he's also been told "This is how it will be Roy, take it or leave it".

I would love to know what went through Purslow's mind in those few weeks around Benitez going and Hodgson being appointed. If he was honest would he say that while he might stick by getting rid of Benitez the forward planning left lots to be desired. Did he have a plan? Was it Hodgson from earlier in the year as has been suggested? He clearly didn't realise the strength of feeling Dalglish would have about being the right man for the job or (unbelievably) he didn't have private chats with Dalglish beforehand saying what he was going to do.

So we end up with Dalglish (his mate evidently) wanting the job, Pelligrini and Deschamps are sounded out. Suddenly Purslow panics. He's made it clear that Dalglish isn't getting the job presumably on the basis that Pelligrini or Deschamps (or someone else) will come in. But they don't. So he's left scrambling around and we get Hodgson. Or maybe he actually felt from the word go that Hodgson was the guy for us. If so who advised him that he was? It wasn't Dalglish as he wanted the job and clearly had at least one person, himself, ahead of Hodgson. Who else did Purslow consult or did he do it totally off his own bat?

These questions weren't being asked by the Union as that level of detail is not within our remit. But the questions we asked about who was running the show, how were decisions made and who was being consulted etc were all dismissed as the takeover gathered pace. Purslow went into hiding and we had the stage managed LFC TV appearance and then Broughton muddying the waters by being around (and implicated) in the unveiling of Hodgson.

But don't be fooled - Hodgson is here due to one person and one person only - Purslow.

A Purslow who if he had sat tight, left Benitez where he was, would have seen Henry and Werner having to make the decision about stick or twisting with Benitez. The Club was clearly going to be either sold or go into administration in the Autumn so a manager change wasn't high on the agenda of the important things to worry about. But he didn't sit tight. He decided to make the change no matter what.

So we ended up with a Club in enough crisis already being plunged deeper, but why? One man's ego allied to a know better attitude based upon six months in a job he'd never done before but who considered 30 years of watching the team ample experience.

We now have a Club that is looking like coming out of its crisis off the pitch and which but for Purslow's decision would have seen the owners given some breathing space to decide about Benitez rather than inheriting someone who doesn't get the Club, the supporters, the City or frankly the expectations.

Thanks Christian.

and thanks Graham, every body who thinks "cecil the slime" is a legend should be forced to read that. Because of this person´s ego we have Roy, NESV should have been left to decide on our previous manager. The fact that this rat is still crawling around our club is a massive insult to us all

[WhiteHeat]

Shouldn't the question be given the anti Benitez dressing room leaks, how much influence the senior players had in the removal of Benitez and the coronation of Hodgson.

Purslow has virtually no input at the Club now and is now being conveniently used as a scapegoat for all the Club's ills. We should be asking why the senior players allowed a man with absolutely no football knowledge or experience to run the Club.

They had no trouble allowing the likes of Collymore, Durham and Bascombe to attack the last manager using their names in the process, why were they so reticent to speak out about Purslow's actions, indeed they did the reverse and continually praised him.

What I'd like to know though is did Carragher and Gerrard actually 'tell' or 'advise' Purslow to sack him?

[Graham Smith]

Shouldn't the question be given the anti Benitez dressing room leaks, how much influence the senior players had in the removal of Benitez and the coronation of Hodgson.

Purslow has virtually no input at the Club now and is now being conveniently used as a scapegoat for all the Club's ills. We should be asking why the senior players allowed a man with absolutely no football knowledge or experience to run the Club.

They had no trouble allowing the likes of Collymore, Durham and Bascombe to attack the last manager using their names in the process, why were they so reticent to speak out about Purslow's actions, indeed they did the reverse and continually praised him.

Spot on, but the problem was that if the players were agitating then they had a willing patsy in a spineless Purslow who should have told them to shut up and play or do one.

Any team where the players start calling the shots is finished (let's see what City do next).

The reason they're not calling out now is that they've got what they wanted.

[Eeyore]

and thanks Graham, every body who thinks "cecil the slime" is a legend should be forced to read that. Because of this person´s ego we have Roy, NESV should have been left to decide on our previous manager. The fact that this rat is still crawling around our club is a massive insult to us all

Would that include the senior players who spoke glowingly of Purslow ?

[garcia-alonso]

Would that include the senior players who spoke glowingly of Purslow ?

Such as the one who thinks the fans are pricks, you mean?

[Gnurglan]

Shouldn't the question be given the anti Benitez dressing room leaks, how much influence the senior players had in the removal of Benitez and the coronation of Hodgson.

Purslow has virtually no input at the Club now and is now being conveniently used as a scapegoat for all the Club's ills. We should be asking why the senior players allowed a man with absolutely no football knowledge or experience to run the Club.

They had no trouble allowing the likes of Collymore, Durham and Bascombe to attack the last manager using their names in the process, why were they so reticent to speak out about Purslow's actions, indeed they did the reverse and continually praised him.

But isn't this the fault of Purslow? He's part of the senior management that, if I understand it correct, sanctioned that the players could undermine Rafa. Had he said "shut it, or you're off" to the players, it wouldnt' have happened.