With all the talk about PV let’s not overlook the role of our chairman. PV was bought in to play a certain style of football including wingbacks a Gallagher style midfielder and a striker than can score! He’s been let down on all counts.

In fact there has been serious lack of long term investment sine the end of last season. January was a missed opportunity and it’s not as if Parish wasn’t aware given the links with AWB/ Gallagher ( again) and apparently trying to flog Mateta.

I get that Parish himself has no Money of his own to spend and has no obligation to anyway. But that leads to a discussion about his relationship with Textor ( who seems to be the only other shareholder willing to spend). By all accounts that relationship appears strained over Parish holding up Textor acquisition of Lyon.

If I was Textor I would be upset about Parish blocking the acquisition in circumstances where he and not Parish bankrolled our spending last summer. Nobody really knows the situation at board level but the lack of planning in January suggests all is not well and possibly why Textor didn’t put up more money for signings.

But of course all of this is speculation as we we just don’t know why we didn’t reinforce in January and wether thier is a plan to do so this summer with Wilf going and others likely to follow.

Parish saved us a decade ago and took us up and kept us up for a decade and that’s an amazing achievement. The academy also is a legacy.

But the EPL is cruel. If you don’t invest you stagnate and once that sets in it’s hard to shake off as PV is discovering.

Well the thread title should be changed to Parish and the investors because that is what they are .
I see little input in regard of directing , I havent even seen any of the Yanks at our matches let alone say anything regarding the club .

So investors they are ,they put money in and take money out . I hope Parish told them their investment can go up or down and didnt guarentee a return

Never been happy with the set up and with the sharholding swinging toward (if its not already there yet) the Yanks ,Parish could be outed at any time which creates uncertainty throughout the club .

Who makes the key decision as to whether Viera is replaced?
Although Parish is in general terms in charge of day to day matters certain key decisions, e.g expenditure above a certain amount , have to be agreed between the major investors.
I’m wondering if changing the manager is one of those key decisions.
Parish’s shareholding is supposedly diluted to around 18% now and I can’t believe that the other majority investors will leave it to Parish in isolation to decide who manages the team when it has such a critical bearing on their investment if the club is relegated.
The overall executive structure of the club has always seemed opaque, in particular since Textor has become involved.
If, for example, Textor and the two other longer standing American investors want Viera out as they fear the consequences of relegation with our spiralling form, but Parish thinks we should stick with him, what happens?
Is it a majority decision, one where there has to be consensus, or a decision reserved to Parish in his executive role.
I would be surprised if it was the latter with so much money at stake.

Let's not forget that this isn't the first time Parish has been part-owner rather than full. His initial takeover was as part of a consortium, and things went just fine under that arrangement. It would also have given him experience of running the club as a part owner, what the practical implications are, how to manage the other owners etc. He'd have made the deals with the Americans with that experience in mind no doubt.

Ultimately, you're probably right that the power rests abroad, but I wouldn't presume that to equate to a dislikable situation. Even if something like when to fire the manager becomes a drawn out, slightly messy committee decision, Parish sold to the Americans to address a far bigger picture, the stadium, academy and training ground development projects.

The running of a commercial organisation at board level is far from my area of expertise, but I'd imagine each model has its pros and cons. If one man is in sole charge then the line of responsibility is clear, but he doesn't have to listen to anyone else and has no checks and balances to his actions. I'm not sure that is inherently better than what we have.

A well reasoned post.
Ultimately though, can Vieira, and the players in particular, say "I am giving 100%? Can Freedman say "I have sourced the best players with the correct ability and attitude with the funds available to me?"
I think there is ample scope for improvement within the boundaries of what is available. I remind folk of what Pulis achieved with a relatively mediocre squad.

I think that's a fair commentary.

Whether or not it is 'all PV's fault' is irrelevant at this stage however I would add though, my thinking is that it is very far from all his fault. The question for me is solely PL survival right now and I don't think PV has the capability to deliver that, mainly due to the fact an all time low for which he is the poster boy, first in the firing line and easiest replaced, right or not, needs to be reversed.

The 'investors' coming in, for me, always seemed a bit overhyped if not misconstrued as the prospect of impactful financial backing. They aren't in it for the glory, fun or what have you, they are literally just investing, with very little understanding of the game and what for me has now been confirmed as a financial venture as opposed to a sporting or personal one.

The paradigm therefore is correlating the playing side of things with the financial stance. There's no point us having someone in like PV if there is not going to be sincere investment into the team and that's being proved. We now have a very lightweight squad, where the quality isn't consistent enough even in the first team to see us really hopeful of anything but just staying in the PL, which we may well not do.

I'm reluctant to pin this all on Parish, even if it is bad strategy from him I still believe he was (one of) our saviour, has worked wonders and has the club's best interest at heart. Equally, I am reluctant to lob vitriol at PV with any real venom however that's very different to saying he's a square peg in a round hole atm.

You never know, my dream is we do pick up wins when we need them, go into the next PL season off the back of some sincere investment in the summer and brighter days ahead. That all seems very much fantasy to me now however and what I would much prefer is some reality and honesty about everything from what's happening on the pitch to what's happening with the business. I believe the term 'gaslighting' is being used a lot by youngsters these days and seems relevant. Getting overly angry/emotional about the football side of things is pointless and some clarity would help ease that. I fear we are going to see some real toxicity come to the fore soon however. I have even seen the emergence of some racist commentary by fans on social media etc. and that for me is so far removed from my club's identity.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!