Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[mick cooper]

i think you are looking at in a totally different way to how i am, or how others are

being critical of certain aspects of what he has done (even if they are just opinions) does not equate to thinking he has not done well here.

thinking we should replace him based on opinion does not equate to thinking he has not done well here

and taking his record as the only piece of evidence does not mean that he will definitely carry it on in the future (that is as much opinion as anything else)


if we were appraising his time here then i think almost everyone will be in agreement (based on the facts) that it has been nothing short of a success - now some people will have the opinion that the success is great and which is all down to him whilst others will have the opinion that it was a success but could have been improved on or Harry was fortunate to walk in to a talented, yet under performing squad - now these are two valid opinions people may hold based on their take of the facts of what he/we have achieved - who is right ? it comes down to personal opinion.

what we have been discussing these past few weeks/months is what is our slip in form down to and whether Harry is the man to take us forward long term - and there are no facts to give a definitive answer, it all comes down to personal opinion based on what each individual poster has seen/taken from our slump and his overall time here, you cannot dismiss peoples opinions because they are the only thing in which to base the answer to those questions on - it isn't as simple as saying - "we have done well under HR these past 4 seasons so he is the man to lead us in to the next 2/3/4/5 years" - it's more a case of looking at ALL the positives and ALL the negatives and making a judgment based on where you think this will take us - my opinion based on all of this is that Harry has done well here and i truly am thankful for what he has achieved - however there are plenty of things about his time that i think points to him not being the right man for the long term job (i won't get in to each specific point because that isn't the point of what im trying to discuss here) and there are no amount of facts from his time here which can tell me that my opinion isn't valid.

I'm not sure why you felt that you had to explain that to me. I have never had a problem with people holding contrary opinions to me. As I said, I am just as at liberty to disagree as you are. I'm not going to try to guess the future though, or speculate - because I had no idea that Harry would achieve what he did, much less be able to guess what he could do with a substantial amount of money at his disposal, to buy key players to improve the team.

In his tenure there has not really been a ballbusting "bugger me" signing, and I would imagine that it will be a combination of many things that have prevented it from happening. The simplistic view is to assume that Harry likes to buy old knackered players on the cheap for the bungs from agents, but I would imagine that its a distance from the truth, and closer to the possibility that the ones we can afford to buy are often seduced by the higher salaries now on offer at (pick one) CFC, Anzi, PSG, Emirates Marketing Project, Barca, Madrid, Manure, L'arse....

I would keep him for the simple reason that look at what he has achieved with an underperforming squad (man management skills) to get them as high up as he has (tactical acumen) playing attractive, largely effective football, whilst operating on a constrained budget - buying players with still viable skills (experience in the market) whilst waiting to see whether we get another crack at the pot of gold, and more buying power (this is the bit in the balance.)

I see his flaws, like you guys do, I just don't see them as something to hang him by, or swap him for the next latest sensation of a manager.

and if he goes - I'll do what I have done for Nicholson, Neill, Burkinshaw, Shreeves, Pleat, Venables, Ardiles, Francis, Gross, Graham, Hoddle, Jol and Ramos (santini can feck off) and get behind whoever it is, until they are swapped for the next sensation.

 

[1882]

I thought football WAS a game of opinions?? Jeez... chill the fudge out people! We've got a game to win on Sunday, and a result to rely on elsewhere... it ain't gonna happen with all this in-fighting and personal attacks on here!

People can THINK what they want, opinions are what makes debate... otherwise we'd all agree on everything, and this entire site would be full of 1 Post threads... had we won last Sunday, this thread wouldn't even exist... it's THAT finely balanced...

Just my opinion of course!!

 

[billyiddo]

I'm not sure why you felt that you had to explain that to me.

because, throughout the whole muddled mess this debate has become, you (and others) continually dismiss people who are arguing their opinions rather than fact - when, IMO, this whole debate hinges on what each persons opinion is.

 

[mick cooper]

because, throughout the whole muddled mess this debate has become, you (and others) continually dismiss people who are arguing their opinions rather than fact - when, IMO, this whole debate hinges on what each persons opinion is.

Then you have missed my point Billy

because I have no problem with anyones opinions, when they can understand the fact that their opinions are just that - and not something thats etched in stone, and therefore now become justification for anything, particularly vitriolic abuse.

Its the extremeism that I find so annoying, and all I have argued against is that very issue.

I have been dismissive of the herding instinct, the baying crowd syndrome, where people shout death to the unbeliever, without ever considering whether they actually really understand all of the issues, before calling for the death sentence

 

[Pirate55]

Billy and 1882. I am afraid you are wasting your time with Mick. He just doesnt get it.

When others such as myself put forward opinions contrary to what he believes, he just accuses us of "fabricating the evidence". He refuses to accept other peoples opinions and thinks only his opinions are "facts". Most people on here put forward opinions.

My 15 points on why I dont think Rednapp is the best manager in the world is my OPINION. I am happy to have a debate on each and every one of them, and I feel I can put forward a case for each point I made. I NEVER STATED THEY WERE FACTS. Mick seems intent on twisting the truth to suit his spurious agument that he only ever posts facts and that others "fabricate evidence".

 

[GGyid]

so who won?

 

[billyiddo]

so who won?

we're all losers here

 

[mick cooper]

Billy and 1882. I am afraid you are wasting your time with Mick. He just doesnt get it.

When others such as myself put forward opinions contrary to what he believes, he just accuses us of "fabricating the evidence". He refuses to accept other peoples opinions and thinks only his opinions are "facts". Most people on here put forward opinions.

My 15 points on why I dont think Rednapp is the best manager in the world is my OPINION. I am happy to have a debate on each and every one of them, and I feel I can put forward a case for each point I made. I NEVER STATED THEY WERE FACTS. Mick seems intent on twisting the truth to suit his spurious agument that he only ever posts facts and that others "fabricate evidence".

Instead of putting words into my mouth - particularly ones I have never posted. Show me where I have said that any opinion of mine was a fact.

What I said was that all I have done, was to present facts to support my opinion that getting rid of HR makes little sense, given what he has achieved.

I realise that maybe everything (I have said) isn't totally clear to you, but do me a favour will you. Dont accuse me of trying to do something that I haven't done and then beating me up for it.

I asked you to give me solid facts as to why Redknapp should go - you listed 15 things.
You now say they are opinions - had you said that in the first place, I would not have accused you of trying to pass off opinions as facts (fabricating evidence)

In an earlier post on this board I listed all of the tangible things HR has done or achieved, these are the only facts I have ever presented, and I asked why someone who has done what he has managed to do with THFC, should be the victim of all of the abuse and approbation.

You are one of the loudest voices on the subject.

 

[mick cooper]

Oh - and don't try to pass me off as someone who doesn't understand what is being discussed.

Given that you are the one who has to have everything explained to you several times.

 

[Pirate55]

Instead of putting words into my mouth - particularly ones I have never posted. Show me where I have said that any opinion of mine was a fact.

What I said was that all I have done, was to present facts to support my opinion that getting rid of HR makes little sense, given what he has achieved.

I realise that maybe everything (I have said) isn't totally clear to you, but do me a favour will you. Dont accuse me of trying to do something that I haven't done and then beating me up for it.

I asked you to give me solid facts as to why Redknapp should go - you listed 15 things.
You now say they are opinions - had you said that in the first place, I would not have accused you of trying to pass off opinions as facts (fabricating evidence)

In an earlier post on this board I listed all of the tangible things HR has done or achieved, these are the only facts I have ever presented, and I asked why someone who has done what he has managed to do with THFC, should be the victim of all of the abuse and approbation.

You are one of the loudest voices on the subject.

You dont seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. I clearly stated that the 15 points were my reasons for saying Harry was not the best manager in the world. There is a distinct difference between giving a reason and stating a fact. Can you not see that? Reasons can be based on opinions.

You say you only ever post facts:

"But my stance has always been simple. I'll state facts, and you counterract them with facts of your own, and we'll see whose facts make the more compelling argument".

As Billy and 1882 tried to point out to you, facts are not in dispute. They are self evident. There is no argument or dispute about facts. However, most of the views expressed here are peoples opinions on what they have seen, read, etc. There would be no board if people just stated facts. It is peoples opinions that are expressed here.

You make a wholly unjustified attack on me stating that I "fabricated evidence". For someone who apparently prides themselves on their use of English. I presume we can agree that to fabricate means to make up. You state above that "evidence is fact". Therefore you are accusing me of making up facts. That is tantamount to accusing me of lying. Without any shred of evidence put forward, you accuse me of being a liar. I am very indignant about this and hence why I regard your attitude as wholly unacceptable.

 

[mick cooper]

Because I asked you for facts, you came up with 15 points

YOU DID NOT STATE THAT THEY WERE OPINIONS

so to me - you were trying to pass them off as facts

now you are backpedalling like a trick cyclist and trying to make me out as the bad guy.

Get real pal, you fudged up, have the balls to admit it.

If I had anything to apologise for, I would. But if you are under the impression that I'm either going to backtrack or apologise for your inability to grasp relatively simple concepts, then I would advise you not to hold your breath whilst you wait.

Feel free to apologise once you see your glaring error.

 

[Pirate55]

Because I asked you for facts, you came up with 15 points

YOU DID NOT STATE THAT THEY WERE OPINIONS

so to me - you were trying to pass them off as facts

now you are backpedalling like a trick cyclist and trying to make me out as the bad guy.

Get real pal, you fudged up, have the balls to admit it.

If I had anything to apologise for, I would. But if you are under the impression that I'm either going to backtrack or apologise for your inability to grasp relatively simple concepts, then I would advise you not to hold your breath whilst you wait.

Feel free to apologise once you see your glaring error.

It is you who are backpeddling my friend.

You made a glaring mistake in assuming my reasons were facts just because you (apparently) asked for facts. How one is supposed to produce facts for ones opinion on whether H is the best person to take us forward is quite beyond me. These MUST be based on opinions.

You clearly state that "so to me - you were trying to pass them off as facts" . That may be your reality Mick, but it is simply not the case. You should actually read what someone said and not make your own assumptions.

I am prepared to accept your apology now and move on. Othewise I will ask the mods to determine whether you called me a liar by saying I "fabricated the evidence".

Be a man. Apologise. Shake hands (figuratively) and move on. We (presumably) both want the best for our team. We just differ on the best way to achieve it.

 

[mick cooper]

It is you who are backpeddling my friend.

You made a glaring mistake in assuming my reasons were facts just because you (apparently) asked for facts. How one is supposed to produce facts for ones opinion on whether H is the best person to take us forward is quite beyond me. These MUST be based on opinions.

You clearly state that "so to me - you were trying to pass them off as facts" . That may be your reality Mick, but it is simply not the case. You should actually read what someone said and not make your own assumptions.

I am prepared to accept your apology now and move on. Othewise I will ask the mods to determine whether you called me a liar by saying I "fabricated the evidence".

Be a man. Apologise. Shake hands (figuratively) and move on. We (presumably) both want the best for our team. We just differ on the best way to achieve it.

I posted this yesterday at 20:00

I have not made any comments about Redknapps continued employment other than to consistently bring up his results, his sustained record and the continued evidence of the massive improvement of the teams play, both aesthetically and in terms of their difficulty to beat and the negative tactics that teams have to adopt to stop getting hosed by landslide results. Thats the only view I have expressed, show me I'm wrong and I'll apologise.

I can see your comments, but I see no evidence of an argument supported by anything more concrete than your opinions, bias and cant. Put something down that actually means something, not media tattle, historical disaffection of WHU and S'oton supporters or unproven allegations. Show good solid reasons to support what you have to say.

***

Thats what I asked for - you gave me 15 bullet points, I said these were not facts and said that you were fabricating evidence if you were trying to make them out to be, and you finally conceded that they were opinions.

If you want to make a bigger fool of yourself, by running to the moderators telling them that I called you nasty names, go for it. Be aware however, that they get just as tinkled off with people that abuse that privilege as they do with people who break the rules.

So, I can find nothing that I have said or done that I need to apologise over. You didn't read what I said, or you misunderstood it. I can accept that, but I can't accept without feeling compelled to stand up against it (because I believe its wrong) that people continually berate the clubs manager, because he doesn't do what they want him to do, or they decry his abilities or qualities, when the evidence to the contrary is plain to see.

 

[mick cooper]

and don't tell me to man up, when you are going to go telling tales to teacher

I'm plenty grown up, and I am more than prepared to admit when I am wrong and apologise.

 

[Pirate55]

and don't tell me to man up, when you are going to go telling tales to teacher

I'm plenty grown up, and I am more than prepared to admit when I am wrong and apologise.

Patently you are not.

I offered you an olive branch and you refused to take it. That says more about you than anything.

 

[mick cooper]

Patently you are not.

I offered you an olive branch and you refused to take it. That says more about you than anything.

What?
Because you have completely got this wrong, you cannot see where you have ballsed the whole thing up, and I won't apologise, you now think I am immature? I'm 54 and quite mature thank you, and have a degree in electronics, if I can get a grip of Fourier analysis and Laplace transforms, I'm sure I can follow the contents of this tedious conversation without getting lost.

I don't know what else I can do for you, have you tried reading it all again and run your finger under the words at the same time? I try to get my 4 year old to read in short 3 word groups and understand what they say, before moving on. Maybe you could try that.

Get someone who can think clearly, to read it for you and explain with dolls and biscuits.

I don't know what else to tell you, you don't understand whats going on, and its got too much for you. Maybe things will be clearer in the morning.


Lets spare everyone else hey, if you want to report me, do it and get it over with, if you want to keep on about it, PM me. Its gone on long enough now

 

[Pirate55]

What?
Because you have completely got this wrong, you cannot see where you have ballsed the whole thing up, and I won't apologise, you now think I am immature? I'm 54 and quite mature thank you, and have a degree in electronics, if I can get a grip of Fourier analysis and Laplace transforms, I'm sure I can follow the contents of this tedious conversation without getting lost.

I don't know what else I can do for you, have you tried reading it all again and run your finger under the words at the same time? I try to get my 4 year old to read in short 3 word groups and understand what they say, before moving on. Maybe you could try that.

Get someone who can think clearly, to read it for you and explain with dolls and biscuits.

I don't know what else to tell you, you don't understand whats going on, and its got too much for you. Maybe things will be clearer in the morning.


Be a man...............

The last refuge of a desperate person is to try and put forward their qualifications as "proof" of their capabilities. Your gratuitous insults just go to show how immature you are.

BTW if you want to compare age, degrees and qualifications, I suspect you will lose.

1882 and Billy tried to help you out and point out the error in your analysis, but you were too stubborn to listen to them and to reason.

I also note that you are in violent disagreement with others on other threads. Do you enjoy winding people up?

 

[mick cooper]

The last refuge of a desperate person is to try and put forward their qualifications as "proof" of their capabilities. Your gratuitous insults just go to show how immature you are.

BTW if you want to compare age, degrees and qualifications, I suspect you will lose.

1882 and Billy tried to help you out and point out the error in your analysis, but you were too stubborn to listen to them and to reason.

I also note that you are in violent disagreement with others on other threads. Do you enjoy winding people up?

I'm trying to show you that I have proved that I can work things out for myself, I simply used it as a comparison, as you seem to think that there is something in this discussion that I don't understand. There isn't.

I have resorted to making jokes at your expense, because this thread gets more comical as it gets dragged out by your inability to grasp any part of what is going on. I can only conclude that you are not particularly bright, as you seem unable to make a correlation between the quote I made from my earlier post, and the risible tosh that you served up as proof, when I asked you to provide concrete evidence, not opinions or hearsay. Which you promptly did.

I'm not in any violent disagreement with anyone, I am totally calm and relaxed, and the only other issue I have been dealing with is with someone else who can't take criticism of their own constant criticism (of HR)

No I don't enjoy winding people up - do you? Because your constant and dogged persuit of this and your inability to grasp simple concepts is tedious and annoying, and has shut the thread down (effectively) and forced me to ask you to get someone to explain things to you. I also gave you the opportunity to take it to PM - yet here we are again. Are you hoping to force a confession from me by being irritating and obtuse? I am probably winding you up because I am continually pointing out your inability to understand that its you who are dependant on unsubstantiated rumours, innuendo and amateur opinions to make your case, and I simply rely on the evidence before everyones eyes, and the fact that I find it sad that people have to resort to rubbishing HR personally to justify their cause.

Billy pointed out that my mistake was to not exclude people like him, who dont fit into the witch hunt cabal, by virtue of being rational about the way they present their argument. A point I accept, particularly given the constant reminders that I get from parklane.

What errors are there in my analysis anyway, what have I analysed? So far you have accused me of believing that the opinions I haven't expressed, are more concrete than the ones you expressed - as answers to my request for facts.

I tell you, if you have better qualifications than mine, you must have paid good money for them, because your reasoning to date has not shown any grasp of concepts, evidence of a good memory, an ability to think issues through or come up with compelling arguments.

and your spelling sucks, almost as bad as my typing in fact.

How do I lose a comparison between age, degrees and qualifications by the way? Do you have a degree more beautiful than mine - or is yours taller? What about age, are you an age that has smoother skin, or longer ear hair - how do you win an age comparison?
Just what is the difference between degrees and qualifications? I bet I have more exciting qualifications than you, unless you are a qualified astronaut - that would definitely beat mine.

 

[Pirate55]

I'm trying to show you that I have proved that I can work things out for myself, I simply used it as a comparison, as you seem to think that there is something in this discussion that I don't understand. There isn't.

I have resorted to making jokes at your expense, because this thread gets more comical as it gets dragged out by your inability to grasp any part of what is going on. I can only conclude that you are not particularly bright, as you seem unable to make a correlation between the quote I made from my earlier post, and the risible tosh that you served up as proof, when I asked you to provide concrete evidence, not opinions or hearsay. Which you promptly did.

I'm not in any violent disagreement with anyone, I am totally calm and relaxed, and the only other issue I have been dealing with is with someone else who can't take criticism of their own constant criticism (of HR)

No I don't enjoy winding people up - do you? Because your constant and dogged persuit of this and your inability to grasp simple concepts is tedious and annoying, and has shut the thread down (effectively) and forced me to ask you to get someone to explain things to you. I also gave you the opportunity to take it to PM - yet here we are again. Are you hoping to force a confession from me by being irritating and obtuse? I am probably winding you up because I am continually pointing out your inability to understand that its you who are dependant on unsubstantiated rumours, innuendo and amateur opinions to make your case, and I simply rely on the evidence before everyones eyes, and the fact that I find it sad that people have to resort to rubbishing HR personally to justify their cause.

Billy pointed out that my mistake was to not exclude people like him, who dont fit into the witch hunt cabal, by virtue of being rational about the way they present their argument. A point I accept, particularly given the constant reminders that I get from parklane.

What errors are there in my analysis anyway, what have I analysed? So far you have accused me of believing that the opinions I haven't expressed, are more concrete than the ones you expressed - as answers to my request for facts.

I tell you, if you have better qualifications than mine, you must have paid good money for them, because your reasoning to date has not shown any grasp of concepts, evidence of a good memory, an ability to think issues through or come up with compelling arguments.

and your spelling sucks, almost as bad as my typing in fact.

How do I lose a comparison between age, degrees and qualifications by the way? Do you have a degree more beautiful than mine - or is yours taller? What about age, are you an age that has smoother skin, or longer ear hair - how do you win an age comparison?
Just what is the difference between degrees and qualifications? I bet I have more exciting qualifications than you, unless you are a qualified astronaut - that would definitely beat mine.

Well done. You have worn me down and worn me out.

Is that how they teach engineers to behave. Be futile, be immature and when all else fails, falsely accuse the person of "fabricating the evidence". You must be really be pleased with yourself.

BTW Just lke all your other assumptions about me - you are wrong. I have two honours degrees from Cambridge University and am a qualified professional. But no not an astronaut - Ill leave you to fly up in your own little world where there are rainbows in the sky all day long. You seem happiest there. If you are happy anywhere.

 

[Johnny Ray]

YAWN!