Baleforce
Ron Henry
I don't think Tevez was realistic, Levy wouldn't have paid the wages
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
No Saggy-face thread?!?
- Thread starter AdamB
- Start date
I don't think Tevez was realistic, Levy wouldn't have paid the wages
He wasn't close to realistic.
If if Levy had paid his immense wages he still wouldn't have turned up.
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Of course, how dare a manager fail in his fundamental role to keep an eye on the financial spread sheets and force the chairman to spend money out of his own pocket.
This isn't Football Manger you know. Redknapp would ask for as much spending money as possible. He'd probably nag for it to, that's the managers job as they have to be able to do their role effectively. In modern football with the short spans of managerial terms this is especially so. If the chairman agrees to give money, the amanger will always assume this means it's good to do so. If the moneys to much, well the chairmans failed his job. The managers done nothing wrong.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Dream on if you REALLY believe that. As for football manager or the similar I have never played it, but one of the big problems with todays game is that some fans who play it believe that because they can win on that they believe that football in the REAL world is as easy. The REAL game is full of fans who think because they can win on a game could do the same and why they bitch about what the manager of a REAL side does.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
...apart from take QPR down (effectively twice) with wage bills that were larger than many of the top clubs in Europe!
If he had tweeted about how he'd taken, say, QPR and Southampton backwards or how he had wasted their millions then he's at least be seen as far wouldn't he
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
...apart from take QPR down (effectively twice) with wage bills that were larger than many of the top clubs in Europe!
If he had tweeted about how he'd taken, say, QPR and Southampton backwards or how he had wasted their millions then he's at least be seen as far wouldn't he
I believe Craig was responding to the accusations of financial dealings.
His track record of relegations isn't really up for debate here, just some don't believe it's the manager's job to look after the finances.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
And i think others are basically saying he is in no position to talk about how WE have 'wasted millions' when he himself did the same at QPR and other clubs (through who he as manager recommended be brought to the club if not through actually signing cheques off)
Robspur12
John Lacy
I agree it is not the primary function of the manager to look after the finances of a club. But anyone who cares about a company or in this case a football club would make it their business to prevent a club going bust, Wenger does and so did Ferguson, Redknapp only cared for himself. If a club goes bust then the manager is out of a job so why would he not have an interest in the finances? In any case when he was eventually told no more money, he threw his toys out of the pram and resigned leaving the club in deeper crud. The guy is horrible .
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
As above, he's more guilty of not caring about the club's finances rather than actually personally putting them in trouble. At the end of the day, the chairman of each of those clubs has to have a look at themselves above all else. He came to Spurs and Levy wouldn't have let the finances go in that direction, that's what strong chairmen do.
Mulletperm
Mauricio Taricco
This ^^
The manager is judged on the results, not the finances of a club. If the chairman says to him that money is available he is obviously going to use it.
The manager is judged on the results, not the finances of a club. If the chairman says to him that money is available he is obviously going to use it.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
At the direction of their chairman.
Manager's job = Meet the expectations of the chairman.
What if the manager (football expert) wrong tells the chairman (not a football expert) that the only way to achieve their objectives is to have a high churn of low value, high wage, high agent fee players?
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Then the chairman has a choice, either trust the manager's judgement and see what happens, or refuse to pay the wages/agent fee's and allow the manager to either walk or continue under new budget guidelines for wages/players etc.
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Unless the manager says during his job interview, "I need to advise you that I am a manager who needs lots and lots of money to spend in each window, that I go for players that I think can get me out of immediate jams but who will likely become high-wage liabilities and that I use my own network of contacts to find these, so don't give me a DoF and don't step in other than to close deals," then I would say behaving in such fashion without warning is negligence.
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
Negligence of the manager or chairman? I'd say that if Redknapp did indeed screw over clubs financially then it's down to the chairman to take that information on board when considering whether to appoint him or not rather than acting surprised and refusing to play along when it happens.
Without knowing the finer details it's hard to lay blame at his door but then you can't ignore the fact all but ourselves have suffered due to the money spent during his time as manager.
Ultimately the responsibility lays with the chairman but i think it's quite likely Redknapp knows he's playing a risky game by getting them to spend money beyond their means. As long as he's getting paid and is not left to pick up the pieces, who cares? Right...
Ultimately the responsibility lays with the chairman but i think it's quite likely Redknapp knows he's playing a risky game by getting them to spend money beyond their means. As long as he's getting paid and is not left to pick up the pieces, who cares? Right...
Robspur12
John Lacy
Actually Millsy if the stories coming out of the goons is true, Wenger was being told he had money to spend and it was he who was rejecting it. Harry , however, refuses to be directed by the chairman. He sees this as interference. When you are the "manager" of the club, you have a wider remit than say a head coach. You have control over all footballing activities. It would be highly irresponsible in fact I would say unlikely that you would not have some idea of the finances of the club in order to enable you to carry out your role. Harry has been around long enough to understand football finance and around small clubs long enough to appreciate financial restraints. It's more to do with the fact that he doesn't give a crud; because there is always another mug around the corner to pick him and his cronies up if the club goes bust. He doesn't care about all the non millionaire staff associated with the club who lose their jobs or the fans that see their club dissappear.
Of course. But as people in a position of responsibility we can't be experts on everything (although I'm not far off
). Often we have to emoy experts (electricians, accountants, HR managers) and rely on their expert advice. No matter how thorough the interview process, there will always be mistakes. Redknapp has repeatedly been a costly one.