• 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?!?

with Redknapp, the waters are muddied by his links with the agent involved, yes the chairman is the final sign off, but did the club always benefit
 
scaramanga said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spelling coaches ;)
 
Craig_J said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would perhaps have said it was negligent not to have fully disclosed your working methodology in a job interview, but you might well have a point. Perhaps negligence would be too polite. How about 'completely and utterly dishonest'? Knowingly deceptive. Deceitful even???
 
galeforce said:
with Redknapp, the waters are muddied by his links with the agent involved, yes the chairman is the final sign off, but did the club always benefit
Click to expand...

Three relegations ( should have been four but he did a runner with dodgy knees), three clubs with serious money problems when he left, so overall I would say no.
 
parklane1 said:
Three relegations ( should have been four but he did a runner with dodgy knees), three clubs with serious money problems when he left, so overall I would say no.
Click to expand...

I meant with all the signings of players that maybe the club didn't need, look at the Shimbomba (intended Pleat-ism) return, his mate was the agent involved yet the guy hardly played and we had plenty of RB cover already
 
Robspur12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You could be right, but if he had led us to the brink of bankruptcy (he didn't) it would still be Levy's fault for 1) Employing someone who would not work within the scope of what he was asking them to do and 2) Allowing them do work outside of that scope.

scaramanga said:
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.
Click to expand...

The blame still falls at the door of the 'person of responsibility'. You've employed the wrong expert for the job that you want done. Adjust your recruitment policy/systems to make sure you employ the right one next time.
 
galeforce said:
I meant with all the signings of players that maybe the club didn't need, look at the Shimbomba (intended Pleat-ism) return, his mate was the agent involved yet the guy hardly played and we had plenty of RB cover already
Click to expand...

There are lots of storys about " rent a quote" and his agent mates, so what you say is right.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
The blame still falls at the door of the 'person of responsibility'. You've employed the wrong expert for the job that you want done. Adjust your recruitment policy/systems to make sure you employ the right one next time.
Click to expand...


id liken it to an OAP who gets ripped off by a cowboy builder ;)

of course they should manage their money properly but someone with the gift of the gab and loose morals can easily talk them out of it
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
The blame still falls at the door of the 'person of responsibility'. You've employed the wrong expert for the job that you want done. Adjust your recruitment policy/systems to make sure you employ the right one next time.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone employing Redknapp has an employment policy fit for purpose. In fact, no chairman should employ him unless they are simultaneously allergic to money and altruistic towards agents.

The employer being wrong to employ him doesn't negate Redknapp being wrong in choosing his methods though. Redknapp doesn't need to be explicitly told not to bankrupt a club, he doesn't need to be explicitly told that the medium to long term interests of the club are important.

In fact, no employee should need to be told to think with their employer's best interests at heart. On that basis, if Redknapp genuinely thinks his methods are in the best interests of the clubs for whom he works, then he's even more dumb than I thought.

He's either too dumb to know what he does is wrong or he doesn't care. Either way he's in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
id liken it to an OAP who gets ripped off by a cowboy builder ;)

of course they should manage their money properly but someone with the gift of the gab and loose morals can easily talk them out of it
Click to expand...

Hmm, I would expect most chairmen to be a bit more savvy when it comes to money than an OAP. There's no excuse for a chairman not knowing exactly how much money is available. Redknapp and other managers will always try and get more money and argue that they can only succeed with greater funding, but people like Levy will tell them NO when it is necessary. Is David O'Leary to blame for Leeds' financial failings? I would argue once it is was whoever was in charge of the money who is to blame.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Hmm, I would expect most chairmen to be a bit more savvy when it comes to money than an OAP. There's no excuse for a chairman not knowing exactly how much money is available. Redknapp and other managers will always try and get more money and argue that they can only succeed with greater funding, but people like Levy will tell them NO when it is necessary. Is David O'Leary to blame for Leeds' financial failings? I would argue once it is was whoever was in charge of the money who is to blame.
Click to expand...

yeah a one off and id certainly agree but i don't believe in coincidence and what it boils down to, if Redknapp has no blame in clubs finances, is that Redknapp has coincidentally been appointed manager by the thickest chairmen in English football history - on several occasions! not buying that
 
The chairmen are at fault, but if they are the bomb Harry lights the fuse. Harry has a big name, chairman want him as they want to make a name for themselves and their club, because of their hubris they realise too late that they have taken on a snake. Levy is the only chairman who handled Harry well by keeping him, as with all snakes, at arms length.
 
billyiddo said:
yeah a one off and id certainly agree but i don't believe in coincidence and what it boils down to, if Redknapp has no blame in clubs finances, is that Redknapp has coincidentally been appointed manager by the thickest chairmen in English football history - on several occasions! not buying that
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to argue that he's not sketchy ethically, but at the same time, the clubs he managed at were also poorly mismanaged financially. Look at QPR, they spent like drunken sailors before he took over and did the same when he was given the job.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone employing Redknapp has an employment policy fit for purpose. In fact, no chairman should employ him unless they are simultaneously allergic to money and altruistic towards agents.

The employer being wrong to employ him doesn't negate Redknapp being wrong in choosing his methods though. Redknapp doesn't need to be explicitly told not to bankrupt a club, he doesn't need to be explicitly told that the medium to long term interests of the club are important.

In fact, no employee should need to be told to think with their employer's best interests at heart. On that basis, if Redknapp genuinely thinks his methods are in the best interests of the clubs for whom he works, then he's even more dumb than I thought.

He's either too dumb to know what he does is wrong or he doesn't care. Either way he's in the wrong.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the importance of the medium to long term interests of the club are something that absolutely need to be laid out in black and white by the chairman to their managerial candidates, as this varies wildly from club to club. Obviously its a given that every club wants to be in existance in the medium to long term, but only an idoit would suggest that Redknapp is actually setting out to bankrupt clubs.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
I would argue that the importance of the medium to long term interests of the club are something that absolutely need to be laid out in black and white by the chairman to their managerial candidates, as this varies wildly from club to club. Obviously its a given that every club wants to be in existance in the medium to long term, but only an idoit would suggest that Redknapp is actually setting out to bankrupt clubs.
Click to expand...
I think he sets out to make himself the maximum possible money (I won't specify the exact means) in the shortest possible time with no regard whatsoever for the financial security of his employer.

The result is the same.
 
I think it's now VERY clear for all involved with football what Harry is like when it comes to his methods - both on and off the pitch (especially off the pitch).

As far as i'm concerned there is absolutely NO WAY any chairman can be naive to his methods now (as I think Fernandes at QPR was imo) and the next one that gives him a job is simply corrupt themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back