Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[ArcspacE]

But the absolute key I think that is right in terms of backing Harry is his authority. If players know a manager is leaving it just creates a nervous atmosphere around the whole club. Us this year are an example. Fergie retiring is an example. Blanc before going to France is an example. It never works out well. Unless it's a caretaker, but the whole dynamic there is different and isn't what are are talking about.

He should be backed so the whole club is pulling in one direction.

This is the fundamental argument for me.

A massive speculation is built around this very point - players assuming Arry would leave next summer based on the fact he hasn't been offered an extension. Why?


What about players simply thinking he'd be offered an extension based on next season's performances and absolutely dying to help him get there by smashing teams for 6 every game? Or players not giving a brick? Or players hoping for another manager?

You see - we cannot conclusively state our squad would go into next season's campaign with grave fear for Arry based on the fact he's on his last year. I simply cannot see it. Essentially he means very little to this club - in the sense of not being a ex-player, local legend, ex-coach, etc. - doubt many have a sentimental attachement more than they would have for the next guy, imv.

 

[ArcspacE]

Because (and maybe this is the piece that gets people), the Harry/Tottenham relationship is not a you/girl type relationship where you are tinkled off because she flirted with someone else at the bar, it's a business relationship, and as long as it produces the results the club is happy with (see point above), it makes sense to continue it.

But it caused considerable damage in the process, imv.

I most certainly wouldn't want our manager flirting with every possible job as long as he wins on Saturday. That's unacceptable for me.

 

[Raziel]

But it caused considerable damage in the process, imv.

I most certainly wouldn't want our manager flirting with every possible job as long as he wins on Saturday. That's unacceptable for me.

Now you are turning it simply to make a point.

I think Harry has been pretty clear that Spurs is his swansong, with the exception of if England came calling. Unfortunately it became a possibility and the FA handled it very badly.

 

[southstand1882]

 

[ArcspacE]

Unfortunately it became a possibility and the FA handled it very badly.

He didn't help it either an nothing will change that perception in me. Not sure about others.

It is not about the job - but everything to do with the 'handling'

 

[BrainOfLevy]

This is the fundamental argument for me.

A massive speculation is built around this very point - players assuming Arry would leave next summer based on the fact he hasn't been offered an extension. Why?


What about players simply thinking he'd be offered an extension based on next season's performances and absolutely dying to help him get there by smashing teams for 6 every game? Or players not giving a brick? Or players hoping for another manager?

You see - we cannot conclusively state our squad would go into next season's campaign with grave fear for Arry based on the fact he's on his last year. I simply cannot see it. Essentially he means very little to this club - in the sense of not being a ex-player, local legend, ex-coach, etc. - doubt many have a sentimental attachement more than they would have for the next guy, imv.

I take your point, you cannot comperehensively conclude that players will perform better if they knew he was here for longer, and it does tie us to him if we give him the new contract. But all I can say is that there has been no example I can think of where a club hoping to be successful at the top of the game lets their manager's contract run down, but I can think of a fair few examples where clubs have have not lived up to expectations because of managerial uncertainty.

The players won't bust a gut to ensure their manager stays. I'm not convinced they really give a brick what is happening to the club as long as they get a regular paycheque. I don't buy the 'wanting to test myself in the highest level in the champions league' argument from certain players at all. They are more than willing to go to Chelsea when there's a good chance they won't be in it anymore like Marin did for example.

But if Harry hasn't been offered a new deal, it's pretty obvious he wouldn't be here the year after. The margins are so fine at the top, and the difference between success and failure is miniscule. Are we going to offer him a new deal if we make 4th again, but not offer him one if we get 5th because of a poor linesman decision rules out a good goal for us on the final day? It would be absurd. He's either a good manager, and the right manager for us, or he isn't. Unless he has us languishing in the bottom half in January which I can't see, I'm not really sure what else would swing justifiably not offering/or actually offering him the contract.

When does it happen? When does a club hoping to compete near or at the top of the league not have their manager tied down long term? Mid-table, where the pressure isn't so great, or in the Championship, where it's a scrap and season to season anyone could make a push for promotion it's different, but at the top of the league, where you hope to have long term, sustained success, when is the manager ever not tied down? It doesn't happen, because the clubs remove the uncertainty, and because they generally already tend to have good managers in place.

 

[ArcspacE]

But if Harry hasn't been offered a new deal, it's pretty obvious he wouldn't be here the year after.

This is where I disagree with you.

Based on next year's performance he can be (by all means possible) offered a new deal.

 

[milo]

You say this, then discuss changing the manager as if it would have no effect on the club stability?

Here's the question, what percentage chance do you think that we could

1. Get another manager that is definetely better than Harry
2. That manager will manager to be successful immediately at Tottenham?

I'm in favour of keeping Harry. I think that he has done a good job on the whole and whilst he has his weaknesses, I am far from convinced that we could appoint someone who could improve on our results under him.

That said, I think that the worst thing of all is uncertainty. A manager who is not supported by his board is doomed to failure. If Harry does not have the board's support, I think that we shod part company early in the window, get a replacement in that they can work with and start now on preparations for next season. I really do not want to see us sack a manager ten games into the season again. It sets the club back, writes off the season and is massively disruptive.

 

[milo]

There is very little proof this has actually been the case in the past.



Well, he didn't 'sanction' big signings 2.5 years ago nor last year either - so I strongly doubt Arry's contract length must have been the defining factor. Wages was most likely (and still would be, imv) the major stumbling block here



See point 1. Milo, the main factor is always money, after a few seasons comes the CL if we aren't regular participants, then they generally want to leave. Which one of our current players has signed an extension based on Redknapp's presence better yet his contract length.



Disagree - a strong character (which appears to be one of his main positives according to general opinion) can assert himself in any given context - it's not like he'd be working for free or been told he'd definitely not be offered an extension. Most people would work extra hard to prove a point to their employer on a 1 year contract.



I think Levy is playing the long game here. Another season would offer far better objective analysis if we are able to consistently make 'the' step or just miss out yet again. Consistency has many derivates.

To be honest, I do not think that there is much point discussing this with you because you have argued yourself into a corner and will not back down.

Of course a player considers stability when deciding which club to join. That does not mean that it is the only factor, wages, whether it will help them further their career, the amount that they will play, whether the teams style of play suits them, potential for winning things and whether it seems like a pleasant working environment must also come into play. But to deny that it is a factor is arguing for the sake of it.

Similarly, players signing extensions will consider what the future holds. It won't be the only factor but it will come into play.

When it comes to a managers authority, this is not magicked out of mid-air. Most authority is bestowed because you have the ear of the person who holds the purse strings. Alex Ferguson's power at Man United would have been significantly reduced if he was unable to cut out players he didn't want there because the board would not back him. Lack of board support did for AVB this year and it will be interesting to see how the Tevez situation plays out at Emirates Marketing Project over the next year. That is not to say that Redknapp could not manage through the last year of his contract, just that it would make it harder and the chances of success less.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

This is where I disagree with you.

Based on next year's performance he can be (by all means possible) offered a new deal.

But then what would the divergance in results have to be to give him a new deal as opposed to not doing so? He's either good enough or he isn't. The margins are too fine to make decisions like that, and the uncertainty it creates is poisonous.

Almost any failure of a club to live up to expectations can be traced back to a club not all pulling in the same direction. That means board, DOF, Manager and Players must all buy in to the vision and be working towards it. Why would we want to put ourselves in that position?

Why, if the board were not sure enough about Harry to offer him an extention, would they want him managing the club at all?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

To be honest, I do not think that there is much point discussing this with you because you have argued yourself into a corner and will not back down.

Of course a player considers stability when deciding which club to join. That does not mean that it is the only factor, wages, whether it will help them further their career, the amount that they will play, whether the teams style of play suits them, potential for winning things and whether it seems like a pleasant working environment must also come into play. But to deny that it is a factor is arguing for the sake of it.

Similarly, players signing extensions will consider what the future holds. It won't be the only factor but it will come into play.

When it comes to a managers authority, this is not magicked out of mid-air. Most authority is bestowed because you have the ear of the person who holds the purse strings. Alex Ferguson's power at Man United would have been significantly reduced if he was unable to cut out players he didn't want there because the board would not back him. Lack of board support did for AVB this year and it will be interesting to see how the Tevez situation plays out at Emirates Marketing Project over the next year. That is not to say that Redknapp could not manage through the last year of his contract, just that it would make it harder and the chances of success less.

Totally agreed on all the main points there.

 

[ArcspacE]

To be honest, I do not think that there is much point discussing this with you because you have argued yourself into a corner and will not back down.

Of course a player considers stability when deciding which club to join. That does not mean that it is the only factor, wages, whether it will help them further their career, the amount that they will play, whether the teams style of play suits them, potential for winning things and whether it seems like a pleasant working environment must also come into play. But to deny that it is a factor is arguing for the sake of it.

Similarly, players signing extensions will consider what the future holds. It won't be the only factor but it will come into play.

When it comes to a managers authority, this is not magicked out of mid-air. Most authority is bestowed because you have the ear of the person who holds the purse strings. Alex Ferguson's power at Man United would have been significantly reduced if he was unable to cut out players he didn't want there because the board would not back him. Lack of board support did for AVB this year and it will be interesting to see how the Tevez situation plays out at Emirates Marketing Project over the next year. That is not to say that Redknapp could not manage through the last year of his contract, just that it would make it harder and the chances of success less.

A corner?

Milo, you keep stating how there is a strong possibility of a poor 12/13 season / transfer window based on the fact Redknapp would only have 1 year left on his contract. (we've had poor transfer windows while he ead 3 years left on his contract, btw). There is very little factual proof to that besides the obvious food for debate on here.

I strongly disagree with that and have offered arguments as to my points.

There also appears to be an iron clad logic drawn on that which states how a 1 year contract would automatically be percieved by players, public, agents, etc. as doubtful in the chairman's eyes and one of mistrust and direspect. Could mean numerous things including the possibility of Redknapp seeking to leave by mutual consent next year. It does not have to be a negative aspect. Player looking to sign (even if he even bothers to enquire) and seeing Arry with only 1 year on his contract would not necessarily read as instability in their eyes.

AVB had a 4 year (?) contract and imploded. Di Matteo made the CL final while defeating Barcelona as a mere care-taker with zero job certainty - in theory Abramovich could have brought someone in any time during his tenure and simply told him to move. Even if he wins the CL he wouldn't be guaranteed a spot next season. I know these are extremes but Levy has always backed Arry from signing older (and quite often sub-par) players to loaning out important squad units and has never indicated he'd be looking for a replacement at his point. Prehaps Arry wants to call it a day in 12 months time. I really don't think he's looking to undermine him now, especially as we seek to make the CL again (assuming Bayern win in 2 days time).

Perhaps Levy doesn't want to committ long-term contracts to a man who recently refused to comitt himself to us as much as many choose to blatantly ignore this point. i.e. keep it short and easy for now to avoid major disappointments on both parties.

 

[ArcspacE]

But then what would the divergance in results have to be to give him a new deal as opposed to not doing so? He's either good enough or he isn't. The margins are too fine to make decisions like that, and the uncertainty it creates is poisonous.

Almost any failure of a club to live up to expectations can be traced back to a club not all pulling in the same direction. That means board, DOF, Manager and Players must all buy in to the vision and be working towards it. Why would we want to put ourselves in that position?

Why, if the board were not sure enough about Harry to offer him an extention, would they want him managing the club at all?

Not offering him a new deal does not translate into the Board 'not being sure', imv. He isn't a caretaker, for five snakes!

It would be a carefully considered financial decision and careful planning, nothing more

 

[southstand1882]

Maybe it's just an English thing

But there has never been, and never will be an English manager, with a realistic chance of getting the job, that would turn down the opportunity to manage England

So there has never been, and never will be an English manager, with a realistic chance of getting the job, that would publicly commit himself to his club

Some of you are expecting Harry to have done something that only a complete muppet (or somebody that had no chance anyway) would do

And blaming him for it

#-o

 

[BrainOfLevy]

A corner?

Milo, you keep stating how there is a strong possibility of a poor 12/13 season / transfer window based on the fact Redknapp would only have 1 year left on his contract. (we've had poor transfer windows while he ead 3 years left on his contract, btw). There is very little factual proof to that besides the obvious food for debate on here.

I strongly disagree with that and have offered arguments as to my points.

There also appears to be an iron clad logic drawn on that which states how a 1 year contract would automatically be percieved by players, public, agents, etc. as doubtful in the chairman's eyes and one of mistrust and direspect. Could mean numerous things including the possibility of Redknapp seeking to leave by mutual consent next year. It does not have to be a negative aspect. Player looking to sign (even if he even bothers to enquire) and seeing Arry with only 1 year on his contract would not necessarily read as instability in their eyes.

AVB had a 4 year (?) contract and imploded. Di Matteo made the CL final while defeating Barcelona as a mere care-taker with zero job certainty - in theory Abramovich could have brought someone in any time during his tenure and simply told him to move. Even if he wins the CL he wouldn't be guaranteed a spot next season. I know these are extremes but Levy has always backed Arry from signing older (and quite often sub-par) players to loaning out important squad units and has never indicated he'd be looking for a replacement at his point. Prehaps Arry wants to call it a day in 12 months time. I really don't think he's looking to undermine him now, especially as we seek to make the CL again (assuming Bayern win in 2 days time).

Perhaps Levy doesn't want to committ long-term contracts to a man who recently refused to comitt himself to us as much as many choose to blatantly ignore this point. i.e. keep it short and easy for now to avoid major disappointments on both parties.

When has the idea of allowing the manager's contract to run down at a top club ever happened? It just doesn't.

A caretaker basis is different because of the different dynamic. They and the players know they are only there for a few months and can therefore afford to do things they wouldn't normally do as a permanent manager. They are also riding the wave of momentum of the 'new voice' to the players which gets them performances simply because they aren't the old voice from the other guy.

But in terms of non-caretaker positions, this never happens. The uncertainty is too great. It would be a negative, just like it was this year. Just like it was for Fergie. For Blanc.

Even if you couldn't say it would definitely be a negative, why put us in the position of taking the risk? Certainly no actual good comes from carrying on like this, but a lot of bad potentially could.

 

[ArcspacE]

Roy Hodsgon had a relaistic chance of getting the job back then - how did he handle it?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Not offering him a new deal does not translate into the Board 'not being sure', imv. He isn't a caretaker, for five snakes!

It would be a carefully considered financial decision and careful planning, nothing more

It completely translates to the board not being sure. Completely 100% translates exactly to that.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Roy Hodsgon had a relaistic chance of getting the job back then - how did he handle it?

Didn't say much different to Harry actually, but he had the benefit of not being the 'people's choice' from the media and therefore the speculation was a lot easier to handle and brush off.

 

[ArcspacE]

Even if you couldn't say it would definitely be a negative, why put us in the position of taking the risk? Certainly no actual good comes from carrying on like this, but a lot of bad potentially could.

Here's a democratic solution for you - include an option to renew based on performances (where we finish, cup runs, etc.)

We do well = he's offered another 2 years (which he can turn down if he wants)

 

[ArcspacE]

Didn't say much different to Harry actually, but he had the benefit of not being the 'people's choice' from the media and therefore the speculation was a lot easier to handle and brush off.

He constructed himself as the people's choice and then kept stoking the fire.

Very easy to brush off - 'not interested at the moment, have a job, fudge off'.

Instead of

'Would love to, would lie if I said no, triffic honour, would be a hard choice, would have to think very hard, this would be my team, etc,'