Sue me. I made a spelling mistake. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was making a comment about Harry Redknapp's personality. What about me being a Pompey fans makes my opinion worthless? That Harry Redknapp had a part in screwing my club over and lied for years about actually caring about the club I would think would put me and most Pompey fans in quite a strong position to comment on Harry Redknapp's personality and trustworthyness. I admit I'm bitter about the whole thing but, seriously man, any dreams of Harry Redknapp having any loyalty to anything other than himself and his bank account is delusion of the highest order.
He's got to be contender for best club manager in the Premiership era, hasn't he? He's obviously a superb manager. But if he came to Spurs it would be a massive disaster both for him and the club almost certainly. If I were Levy I'd use the example of what Wenger's done at Arsenal as an example to Harry of what he could achieve if he stays here beyond the summer. It's not impossible to overcome the top sides and establish yourself among them - and in doing so totally change the culture of a club. Wenger's done it at Arsenal and Harry can do it at Spurs, I really think so. It'll be harder for Harry up against the money at owners' money at City, Chelsea and the wealth of Man Utd, Arsenal, even Liverpool. But with continuity at Spurs whilst mangers' heads fly elsewhere something big could be done. Not going to happen, though... I'll say Ancelotti. Or Hiddinck. To be honest there are a few foreign managers that meld together in my head. And I think I might only like Hiddinck cos I loved his S Korea team and he's Dutch so sounds a bit like Martin Jol. Someone with top-level experience and used to managing Chap League seasons parallel with domestic league seasons.
I think Ancelotti would like the job. He's Italian, and I bet he would just love the opportunity to stuff Abramovich & The Chavs. They love a spot of revenge, do the Italians.
Brendan Rodgers likes to play the game the right way. He might slot nicely in without disrupting the way the team is playing too much. Eg, like AVB hasn't done.
How was/ is Redknapp to blame for the screwing up of your club? He saved you from relegation, then got you your highest league position in years and then won you the FA Cup. It's not his fault he couldn't save you from a financial meltdown. If the club never actually had the money needed for the players he wanted, then he should have been told to look at cheaper options or simply deal with what he's got. Lets also not forget that the players you sold that Redknapp brought to the club received large amounts of money, Diarra and Defoe got £35m between them when I think you paid just £5m and £8m respectively... Blame your chairman at the time and whoever else dealt with the financial side of things as it were they who screwed you up. Personally I think Redknapp should be praised for what he done with you guys, he's showing what a great manager he is as he's carrying on the good work with us. Back to the actual topic on who to replace Harry should he go (which I'll be devastated if he does, though it seems inevitable), then I'd like either Ancelotti or Frank Rijkaard. Two top managers with a great pedigree and reputation, plus both have won the Champions League.
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 go the media every time you can't get something from the board. He signed numerous high wage players who he then never played. 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.
Personally I think MAJR's got a point. Harry Redknapp definitely caused a massive dent in Pompey's otherwise illustrious and trophy-strewn recent history. And it's not just that Pompey have become rubbish after he left them but there's the even more sinister possibility that he might have been responsible for their performances and results before he joined them. No-one ever mentions the possible role Harry might have played in their relegation to the old 4th division in '78, for example. What about relegation in '59? What did Harry do to stop that happening? Did he really care about the club or was it all just lies? I leave you to draw your own conclusions... (or should I say "conclutions"?)
Sarcasm does not become you. Why do you people not understand that I am not blaming Harry Redknapp alone? I'm not even saying that he was even half as responsible for the financial downfall of the club as the board and owners were. All I'm saying is that as manager during that spell of ridiculous overspending a share of the blame has to fall onto his shoulders, even more so since he had been Director of Football before becoming manager and was well aware of Portsmouth's limitations as a club.
We don't understand why you blame him at all. A manager's job is to buy and organise the players he needs to move the club forward. It is not to maintain the club's financial stability. That is the job of other people. Not the Manager. Harry was the Manager. Get it now?
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...
Spurs or Sex - thank God - you've just saved me some time. One other glaring inconsistency in MAJR's bitter rantings ("I hate the guy" - really? REALLY? Wow. Hate to think what you think of all the managers, players, coaches, directors and owners you've had in my life-time who have got you sod ****ing all): You say that the problem is that he did all these things that were only for the good of the team (I'm not even going to get into that incredible statement- others have done that just fine above). And then you go off on the fact that he bought players for a lot of money but didn't play them. They were earning thousands and just sitting on the bench even when there were injuries or suspensions. So which is it? Was he maliciously not playing Lauren and Traore because he wanted to ruin Pompey and didn't want what was best for the team? Or was he just trying to do what was best for the team at any one time, even if it meant not playing players that cost a lot of money? These two particular rants, that he only did what was best for the first team and that he didn't do what was best for the first team by not playing certain players are mutually exclusive. Guess what? EVERY club has expensive acquisitions that don't make it. They ALL earn thousands of pounds. Last week we had about £45m of talent on the bench earning tens of thousands who couldn't dislodge free signings, bargain buys and loan players. And you know why? Because the team works better that way. If you want maybe managers should select their team according to their transfer fee. Or perhaps we should all expect managers to get it 100% correct every time on transfers (to my mind a 50% success rate with transfers is pretty good). Sorry MAJR but your arguments are incoherent, your conceptions of what a football manager is responsible for are way out and you're clearly operating under the burden of a totally unjustified hatred for a man who gave you the best team I've seen at Portsmouth in about forty years at least. You sound like a very confused, angry child: "He said he liked my club but then he left so he must not have liked my club at all - he must have been lying - he must have HATED my club. So I hate him too!"
One more thing - don't think of coming back here in the summer if Harry gets the England job so you can say "I told you so". Most people here know that Harry has said often that he'd fancy the job and he may well leave. I'll be disappointed but good luck to him if he does. And huge thanks for what he's done. I'm not going to start accusing him of lying to me and being a bastard who never really cared about my club. I don't expect Harry to love Spurs as much or more than me. I'm sure I speak for the vast majority of Spurs fans.
I hate Harry Redknapp because of his attitude of smug superiority and arrogance not because of what he achieved on the pitch. I dont have to like the man to recognize that he is a great manager. I didn't say what he did was only for the good of the team, I said he was only interested in on-field success. He didn't always make good signings - that's forgivable - but failing to even attempt to get of rid of players he deemed surplus to requirement especially when they were on big contracts is not. I recognize my folly of trying to explinan my point of view here. I admit a certain bitter feeling towards the whole situation and that may be clouding my judgement but my dislike of Harry Redknapp is a dislike of his personality, of the mans character not his ability.
Out of Redknapps hands. No one says you have to like him, we're just saying you're blaming him for matters out of his control. I hate Arsene Wenger, think he's c*nt yet I'll never say he's a bad manager. The same applies to Sir Alex Ferguson and at times Jose Mourinho (though I do find SOME of antics pretty funny, hence the "at times" )
So you actually believe that he did not want to sell players who were surplus to requirements? He didn't want those transfer fees? Or those wages freed up? It definitely wasn't the case that buyers just weren't forthcoming? That is very interesting. Um - you do know that other clubs, too, have players on their books which, ideally, would be sold? We recently had Keane as our highest earner (or thereabouts) that we couldn't get rid of. We have Bentley, Jenas etc. IT HAPPENS. what on Earth makes you think that Harry wasn't even attempting to sell these players? Real life is not like computer games - you can't just right-click a player and they're sold for market value. This conspiracy theory that you have whereby Harry manages to destroy your club whilst at the same time making it so he looks good must have been one hell of a balancing act for him.
And I haven't said that Redknapp is a bad manager. I would have prefered it if he had shown more interest in improving things off-field rather than just chasing titles and I seriously dont like him as a person. See Portsmouth, at best, were only ever a top-Championship level side, maybe a yo-yo team if things went well, we should never have been chasing titles in the first place. Of course I was happy when we won the FA Cup but I never had any expectations of going for anything other than Premier League survival and I blame everyone involved at the time for ignoring the welfare of the club and overspending - that may be unfair but that's the way I see it - and if I could go back I'd trade the FA Cup in a heartbeat for better stadium and training facilities and I'd even trade all our Premier League years for that as well.
Right - so your (constantly decreasing) complaints against Redknapp now basically equate to a sort of anger that, whilst he did achieve on-field success beyond your ambitions, he did not do the job of financial director, chairman, club secretary, director of football and instead let other people do them instead. What a bastard. This is getting very strange...
