-
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
Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath
- Thread starter mick cooper
- Start date
Leeds Spur
Banned
Amen mutha fudgea
Not really. 'No' means sack him, whilst the other two options are for those that want him to stay.
gives a better break down of what people want compared to the original poll
brick - I thought 'no' means - don't give him an extension - i.e. leave it as it is
Stick your poll!
Last edited:
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
Am I the only one thinking "but we already have a Redknapp thread?"
This thread needs to be merged
This thread needs to be merged
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Voted no.
For the reason that personally I think to demand loyalty and assurances when none were forthcoming when the shoe was on the other foot is absolutely ridiculous. And also, if we are going to bring someone in like AVB or Martinez, we might as well do it now rather than hoping there is someone good to come aboard next summer if we aren't offering him the extension. If, for example, AVB was the preferred choice of Levy, there's no point waiting around if he was available.
But on the other hand, if they do want Harry to stay, they need to offer him a contract extension, because he is a good manager and any club works better with stability. The moral stance of not offering commitment when it wasn't forthcoming the other way isn't really a good business stance to take, so if he is to stay, he should be offered an extension. That is only if Levy thinks he is the man for us, and isn't going to look for any excuse to sack him a few months later. A contract heavily tailored towards performance based remuneration so we aren't buggered by compensation if he is to be sacked would be good. But the point is for me, if he is to stay, he needs to be backed.
Personally I'd like AVB or Martinez in.
For the reason that personally I think to demand loyalty and assurances when none were forthcoming when the shoe was on the other foot is absolutely ridiculous. And also, if we are going to bring someone in like AVB or Martinez, we might as well do it now rather than hoping there is someone good to come aboard next summer if we aren't offering him the extension. If, for example, AVB was the preferred choice of Levy, there's no point waiting around if he was available.
But on the other hand, if they do want Harry to stay, they need to offer him a contract extension, because he is a good manager and any club works better with stability. The moral stance of not offering commitment when it wasn't forthcoming the other way isn't really a good business stance to take, so if he is to stay, he should be offered an extension. That is only if Levy thinks he is the man for us, and isn't going to look for any excuse to sack him a few months later. A contract heavily tailored towards performance based remuneration so we aren't buggered by compensation if he is to be sacked would be good. But the point is for me, if he is to stay, he needs to be backed.
Personally I'd like AVB or Martinez in.
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
How the hell does no mean sacking him? No means let his contract run its course till end of next season and lets review it then.
Sack him means sacking him now.
Yep, and am sure this (the pay off) will be exactly how Levy will be viewing it as well. Whether that means he goes or stays as a result i think if finely balanced. Priority is that we have a sensible (non-old fart) transfer policy
It's in the OP. No means sack, leave it be means let him run out his current deal.
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
Im gonna take this up with the OP then because thats a ludicrous question and fairly silly. Not renewing his contract doesnt mean the sack - you (not YOU) cant just invent things to suit you (not YOU)
er what ? he gives you 3 options - Yes, renew - Leave it as is - No, sack/replace him
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
My bad - I realised that after I posted my response to Jordi - I apologise.
As far as im concerned though 'No' and 'Leave it be' are the same thing. Leave it be = run its course. No = run its course. Dont see to much of a difference, but I will play along.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Locked. We don't need yet another Redknapp thread. Take your pick from one of these two where there has been plenty of discussion on this question
http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php?1724-Should-Redknapp-go&highlight=redknapp
http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php?1815-Redknapp/page70
http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php?1724-Should-Redknapp-go&highlight=redknapp
http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php?1815-Redknapp/page70
Crawley
Board Legend
The all new Redknapp thread
Having not had much time to read or post lately, I have just read back a few pages of the previous incarnation.
I really am lost for words.
I've moved it to the mods section in the hope we can pick through it and dish out suitable punishment to the obviously many rule breakers.
In the mean time, lets see who is the first to break a forum rule in this one, shall we?
Now.....off you go again.
Having not had much time to read or post lately, I have just read back a few pages of the previous incarnation.
I really am lost for words.
I've moved it to the mods section in the hope we can pick through it and dish out suitable punishment to the obviously many rule breakers.
In the mean time, lets see who is the first to break a forum rule in this one, shall we?
Now.....off you go again.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
you?