Halo Stickman Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 How can you not blame Redknapp at all ? We were out of the relegation zone when he joined and we finished bottom. He never stopped telling the world how bad the existing players were and how hard it would be to stay up. He put out inexplicable teams on several occasions. I can still remember how shocked I was with the team at Birmingham (Niemi, Van Damme, Lundekvam, Crouch, Delap, Prutton, Bernard, Telfer, Jones, Redknapp and Davenport). I couldn't work out how come he made so many changes from a team that beat Liverpool and Pompey in consecutive matches. Why would you pick Davenport when Svensson was available ? Why would you give a debut to a Kenwyne Jones on the right wing ? He then completely demoralised the team and fans with his appalling choice to put a reserve team out against Man Utd in the cup. Ask Steve Coppell and Martin O'Neill whether they regret putting weakened sides on the pitch in cup games. The thing I found most ridiculous was that Redknapp thought Prutton was key to our survival but failed to recognise that a win over (or draw with) Man Utd would take at least a game off his ban. That led to the worst of Redknapp's mistakes - the team for our last Premier League game. How anyone could pick a clearly not fit Prutton and choose a striker with no goals in the entire season (Ormerod) over Phillips is beyond me. Absolutely spot on! The history books will condemn forever those that have wreaked such destruction on our once-proud club. Posterity will record Rednapp on the SFC hall of shame, not writ large like LOWE and HIS APOLOGISTS, but it will still be on there.:mad:
Window Cleaner Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Just a thought: If 130K raised from the fans was necessary to pay the players what happened to the gate money from the 3 April games?? Nigh on 74K went to SMS,Take out 28K for ST holders having already paid that leaves 46K, £15 a ticket (mean value) 690K£, where did it go. Honest enquiry, not loaded either way.
OldNick Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Take a look at the home games we had under Wigley and the run in Redknapp had. Harry has never been a bad manager and if he didn't have to work with Lowe I think things would of been different. Maybe he shouldn't of come here after leaving the skates. FF has obviously heard some of the crap he had to put up, if we never had an egotistical chairman who thought he could rewrite how football clubs are run I doubt we would of been in that positition in the first place. Was Wigley given the job because he was the right man at the time or was it because Sir Clive was coming at the end of the season and Lowe thought he could wing it with a yes man untill then and then everything would be ok because the rugby man would then be in place? Lowe is a numpty and made numourous mistakes but to repeat the Stuart Gray fiasco beggers belief.I agree but 2-0 up against Boro coming up to injury time and he didnt bring on a sub to slow things down. I was very much in favour of HR as i thought he'd get it right but as much as RL was at fault for so much it is too easy just to blame him when thee players manager/managers also got so much wrong as well. If somebody told you HR would come have 22 games to get more than 1 point more than the teams above you, i suggest you'd put a wager on it .
um pahars Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Lowe and co., Wilde & co., Hone & co., Crouch & co. and Wilde & Lowe may be all manner of things to all different people, but I very much doubt that any of them has committed any act of fraud or dodgy dealing with regards this "£40m". Firstly this £40m is probably only money received. The annual cash flows show the following amounts received from player sales 2006 = £16m 2007 = £11m 2008 = £11m A total of £38m So you at least have to net off the cost of bringing in players following relegation. In the same three years we have spent £22m acquiring players (£5m, £7m & £4m) After that, in simplistic terms, you have the balance received from player sales partially funding the Operating Losses of a Club whose Income does not cover it's costs (with the balance being made up by increasing the overdraft). Hopefully the spacing will work out (and there have been some roundings and some costs aren't "cash", but you get a flavour of how we have been running at a loss. ----------------2006-------2007-------2008------ Income----------26---------23----------15------- Wages----------(14)--------(11)---------(12)----- Other COS------(12)--------(11)---------(10)----- Admin Costs-----(7)----------(6)----------(5)----- Interest---------(2)----------(2)----------(2)----- Total Costs-----(35)-------(30)--------(29)----- Op Loss---------(9)--------(7)---------(14)-----
eelpie Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Lowe and co., Wilde & co., Hone & co., Crouch & co. and Wilde & Lowe may be all manner of things to all different people, but I very much doubt that any of them has committed any act of fraud or dodgy dealing with regards this "£40m". Firstly this £40m is probably only money received. The annual cash flows show the following amounts received from player sales 2006 = £16m 2007 = £11m 2008 = £11m A total of £38m So you at least have to net off the cost of bringing in players following relegation. In the same three years we have spent £22m acquiring players (£5m, £7m & £4m) After that, in simplistic terms, you have the balance received from player sales partially funding the Operating Losses of a Club whose Income does not cover it's costs (with the balance being made up by increasing the overdraft). Hopefully the spacing will work out (and there have been some roundings and some costs aren't "cash", but you get a flavour of how we have been running at a loss. ----------------2006-------2007-------2008------ Income----------26---------23----------15------- Wages----------(14)--------(11)---------(12)----- Other COS------(12)--------(11)---------(10)----- Admin Costs-----(7)----------(6)----------(5)----- Interest---------(2)----------(2)----------(2)----- Total Costs-----(35)-------(30)--------(29)----- Op Loss---------(9)--------(7)---------(14)----- So Lowe didn't have any impact on the overall wage bill then.
um pahars Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 So Lowe didn't have any impact on the overall wage bill then. If you are talking about his latest tenure, then these figures do not relate to them. These are Years ending June of each year (i.e. our first three seasons down).
Mole Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp had bugger all to do with relegation as they where already down when he turned up. The disastrous shambles that Lowe had orchestrated with Sturrock then Wigley was the reason for relegation. Not even Alex Ferguson coming in would of saved SFC at the time from going down. Lowe even made Redknapps job impossible with interference and spying. I suppose we could blame Peter Crouch for not holding on to the ball against Everton and them equalizing at the death. Spot on comments. Lowe went out of his way to make Redknapp feel unwelcome. Redknapp left Pompey because Jim Smith was axed so Rupert Lowe did the same thing. Only a complete idiot would think this wasn't Lowe trying to drive Redknapp away and demoralise him. Lowe is the reason Redknapp failed just like Lowe is the reason for all the unhappiness at Southampton football club.
Dark Munster Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 If you look at the fixtures we had a really difficult run in, we lost or drew too many winnable home games under Wigley. 22 remaining games is not a "run in", it's more than half the bloody season. Spot on comments. Lowe went out of his way to make Redknapp feel unwelcome. Redknapp left Pompey because Jim Smith was axed so Rupert Lowe did the same thing. Only a complete idiot would think this wasn't Lowe trying to drive Redknapp away and demoralise him. Lowe is the reason Redknapp failed just like Lowe is the reason for all the unhappiness at Southampton football club. Lowe axed Smith after Saggy Chops had taken us down. Redknapp has proved himself to be a quality manager at every club he's been at, bar Saints. I wonder why...... I think Saggy Chops' thumbs up to Mad Milan after the Krap Nottarf 4-1 debacle may answer that question.
Mole Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Lowe axed Smith after Saggy Chops had taken us down. So why didn't Lowe terminate Smiths contract instead of undermining him? Our first two seasons in the Championship were crucial yet Lowe wasted the first year playing his devious games.
(not THE) Kevin Moore Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 How can you not blame Redknapp at all ? We were out of the relegation zone when he joined and we finished bottom. He never stopped telling the world how bad the existing players were and how hard it would be to stay up. He put out inexplicable teams on several occasions. I can still remember how shocked I was with the team at Birmingham (Niemi, Van Damme, Lundekvam, Crouch, Delap, Prutton, Bernard, Telfer, Jones, Redknapp and Davenport). I couldn't work out how come he made so many changes from a team that beat Liverpool and Pompey in consecutive matches. Why would you pick Davenport when Svensson was available ? Why would you give a debut to a Kenwyne Jones on the right wing ? He then completely demoralised the team and fans with his appalling choice to put a reserve team out against Man Utd in the cup. Ask Steve Coppell and Martin O'Neill whether they regret putting weakened sides on the pitch in cup games. The thing I found most ridiculous was that Redknapp thought Prutton was key to our survival but failed to recognise that a win over (or draw with) Man Utd would take at least a game off his ban. That led to the worst of Redknapp's mistakes - the team for our last Premier League game. How anyone could pick a clearly not fit Prutton and choose a striker with no goals in the entire season (Ormerod) over Phillips is beyond me. Olivier Bernard is alone a good enough reason for 'Arry to carry the can as far as I am concerned. That any saints fan would let this odious man off the hook is beyond me, not playing Phillips away to West Brom, leaving Redknapp junior on the pitch and allowing Solano to muder us second half at home to Villa (from 2-0 up at half-time) he asked for players and got them all and then said it wasn't his fault... the man is a class A tunc and I sincerely hope Karma is storing it all up for him.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 So why didn't Lowe terminate Smiths contract instead of undermining him? Lowe did terminate Smiths contract ! as you confirm below Redknapp left Pompey because Jim Smith was axed so Rupert Lowe did the same thing.? If Redknapp was made to feel unwelcome post relegation and his electing to depart saved us paying up his contract then it was a means to an end, his attitude stunk from the off, he was happy to take the money that came with the position but not the responsibility using his standard disclaimer when joining a club of how much of a task lay ahead and how he'd do well to do anything with the current squad, he made a number of loan signings but still took us down, the nickname Harry Houdini is apt as he is an illusionist
Mole Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Lowe did terminate Smiths contract ! as you confirm below. My mistake it meant to read: So why didn't Lowe terminate Redknapps contract instead of undermining him?
Ponty Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I can only assume there was a massive pay-off attached in that scenario Stanley, although I believe that non-action did more damage than any other in our first season down.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 So why didn't Lowe terminate Redknapps contract instead of undermining him? Why throw good money after bad ? (leaves it very open to reference of previous financial errors)
Mole Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Why throw good money after bad ? (leaves it very open to reference of previous financial errors) So Lowe threw away the first season under the parachute payments umbrella instead. What astute leadership.
Dalek2003 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp had bugger all to do with relegation as they where already down when he turned up. The disastrous shambles that Lowe had orchestrated with Sturrock then Wigley was the reason for relegation. Not even Alex Ferguson coming in would of saved SFC at the time from going down. Lowe even made Redknapps job impossible with interference and spying. I suppose we could blame Peter Crouch for not holding on to the ball against Everton and them equalizing at the death. You're close, but what you meant to say ws the disaster of appointing a manager from L1 to a Premier club at the expense of a proven successful premier and england international manager....influenced by a vocal minority.
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 We're in League One and looking at a minimum minus ten points and people are arguing over why we dropped out of the Premiership...
Jackie@home Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I certainly would not let Redknapp off the hook. We had a team that finished safely in mid-table the season before, even with Sturrock managing it and ending up with 13 players crocked - remember the 3-3 v Newcastle? A brilliant game. Redknapp went around telling the media that it would be a miracle if he kept us up. None of his journo mates questioned why, when the team had finished so comfortably the year before; they are so besotted with him. At Pompey, Spurs and West Ham he spent a stack of money on already established players - Can Defoe score goals? Christ, it doesn't take a football genius to work that out, just somebody else's deep pockets to pay for it. Suprisingly enough, when you spend tens of millions on players, your team's results improve. I think Bournemouth's financial problems started when he was manager there. My husband always said that he was a plant, and he was only half-joking, because there were so many obviously bad decisions made by him, just too many to list - bloody Callum Davenport, Bernard, playing his son for 90 mins each week when he could only last 45, playing Ormerod over Phillips, marginalising Doddsy and Oakley who had helped us fight our way out of trouble for so many seasons: I could go on and on.
docker-p Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I certainly would not let Redknapp off the hook. We had a team that finished safely in mid-table the season before, even with Sturrock managing it and ending up with 13 players crocked - remember the 3-3 v Newcastle? A brilliant game. Redknapp went around telling the media that it would be a miracle if he kept us up. None of his journo mates questioned why, when the team had finished so comfortably the year before; they are so besotted with him. At Pompey, Spurs and West Ham he spent a stack of money on already established players - Can Defoe score goals? Christ, it doesn't take a football genius to work that out, just somebody else's deep pockets to pay for it. Suprisingly enough, when you spend tens of millions on players, your team's results improve. I think Bournemouth's financial problems started when he was manager there. My husband always said that he was a plant, and he was only half-joking, because there were so many obviously bad decisions made by him, just too many to list - bloody Callum Davenport, Bernard, playing his son for 90 mins each week when he could only last 45, playing Ormerod over Phillips, marginalising Doddsy and Oakley who had helped us fight our way out of trouble for so many seasons: I could go on and on. You're spot on. Redknapp leads a charmed life, and just a little scratch of the surface reveals a chancer rather than a football genius most journos would have us believe.
benjii Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 You're close, but what you meant to say ws the disaster of appointing a manager from L1 to a Premier club at the expense of a proven successful premier and england international manager....influenced by a vocal minority. Do put a sock in it. Just for once FFS. FFFS. FFFFS. Shut up.
Amesbury Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 We're in League One and looking at a minimum minus ten points and people are arguing over why we dropped out of the Premiership... agreed - somewhat living in the past!
darren1 Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Saggy face never had any intention of putting effort in here. It was just to get one over Milan. He got what he wanted and slagged off what he got. He ruined Bournemouth financially, pretty much did the same to West Ham, Give it a couple of years and see what will happen down the road............. As said he buys success with other peoples money!
Blanco Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Saggy face never had any intention of putting effort in here. It was just to get one over Milan. He got what he wanted and slagged off what he got. He ruined Bournemouth financially, pretty much did the same to West Ham, Give it a couple of years and see what will happen down the road............. As said he buys success with other peoples money! Have to agree about saggypus. He had the most negative attitude about our squad, did nothing but undermine any belief that was around(which was minimal) most of it squeezed from the dressing room week after week. Would be interesting to hear some different opinions written in books by those involved. How many of us would like to read Wuperts own 'mein Kampf' (spell?) would not be able to buy it, but would love to read what was going on in Captain Ego's brain?
Mower Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Nonsense Completely agree. Redknapp had 6 months and one transfer window to stop the rot. If anything, we got worse under the saggy face runt.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now