Voinjama Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Unlike many people on here I think Redknapps managerial record is quite good. Got West Ham 5th, Portsmouth 7th and an FA Cup, and completely turned things round at Spurs to get them to 4th place twice. But there was no way he was going to sort out the mess at Loftus Road. He may not get another job in the English top flight now unless he gets QPR back up. They are doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I don't think many people would argue that Redknapp's record isn't "quite good" The main gripe people have (well me anyway) is that it's not as good as it is made out to be, but because he's pals with the media he gets put on this pedestal as if he's the new Brian Clough, when all he really does is throw money at anything that moves and hope something works. That's before we get onto his dodginess and the fact hes the biggest lying hypocrite in football (which is saying something). But his managerial record isn't bad, at all. It's just not that great. Edited February 12, 2013 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Plus he likes very much to unsettle other teams players... then deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 We have previous with QPR dating back to the 80s Therefore, I for one do not like them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Redknapp would like to deny he’s done anything to ruin the clubs he’s left, but there does seem to be a common theme; Bar Tottenham, the rest have had major financial melt downs after he left; Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth and West Ham, all either went to the wall, or damn near close. Very few fans of clubs he’s managed have a good word to say about him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 yeah even at Spurs I never actually felt the Spurs fans really took to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 We have previous with QPR dating back to the 80s Therefore, I for one do not like them Holding grudges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) You'd have to be seriously splashing the cash the bankrupt Spurs. They have a hell of a lot more money than any of the others, and sustainable wealth too as they have a huge London fanbase. Every club he's been to he's spent well out of their price ranges with the promise of moving them into the higher bracket where they then CAN afford those wages and transfer fees. When it doesn't work it destroys the club. It would have happened at Spurs too had Spurs not been so rich. Van der Vaart, Adabeyor.. they were big name and big money signings for Spurs, and there were alot of them too. Not sure how reliable this is, but just a quick glance down it still shows the level of spending Harry did at Spurs.. look at each window's estimates: 47m on first arriving in a January transfer window. 24.5m 8m (January) 16m 4m (January) 7.5m 1.5m (January) That's 108.5m (estimated) spent in 3 and a half years at the club. 31m per year. Even by Spur's high standards, I'd say that was still spending outside of their means. Be interesting to compare how many are still at the club and how many have now moved on at profit/loss. Edited February 12, 2013 by Qwpzxjor1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Harry only signed Adebayor on a loan, and VDV only cost about £8m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think he does make good signings sometimes, but for all the money he's spent at basically every club I'd say he's done a poor job. Then he jumps ship before he gets caught with the financial mess he puts a club in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Redknapp would like to deny he’s done anything to ruin the clubs he’s left, but there does seem to be a common theme; Bar Tottenham, the rest have had major financial melt downs after he left; Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth and West Ham, all either went to the wall, or damn near close. Very few fans of clubs he’s managed have a good word to say about him... Redknapp had nothing to do with Bournemouths financial problems. The club got charged over £1 million for the damage done in riots after a game. But most people ignore that as they'd love to blame Harry. They profited in the transfer market during his reign and the rate of debt growth reduced. He was at the club for 8 years and they only signed 19 players, most of whom were youngsters. Wages went up as they moved up 2 divisions and 8 years went by. In his time at the club he made £500,000 profit in the transfer market, which back then, for a club in the third tier, was a vast amount, which puts an entirely different spin on his time at the club. He also gets blamed for West Hams financial problems. Of course to do this you have to ignore the fact their financial problems happened 18 months after he left the club, when they got relegated! It's unbelievable that he gets blamed for that. He got them promoted and kept the in the Premier league for his entire tenure, gets sacked, when in mid table, a new manager comes in, spends £15 million on transfers, vastly increases the wage bill on players such as Les Ferdinand, Lee Bowyer, Repka and David james, gets them relegated and thus cripples them financially and somehow this is Harry Redknapps fault! No one at Southampton blames or relates their financial problems to the time Redknapp was there, as the problems were there long before and after his short stint, in which he signed players costing £2.5 million and sold players for £10 million. As for the troubles at Pourtsmouth you have to ignore that there were no issues for the year Mandaric was in charge. You also have to ignore the fact that from the players signed by Redknapp, Pompey made a profit of £30 million, something his critics like to ignore. But most importantly you have to ignore that the £15 million of investment promised by Gaydamak never arrived and that a huge part of their debt was not football related (ie caused by player transfers or wages). But you have to ignore these things otherwise you have to look at things objectively and realise that Redknapp did a fantastic job their. As for his time at Spurs, his net spend was low. I think we spent about £10 million in total, which is much lower than previous regimes, yet we achieved much more. People try and say it can't be a coincidence, but it blatantly is. You simply can't blame Redknapp for the riots that bankrupted Bournemouth. But he did take them up 2 divisions and win them their only ever cup! He didn't relegate West Ham. In fact he took them to their second highest league finish ever and into Europe. Southampton were in trouble and in the relegation zone before he arrived. How can he be blamed for the plight when he signed so few players and they sold one of them, Crouch, for £8 million? We didn't have any financial problems, but played he took us to new heights in the Prem era. Pompey were fine until the Russian turned up. He also took them to new levels and won the FA Cup. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I can see this QPR thread slowly morphing into yet another Spurs thread on a villa forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I have to admit i though qpr would survive pretty comfortably with harry and a few decent signings, they still could pick up but they've been rubbish so far. Remy playing 2 games and then out for the rest of the season is a kick in the teeth. Fear for them if they go down though, could be ugly. Suppose you could say the same about us but to a lesser extent. Remy isn't out for 2 months, he will be back for the next league game v man utd according to the churchill dog. If they go down, and after playing man utd next, they could be 10 points away with 11 left, that will leave them needing to win 7 out of 11 games and hope us wigan reading don't win more than 3 more games, its unlikely, but I can see them beating man utd up next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Redknapp would like to deny he’s done anything to ruin the clubs he’s left, but there does seem to be a common theme; Bar Tottenham, the rest have had major financial melt downs after he left; Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth and West Ham, all either went to the wall, or damn near close. Very few fans of clubs he’s managed have a good word to say about him... Redknapp had nothing to do with Bournemouths financial problems. The club got charged over £1 million for the damage done in riots after a game. But most people ignore that as they'd love to blame Harry. They profited in the transfer market during his reign and the rate of debt growth reduced. He was at the club for 8 years and they only signed 19 players, most of whom were youngsters. Wages went up as they moved up 2 divisions and 8 years went by. In his time at the club he made £500,000 profit in the transfer market, which back then, for a club in the third tier, was a vast amount, which puts an entirely different spin on his time at the club. He also gets blamed for West Hams financial problems. Of course to do this you have to ignore the fact their financial problems happened 18 months after he left the club, when they got relegated! It's unbelievable that he gets blamed for that. He got them promoted and kept the in the Premier league for his entire tenure, gets sacked, when in mid table, a new manager comes in, spends £15 million on transfers, vastly increases the wage bill on players such as Les Ferdinand, Lee Bowyer, Repka and David james, gets them relegated and thus cripples them financially and somehow this is Harry Redknapps fault! No one at Southampton blames or relates their financial problems to the time Redknapp was there, as the problems were there long before and after his short stint, in which he signed players costing £2.5 million and sold players for £10 million. As for the troubles at Pourtsmouth you have to ignore that there were no issues for the year Mandaric was in charge. You also have to ignore the fact that from the players signed by Redknapp, Pompey made a profit of £30 million, something his critics like to ignore. But most importantly you have to ignore that the £15 million of investment promised by Gaydamak never arrived and that a huge part of their debt was not football related (ie caused by player transfers or wages). But you have to ignore these things otherwise you have to look at things objectively and realise that Redknapp did a fantastic job their. As for his time at Spurs, his net spend was low. I think we spent about £10 million in total, which is much lower than previous regimes, yet we achieved much more. People try and say it can't be a coincidence, but it blatantly is. You simply can't blame Redknapp for the riots that bankrupted Bournemouth. But he did take them up 2 divisions and win them their only ever cup! He didn't relegate West Ham. In fact he took them to their second highest league finish ever and into Europe. Southampton were in trouble and in the relegation zone before he arrived. How can he be blamed for the plight when he signed so few players and they sold one of them, Crouch, for £8 million? We didn't have any financial problems, but played he took us to new heights in the Prem era. Pompey were fine until the Russian turned up. He also took them to new levels and won the FA Cup. I suggest you put down the keyboard and go and talk to the fans of those clubs. Or just open your eyes and see what he's doing at QPR. If there's one thing I've learned over the years it's that arguing with a Spurs fan is futile, so I'll leave you to do that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Does anyone else think QPR will struggle financially if they are relegated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Does anyone else think QPR will struggle financially if they are relegated That Rory Delap has got a long throw on him, hasn't he?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 13, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 13, 2013 Does anyone else think QPR will struggle financially if they are relegated Does the Pope shit in the woods? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2013 Does anyone else think QPR will struggle financially if they are relegated Does the Pope shit in the woods? Is the Pope the Pope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Is this guy catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts