Harry sacked or walked

Mon Dieu
I could have won the FA cup with the amount of money old wobblychops got to spend.
-----------------------------------------------------
Spurs spent £110 and won nothing. Liverpool, Man U and Man City also spent massively but are likely to end with nothing.

comment by The Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 21 seconds ago
The Grand Cannon

You are aware that he helped bankrupt Portsmouth while doing so? (FA Cup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many factors that affected the club and you can't just blame that on Harry. It wasn't Harry's fault that the club were overspending, the owners were responsible for the club's budget and that's how it works at most clubs. If the owner decides to spend money the club doesn't have, you can't blame the manager for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't say that and then say at the same time that owners should back the manager.

Redknapp and managers like him are the best reason why a director of football is no necessary in modern times.

*so necessary!

The Grand Cannon

You make some goods points but it’s worth noting that Redknapp has previous.

Bournemouth, Southampton, West Ham, as well as Pompy were all placed in administration after Redknapp left. There is certainly a trend.

"Bournemouth, Southampton, West Ham, as well as Pompy were all placed in administration after Redknapp left. There is certainly a trend."
---------------------------------------------------
You need to look beyond that trend to analyse why it happened instead of just quickly jumping to conclusions. Southampton and Bournemouth went into administration about 5yrs after Harry left, you can't blame him for that. West Ham's troubles started when Rio Ferdinand was sold to Leeds and friction ensued between the board and Harry, resulting in both Harry and Lampard leaving. It all went downhill from there.

Portsmouth’s, Southampton’s and Bournemouth’s financial difficulties all came about as a result of the club overspending and bringing in players they could ill afford.

Redknapp was a driving force behind the expenditure, and yes while he was not responsible for resources, he has evidenced throughout his career that he has little concern for the long term stability of the clubs he has managed.

The very reason why QPR and Redknapp parted company last night/this afternoon. Fernandes simply refused to throw more money at the problems QPR have been facing.

"Redknapp was a driving force behind the expenditure, and yes while he was not responsible for resources, he has evidenced throughout his career that he has little concern for the long term stability of the clubs he has managed."

-----

He has also 'evidenced' that if he cannot spend then he cannot succeed.

Should also have added if you look at the players he brought in (and the wages afforded to them) he undoubtedly overspent at West Ham.

He's just not a very good coach. Just seems to bring players in for the sake of it and does nothing to make them work as a team, on the whole. The times it's worked is probably more coincidence than his skill as a coach.

comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
A terrible manager that only stayed in football because he is on first name basis with the media hounds.
Had at least eight "assistant coaches" on QPR's payroll.
To think he was that close to managing England.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He's spent the last 10 or so years trying to sign the likes of Defoe, Diarra, Krancjar etc and surrounds himself with his 'jobs-for-the-boys' entourage who frankly do absolutely nothing.

Does he hi steal expect people to believe that he was trying to sign players knowing full well he'd need to resign imminently?