Jump to content

Harry Redknapp to be named manager within 3 weeks


Saint-Armstrong

Recommended Posts

Well if they are unavailable then they aren't realistic by definition. "Realistic unavailable targets" is an oxymoron.

 

Bore off you weirdo.

 

Obviously Guardiola is available, do you think he is realistic?

 

Let's be right lemons about this and break it down for you. Realistic and employed or realistic and unemployed.

 

Simple enough?

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redknapp is a fantastic manager who did a fantastic job at Spurs.

 

Would I want him here, no I wouldn't. I don't blame him for our relegation, in fact I don't think many others could have got us to the last day still with a chance of staying up. I don't even blame him for jacking it in. Lowe wouldn't give him the tools to do his job. He sold Crouch for millions, and gave Arry next to f*ck all to somehow get us back up. While in the background he appointed a Rugby coach and a Walter Mitty fantasist who couldn't even get into his cubs team onto his staff.

 

Lowe didn't even respect his manager enough to call him by his Christian name, preferring to use his surname like some public school headmaster.

 

But he went back to that shower of sh*t down the road, rubbing all of our noses in it on the way by saying he was going back to hs 'spiritual home'. I wouldn't blame Cortese for making a hard nosed business decision, and I would continue supporting my club, but it just wouldn't feel right.

Edited by Wade Garrett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if they are unavailable then they aren't realistic by definition. "Realistic unavailable targets" is an oxymoron.

 

How so?

 

Managers in work, say in League 1, are [arguably] realistic targets to us. They are also [at present time] unavailable to us; at least until we make an official approach to their clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact his net spends are suprisingly low. I've certainly posted up a link to the exact figures before. May try to find it again later.

 

http://soccerlens.com/wheeler-dealer-nah-harry-redknapp-has-one-of-the-best-transfer-records-in-football/58373/

 

Something is really wrong with his spreadsheet (or my understanding of it) that he has used to base his figures on..

 

According to his spreadsheet, when at Tottenham, Harry signed 17 players for a £226.93m and sold 16 for £230.37m. However when I add up the individual elements he bought in £95m worth of talent and disposed of £26m..so that to me is a loss of ~£69m....

 

Can someone confirm that for me or am I missing something??

 

I thought the figures might be cumulative over his different clubs but even that doesn't add up.....

 

The Southampton one is quite interesting too, of the £2.57m of players he bought here we made NO MONEY off of moving them on, yet the players that were here at the club before Harry we sold on for £16m (and didn't Rupert deal with selling players??)

 

So, basically, Harry lost us £2.57m :D

 

Thanks

 

P.S. I will accept numerous :facepalm:s if I have missed something obvious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they would join us following our approach, they are available. It matters not how they choose to spend their time before then, employed or unemployed. Would only be unavailable if their existing contracts would make it prohibitively expensive, in which case they are not realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

 

Managers in work, say in League 1, are [arguably] realistic targets to us. They are also [at present time] unavailable to us; at least until we make an official approach to their clubs.

 

Deano answers this...

 

If they would join us following our approach, they are available. It matters not how they choose to spend their time before then, employed or unemployed. Would only be unavailable if their existing contracts would make it prohibitively expensive, in which case they are not realistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it boring? You wrote something that is an oxymoron.

 

Why are you being a knob and splitting hairs about what realistic and unavailable means? Doug Freedman, for example, is a realistic target, but would currently be considered unavailable. No?

Edited by Turkish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dougie Freedman is a realistic target for us, but as he's taken a new job, is currently unavailable. There are a whole host of targets that would be considered realistic but are currently unavailable as they are employed. They may well become available if our interest in them is recipricated.

 

If someone is unavailable, then it isn't realistic. This really is basic stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I want him here, no I wouldn't. I don't blame him for our relegation, in fact I don't think many others could have got us to the last day still with a chance of staying up. I don't even blame him for jacking it in. Lowe wouldn't give him the tools to do his job. He sold Crouch for millions, and gave Arry next to f*ck all to somehow get us back up. While in the background he appointed a Rugby coach and a Walter Mitty fantasist who couldn't even get into his cubs team onto his staff..

 

That is one of the biggest urban myths of our time and has been rubbished over and over again.

 

The fact that HR only chose to spend £70k on Fuller had nothing to do with the amount of money that he was given to buy players, weren't we after some expensive block (diamanti earrings) that didn't want to come here.

 

And I won't bother to mention our league position and how far off the bottom (points wise) we were when Harry came here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they would join us following our approach, they are available. It matters not how they choose to spend their time before then, employed or unemployed. Would only be unavailable if their existing contracts would make it prohibitively expensive, in which case they are not realistic.

 

Deano answers this...

 

Sorry, I must be missing the point. I don't understand how that answers the assertion that: "Well if they are unavailable then they aren't realistic by definition."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is unavailable, then it isn't realistic. This really is basic stuff.

 

It would be is they were currently unavailable but a realistic target, but if we approached them and they were interested, they would become available. It's really basic stuff. Do you consider employed managers, available or unavailable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one of the biggest urban myths of our time and has been rubbished over and over again.

 

The fact that HR only chose to spend £70k on Fuller had nothing to do with the amount of money that he was given to buy players, weren't we after some expensive block (diamanti earrings) that didn't want to come here.

 

And I won't bother to mention our league position and how far off the bottom (points wise) we were when Harry came here...

 

Don't mention it then. I've got my opinion, you've got yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be is they were currently unavailable but a realistic target, but if we approached them and they were interested, they would become available. It's really basic stuff. Do you consider employed managers, available or unavailable?

 

If their current chairman or contract allows them to talk to Saints then they are available, if not then they are unavailable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "available" I guess you mean out of work, but why do they have to be out of work? Adkins was employed in the Championship when we hired him as a League One club.

 

Technically...yes.

 

So you've answered your own post then, as by your own definition, every manager currently employed is currently unavailable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, because Adkins being available to us was always the case, but couldn't be confirmed until an acceptable bid went in.

 

But you said that a manager is unrealistic if he is unavailable and by your own definition every employed manager is currently unavailalbe to us, therefore when we are discussing targets we can only discuss unemployed managers at this stage, because every employed one is currently unavailable so therefore unrealistic, all by your own defiinition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you said that a manager is unrealistic if he is unavailable and by your own definition every employed manager is currently unavailalbe to us, therefore when we are discussing targets we can only discuss unemployed managers at this stage, because every employed one is currently unavailable so therefore unrealistic, all by your own defiinition.

 

Bullet points please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rape? Inebriated? Wasn't telling the truth of her unavailability?

 

Hi Matt

 

Unfortunately Bearsy has found himself on the register so is not able to answer you. Let me take the liberty of doing it for him, yes, it was rape. However don't worry, it wasnt in a bad way, more a pardew on MOTD2 style way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ffs, what a load of ****** on here tonight.

 

I've read and reread it and ain't got a clue what you're flirting about.

 

Can it be summarized that MLG thinks that every employed and/or unemployed manager is available and/or unavailable and that some people agree and some don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so egg, that appears to be a good summary.

 

Can you do the same for the Pompey thread, there's a lot of reading there and is gets confusing. As far as I can make out, they are fecked but people have been saying that for years and they seem to carry on regardless - chatting cants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Deano. Makes sense put like that.

 

eelpie. There are one or two I would welcome back.

 

sandwichsaint. Quite big to give each faction plenty of space. Can't help think of The Life of Brian. Lark's bladder anyone.

 

Turkish. Please don't be offended if I don't follow your example, I don't think I could carry it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so egg, that appears to be a good summary.

 

Can you do the same for the Pompey thread, there's a lot of reading there and is gets confusing. As far as I can make out, they are fecked but people have been saying that for years and they seem to carry on regardless - chatting cants.

 

I've taken a gander Tokyo. Just skim read it. Something about getting oral from fish and harry got a mention. Milan got a mention but I got confused by the relevance of an Italian city and gave up.

 

There was a link to a Sheffield Wednesday site on here yesterday so I've been on that. I ain't got a clue what they're on about either but it makes more sense than this sh!te.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...