-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
To be fair - he did fudge all the ease that situation, did he?!
QPR's squad for the play-off final consisted of 39 players against a Derby side whose wage budget was five times less than theirs.
That season, Redknapp oversaw the signings of Danny Simpson (free), Richard Dunne (free), Karl Henry (undisclosed), Charlie Austin (undisclosed), Gary O'Neil (free), Matt Phillips (undisclosed), Javier Chevanton (free), Oguchi Onyewu (free), Yossi Benayoun (free), Coll Donaldson (undisclosed) and Aaron Hughes (free). While the transfer fees weren't excessive, it increased the wage budget.
QPR also loaned in Benoit Assou-Ekotto, Tom Carroll, Niko Kranjcar, Dellatorre, Kevin Doyle, Will Keane, Modibo Maiga and Ravel Morrison during that time with Rangers making a contribution, to a greater or lesser degree, to their wages, lifting them to over £70m.
Im sure all those free transfers didnt come in on inflated wages...
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Yeh but he got them up to the Prem and that was the time for the club to take the financial reward and clear house.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
In the same article I took that quote from he said it was players already there that got him up!
As ever, he shirks all responsibility - only ever takes credit when things work, looks after himself in the shortest of short terms.
He took over a big and expensive squad, straining under a large wage bill - and proceeded to heap more and more costs on top (no doubt lining Rosies pockets).
For me, there just arent excuses for him.
I do agree that the club should have been more responsible, but its his job to help in that and he always does the opposite.
As ever, he shirks all responsibility - only ever takes credit when things work, looks after himself in the shortest of short terms.
He took over a big and expensive squad, straining under a large wage bill - and proceeded to heap more and more costs on top (no doubt lining Rosies pockets).
For me, there just arent excuses for him.
I do agree that the club should have been more responsible, but its his job to help in that and he always does the opposite.
Some Managers are about growing a club and see the bigger picture.
Some Managers will always want more and only look at the short term.
Both managers can be successful, its up to the owners / CEOs to know which one they have and control / help them achieve the success while having the long term interest of the club at heart. I don't blame Redknapp for clubs financial issues, you know what you are going to get - if you go along with him that's your own fault imo.
Some Managers will always want more and only look at the short term.
Both managers can be successful, its up to the owners / CEOs to know which one they have and control / help them achieve the success while having the long term interest of the club at heart. I don't blame Redknapp for clubs financial issues, you know what you are going to get - if you go along with him that's your own fault imo.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
While true, I still dont think it excuses him.
He gives literally 0 fudges about any club he manages, only himself.
He gives literally 0 fudges about any club he manages, only himself.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
This for me as well, making excuses for him is old hat as there are several clubs he has managed and left in a financial mess. Its what he does.
I agree he only gives a brick about himself- the fact he always has done excuses him in my opinion (ask Billy Bonds about him). Everyone should know what he is and not get in to trouble because of it (we did not).
You can recognize he is a snidey clown shoe and not lay the blame on him both at the same time.
*Not trying to convince you as I see your point.
You can recognize he is a snidey clown shoe and not lay the blame on him both at the same time.
*Not trying to convince you as I see your point.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Ha! I know exactly what youre saying, I just dont agree.
Its an ethical thing, and I get it - everyone has their own set of rules.
Its just, for me, when managing a club its a responsibility - for more than just results.
Im not saying everyone should be a Poch and try and build a project from the ground up, but I am saying EVERY manager should be responsible enough to hold the clubs longevity in their thoughts when making decisions.
Some of these clubs have over a century of history, thousands of fans - generations of fans, a manager is but a temporary custodian they should never do things to threaten the clubs future.
Redknapp, by definition, is quite willing to throw it all away to fund Rosies little side account.
Now, I do agree with you - ultimately the people running the club should have this and more all in hand, and for them not too is also inexcusable.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Ummm, similar? Not the same?
If it was a scale/gradient he wouldnt be quite as far up the curve for me.
He is about short term success. I realise success is relative, but IMHO Redknapp is about short term personal gain - I dont think he is ever really looking for "success".
Mourinho does also operate at a level where by he is never putting clubs at risk. He leaves the squad a mess, and in need of a few years to rebuild/recover - he is never going to leave a club on the brink of blinking out of existence.
Redknapp happily will.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Very, very few club owners/chairman will give a manager the time to build something properly. If results don't go the right way pretty quickly then most clubs will move the manager on. That behaviour promotes short termism in most managers of football clubs.
I think most managers (Wenger and Poch are obvious exceptions) will spend every penny that they are allowed to spend by the owners of the club. Pretty much all managers are end up being judged purely on their results and will want the players they feel are the best ones to achieve results.
When QPR took a financial gamble that paid off with them getting promoted, their owner should've looked at their situation and realised that it was better for the long term to look at that promotion as one that would probably result in them going straight back down, but allow them to sort out their debt with the increased income from the premier league and then use the relegation parachute payments wisely, so that they could then possibly come straight back up again with their finances in much better shape for a push at staying up. Instead their owner continued to gamble on spending money the club didn't have.
It was a similar situation at Leeds under Ridsdale, yet I'm not sure I have ever heard of anyone blaming David O Leary for their downfall?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I dont disagree, the ownership/board etc should be completely in the frame of mind you state. Its one of the reasons why I think Levy is brilliant.
And yes, managers always want more and will use whatever resource they are given.
Heres the difference in O'Leary (whatever happened to him?) and Redknapp though.
O'Leary was clearly trying to build a team, one of young, talented players that could grow with the club. While he clearly didnt worry about the money, he was thinking with some longevity in mind.
Redknapp will pack the team with expensive 30+ journeyman to get a result THIS SEASON, knowing full well within 2 years they will all be massive losses and a rebuild will be required. It is short term in the extreme.
O'Leary may have cause issues at Leeds, maybe he bears some responsibility for what happened there, but I dont feel at any point he was just serving his own interests. Redknapp? Quite the opposite.
But - ultimately - I absolutely agree the higher ups should have it in hand, and not get carried away by a managers demands/character/sweet talk etc.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Its 100% thew clubs fault though in my opinion, its up to them to balance the books and then who they employ, they already had a HUGE wage problem and appointed a manager who added to it.
Added to this most managers in the game go into a club in trouble and bring in their own team to achieve what they want and none care about the financial situation attached to that.
Mourinho and Pep have done exactly the same but on clubs that can afford to they are no different in terms of spend (Im not going into abilities here we are talking spend). Anything the club can and can not afford on all cases is down to the club.
The argument Harry added to a clubs woes is abit silly because he did not create the mess before he arrived and can only be accountable for his period at the club and even that again comes down to the club and their choices to spend what they never had
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Most of those he does not pay for though so when done with them they are realsed on a free and he goes again, its not pretty or long term but for a few clubs its worked well.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I havent denied the clubs responsibility at all.
I just dont absolve the manager of all/any responsibility because of it.
Redknapp might not have created the initial problem, but it is fundamentally wrong to suggest he didnt add to it, of course he did.
Those players he got for free? BIG wages. These are expensive players of very limited use/lifespan.
And, of course, he spends plenty on getting players in anyway.
Managers like Redknapp (Pulis, Allardyce) go into clubs that are desperate, and demand power over transfers, and then line their own pockets (see Pulis and Palace, if you havent already forgotten about Rosie the richest Bulldog in the world).
They dont give a fudge about the club or team two seasons down the line. THAT is what Im getting at.
I know its a short term game, I know immediate results are needed, but there is also - IMO - a responsibility to the club as well.
Redknapp goes in, packs the squad with players he can only get a season or so from, lines his pockets, knowing full well the following summer he will be demanding more money to replace these players. These players clearly offering no return, he is just sucking money out of the club and leaving it with a bloated and poor squad. There is no use of youth either, the academy might as well be closed while they are there.
There is no longevity in that at all.
As I said- at least O'Leary was building a young, vibrant side. All worth money if they should be sold, but hopefully all able to serve the club well for the forseeable as well.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Its a very romantic notion that many managers care about their club, yeh their are exceptions to the rule but in most its all about results.
Anyway to go back to blame its clubs fault for appointing these managers and bending to their demands, if a club says appoints Redknapp on top of their already terrible financial situation and then allow him to spend and sign the cheques then who is to blame? Come on seriously?
The clubs who spend way beyond their means onlyhave themselves to blame.