Turkish

exactly. Spot on.

clearly not, but at the end of the day does he sign the cheques and have the final say yes or no?

indeed he did, at home to QPR (i think) in a 5-1 win. Those were in the days when we used to win the first game of the season now and again.

Jason Dodds home debut, a 4-1 against Liverpool, who were champions and a head and shoulders the best team in England. He out a great cross in for the first goal too.

I absolutely agree with all of that. What you cant deny though is that he is a very good manager and has only failed in one place, which by coincidence was at a club with a habit of changing managers every 5 minutes and being tight fisted with transfer fees and wages.

Horse for courses. Some players are just not cut out for English football, especially the lower leagues. Why do you think Veron, one of the best midfielders in the world 10 years ago didn't cut it in England? Likewise Hernan Crespo, Shevchenko, Rebrov, Forlan, the list goes on. MS is a very good footballer, but it doesn't automatically make him cut out for the hussle and bussle of L1.

He may have then, but i am 99% sure it was during the summer before Gray was appointed too. I remember him saying they had a chat over a glass of wine and heard no more about it, at the time i really hoped he got the job.

Didn't a certainly Bradley Wright-Phillips often get himself in those positons too? Only to miss 75% of the time, being in the right position does not make you a class player, you have to finish the job too.

Transfer fees are irrelevant? Ask Roman Abramovic how happy he was to shell out £30m on Andre Shevchenko. Once again i have never heard it in recent years be the case when a manager decided on contracts and wages.

If i remember rightly they met for a chat and he was interested but that was the end of it. Stuart Gray was appointed instead.

But a manager decideds who he wants to buy and sell, then the chairman says yes or no and goes and recruits them. Right or wrong? Any manager will say the squad needs improving, they wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't. If he constantly wants more money to improve the squad i dont see the problem, its up to the chairman to be strong and say no. The myth that he bankrupts clubs is simply not true.

Yet look at the rescources they have had. Redknapp has won the FA Cup with a relatively small club like Pompey, got West Ham into Europe and taken Tottenham into the champions league or the old European Cup for the first time in 50 years. Mourinho is one of the best managers in the world no doubt, but has spent hundreds of millions, as has Fergie managing the worlds biggest clubs, you cant compare them. Tottenham are Redknapps biggest club, yet still no where near as Man U, Inter Millan etc. Mourinho spent more on Shevckenko and Carvalho whilst at Chelsea than than Redknapp has since he has been at Spurs. Would they have done as well at Spurs or would Redknapp have done as well as them given their clubs and rescources? Who knows.

Once again, who agrees the fees and wages at a club? Is it the manager or the chairman? 90% of mangers if offered the chance to sign Jermain Defoe/Diarra/Muntari etc is going to take them.

So does the manager decided the wages or is it the chairman and money people?

prefer these

Even if we hadn't have kept them we'd have been able to get a lot more money for them. With both we had to sell, if we'd have stayed up we could have held out for much more. You're though, no other club has produced such players of high quality, just a shame they all had to be sold off.

you going on the train with the twins?

I think if it had just been relegation to the championship then that would have been okay. But two relegations, administration, fans turning on each other, such as at the Doncaster game a few years back and all the board room nonsense, rubbish football, seeing the likes of Bale & Walcott not only sold off but us being mugged off too stay out of admin, i even found celebrating a last day win to stay in the championship like we had won the league embarassing. Give me staying up Harrys way anyday. Cant but regularly think what if everytime i see Bale, Walcott, Crouch etc play.

the 2-2 draw at home to Middlesborough when 2-0 up injury time, last minute equlisers at home to Everton and away to Arsenal! What would you rather have had, him keeping us up his way, or relegated and all that followed Ruperts way?

The figures came from this article. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...rd-in-football You could argue that about any manager re signing on fees wages etc. unless i am mistaken dont the board sign off transfers and agree contracts with the manager simply identifying players they wish to sign and letting the chairman do the rest? Any manager will tell you they need new players and give them money they will spend it, they wouldn't be doing their job probably if they weren't constantly looking to improve their squad. But based on those figures in that article Redknapp has produced a net profit on his overall transfers in his management career, which disproves the myth that he bankrupts clubs. Just talking about Saints, adminstration was nothing to do with him, and as far as i am aware West Ham, Pompeys and Bournemouths financial problems were nothing to do with him either, as i say, he doesn't sign the cheques now does he. And as for your comment about him needing plenty of rescources, you could say that about any manager, give them money they will spend it. BUt look at some of his transfers, £5m for Diarra, a pitance by PL standards, sold for £18m, Sully Muntari, signed for £7m, sold for more than double, neither of which costing heaven and earth by PL standards. As well as already noted his ability to improve players he has, only a fool would say he cant spot a decent player and cant bring out the best in those that he has.

But he had the tactical nouse to beat Man U at Old Trafford on the way to winning the FA Cup, the reigning European Champions and too come back from 0-2 to win at Highbury yesterday.

Exactly Jamie, didn't Pompey win away at Man Utd en route to their FA cup win? Redknapp must be better than Fergie in that case too.

Two promotions, an FA Cup win, Two finals and currently manager of a champions league side who have just beaten the holders, not bad for a guy who cant coach with no tactical nouse.

But that is simpy not true, many players are better players under him, including Bale, who you used as an example against him. He has got the best out of olders players as as per my comments above look at his transfer record over his 26 years as a boss you find that he has spent £208.23 million and recouped £230.37 million A quick comparison with Rafael Benitez has the Liverpool manager spending £210 million since 2004 and only accruing £125 million in the same period. While in almost 24 years at Old Trafford, Alex Ferguson has spent £392.44 million on 89 players and made some £244 million by selling 216 players in that same time. You dont hear people blamning Man Utd debt of Alex Fergusson now do you.

Even so he has become that player under Redknapp, playing a position Redknapp moved him too. He has arguably got more out of him than Arsene Wenger has out of Walcott, and Wenger is supposedly a master at developing young players.