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

[Turkish]

Most of the managers you refer to abovve are in a totally different league than Harry.

 

Mourinho has won Champion Leagues with different clubs. Fergie has won Champion Leagues and 20 plus other trophies. Benitez has won European trophies. Dalglish did the double in the days when nobody did that. All Redknapp has to boast about is a dodgy FA cup win and the fact that his team beat the European champions after losing to them the previous week.

 

I think you have read too much of Harry's self publicity if you think that he can be comapared with them.

 

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.

[Turkish]

You can't have it both ways. You seem to be praising him for the transfer fees but blaming someone else for the wages. Ever since bloody Bosman ruined football's finances, wages and fees have been tied up together.

 

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.

[Turkish]

I'm with you here. We should have got him the first time that he was available. He was living locally and seemed to be up for coming here, but apparently never got the telephone call from Lowe inviting him for an interview.

 

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.

[Turkish]

That is pretty typical Redknapp propaganda. Transfer fees are amost irrelevant nowadays compared to players wages. Redknapp leaves clubs skint because he overpays and gives players long contracts on those high wages ...and that's not even counting any alleged brown envelopes and the "odd" agents' fees.

 

When a premiership player can be paid over £10 milion a year and be given a 4 year contract, then leave on a free transfer, transfer fees are only half the story at most.

 

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.

[Ken Tone]

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.

 

I said almost irrelevant

Eg transfer fee £30m for a top player ....wages and bonuses say £10 million a year for 4 years, ie £40 million. (that's alot less than Rooney is getting).

Transfer fee might be recovered if sold. Wages won't be. So even a massive fee like £30 million is a bet of sorts, or an investment, that may be recouped or may even give a profit if sold on. Whereas the £40 million wages are a definite loss.

 

The wages matter more.

 

Ask West Ham fans how they feel about Redknapp and finances. Ask pompey fans if you can find one with a brain. There are an awful lot of people at clubs where Redknapp worked that believe in what you call a myth.

[Noodles34]

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.

 

I was under the impression Redknapp missed out to Strachan, had an interview etc

[Turkish]

I was under the impression Redknapp missed out to Strachan, had an interview etc

 

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.

[Noodles34]

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.

 

I am with you on this argument. At the end of the day it is the chairman/CEO/owner who must have the final say.

Surely it goes like this:

Manager identifies player he wants and says to chairman he is going to cost £xxxxxx on the fee and maybe about £xx per week in wages (because by then he has already spoken wiyth the player's agent)

Chairman agrees in principal

Chairman sorts out other club with permission to speak etc and agrees fee etc...

Manager meets player and tells chairman, Yes, we need him

Chairman meets players agent etc and sorts out wages etc

Clearly, if the agent then says, actually, we want £xxx per week, then at this point the chairman says no

The chairman says no, manager a bit miffed but thats that

or the player signs with the chairmans approval

 

At which point is the manager responsible for the club finances?

 

Clearly, if the player is crap, then that is a different story..

[Gorgiesaint]

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.

 

Also the one club where his heart wasn't in it. Who's fault was it Lowe? Redknapp? or both?

 

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

 

That is a very large number of brown paper bags!

 

He bankrupted the skates and bournemouth while relegating west ham and us (not all those things are bad, of course). the only the things he's good at are self-publicity and revising history.

 

For those who frequent the thread in the lounge - Redknapp = Corpy Whore?

[Topcat]

In the December/Jan transfer window Lowe decided to make a profit on the transfer/loan dealings of several million (Beattie sale etc). It was the stupidest decision of all Lowe's many dumb financial decisions. By not allowing Redknapp to secure an experienced CB etc, Lowe handicapped our relegation fight. He raised £2m for the Club and then lost £50m+ following relegation.... What Club fighting relegation from the Prem, actually raises cash in that xfer window?

[broncoboy]

Some things you cant disagree with

 

He does love the sound of his own voice

He moans all the time

When it goes wrong its never his fault

He is a complete ----

[Turkish]

Some things you cant disagree with

 

He does love the sound of his own voice

He moans all the time

When it goes wrong its never his fault

He is a complete ----

 

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.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Jeez - all this analysis. Ex Pompey manager who oversaw our relegation before going back to Pompey and being awarded the freedom of the City. Regardless of his abilities he can FOAD.

[Cherrypicker]

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!

 

You really should not drink so much this early in the day!

[St_Tel49]

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

There is no doubt he had a major influence in the decision making.

[Turkish]

There is no doubt he had a major influence in the decision making.

 

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

[Super_Uwe]

I will always look upon Redknapp as a failure with us, but I have to laugh at all the people having a go at him for being a "chequebook manager" and "only any good if he manages his way".

 

Much in the same way that fans don't like to see the board meddling with footballing affairs, how on earth can people have a go at him for spending loads of money? Do people think he used to go into his chairman's office with a shotgun and say "Buy this player or you're dead"? Of course not. He asked for players and, clearly on most occasions, got them. That involves the consent of a board who can quite easily tell him to clear off. But most of the time they didn't/don't, so that is hardly his fault. It takes two to tango.

 

At the end of the day he's an old school bloke, but what he's done is adapted with the times. I don't like some of the c*** he spouts out in the press, but he knows how important the media has become and has made sure that his reputation has never really been tarnished (how many times do you hear of him being the ex-Southampton manager? Answer - never). I think that's smart rather than bent, don't you?

 

Football has changed and has become more scientific and technical, but whatever the likes of Lowe/Clifford et al would have you believe, Redknapp knows what the f*** he's doing and is hardly a dinosaur. But I just wish he'd never even had an interview with us because it was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

I've checked and you and I are correct. Hoddle was lured away to Spurs in March 2001 and so we had a vacancy. Redcrapp had just parted ways at West Ham in early May and we appointed Gray in June, after he had taken over as caretaker manager on Hoddle's departure. Gray only lasted three further months before Lowe realised his mistake and appointed WGS.

 

Had we got in Redcrapp after Hoddle, I think that he might have done OK for us. He wasn't the same towards us later anyway having gotten the Skates promoted and maybe also because the first time around when the opportunity was there, he had been cold-shouldered when we had chosen the non-entity Gray.

[Badvoc]

I seem to remember everybody banging on and on about our crap fitness levels when Redknapp was here, but this doesn't/didn't seem to affect any of his other teams before or since then. So, I suspect that his move here just didn't work out for him. Does anybody remember that quip he came out with whilst at St Mary's when he bemoaned the Bentleys and Porches in the Saints car park, when he said he was used to the bangers the Poopey players drove? This was just an analogy of why he never felt comfortable about Saints, and maybe he was right. We did seem to have an attitude that being in the top flight was our god given right (certainly from the club, but not necessarily the fans). Things were just too comfortable at SFC, and I'm glad we are starting to get tough again.

 

Lowe ultimately drove him out and back to Nottarf, but by that point he'd had enough. As a pairing SFC and Redknapp just weren't matched. It's a shame, but that's how it was...anyway, good luck to him for the future, and a congratulations for making the North London derby a proper competitive game for the first time in years.

[Turkish]

I will always look upon Redknapp as a failure with us, but I have to laugh at all the people having a go at him for being a "chequebook manager" and "only any good if he manages his way".

 

Much in the same way that fans don't like to see the board meddling with footballing affairs, how on earth can people have a go at him for spending loads of money? Do people think he used to go into his chairman's office with a shotgun and say "Buy this player or you're dead"? Of course not. He asked for players and, clearly on most occasions, got them. That involves the consent of a board who can quite easily tell him to clear off. But most of the time they didn't/don't, so that is hardly his fault. It takes two to tango.

 

At the end of the day he's an old school bloke, but what he's done is adapted with the times. I don't like some of the c*** he spouts out in the press, but he knows how important the media has become and has made sure that his reputation has never really been tarnished (how many times do you hear of him being the ex-Southampton manager? Answer - never). I think that's smart rather than bent, don't you?

 

Football has changed and has become more scientific and technical, but whatever the likes of Lowe/Clifford et al would have you believe, Redknapp knows what the f*** he's doing and is hardly a dinosaur. But I just wish he'd never even had an interview with us because it was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

exactly. Spot on.

[The Kraken]

I will always look upon Redknapp as a failure with us, but I have to laugh at all the people having a go at him for being a "chequebook manager" and "only any good if he manages his way".

 

Much in the same way that fans don't like to see the board meddling with footballing affairs, how on earth can people have a go at him for spending loads of money? Do people think he used to go into his chairman's office with a shotgun and say "Buy this player or you're dead"? Of course not. He asked for players and, clearly on most occasions, got them. That involves the consent of a board who can quite easily tell him to clear off. But most of the time they didn't/don't, so that is hardly his fault. It takes two to tango.

 

At the end of the day he's an old school bloke, but what he's done is adapted with the times. I don't like some of the c*** he spouts out in the press, but he knows how important the media has become and has made sure that his reputation has never really been tarnished (how many times do you hear of him being the ex-Southampton manager? Answer - never). I think that's smart rather than bent, don't you?

 

Football has changed and has become more scientific and technical, but whatever the likes of Lowe/Clifford et al would have you believe, Redknapp knows what the f*** he's doing and is hardly a dinosaur. But I just wish he'd never even had an interview with us because it was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

He IS a chequebook manager though. It's not to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, as Redknapp has clearly had some success with his methods (apart from here where his hands were tied and he couldn't manage like that). But to suggest otherwise just isn't true, his managerial policy relies on a heavy turnaround of players. Some of his transfers won't pay off at all, but he's also likely to pull a few out of the hat as well.

 

To suggest that he hasn't spent a lot at Spurs to get where they are is laughable. He clearly has, and when taking over in October '08 even inherited a team that had spent around £40M in the summer, then allowed him to spend another £40M in the January window. He also received money from incoming transfers of course, but was still allowed to spend £40M (plus another £20M or so in the summer), so has had a good deal of resources at his disposal.

 

Of course, the potential problems with Redknapp's methods are aptly demonstrated down the road. On balance of transfer fees alone they should have made millions from the players he bought and sold. However, you also need to consider the stupid wages that he sanctioned in order to bring those players to the club. Utaka supposedly on £80K a week, Crouch and Defoe nudging towards £90K a week. If you have just 2 or 3 transfers who don't work out and you then can't shift on, you have an almighty expenditure at the club which can only be resolved by spending even more to bring in a better replacement.

 

Redknapp has done very well at Spurs and clearly has something about him; but he is a chequebook manager. As I said, its not necessarily a bad thing so I don't know why there's such a clamour to deny it, there have been plenty of completely unsuccessful chequebook managers throughout history, so he's clearly doing something right.

[The9]

Redknapp sold Beattie for £6m which contributed to our relegation a few months later, then when relegated sold Crouch for £7m and Phillips for £1m (and he proceeded to play in the Prem AND get another side promoted from the Championship in the following seasons). You can argue the role of Lowe here all you like, but those figures about "making money" as evidence of transfer dealings only hold true if you don't cripple the side at the same time. That £14m (and therefore the measly £2m raised from the other 12 player sales, according to that link above) ended up costing Saints about £40m that year and the following year.

 

He also spent £2.1m on Quashie in the Prem and we lost £0.9m on that when we sold him a year later. In fact the only player Redknapp made us a profit on in his time at Saints was Fuller, who cost £90k and was then sold to Stoke for a fee claimed to be £500k, which is unverified and frankly pretty unlikely.

 

Also, he signed Marcelo Tejera. And some terrible players for the Skates (I once took the rise out of Meringovian with a list of his purchases pre-2005 which showed that about 80% of the players he'd signed for them since taking over the first time weren't first team regulars at any point or had already left).

 

The long and short of it is wherever he goes he ships out most of the players he inherits and replaces them with other ones - this needs a load of cash, albeit some of which is raised by the number of players he sells, in haste, and usually at a loss.

 

At the same time he usually alienates perfectly good players who go on to be better elsewhere for no apparent reason (Matt Mills, Gary O'Neil, Geovanni, Kevin Phillips, KP Boateng), and the fact he wasn't able to throw money at it is the main reason he failed at Saints.

[Turkish]

Redknapp sold Beattie for £6m which contributed to our relegation a few months later, then when relegated sold Crouch for £7m and Phillips for £1m (and he proceeded to play in the Prem AND get another side promoted from the Championship in the following seasons). You can argue the role of Lowe here all you like, but those figures about "making money" as evidence of transfer dealings only hold true if you don't cripple the side at the same time. That £14m (and therefore the measly £2m raised from the other 12 player sales, according to that link above) ended up costing Saints about £40m that year and the following year.

 

He also spent £2.1m on Quashie in the Prem and we lost £0.9m on that when we sold him a year later. In fact the only player Redknapp made us a profit on in his time at Saints was Fuller, who cost £90k and was then sold to Stoke for a fee claimed to be £500k, which is unverified and frankly pretty unlikely.

 

Also, he signed Marcelo Tejera. And some terrible players for the Skates (I once took the rise out of Meringovian with a list of his purchases pre-2005 which showed that about 80% of the players he'd signed for them since taking over the first time weren't first team regulars at any point or had already left).

 

The long and short of it is wherever he goes he ships out most of the players he inherits and replaces them with other ones - this needs a load of cash, albeit some of which is raised by the number of players he sells, in haste, and usually at a loss.

 

At the same time he usually alienates perfectly good players who go on to be better elsewhere for no apparent reason (Matt Mills, Gary O'Neil, Geovanni, Kevin Phillips, KP Boateng), and the fact he wasn't able to throw money at it is the main reason he failed at Saints.

 

I may be wrong but i am pretty sure he was told to sell before he can buy.....

[DT]

The teams he has left have not just fallen on hard times because he left. The teams he has left have been crippled by wages and financial problems. Which is why he's generally no good when he gets no access to funds, and why he'd be hopeless as England manager.

[Redondo Saint]

I can't help but like HR!

Sorry but he is a character that is now very rare in the Premiership and brings some passion and humour to the game.

 

Yes, things didn't work out here but not all of that was his fault. RL and HR would never have been a happy couple even if we had not been relegated.

 

Let's move on.

[georgeweahscousin]

Did anyone see Van Der Vaart's comment recently?

 

He said he loves playing for twitch face because there is no tactics!

 

Sums him up. The guy is a motivator and that is about it. People say he has a good eye for talent, not hard when you have massive transfer budgets. The places he didn't have that was here and West Ham, and he signed Barnard and Davenport for us, and loads of dross for the Hammers.

 

He is of course the darling of the English media, which has propelled him to a status he doesn't deserve. He has won only one trophy in his long career and that was with Pompey's ill gotten gains.

 

He is not a good manager. He is a sham, a charlatan and a fake!

 

Spurs fans love him at the moment but we all know that if Arsenal came in for him with a bigger wage, he would be at the Emirates before you could say "disloyal"

 

He blames every defeat and problem on everybody but himself, including publicly barracking his own players.

 

The guy has a good reputation fashioned by the media, but if taking on an already quality Spurs squad, spending millions of pounds on it, then finishing 4th while Liverpool were on a downward spiral makes him a great manager, then I guess I have higher standards than most!

[Super_Uwe]

Redknapp sold Beattie for £6m which contributed to our relegation a few months later, then when relegated sold Crouch for £7m and Phillips for £1m (and he proceeded to play in the Prem AND get another side promoted from the Championship in the following seasons). You can argue the role of Lowe here all you like, but those figures about "making money" as evidence of transfer dealings only hold true if you don't cripple the side at the same time. That £14m (and therefore the measly £2m raised from the other 12 player sales, according to that link above) ended up costing Saints about £40m that year and the following year.

 

He also spent £2.1m on Quashie in the Prem and we lost £0.9m on that when we sold him a year later. In fact the only player Redknapp made us a profit on in his time at Saints was Fuller, who cost £90k and was then sold to Stoke for a fee claimed to be £500k, which is unverified and frankly pretty unlikely.

 

Also, he signed Marcelo Tejera. And some terrible players for the Skates (I once took the rise out of Meringovian with a list of his purchases pre-2005 which showed that about 80% of the players he'd signed for them since taking over the first time weren't first team regulars at any point or had already left).

 

The long and short of it is wherever he goes he ships out most of the players he inherits and replaces them with other ones - this needs a load of cash, albeit some of which is raised by the number of players he sells, in haste, and usually at a loss.

 

At the same time he usually alienates perfectly good players who go on to be better elsewhere for no apparent reason (Matt Mills, Gary O'Neil, Geovanni, Kevin Phillips, KP Boateng), and the fact he wasn't able to throw money at it is the main reason he failed at Saints.

 

I don't disagree that he spends a lot of money, but at the end of the day his job as manager is to put together the best team he can and be successful. If he's able to get his chairman to spend fortunes that may or may not be there, then good luck to him.

 

The Kraken was suggesting it was his fault that John Utaka was getting paid silly money per week at Pompey; I'm sorry but the board of directors who sanctioned that deal have to take at least equal responsibility for that, if not most. Managers find players or are alerted to the possibility of signing someone in a number of ways, but all they can do is put it to their board and hope they can strike a deal with the other club or agent. Unless you're suggesting otherwise...

 

I know what you're getting at with respect to shipping out players that could have done a good job; again, I don't disagree with that at all, but that's football. A face that fits for one manager could easily be out of favour for another. Redknapp clearly likes to freshen things up and, yes, he probably could make better use of what he already has. But his job is to be successful on the pitch, and that's the way he does it. He gets the players he wants playing the football he wants. It may not be particularly efficient but it's proved to be effective (although without any doubt not for us).

[Puddings and Monkeys]

Go onto the skate's site and see what they think of him. They had him twice so are better placed to judge; they won the cup under him, got into Europe etc yet they hate him, largely for his part in their financial car crash and signing of players on massively inflated wages...Utaka anyone?

[Smirking_Saint]

Great motivator and would be perfectly suited to the England job IMO.

 

I don't get how people cannot rate him as a manager !! However i can see the arguement that he has to spend a lot of cash, but then were these same people slagging Twitchy off as a money spender the same that were calling for Keegan to be our next manager earlier this and last season ?? A man who essentially has only had success when in control of a large transfer budget.

 

Say what you will, he took Pompey and won the FA cup with them and won it !! And then took Tottenham into the top four, a feat not achieved for a long long time.

 

He is a good manager, i can't see how anyone can argue that.

[Dalek2003]

You might hate Redknapp as a person but you know he can do the job and bring the club success. Most fans would choose a manager like that.

 

The tragedy of the matter is we faced this choice in 2004. Most fans might not have liked Hoddle as a personality, but he could do the job, had brought Saints and England success and was just what we needed in 2004.

 

Then...the agenda was hijacked by the vocal few who put their petty vendetta before the club and undoubtedly started the process of our relegation and decline.

 

Since then they have been reluctant to own up to their error and have covered their tracks or else attempted a diversion tactic by looking for other scapegoats. Now they are trying to re-write history by claiming Hoddle was a poor manager at the saints.

[sadoldgit]

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

 

This

[Wilko]

I can't believe any genuine Saints fan would have anything good to say about Redknapp.

[September Saint]

Have a deep think at what you just posted, do you think it really necessary?

Agreed.

I hope it was just stupidity and not deep embitterment.

[SaintRobbie]

Redknapp is a superb manager. But, at Saints Lowe, SCW and his lack of heart all equally led to failure. I agree with others here mind, no Lowe and Redknapp supported by a decent owner and things may have been very different...

 

I wish Lowe had left rather than Redknapp at the time.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Anyone who thinks Daniel Levy is going to let Redknapp do a Skates on Spurs is really wide of the mark.Yes, he failed with us, but he did a bloody good job at Boscombe, was pretty decent at West Ham, did well at The Skates and is doing a great job at Spurs. His signings obviously contributed to the Skates downfall, but it's not his job to say "no I dont want to spend that money" to the chairman. How would we feel if NA was offered £8mil in the Jan window, but turned it down because he didn't feel we could afford it?

 

The blokes dodgey, a right big head and a disloyal **** but the facts are he's a pretty decent Manager. He's forgotten more about the game than Lowe, Woodward and Clifford will ever know. Of all the **** ups Lowe made not sacking him following relegation (when it was obvious they couldn't work together) was the biggest one. It cost us any chance of getting back up first time around.

[Whitey Grandad]

Anyone who thinks Daniel Levy is going to let Redknapp do a Skates on Spurs is really wide of the mark.Yes, he failed with us, but he did a bloody good job at Boscombe, was pretty decent at West Ham, did well at The Skates and is doing a great job at Spurs. His signings obviously contributed to the Skates downfall, but it's not his job to say "no I dont want to spend that money" to the chairman. How would we feel if NA was offered £8mil in the Jan window, but turned it down because he didn't feel we could afford it?

 

The blokes dodgey, a right big head and a disloyal **** but the facts are he's a pretty decent Manager. He's forgotten more about the game than Lowe, Woodward and Clifford will ever know. Of all the **** ups Lowe made not sacking him following relegation (when it was obvious they couldn't work together) was the biggest one. It cost us any chance of getting back up first time around.

 

That just about sums it all up.

[Wilko]

Some of you lot make me sick.

[Window Cleaner]

Care to elucidate on that??

[saint_bert]

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 could say that. They are owned by a billionaire.

[sadoldgit]

In the December/Jan transfer window Lowe decided to make a profit on the transfer/loan dealings of several million (Beattie sale etc). It was the stupidest decision of all Lowe's many dumb financial decisions. By not allowing Redknapp to secure an experienced CB etc, Lowe handicapped our relegation fight. He raised £2m for the Club and then lost £50m+ following relegation.... What Club fighting relegation from the Prem, actually raises cash in that xfer window?

 

Did Lowe hold a gun to Redknapp's head and force him to sign Davenport?