Redknapp you a**e!

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Geting back to the discussion on which players should go to Polkraine, surely Daniel Sturridge is in with a shout.

Jeez.

Holland have Robin van Persie, Arjen Robben, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar,

Germany have: Miroslav Klose, Cacau, Podolski and Gomez,

Spain has so much talent coming out of every orifice it's pointless citing them.

And we're deciding whether Sturridge should play?

Honestly.

Rooney, Wellbeck, Crouch, Defoe. Job done.

At least the first two have a good partnership. Ish.

Ben6899

laurentian wrote:

Scholes anyone?

I would love to see him pull on the England shirt again, but I don't see it happening.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Scholes anyone?

I would love to see him pull on the England shirt again, but I don't see it happening.

Was pretty average yesterday.

5/10.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Scholes anyone?

I would love to see him pull on the England shirt again, but I don't see it happening.

Was pretty average yesterday.

5/10.

We English have a little saying that goes: "Form is temporary. Class is permanent."

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Scholes anyone?

I would love to see him pull on the England shirt again, but I don't see it happening.

Was pretty average yesterday.

5/10.

We English have a little saying that goes: "Form is temporary. Class is permanent."

Ja, probably.

Not much use last night though. I was dissapoint. Enormously. Never seen united that slow in a long time. Slooow. Slllllooooowwww.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Holland have Robin van Persie, Arjen Robben, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar,

Germany have: Miroslav Klose, Cacau, and Gomez.

Spain has so much talent coming out of every orifice it's pointless citing them.

And we're deciding whether Sturridge should play?

Honestly.

Rooney, Wellbeck, Crouch, Defoe. Job done.

At least the first two have a good partnership. Ish.

Bit harsh on Sturridge there aren't you Rick? He's done well (13 goals and 7 assists so far this season) considering that he's 22 yo and has quite often been played out of position. He's also a fairly deadly finisher. Look at what he did for my team (Bolton) when on loan to us - 8 goals in 12 games for a side which was threatened with relegation. He has bags of speed, quick feet and a head for the big games, quite possibly on his way to becoming a world class player.

Not the finished article yet but a good option to have on the bench.

alihisgreat

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Scholes anyone?

I would love to see him pull on the England shirt again, but I don't see it happening.

Was pretty average yesterday.

5/10.

We English have a little saying that goes: "Form is temporary. Class is permanent."

Ja, probably.

Not much use last night though. I was dissapoint. Enormously. Never seen united that slow in a long time. Slooow. Slllllooooowwww.

It wasn't Scholes' fault.

SAF decided yet again to play a negative formation in a big game. I'm a huge fan of Park and Giggs.. But against such as strong team Valenica and Welbeck should have started.

I can't really see why SAF would break up the partnership between Welbeck and Rooney, and the one between Scholes and Valenica..

Its as if he was expecting some magical individual brilliance from Rooney to win the game... which doesn't happen too often to any footballers

Scholes definitely shouldn't have retired from international football so early though.. he would have been a huge help in South Africa.

.. and he would probably still be useful -> a partnership with Carrick or Cleverly would work well. you just couldn't expect him to play full games.

Vesterberg

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Holland have Robin van Persie, Arjen Robben, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar,

Germany have: Miroslav Klose, Cacau, and Gomez.

Spain has so much talent coming out of every orifice it's pointless citing them.

And we're deciding whether Sturridge should play?

Honestly.

Rooney, Wellbeck, Crouch, Defoe. Job done.

At least the first two have a good partnership. Ish.

Bit harsh on Sturridge there aren't you Rick? He's done well (13 goals and 7 assists so far this season) considering that he's 22 yo and has quite often been played out of position. He's also a fairly deadly finisher. Look at what he did for my team (Bolton) when on loan to us - 8 goals in 12 games for a side which was threatened with relegation. He has bags of speed, quick feet and a head for the big games, quite possibly on his way to becoming a world class player.

Not the finished article yet but a good option to have on the bench.

Don't argue - Rick knows best - he's got the prefect's badge and blue peter gold badge to back it all up.

Edit - oh, and no doubt UEFA coaching badges (A starred, naturally)

Calpol

Personally I just didn't get all the spunking over Redknapp. The fact that his son is a complete prick on Sky Sports should itself be enough to rule him out. His managerial record is hardly outstanding. Arguably he has blown the most promising start a Spurs team made in about 20 years and his past CV registers an FA Cup win for Portsmouth shortly before they went bust. I reckon the press were merely looking for an Englishman as a reaction to Capello. Looking up and down the EPL list of managers there aren't too many successful English managers so it effectively boiled down to Hodgson, Pulis, Pardew or 'arry.

The fact that everyone knows 'arry is a crook and that Woy actually has a pretty decent CV meant that it was pretty much a no-brainer. I wish Hodgson well, he seems like a decent man and a competent coach. His ability to take a bunch of fairly ordinary players and make them hard to beat (Fulham, West Brom) would seem to make him nailed on to lead a similar quality international group to respectability next month.

As for the aberration that was his time at Liverpool. I wonder if King Kenny's league record is actually any better? They have lost 12 times this season out of 36 outings.

StillGoing

Redknapp was considered a success because of the turn-around he achieved with Spurs. Languishing at the foot of the table on 2 points after eight games under Ramos before he took over and eventually finishing in the top half of the table, followed by CL qualification made him look like the miracle man. Spurs style of play when they were on form was dazzling and attracted many many an appreciative audience. However, with his reputation for being a "geeza" and the smoking gun that was tax evasion, he was never going to be the FAs choice. Venables suffered the same fate with his hands being dirty by links with some dodgy businesses.

A lot of people blame Redknapp for Portsmouths financial problems. Quite wrong. The manager does not control the purse strings, the Chairman does. A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor. If edknapp says he wants to sell Crouch, the same people should be thinking; Hang on, he gets 10% of the sale, we ain't selling. The Chairman and the board are responsible for Pompeys plight and no one else.

Football is a crooked game. Players cheat and so do the boards of clubs. Club ownership is a money making machine via TV rights etc and everyone is creaming a bit off the top. The more people that go and pay to watch the game, the more money they make. If just for one day, the whole country boycotted going to watch a game, football would have to take notice.

rick_chasey

Vesterberg wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Holland have Robin van Persie, Arjen Robben, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar,

Germany have: Miroslav Klose, Cacau, and Gomez.

Spain has so much talent coming out of every orifice it's pointless citing them.

And we're deciding whether Sturridge should play?

Honestly.

Rooney, Wellbeck, Crouch, Defoe. Job done.

At least the first two have a good partnership. Ish.

Bit harsh on Sturridge there aren't you Rick? He's done well (13 goals and 7 assists so far this season) considering that he's 22 yo and has quite often been played out of position. He's also a fairly deadly finisher. Look at what he did for my team (Bolton) when on loan to us - 8 goals in 12 games for a side which was threatened with relegation. He has bags of speed, quick feet and a head for the big games, quite possibly on his way to becoming a world class player.

Not the finished article yet but a good option to have on the bench.

Don't argue - Rick knows best - he's got the prefect's badge and blue peter gold badge to back it all up.

Edit - oh, and no doubt UEFA coaching badges (A starred, naturally)

Ben6899

philthy3 wrote:

A lot of people blame Redknapp for Portsmouths financial problems. Quite wrong. The manager does not control the purse strings, the Chairman does. A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor. If edknapp says he wants to sell Crouch, the same people should be thinking; Hang on, he gets 10% of the sale, we ain't selling. The Chairman and the board are responsible for Pompeys plight and no one else.

With all respect - seriously this time! - I suggest this take on things is rather naive.

finchy

philthy3 wrote:

A lot of people blame Redknapp for Portsmouths financial problems. Quite wrong. The manager does not control the purse strings, the Chairman does. A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor. If edknapp says he wants to sell Crouch, the same people should be thinking; Hang on, he gets 10% of the sale, we ain't selling. The Chairman and the board are responsible for Pompeys plight and no one else.

I've never seen people blame Redknapp for what happened down there, I think that it's more the case that people are trying to downplay his success with the club - i.e. would he have won the FA Cup if they hadn't got so far into debt?

rick_chasey

It seems the press were mainly interested in Redknapp being coach, rather than the FA.

He's good value for them.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

It seems the press were mainly interested in Redknapp being coach, rather than the FA.

He's good value for them.

The Daily Heil* ran a piece on Hodgson's appointment yesterday and basically said that Redknapp was "the fans' choice". Really? How would they know?


*If you want to know why I was on that website there's a perfectly innocent explanation. I wanted to look at some pictures of girls with big boobs.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

*If you want to know why I was on that website there's a perfectly innocent explanation. I wanted to look at some pictures of girls with big boobs.

Glad that was cleared up.

I think Hodgson will be good value.

He's as grumpy as Capello anyway - if you can get past sniggering at his R's.

Aggieboy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

*If you want to know why I was on that website there's a perfectly innocent explanation. I wanted to look at some pictures of girls with big boobs.

Glad that was cleared up.

I think Hodgson will be good value.

He's as grumpy as Capello anyway - if you can get past sniggering at his R's.

Well, it'll be less of a snigger than we had at McClaren's Dutch accent.

GJC

I think hodgson is a great appointment! a underachieved manager for a underachieved team, great match

GJC

rick_chasey

Aggieboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

*If you want to know why I was on that website there's a perfectly innocent explanation. I wanted to look at some pictures of girls with big boobs.

Glad that was cleared up.

I think Hodgson will be good value.

He's as grumpy as Capello anyway - if you can get past sniggering at his R's.

Well, it'll be less of a snigger than we had at McClaren's Dutch accent.

Yesh.

StillGoing

Ben6899 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A lot of people blame Redknapp for Portsmouths financial problems. Quite wrong. The manager does not control the purse strings, the Chairman does. A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor. If edknapp says he wants to sell Crouch, the same people should be thinking; Hang on, he gets 10% of the sale, we ain't selling. The Chairman and the board are responsible for Pompeys plight and no one else.

With all respect - seriously this time! - I suggest this take on things is rather naive.

Then demonstrate where the manager is responsible for the finances of a club? A manager does not control the finances. They request funds for players, the board consider the request and decide yes or no. If there is no money then the board should be saying no. Redknapp may well have been unrealistic with his valuation of players, but the board sanctioned the bids. Where Daniel Levy has the advantage is he isn't afraid to say no to Redknapp when he wants to buy and is ready to stick to THFC wage structure rather than risk the finances of the club. Redknapp, like all managers would spend money all day long if allowed, it takes a switched on board to keep control.

There was some idiot West Ham fan on the radio yesterday reckoning Daniel Levy had scuppered Redknapp's chances of becoming England manager by extending his contract and therefore increasing the compensation package. Redknapp hasn't signed any extension yet despite one being discussed. I reckon he thought he was a walk in for the job and gambled against signing the extension. Now the odds have changed.

Ben6899

philthy3 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A lot of people blame Redknapp for Portsmouths financial problems. Quite wrong. The manager does not control the purse strings, the Chairman does. A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor. If edknapp says he wants to sell Crouch, the same people should be thinking; Hang on, he gets 10% of the sale, we ain't selling. The Chairman and the board are responsible for Pompeys plight and no one else.

With all respect - seriously this time! - I suggest this take on things is rather naive.

Then demonstrate where the manager is responsible for the finances of a club? A manager does not control the finances. They request funds for players, the board consider the request and decide yes or no. If there is no money then the board should be saying no. Redknapp may well have been unrealistic with his valuation of players, but the board sanctioned the bids. Where Daniel Levy has the advantage is he isn't afraid to say no to Redknapp when he wants to buy and is ready to stick to THFC wage structure rather than risk the finances of the club. Redknapp, like all managers would spend money all day long if allowed, it takes a switched on board to keep control.

There was some idiot West Ham fan on the radio yesterday reckoning Daniel Levy had scuppered Redknapp's chances of becoming England manager by extending his contract and therefore increasing the compensation package. Redknapp hasn't signed any extension yet despite one being discussed. I reckon he thought he was a walk in for the job and gambled against signing the extension. Now the odds have changed.

This bit

"A manager may go to him and say player x is a good deal can we have him? But it's the Chairman who says yes or no. It's also the Chairman who employs solicitors to ensure contract details are satisfactory. If Redknapp has a clause that says he gets 10% of all sell on fees, then it's nobody's fault but that of the Chairman and club solicitor."

isn't always as straight-forward as we all might like to believe. The reasons for wanting the player, the exact terms of the deal, what the solicitors have a view of...

StillGoing

Then frankly, a board that agrees to a contract and purchase without being fully aware of the content is to blame. How can the manager be responsible for the incompetence of the board? I doubt any of us would sign an official document without having someone qualified read through the contract/agreement involving the sums of money exchanging hands in football. Redknapp may have spent the money at Pompey, but the board were the mugs giving it to him. He's now at a club with a chairman and board who aren't stupid like Pompeys previous owners. Some may believe stupid needs changing for corrupt.

Ben6899

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18081125