Now, the interesting part you missed was "a part".
I'm sure you know by now that when Harry Redknapp wants something his first port of call is the media and no matter how strong his team is on paper you will always see him saying that he needs more signings, that the team's not strong enough or that, as he did for you last season if I recall correctly, that he only needs a couple of top class signings to make the side title contenders. This puts pressure on the board to invest more in the team - and yes its a failing of the board if they cave into that pressure but it is not professional to got the media every time you can't get something from the board.
He signed numerous high wage players who he then never play. The likes of Djimi Traore and Lauren were on our books, getting paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to sit in the reserves and no matter how weak his first team got through injuries or suspensions he still refused to play them. Not only that but having deemed them surpluss to requirements he did not attempt to get rid of them, he allowed them to remain a constant drain on Portsmouth's resources.
He never attempted to build a reasonable plan for the future at Portsmouth. He went for instant success with no off-field investment. This is partly the boards fault as well but Redknapp does not escape blame. The manager plays a vital part in making plans for the future and Harry Redknapp only made overtures about improving the stadium and developing better training facilities, he instead prefered to use his considerable influence in the media to put pressure on the board to make more money avail for players rather than put pressure on them to develop the off-field part of the club. He chased the dream at Pompey's expense.
And there some ridiculous sell-on fees agreed by both Redknapp and Storrie so Portsmouth did not see half the money that made up most of the transfers of the top players we sold. A failure of both of them.
Nobody denied that what Harry Redknapp achieved on the field was impressive at Portsmouth and he should recieve a lot of praise for it - I hate the man but I recognized earlier in this thread that he is an outstanding manager - but the fact is that he knew from his time as Director of Football what the clubs means were on its own and he willlfully operated outside of that boundary. He may not be as responsible for the financial downfall of Portsmouth as Gaydamak, Storrie, Al Fahim and Al Farraj but he isn't blameless.
His behavour as Portsmouth boss was geared only to on-field success and showed a complete disregard for the welfare of the club in general. When the money seemed to be there to invest in the club he used most of it to invest in the squad. Now, if it was not so obvious that Portsmouth facilities haven't been upated in any meaningful capacity since the 1950's and that Redknapp had been Director of Football so was well aware of the inadequacies of the facilities you might be able to say that Redknapp may not have seen it as a priority but he was well aware of those inadequacies yet insisted on spending most of the money made available to him on the sqaud. Just because the money's there doesn't mean it had to be spent on the sqaud and the failure to recognize the far more pressing need for off-field investments in shared between Redknapp, Storrie and the succession of owners who sent us down.
As you can see I've highlighted parts in your reply so each paragraph of mine will be a direct reply to them sentences:
1. Yes the media is his best friend no doubt and you're a 100% correct about how he said we needed a few top class signings to make us title contenders, but then isn't that his job? Perhaps he doesn't need to say every word to the media but at the same time, as a fan of the club, it's nice to know what plans he has in mind to improve the squad and for that reason, I'm delighted he airs his views. Plus, it's fair to say that as of right now, he was too, 100% correct with that statement. The signings of Parker, Friedel and Ade have been a master stroke. And add to the fact, we spent a total transfer fee of £5.5m* on the three of them (I * it as Ade's loan will surely have had a loan fee inserted which none of us know how much) is amazing, though Redknapp has nothing to do with how much we spent, that's down to our chairman, Redknapp solely identifies who he wants, it's then down to Levy to agree with him and then try and get a deal that suits us and for the record, Daniel Levy is a business genius and deserves a huge amount of respect and credit for what he's done for us. Plus, I'm very sure that IF Levy and at the time Gaydamek etc didn't want Harry speaking to the media about everything, then they simply must instruct him not to do so, they run the club and ultimately have the final decision on pretty much everything bar (hopefully) the team selection and training regime.
Even now, Redknapp has stated to the media that he wants a new deal given to Ledley (something all Spurs fans will or SHOULD agree with), but that's that, the decision is down to Levy and not Redknapp.
2. Traore and Lauren were on high wages not because of Harry, but because Storrie/ Gaydamek or whoever at the time dealt with the financial side of things chose to pay them their demands. I've never known a football manager to also be in control of the financial budgeting. Whether he chose to play them or not is solely down to him and should be blamed or credited for them decisions depending on the teams results and performances.
3. If a manager comes in, saves you from relegation, then gets you ninth then wins you the FA Cup, it's fair to say you can class that as instant (or quick) success, how many fans at the time were complaining about that? I'm sure no one at the time was saying "great we've won the FA Cup but Harry you best sort out the off field investment and future". You're only blaming him for that now you're club hit a downward spiral financially, the off field investments and development shouldn't be down to the manager, Redknapp doesn't have a say in our new stadium plans and how our new training ground is getting on, again, that's left to Levy and the board of directors to sort out. When you say he "never attempted to build a reasonable future" does that mean youth signings? If so you could argue and say that he could have tried to sign young players, that were cheap and had great potential which would ensure that when the likes of Diarra etc were sold, there were players hopefully ready to step up but with the financial crisis and needing to sell, where's the guarantee in that none of them would also have been eventually sold for the same reasons your star players were? That's something we can't really determine though as we're talking about a "what could have been" and as I said, that's IF you meant that by planning for the future.
4. Sell on fees are again not sorted by the manager, even if they were then shame on the club for allowing him that responsibility but I'm quietly confident in saying that he wouldn't have dealt with that side, surely he'd be too busy working on the team affairs.
5. His job is to improve the squad, if he's told the money is there to spend then of course he'll ask for it to be pumped into new better players. You keep saying he's to blame for the off field investments (or non off field investments should I say) yet I've never known a team to rely on a manager to make decisions in regards to stadium expansion/ new or improved training facilities. Mourinho isn't known around the world for improving stadiums or facilities, nor is Sir Alex Ferguson and while we're at it, neither is Redknapp. Their success is on the pitch. If we get our new stadium and the namings do get sold, I won't blame Harry if White Hart Lane was to be renamed "The Oxfam Arena", I'd just shoot Levy
(I'm sure you get the point there though).
The only thing I'd be p*ssed at Harry at if I were a Pompey fan would be the fact that he left us...
)