Pitarch Leaves | Page 8 | Vital Football

Pitarch Leaves

Fulford said:
The owners asked Suso for a quality jump in the squad and on the bench for the following season. Contacts were established with high-level coaches eager to get on the bandwagon. But the CEO felt sidelined and the relationship with Suso deteriorated.


1


5




Guillem Balague
@GuillemBalague

Smith and Suso have received criticism from the media for passing interesting information that protects Purslow. Difficult to work in these conditions. Suso has preferred not to continue despite having one more year of contract, and he told the owners a while ago.

CEO Christian Purslow did not always readily accept the owners' relationship with the sports director. In case Dean Smith had to be replaced, he was asked for advice (Suso suggested Javi Gracia, Chris Hughton, Bruno Lage, Purslow wanted Steven Gerrard or John Terry)


1

8

6
Click to expand...

Fulford, interesting, where did it come from? The B.Mail had it that there were differences between him and Purslow.

I read somewhere yesterday, trying to work out where, that Pitarch is an "old fashioned" type of recruiter and doesn't use Moneyball. Would be an interesting slant if it was true.

Whatever, you need the recruiting team singing from the same hymn sheet.
 
McParlandTheGreat said:
Fulford, interesting, where did it come from? The B.Mail had it that there were differences between him and Purslow.

I read somewhere yesterday, trying to work out where, that Pitarch is an "old fashioned" type of recruiter and doesn't use Moneyball. Would be an interesting slant if it was true.

Whatever, you need the recruiting team singing from the same hymn sheet.
Click to expand...

It's all from Guillem Balague on twitter.
 
The recruitment was too hit or miss. I'm more than comfortable with Suso being moved on. It really isn't a big deal and we can emerge from this with better people in place.
 
Pangloss said:
The recruitment was too hit or miss. I'm more than comfortable with Suso being moved on. It really isn't a big deal and we can emerge from this with better people in place.
Click to expand...

and as said, quickly please, especially if they have known this is happening for months.
 
Pangloss said:
Forget a long list of contacts and data science, a pint of wine and a big fat brown envelope are the tools he'd deploy.
Click to expand...
Well we do know he can attract good players, brown bag or not..... Djorkaef, Okocha, Diouf, Ben Haim, Kevin Nolan..... I'll get me coat....
 
Well Suso and Deano are supposed to have had a huge argument over the January window. Sounds like the relationship had completely broken down, so one of them had to move on. I'm not Deano's biggest fan but I guess if it was a choice of the two, then Suso would go first. Either that or get rid of both.
 
My gut instinct over Purslow is he's a ******** and he's ex Liverpool and Chelsea for a reason which I've said many times. It will end in tears eventually
 
Don't believe in conspiracy theories. Clash of ego's, that's a different story. Let's face it, football is full of opinionated egotistical w@nkers, throwing other people's money around as if it is confetti. Sounds like the City in the 80s 🤣.

I'm not sure I totally trust any of them to get it right. Whatever has actually happened, it doesn't put Purslow in a great light. He needs to be totally removed from footballing decisions.
 
mike_field said:
Quite simply the fact the owners can't put in £150m for a start. We are one of the most self sustainable clubs in the entire 4 pyramids.

The days of owners funding a club ended a long time ago Hifried. Their true investment into first team related affairs is capped via FFP. This is why the Academy level is so important now - it's why Chelsea, Man U, Man C, etc stockpile youngsters they get cheap and sell high.

I'm not being cheeky and if you don't know but ask questions I'm probably not in a position to answer tonight :guiness:but I will answer tomorrow matey.

We can absolutely spend another £150m based on next years revenue, but the owners cannot put in £150m for us to spunk in the transfer market.
Click to expand...
Well still waiting for your pearls of wisdom. It seems to me that you don't really understand ffp beyond a mechanical analysis. As you know we used the stadium sale accountancy wheeze to comply with ffp in the championship. There are plenty more accountancy wheezes to come up with to comply with ffp. And Man City have certainly curtailed the power of ffp with their CAS arbitration case. That combined with covid leads me to believe that Villa can spunk money on transfers and kick the can down the road or just kill it. Stadium naming rights deal. Shirt sponsorship with Sawaris company,inflated player exchanges. It's not rocket science it's just accountancy tricks to comply with p&l. To me ffp looks so anathema to business in general that I think it needs to change and be more concerned with the ability of clubs to honour their obligations rather than be a mechanical p&l issue. Villa can spend if they want to. If I'm wrong tell me why
 
Hifriedelity said:
Well still waiting for your pearls of wisdom. It seems to me that you don't really understand ffp beyond a mechanical analysis. As you know we used the stadium sale accountancy wheeze to comply with ffp in the championship. There are plenty more accountancy wheezes to come up with to comply with ffp. And Man City have certainly curtailed the power of ffp with their CAS arbitration case. That combined with covid leads me to believe that Villa can spunk money on transfers and kick the can down the road or just kill it. Stadium naming rights deal. Shirt sponsorship with Sawaris company,inflated player exchanges. It's not rocket science it's just accountancy tricks to comply with p&l. To me ffp looks so anathema to business in general that I think it needs to change and be more concerned with the ability of clubs to honour their obligations rather than be a mechanical p&l issue. Villa can spend if they want to. If I'm wrong tell me why
Click to expand...
:stupid:

Come on Mike, the gauntlet is on the floor.
 
Hifriedelity said:
Well still waiting for your pearls of wisdom. It seems to me that you don't really understand ffp beyond a mechanical analysis. As you know we used the stadium sale accountancy wheeze to comply with ffp in the championship. There are plenty more accountancy wheezes to come up with to comply with ffp. And Man City have certainly curtailed the power of ffp with their CAS arbitration case. That combined with covid leads me to believe that Villa can spunk money on transfers and kick the can down the road or just kill it. Stadium naming rights deal. Shirt sponsorship with Sawaris company,inflated player exchanges. It's not rocket science it's just accountancy tricks to comply with p&l. To me ffp looks so anathema to business in general that I think it needs to change and be more concerned with the ability of clubs to honour their obligations rather than be a mechanical p&l issue. Villa can spend if they want to. If I'm wrong tell me why
Click to expand...

If I missed a previous post my apologies...but only just seen this.

Ignoring the first few sentences, I again repeat I'm not an expert and what I know also comes from accountants and those in the finance world as to their understanding of FFP. But like them, I've actually read the guff.

The stadium shenanigans should've actually tripped the 'spirit' intention of the rules but as the Champ had let others do it and missed that trick, effectively a precedent was set allowing us to follow the same. But it's hugely debatable as to whether it actually complies with FFP as it stands because FFP is all about debt to revenue and playing an underhand 1-off card to sell the Stadium to yourself because Stadium revenue falls under the regulations is a bit naughty.

However, I'd love to hear of the other FFP wheezes that nobody has used so far that seemingly are common place to comply that you know about matey.

That also seriously misrepresents the details and specifics of the Man City case and appeal. FFP hasn't been curtailed or ended or anything of the sort. Absolutely no provision in the regulations has been deemed anti-competitive or unlawful. UEFA failed to prove their case to an adequate level (it was also a shambles as nobody launches a legal case when you know claims fall under the relevant Limitations Acts, without even bothering to explain why the Limitations Act should be suspended (in this instance) in the wider determination of justice owing to deception or fraud.

Furthermore any fall out for UEFA doesn't impact on domestic FFP regulations in any European country in any event, that's why FFP is different even within the UK, let alone Europe.

Covid means the FFP determination point has been delayed until the summer of 2021 but hindsight is a lovely thing thinking we could've run that gambit back in January, even if, on assumption, we had another £30-40million to play with - that we could've then rectified had relegation occurred.

Yes we now have even more wriggle room in August to take a risk, banking on balancing the last two seasons in January with sales if absolutely necessary but FFP isn't over and it's spurious to think it is.

Given I only have a mechanical analysis and understanding, I again repeat a big provision within FFP is operating within the spirit of the rules, so your idea we can artificially inflate stadium sponsorship, or shirt sponsorship fails - for many reasons.

Linked deals based on owners are looked at even more closely (a provision in itself) and Man City also almost fell foul of that but they didn't take the piss. I can only imagine at best we've had a £10m 2 yr deal on shirt sponsorship - our owners cannot use one of their businesses and make that instantly £30m. It's not that simple as the regulations dictate market value and exposure matters and there's no way we can justify sponsorship of any sort in the region of the top 10 sides from this season after 1 year back, surviving by the skin of our teeth.

I agree it's not rocket science, but it's also not accountancy tricks. This isn't fucking with a balance sheet or cooking the books, owners can only physically subsidise so far because all spending has to be justified by incoming revenue. NSWE could absolutely put one million pounds (credit Austin Powers) into the club, it would sit happily on our balance sheet, it would sit happily in the bank but it's not revenue to prop up wages or increase transfer spend.

They could put in 3 billion if they wanted...we still couldn't use it for wages or spending and that's without me even mentioning my now favourite line - wage growth stipulations which despite mentioning about three billion times, few seem to be aware of.

Whilst I agree with the thrust of your ending, as I'm no FFP fan simply because whilst I agree with the ethos, the enaction of it stifles growth and doesn't protect clubs anyway which is what it's supposed to do - you're talking pie in the sky.

We're back in the Prem, the major punishment is now pay an unspecified fine that is FFP accountable. The EFL significantly beefed up their punishments with QPR after they decided they could ignore it.

Do you want Villa's greatest achievement since 1981/82 to be the PL take umbrage that we take the piss so significantly they feel they need to beef up their own punishments so it's not just a fine, but it could also be points deductions and/or relegation?

Or go the other way - instead of our risk last summer on signing, we take a new risk and spend £300million on players that gets everyone's backs up - we don't click - and we go down.

We balanced both risks this season with our spending, that's why I say we can easily spend £150m again this window (and it should be on 4 key instant first team additions) and then we have another £50m to gamble on youngsters, up and coming unknowns etc.

But NSWE cannot spunk that money into us for us to spunk out. It's based on revenue only.

I think that was everything given you didn't really have a question chap?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.