Jump to content

Redknapp, we all hate but we all know we missed out, don't we?

Noodles34

By Noodles34,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Noodles34

Noodles34

Posted
Posted

Even though i hate Redknapp (for various reasons including him calling me a "scruffy bastard" once outside SMS (I did call him a "Skate bastard" mind), you cannot help thinking (and knowing) that he was doing the job with one and a half hands tied behind his back. Lets face it, if it wasn't for RL and his 90,000 budget to get us back to the PL and his attempt to get SCW on board over Redknapp who knows where we might have gone under Redknapp.

Begrudingly he seems to do a good job almost everywhere, needs money though and clearly has no morals (couldn't believe it when he turned up in the sesspit's town hall to collect the 'freedom of the city' after walking out on them, the arrogance of the man is astounding) and he constantly ****s me off when he whines about other fans having a song about this or that etc. He is a smug chancer that likes to collect brown paper envelopes but , he does bloody good job at this football management lark!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guan 2.0

Guan 2.0

Posted
Posted

He was given more than 90,000 to spend, one example was the striker who went to Birmingham (Robbie Blake I think?) Who we bid over 500,000 for, and the fact he wasted his time ****ing over Clinton 'o' Morrison who amd eit clear he wanted to stay in London. In the end all the available tragets were gone, and Fuller was his half arsed attempt to do something.

 

The fact remain that Redknapp would never have done a job here, as he himself said, he realised he didn't want to be here on on day one and 'his heart was never in it'. But still took us down in the bottom spot Great guy.

 

He's nothing more than a rent a quote knock off nigel, with friends in the media.

 

Oh wait, I forgot he's trying to be a 'proper' manager now he thinks he might get the England job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm8DyQGY-1k

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
Needs stupid amounts of money to be successful. Will never have the respect I give to other managers who improve what they have. That and he is the biggest **** in football bar none.

 

taking Spurs from bottom to the champions league in less than two seasons??? I am no bigger fan of him than anyone, i dont like the bloke, but the myth that he spends fortunes and leaves clubs skint is nonsense and not backed up by facts.

 

These stats make interesting reading and disprove the myth. People just need to get over it and accept that he is bloody good manager who failed here because of Lowe....

 

"Between 1994 and 2001 at West Ham, he signed 58 players for the Hammers, spending £52.09 million, bringing £77.01 million into the club."

"In just two years at Fratton Park, 'Arry signed 41 players for £7.65 million and sold 41 players for £5.4 million." (first spell in charge)

At Saints - "In just one season at the club he signed eight players for £2.57 million, but sold 18 players for £16 million as he began a clear out at the club."

Second stint at Pompey -"It is worth noting that although Redknapp's time in charge of Portsmouth ended in a deficit of some £40 million, the club has since gone on to sell many of the players he signed while he was there, giving the club a staggering £103,940,000 million in sales in just three years. A massive profit of around £30 million for the struggling club."

"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"

 

Taken from this article

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/368365-harry-redknapp-transfer-history-1984-to-2010-best-record-in-football

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
taking Spurs from bottom to the champions league in less than two seasons??? I am no bigger fan of him than anyone, i dont like the bloke, but the myth that he spends fortunes and leaves clubs skint is nonsense and not backed up by facts.

 

These stats make interesting reading and disprove the myth. People just need to get over it and accept that he is bloody good manager who failed here because of Lowe....

 

"Between 1994 and 2001 at West Ham, he signed 58 players for the Hammers, spending £52.09 million, bringing £77.01 million into the club."

"In just two years at Fratton Park, 'Arry signed 41 players for £7.65 million and sold 41 players for £5.4 million." (first spell in charge)

At Saints - "In just one season at the club he signed eight players for £2.57 million, but sold 18 players for £16 million as he began a clear out at the club."

Second stint at Pompey -"It is worth noting that although Redknapp's time in charge of Portsmouth ended in a deficit of some £40 million, the club has since gone on to sell many of the players he signed while he was there, giving the club a staggering £103,940,000 million in sales in just three years. A massive profit of around £30 million for the struggling club."

"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"

 

Taken from this article

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/368365-harry-redknapp-transfer-history-1984-to-2010-best-record-in-football

 

The point is not that you might recoup some money further down the line, it's that he constantly demands a rapid turnover of players which can have serious cash implications in the here-and-now. Why does he do this, or rather why has he done this? Hmmm....

 

The guy is obviously capable of doing a good job if you are prepared to adapt to his methods. How far those methods are capable of taking you is still a moot point.

 

And he might be a criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
The point is not that you might recoup some money further down the line, it's that he constantly demands a rapid turnover of players which can have serious cash implications in the here-and-now. Why does he do this, or rather why has he done this? Hmmm....

 

The guy is obviously capable of doing a good job if you are prepared to adapt to his methods. How far those methods are capable of taking you is still a moot point.

 

And he might be a criminal.

 

Into the champions league it would seem.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Into the champions league it would seem.......

 

Indeed. Which was a decent achievement (although I think the Premier League is presently weaker than it has ever been). Leeds managed that too though and it did them no favours in the long-run. I'm sure Spurs are better run than that but if they fail to keep progressing it won't be long before Redknapp starts moaning that he can't sign the right players. I see he's started talking up their title prospects suddenly; presumably because he'd been told he couldn't "wheel and deal" in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted

Redknapp and Lowe ??? was never going to work cos they both wanted to be in charge of the purse strings.If you hire a bloke like Harry you have to let him do it his way and wedge up when needed and don't look any too closely at what he does. What you don't want to do is hire one of your rugby mates to get under his feet and eventually under his skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Berkshire Saint

Berkshire Saint

Posted
Posted
Lets face it, if it wasn't for RL and his 90,000 budget to get us back to the PL and his attempt to get SCW on board over Redknapp who knows where we might have gone under Redknapp.

 

Load of crap that's spouted on here regularly. We agreed transfers of £1+ for Kamara (who wanted to play in Prem with WBA) and Morrison who wanted to go back to Palace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Indeed. Which was a decent achievement (although I think the Premier League is presently weaker than it has ever been). Leeds managed that too though and it did them no favours in the long-run. I'm sure Spurs are better run than that but if they fail to keep progressing it won't be long before Redknapp starts moaning that he can't sign the right players. I see he's started talking up their title prospects suddenly; presumably because he'd been told he couldn't "wheel and deal" in January.

 

You say it like being in the champions league is a bad thing. Leeds were incredibly badly run, gambling fortune they didn't have. Spurs by comparison have not spent that muchOr maybe because he really believes as do i, with a couple more players, ie a decent centre half and a top class striker they can win the league this or next season. the Premier league may be weaker than it has been since the mid ninties but you can only beat what is in front of you. It is a massive achievement to take a club from bottom of the Premier League to the Champions league in less than two season. Martin O'Neill couldn't do it in 4 years at Villa. I would also guess that Spurs will make more from the Champions league this season, should they get to the knock out stages, than they have spent in transfer fees under HR this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
The man is a chancer full stop. Some chancers do well others eventually get found out! Other than that a total C hancer U ntil N ickers T ake him away.

 

a chancer who has been succesful at every club he has been at bar One, The one being a club where he wasn't allowed to manage his way. Conicidence? Surely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chocco boxo

chocco boxo

Posted
Posted
a chancer who has been succesful at every club he has been at bar One, The one being a club where he wasn't allowed to manage his way. Conicidence? Surely not.

 

One thing I give him (apart from his charity work) he obviously knew Fuller had something in his locker, so he is is not totally Fuller****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
a chancer who has been succesful at every club he has been at bar One, The one being a club where he wasn't allowed to manage his way. Conicidence? Surely not.

 

If we'd hired him the first time he met Rupert it may well have turned out better, can't remember what marvel we got that time, Stuart Gray maybe.The right man for the job my arse, a criminal decision from our beloved ex Chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
You say it like being in the champions league is a bad thing. Leeds were incredibly badly run, gambling fortune they didn't have. Spurs by comparison have not spent that muchOr maybe because he really believes as do i, with a couple more players, ie a decent centre half and a top class striker they can win the league this or next season. the Premier league may be weaker than it has been since the mid ninties but you can only beat what is in front of you. It is a massive achievement to take a club from bottom of the Premier League to the Champions league in less than two season. Martin O'Neill couldn't do it in 4 years at Villa. I would also guess that Spurs will make more from the Champions league this season, should they get to the knock out stages, than they have spent in transfer fees under HR this season.

 

It is a good achievement, yes. The bottom of the league position was clearly false. He's taken them from being one of the best teams outside the top 4 to finishing 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mowgli

Mowgli

Posted
Posted
Even though i hate Redknapp (for various reasons including him calling me a "scruffy bastard" once outside SMS (I did call him a "Skate bastard" mind), you cannot help thinking (and knowing) that he was doing the job with one and a half hands tied behind his back. Lets face it, if it wasn't for RL and his 90,000 budget to get us back to the PL and his attempt to get SCW on board over Redknapp who knows where we might have gone under Redknapp.

Begrudingly he seems to do a good job almost everywhere, needs money though and clearly has no morals (couldn't believe it when he turned up in the sesspit's town hall to collect the 'freedom of the city' after walking out on them, the arrogance of the man is astounding) and he constantly ****s me off when he whines about other fans having a song about this or that etc. He is a smug chancer that likes to collect brown paper envelopes but , he does bloody good job at this football management lark!

 

No, he doesn't. But he knows how to assemble people around him who do. He knows how to bleed a club dry. He knows how to use agents (cough) to his advantage. He knows how to work the media. We did not miss out on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
who has he signed..?

 

bale..? nope

gomes..? nope

 

van der vaart is his best signing.....only double what DELAP cost us...

He cost £5m HIMSELF.

 

Some of his signings:

Defoe - £15m

Palacios - £12m

Keane - £12m

Crouch - £9m

Kaboul - £6.5m

VDV - £8m

Bassong - £8m

Kyle Naughton rumoured to be around £10m

 

They'd already made big money signings that year in Modric, Corluka and Gomes.

 

His squad has cost plenty of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dune

dune

Posted
Posted
Without Lowe he wouldn't have been here. No-one else made him sign Bernard or davenport, stick with claus or his crippled son. We never had good redknapp, we had half hearted doesn't care about the club redknapp. He could have have and should have easily kept us up regardless of Lowe.

 

I could argue and explain why Lowe was the reason behind all the negatives but I can't be arsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted

Redknapp was always a bad fit from day one.

 

A knee jerk reaction from Rupert Lowe to get one over Milan Mandaric. He would always have resisted any financial demands from his 'manager' and told him to do his job and manage the players.

 

After the debacle of Steve Wigley though we would have accepted anything. His unprofessionalism after accepting the role here must be something that can never be forgiven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted
to be fair...he has hardly spent any money at spurs

 

thats true, and its probably what qualifies him above all else when it comes to the england job, ie that the spurs job has been shown so clearly to have been a man-management one rather than a spend-loads-of-money one. And the saggy-jowled c*nt has pulled it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
No, he doesn't. But he knows how to assemble people around him who do. He knows how to bleed a club dry. He knows how to use agents (cough) to his advantage. He knows how to work the media. We did not miss out on anything.

 

err, isn't that what a manager is meant to do? As for your comments about bleeding clubs dry, see the stats above, that is simply not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
He cost £5m HIMSELF.

 

Some of his signings:

Defoe - £15m

Palacios - £12m

Keane - £12m

Crouch - £9m

Kaboul - £6.5m

VDV - £8m

Bassong - £8m

Kyle Naughton rumoured to be around £10m

 

They'd already made big money signings that year in Modric, Corluka and Gomes.

 

His squad has cost plenty of money.

 

Give him loads of money, let him buy whoever he wants (perhaps with a few brown paper bags) and then he may succeed. Spurs seem to have found gold and can support his extravagance but very few other clubs could.

 

Look at Bale. He is now the "best player in the world" but last january he was apparently going on loan to either Forest or Birmingham. Redknapp had him but had no idea about what he could do. Look at how the careers of Bentley (not long ago the future Midfield general of England) and Krancjer have nosedived under Redknapp. His style of management requires loads of resources in the hope that something may eventually work. Most managers would not be allowed to acquire all these players without using them. Redknapp is and that suits his style.

 

It is said that if you give a load of chimpanzees enough typewriters, they will eventually write the works of Shakespeare. Redknapp's managerial style is very similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beatlesaint

beatlesaint

Posted
Posted
Without Lowe he wouldn't have been here. No-one else made him sign Bernard or davenport, stick with claus or his crippled son. We never had good redknapp, we had half hearted doesn't care about the club redknapp. He could have have and should have easily kept us up regardless of Lowe.

 

The only bit I would disagee with is the remark about his son. He was actually our best midfielder whilst he was here and able to play.

Not to say he isnt a complete knob as a pundit on Sky of course !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
Give him loads of money, let him buy whoever he wants (perhaps with a few brown paper bags) and then he may succeed. Spurs seem to have found gold and can support his extravagance but very few other clubs could.

 

Look at Bale. He is now the "best player in the world" but last january he was apparently going on loan to either Forest or Birmingham. Redknapp had him but had no idea about what he could do. Look at how the careers of Bentley (not long ago the future Midfield general of England) and Krancjer have nosedived under Redknapp. His style of management requires loads of resources in the hope that something may eventually work. Most managers would not be allowed to acquire all these players without using them. Redknapp is and that suits his style.

 

It is said that if you give a load of chimpanzees enough typewriters, they will eventually write the works of Shakespeare. Redknapp's managerial style is very similar.

 

 

bale..? sorry, but isnt it arry who has put him left wing and not left back..? and now is regarded as a world class player..?

bentley..? what about lennon..?

kracjar....what about modric..

dawson in the england team...even gomes has stopped the ridiculous errors..

 

just admit it..he is doing a fantastic job at spurs...it does not make you a bad person

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dazza82

Dazza82

Posted
Posted
He cost £5m HIMSELF.

 

Some of his signings:

Defoe - £15m

Palacios - £12m

Keane - £12m

Crouch - £9m

Kaboul - £6.5m

VDV - £8m

Bassong - £8m

Kyle Naughton rumoured to be around £10m

 

They'd already made big money signings that year in Modric, Corluka and Gomes.

 

His squad has cost plenty of money.

 

spent 70.5m but Sold

 

Bent 10m

Gunter 1.75m

Zokora 7.75m

 

So thats a income of 19.5m. Thats without the sale of Taarabt which was undisclosed and the loans of certian players which would of cost fees like Taarabt's first spell at QPR also O'Hara,Hutton,Keane and Giovani so its not that much really.

 

Add that to the extra revenue to what they get from being in the CL aswell and i think he spent money well and also got a good return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Give him loads of money, let him buy whoever he wants (perhaps with a few brown paper bags) and then he may succeed. Spurs seem to have found gold and can support his extravagance but very few other clubs could.

 

Look at Bale. He is now the "best player in the world" but last january he was apparently going on loan to either Forest or Birmingham. Redknapp had him but had no idea about what he could do. Look at how the careers of Bentley (not long ago the future Midfield general of England) and Krancjer have nosedived under Redknapp. His style of management requires loads of resources in the hope that something may eventually work. Most managers would not be allowed to acquire all these players without using them. Redknapp is and that suits his style.

 

It is said that if you give a load of chimpanzees enough typewriters, they will eventually write the works of Shakespeare. Redknapp's managerial style is very similar.

 

Surely this disproves your arguement, he has become that player under Redknapp, when he couldn't get a look in under Ramos. It was Redknapp who moved him to Left Midfield.

Is it just a case of "give a Chimpanzee enough typewriters" that Gomes is now a competnent PL goalkeeper when he was a poor mans Massimo Taibi under RAmos. What about Defoe producing the best form of his career last season, again, just luck? Huddlestone & DAwson now England players, getting the best out of Pakleychenko who was s**** under Ramos. What about getting the best out of fading forces like Merson, Sheringham, Berger, Stone, when down the road? Some people need to take their red and white, i hate all thing Redknapp tinted galsses off FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
Surely this disproves your arguement, he has become that player under Redknapp, when he couldn't get a look in under Ramos. It was Redknapp who moved him to Left Midfield.

 

It took him a long time to spot it. Redknapp didn't play him during the first fifteen months that he (Redknapp) was at Spurs!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John B

John B

Posted
Posted
Give him loads of money, let him buy whoever he wants (perhaps with a few brown paper bags) and then he may succeed. Spurs seem to have found gold and can support his extravagance but very few other clubs could.

 

Look at Bale. He is now the "best player in the world" but last january he was apparently going on loan to either Forest or Birmingham. Redknapp had him but had no idea about what he could do. Look at how the careers of Bentley (not long ago the future Midfield general of England) and Krancjer have nosedived under Redknapp. His style of management requires loads of resources in the hope that something may eventually work. Most managers would not be allowed to acquire all these players without using them. Redknapp is and that suits his style.

 

It is said that if you give a load of chimpanzees enough typewriters, they will eventually write the works of Shakespeare. Redknapp's managerial style is very similar.

 

Apart from managing SFC has been very successful in football management so much so that he is probably the best English manager at the moment.

 

He may have spent money but he has done it wisely and his teams are very attack minded he also seems to be fairminded and realistic as oppossed to Mr Wenger whose behavior I thought was a disgrace

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
It took him a long time to spot it. Redknapp didn't play him during the first fifteen months that he (Redknapp) was at Spurs!!

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
err...so..?

bale is only what.? 21 now

 

It goes back to my basic point that for him to succeed he needs to have many more resources at his disposal than the vast majority of clubs can give their manager. He is wasteful with what he has got. That is why he is accused of bankrupting the clubs that he manages.

 

It may well make him an ideal candidate for England manager .... but very few clubs can afford him with his limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
It goes back to my basic point that for him to succeed he needs to have many more resources at his disposal than the vast majority of clubs can give their manager. He is wasteful with what he has got. That is why he is accused of bankrupting the clubs that he manages.

 

It may well make him an ideal candidate for England manager .... but very few clubs can afford him with his limitations.

really...

 

what gave spurs got that man city etc have not got..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
It goes back to my basic point that for him to succeed he needs to have many more resources at his disposal than the vast majority of clubs can give their manager. He is wasteful with what he has got. That is why he is accused of bankrupting the clubs that he manages.

 

It may well make him an ideal candidate for England manager .... but very few clubs can afford him with his limitations.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...