• 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

OT: What next for Harry?

jts1882 said:
You can question his loyalty in jumping ship to a local rival but can't blame him for the financial woes.

The owners/directors who signed the cheques shafted Portsmouth and Southampton. He didn't help with constant demands for new players and suggesting expensive options, but its up to the executives to make sure they don't spend more than they have. Levy showed it can be done, even if it comes at the expense of friction. If the players are crap, blame the manager, if the club goes bust, blame the directors.

In some ways you want the manager to be as ambitious as possible in the transfer window and most are. The notable exception is Wenger and he might have gone too far in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...



So you believe it is not more then coincidence :-k
 
Jurgen the German said:
Just to be clear, I didn't say he isn't a mercenary. I just question why some pillory him for it, but praise Ekotto for his "honesty" in saying that his main motivation that drives him is money rather than a love for the sport.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that BAE is honest and won't deny truths when put in front of him.
 
Interesting that a couple of 'Pool fans called into TalkSport this week and wanted Rodgers sacked so that Harry could take over...
 
Jurgen the German said:
So is it David O' Leary's fault that Leeds went into the toilet? He was one of their managers after all.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but we were not discussing O'Leary and as far as i remember he only was at one club, Redknapp has left behind a mess at two. As my original post said a hell of a coincidence.
 
parklane1 said:
I have no idea, but we were not discussing O'Leary and as far as i remember he only was at one club, Redknapp has left behind a mess at two. As my original post said a hell of a coincidence.
Click to expand...

West Ham have always been a joke club ran by used car salesmen and pornographers. So Harry can't be blamed for that one.

Wenger is the most hands on manager when it comes to being involved in the finances, but I still wouldn't blame him if Arsenal went bust.

I just don't see how a manager can be blamed when a chairman/owner is ultimately the one who is responsible for the financial side of things.
 
parklane1 said:
I have no idea, but we were not discussing O'Leary and as far as i remember he only was at one club, Redknapp has left behind a mess at two. As my original post said a hell of a coincidence.
Click to expand...

The mods have been trying to get me to adopt a more friendly posting style, but how can I when there are comments like this !!!

Quite simply, you are deliberately ignoring any sort of common sense you have in order to have a dig at a man you dont particularly like. I dont care if every club Harry is at goes bankrupt, the fact is he is an employee of the club, not the man in charge of money.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact? what do you gain by it ? You know full well that Harry asks for a player and the club say yes or no. It is probably because Harry is a good manager and can attract a higher quality of player that the club could normally get.

But for you to make any sort of sense, you are going to have to stop stating the coincidence (which isn't much of one considering nearly all football clubs get into trouble) and tell us exactly what Harry did to bankrupt these clubs ?

As far as I know, he never set the budget at any club, he never signed a contract with a player and never had any input to the financial side other than saying "can we get him". How the hell would he even know the clubs finances, most clubs are bankrolled by a chairman - did he have access to his statements or something?

And, bizarrely you even acknowledge that Levy is at Spurs which is why we were fine. Right, so at the club that doesnt go bankrupt it was due to the chairman. But at the clubs that did, it was because of Harry. Yeah ok... I dont know why I bother... in fact this is the not the first time I have directed posts like this at you so I dont know why you are still making an absurd claim.
 
Last edited:
Golfball said:
The mods have been trying to get me to adopt a more friendly posting style, but how can I when there are comments like this !!!

Quite simply, you are deliberately ignoring any sort of common sense you have in order to have a dig at a man you dont particularly like. I dont care if every club Harry is at goes bankrupt, the fact is he is an employee of the club, not the man in charge of money.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact? what do you gain by it ? You know full well that Harry asks for a player and the club say yes or no. It is probably because Harry is a good manager and can attract a higher quality of player that the club could normally get.

But for you to make any sort of sense, you are going to have to stop stating the coincidence (which isn't much of one considering nearly all football clubs get into trouble) and tell us exactly what Harry did to bankrupt these clubs ?

As far as I know, he never set the budget at any club, he never signed a contract with a player and never had any input to the financial side other than saying "can we get him". How the hell would he even know the clubs finances, most clubs are bankrolled by a chairman - did he have access to his statements or something?

And, bizarrely you even acknowledge that Levy is at Spurs which is why we were fine. Right, so at the club that doesnt go bankrupt it was due to the chairman. But at the clubs that did, it was because of Harry. Yeah ok... I dont know why I bother... in fact this is the not the first time I have directed posts like this at you so I dont know why you are still making an absurd claim.
Click to expand...



The problem here is that you are making an assumption on the workings at a football club (it is a fair assumption, admittedly) based on what could be deemed "standard working practises".
But.......the truth is, none of us know the facts, and we are ALL making different assumptions and believing them to be true.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, Harry DID have far more say and control over financial transactions at previous clubs, and did indeed cause the issues those clubs now have. Or maybe he didn't. We simply don't know.

What we do know is at OUR club, there is no doubt who holds the purse strings, and there was no way Harry could ever be allowed to drag us in a similar direction.
 
i am not defending anyone, But a club going bust is down to the owners, they are allowed to say no we cannot afford someone. Are they not running the club?
 
The Fatman said:
i am not defending anyone, But a club going bust is down to the owners, they are allowed to say no we cannot afford someone. Are they not running the club?
Click to expand...

Ultimately yes but often Owners/Directors can't be expected to manage everything. Owners/Directors are concerned with macro level matters, growth, strategy etc, it's the employees who micromanage. Often the CFO controls the budget but he will not usually be a Director.

But as Crawley said, who knows when it comes to a football club. They are not run like traditional businesses and to be blunt are a bit more amateurish in their governance.

All speculation, but if a manager like O'Leary or Redknapp consistently has his hand out demanding more for squad replenishment, especially considering Harry's sway with the media, it would take a very strong willed Owner/Director to keep things on check.

Let's face it, the chairman of the board at BHP is not going to be boo'd for not allocating more resources to some mine in Africa.

Levy has that ability. Not sure how many at Portsmouth would have been so determined.

So while not ultimately culpable, there's a stench that would stick to him.
 
Golfball said:
The mods have been trying to get me to adopt a more friendly posting style, but how can I when there are comments like this !!!

Quite simply, you are deliberately ignoring any sort of common sense you have in order to have a dig at a man you dont particularly like. I dont care if every club Harry is at goes bankrupt, the fact is he is an employee of the club, not the man in charge of money.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact? what do you gain by it ? You know full well that Harry asks for a player and the club say yes or no. It is probably because Harry is a good manager and can attract a higher quality of player that the club could normally get.

But for you to make any sort of sense, you are going to have to stop stating the coincidence (which isn't much of one considering nearly all football clubs get into trouble) and tell us exactly what Harry did to bankrupt these clubs ?

As far as I know, he never set the budget at any club, he never signed a contract with a player and never had any input to the financial side other than saying "can we get him". How the hell would he even know the clubs finances, most clubs are bankrolled by a chairman - did he have access to his statements or something?

And, bizarrely you even acknowledge that Levy is at Spurs which is why we were fine. Right, so at the club that doesnt go bankrupt it was due to the chairman. But at the clubs that did, it was because of Harry. Yeah ok... I dont know why I bother... in fact this is the not the first time I have directed posts like this at you so I dont know why you are still making an absurd claim.
Click to expand...

Common sense, eh? Using this specific issue as a platform from which to go into various other areas of 'common sense' regarding the appraisal of Harry, let me ask you in the spirit of debate...

1) Would you agree that the relationship between Mandric and Harry might well have given him a little more, ahem, 'power' over financial matters relating to the football club than some other managers have with their chairmen?

2) Do you feel that Redknapp's transfer targets have ever been compromised by his relationships with agents?

3) Do you believe that Harry's loyalty to Spurs was as strong before Roy Hodgson was appointed England manager as it apparently was after the announcement of the job?

4) Do you have any theories as to why Harry might've turned down a contract extension last season?

5) Do you have any theories as to why harry would've hired Paul Stretford, the man who advised Wayne Rooney to get ballsy and threaten Sir Alex Ferguson, to represent him in contract talks with Levy this summer?

6) Do you have any theories as to why Harry had to completely different views on how much players were affected by potential length of tenure in march and June of this year?

The Independent - Saturday, March 24th

Even regarding talk of the manager himself departing to lead England, Redknapp was unambiguous: "They don't give a brick."

It started with discussion of Spurs' recent form. They have taken one point from their last four games, and have seen hopes of London supremacy and automatic Champions League qualification threatened. Redknapp was asked, not for the first time, whether this was because his players had been distracted by speculation of his filling the vacant England job.

"That is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard in my life," Redknapp sighed. "They don't care whether I'm the manager next year, they wouldn't lose any sleep over that or whoever comes. That's football: footballers are footballers, they play the game, they come in every day and train, somebody else comes in the door tomorrow and it's 'the king is dead, long live the king'."

Sky Sports News - June 5th

"I've never had a problem with Daniel Levy," he said on Sky Sports News. "I've probably got on as well with Daniel as I could any... People keep talking about our relationship. I've never had a minute's problem with Daniel Levy in terms of falling out with him or whatever. I don't even know where that comes from.

"The simple situation is, I've got a year left on my contract. It's up to Tottenham whether they want to extend that contract or not. If they don't extend it and I go into my last year, it's not an easy one when players know you've only got a year left.

"It's not a case of me looking for security. What it's about is players knowing you've only got year left on your contract and knowing that it doesn't work, basically.

"I think it's a situation of, 'well, he might not be here next year'.

"You don't let players run into the last year of their contract if you think they're any good, and you don't let managers run into the last year of their contract if you think they're any good."

7) Do you genuinely trust a man who stood in court and claimed he is a virtual illiterate who has no concept of finances? I mean, obviously he was found innocent of the charges filed against him, but it's still a question worth asking in the sens of whether deep down, you trust a man who's defense was based around such, ahem, 'charactaristics'?
 
Golfball said:
The mods have been trying to get me to adopt a more friendly posting style, but how can I when there are comments like this !!!

Quite simply, you are deliberately ignoring any sort of common sense you have in order to have a dig at a man you dont particularly like. I dont care if every club Harry is at goes bankrupt, the fact is he is an employee of the club, not the man in charge of money.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact? what do you gain by it ? You know full well that Harry asks for a player and the club say yes or no. It is probably because Harry is a good manager and can attract a higher quality of player that the club could normally get.

But for you to make any sort of sense, you are going to have to stop stating the coincidence (which isn't much of one considering nearly all football clubs get into trouble) and tell us exactly what Harry did to bankrupt these clubs ?

As far as I know, he never set the budget at any club, he never signed a contract with a player and never had any input to the financial side other than saying "can we get him". How the hell would he even know the clubs finances, most clubs are bankrolled by a chairman - did he have access to his statements or something?

And, bizarrely you even acknowledge that Levy is at Spurs which is why we were fine. Right, so at the club that doesnt go bankrupt it was due to the chairman. But at the clubs that did, it was because of Harry. Yeah ok... I dont know why I bother... in fact this is the not the first time I have directed posts like this at you so I dont know why you are still making an absurd claim.
Click to expand...


I have not made up anything to attack Redknapp with, the facts are that Portsmouth and Southampton are two clubs that Redknapp managed and both had serious money problems after he left. You can spin it how you want pal makes no difference to me, as you say i do not know why you bother.
 
Jurgen the German said:
West Ham have always been a joke club ran by used car salesmen and pornographers. So Harry can't be blamed for that one.

Wenger is the most hands on manager when it comes to being involved in the finances, but I still wouldn't blame him if Arsenal went bust.

I just don't see how a manager can be blamed when a chairman/owner is ultimately the one who is responsible for the financial side of things.
Click to expand...

Never mentioned W.Ham, the other club was Southampton.
 
Crawley said:
The problem here is that you are making an assumption on the workings at a football club (it is a fair assumption, admittedly) based on what could be deemed "standard working practises".
But.......the truth is, none of us know the facts, and we are ALL making different assumptions and believing them to be true.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, Harry DID have far more say and control over financial transactions at previous clubs, and did indeed cause the issues those clubs now have. Or maybe he didn't. We simply don't know.

What we do know is at OUR club, there is no doubt who holds the purse strings, and there was no way Harry could ever be allowed to drag us in a similar direction.
Click to expand...

He's not making any assumption other than that Redknapp was not in charge of the finances at Portsmouth and Southampton. We might not know if the CEO or owner or other Board member had the final say on finances but we know it wasn't 'Arry. Even if they gave him a budget and let him spend it as he wanted, there is no way he could spend money they didn't allow him to.

He might have recommended buying overly expensive players, old players with no sell on value, paying high wages and excessive agents fees, and otherwise made financially unsound recommendations, but its the job of the executives to make sure they stayed within a sustainable budget. It doesn't matter if the crowd boo them or call them nasty names, it's their responsibility to make the right decisions for the company.
 
1) Can't believe that Redknapp helps out Bournemouth for free......and is still criticised for it.

2) I am genuinely beginning to think we have some people on this forum with a very low IQ, understanding of how a company is run fiscally or have a complete lack of footballing understanding. Possibly all three. Harry at fault for Portsmouth and West Ham's financial problems? Jesus wept.

3) I am still dumbstruck that a manager who lead us to three great seasons is so hated by so many Spurs fans. Even George Graham was despised less, despite having Spurs playing the most turgid football witnessed at the Lane in my lifetime.

4) I am sad to have been proven so right about the attitude of certain posters on this forum. It does appear, despite the abuse I took for daring to state it at the time, that they're going to be happier with a 6th to 8th place finish under AVB than they would a top four finish under Redknapp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back