I've seen plenty of your posts regarding Redknapp and your dislike for the guy which is fair enough. But I'm yet to see a legitimate argument for why its a managers fault for finance problems. The chairman is responsible for budgets and for signing off transfers, nothing to do with the manager - all they do is say who they want, there's nothing more that they can do. If you havent got the money then you tell the manager its not happening its as simple as that - I'm sure Levy did it plenty of times to him, its not hard to do when you hold the purse strings. Its the same in any industry and just because its Redknapp I dont see it being any different....
-
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
No Saggy-face thread?!?
- Thread starter AdamB
- Start date
You’re completely correct.
What harry has down to an art form though is the constant use of the media (via soundbites and driving a narrative based on his agenda) to put more pressure on the owners to buy ‘one or two more’....
Ultimately they sign the cheques. But old Redders sure knows how to make himself look the fans darling, and the only reason the team has failed is down to the chairman not providing him with more funds!
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
The thing is, for me (and this has come up before) - while the Chairman is ultimately responsible (no argument here) I do believe it is the managers job to work in the best interests of the club.
To develop the team, look after the youth, look for bargains, spend wisely...
While they answer to the chairman and have someone to palm responsibility onto, I do believe they should also operate in a responsible way.
Redknapp absolutely does not. He is short termist in extreme and runs a very expensive strategy where ever he is - with no record of success behind it.
Should chairman be more canny like Levy and keep him in check? Yes, absolutely.
Does that mean Redknapp gets to act all teflon and dodge any/all blame that comes his way? No, absolutely not.
To develop the team, look after the youth, look for bargains, spend wisely...
While they answer to the chairman and have someone to palm responsibility onto, I do believe they should also operate in a responsible way.
Redknapp absolutely does not. He is short termist in extreme and runs a very expensive strategy where ever he is - with no record of success behind it.
Should chairman be more canny like Levy and keep him in check? Yes, absolutely.
Does that mean Redknapp gets to act all teflon and dodge any/all blame that comes his way? No, absolutely not.
Absolutely agree in an ideal world that's what you want from your coach, but If you want that sort of coach you dont employ Redknapp simple as that - everyone and his dog knows the type of ethos Redknapp has around recruitment etc and if the chairman was expecting otherwise, again that is very much on the board for poor decision making.....
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Again, not really arguing with what you get if you go for Redknapp. His own self interest always wins, as it did in his opportunity of a lifetime with us.
That said "Well he is a clam and you know it" doesnt actually absolve the fact that, well, he's a clam.
He should be better than he is. Even if Chairman etc should know better
That said "Well he is a clam and you know it" doesnt actually absolve the fact that, well, he's a clam.
He should be better than he is. Even if Chairman etc should know better
He literally would put his name on anything, wouldn’t he!!!
When it comes to Harry, there’s no such thing as coincidence!!!Has he deliberately pulled that 'Deadline day' pose out of the van, or is that just coincidence?
jts1882
Dean Richards
The chairman is ultimately responsible for signing off, but he also has to rely on the football people to give him good advice. The chairman will wanted answers to questions before he does his part of the job. Is this player worth a £20m fee? Is this player worth £100k pw? Is it a good idea to throw the agent £5m to seal the deal? Who is Rosie?
Ultimately all transfers have an element of risk, but if you consistently overpay, you will under perform, lose out from sell-on fees, and have a bunch of useless overpaid players under contract. The chairman gets criticised when he interferes in transfers and doesn't listen to the manager, so it is reasonable that the manager gets listened to and bears responsibility for the advice. The chairman can be criticised for overspending, but the people advising him badly have to take some responsibility, as evaluating football players is a major part of their job.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Well Stop! Hammer time and you are entitled to believe what you do, you are right i do not like Redknapp and all he stands for. How any manager can get so many clubs into trouble ( financially) and walk away like he always does shows that he cares little about any of those clubs or their fans.
It has happened to often for it to be something he worries about and shows his lack of honesty and how little he cares about those clubs or their fans.
Quite.
My business operates a lot of machinery. I need an electrician to keep it all running as I'm not a qualified electrician. If the job he does is shoddy and everyone gets electrocuted, I'm partly to blame because I employed a clam as an electrician.
He's still the clam who fudged everything up though.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
You have a true gift for the succinct!
NoLimits01
Goran Bunjevcevic
But does the blame shift more towards you if you are the 5th company he has done that too, surely then your lack of due diligence and/or control has a major bearing on the outcome.
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it matters. The electrician is clearly an utter clam who I am glad no longer has anything whatsoever to do with the company I support.
That’s because he “can barely read or write” your Honour....
Or a bank account.
In Rosie 47s name of course