• 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

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.
 
r-u-s-x said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Do you put Mourinho in the same bucket or is the fact he is more successful excuse his lack of forward planning (he leaves clubs as a wreak, not bankrupt admittedly)?
 
r-u-s-x said:
Do you put Mourinho in the same bucket or is the fact he is more successful excuse his lack of forward planning (he leaves clubs as a wreak, not bankrupt admittedly)?
Click to expand...

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.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Finney Is Back said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Its 400% 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
Click to expand...

Grays_1890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Have I at any point denied that? No.

Ive simply said, considering how much a clubs fortunes can depend on results, that a manager should be responsible in how they operate.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
 
If Pep was packing his squad with expensive past it has beens, knowing full well they offered no value to the club and would need replacing at great cost, I would consider that irresponsible behaviour on his part, as I believe he should have an eye on the clubs longevity.

That is not to say he is solely responsible for those actions.

As I have stated, numerous times now, I completely agree/accept/believe the board are ALSO responsible.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
If Pep was packing his squad with expensive past it has beens, knowing full well they offered no value to the club and would need replacing at great cost, I would consider that irresponsible behaviour on his part, as I believe he should have an eye on the clubs longevity.

That is not to say he is solely responsible for those actions.

As I have stated, numerous times now, I completely agree/accept/believe the board are ALSO responsible.
Click to expand...

Well he will know that demading players on high wages and high fees would push the club into the FFP danger zone so he is hardly working on the clubs interests at heart more his own.

Yes they are younger and its longer terms but its also three times more costly because not only is he spending huge on Fees but Also Wages with no hope of recouping that unless they sell for a fortune down the line which never happens. How many of the initially expensive young long term players are sold for profit down the line? Go back to Mancini and Pelegringos wonders and see where they are now and at what cost.
 
BBC: Uefa may [edit: are looking for excuses not to] reopen FFP investigations against Emirates Marketing Project after German magazine Der Spiegel published a series of articles accusing the club's Abu Dhabi owners of flouting the rules. (Telegraph)

FTFT
 
mudshark said:
BBC: Uefa may are looking for excuses not to reopen FFP investigations against Emirates Marketing Project after German magazine Der Spiegel published a series of articles accusing the club's Abu Dhabi owners of flouting the rules. (Telegraph)

FTFT
Click to expand...

Classic, hope thats true, just looking at their spend and it is insane. Despite the arguments on long term recouping of money you look at their cavalier approach to football.

In three season before this they spent over 700m Euros and Recouped approx 140m, stock piling players and then loaning them out or then releasing on a free.

Insane spending
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back