magorific

Harper 5? With all due respect, f*** off

Utter c*** who volunteered to walk without a penny in compo rather than stick around to be sacked and trouser a small fortune

Sad (he's only managing bloody Swansea) but probably true

How ironic that someone who can coin the word "fucktard" should worry about looking foolish...

Good piece, regardless of what the PC police say.

Gazza, Beardo, Given, Woodgate.

Don't bother trying to make the point that he was our best outfield player in the final dozen games of last season. Nobody's listening.

He did also play two fantastic long balls out to either wing - probably the best two passes played by anyone in the match. I'll get me coat.......

Odds on Big Sam hijacking the deal?

sounds about right i think I bet there's still people googling the bugger!

Press are playing Harry’s game Jan 11 2009 by Neil Farrington, Sunday Sun LET’S get this straight: football journalists love Harry Redknapp. No, let’s get it straighter still: football journalists south of Watford love Harry Redknapp. And so the rest of us — Middlesbrough FC included — must suffer him. You see, few managers talk a better game than ‘appy ‘Arry. Or talk more often. His mobile number is never out of circulation. His mobile is rarely switched off, but often engaged. Engage him, and few subjects are off limits. This Cockney sparra sings like a canary — and in a way which gives even hardened hacks a warm, fuzzy feeling inside . . . By making them feel like they’re his mates. Needless to say, that’s a sensation few sportswriters are used to in an age when they are routinely — some might say deservedly — given the cold shoulder. So the next time you wonder why Tottenham’s manager gets such a fair hearing in the national Press, think on. Thing is, in giving the papers what they want, I and more than a few other people reckon Redknapp gets a lot more in return. A lot more, like Jermain Defoe and, possibly, Stewart Downing. Middlesbrough don’t appreciate Spurs’ open pursuit of their player. Despite Harry’s protestations of innocence, I can’t say I blame them. Last week, as Boro accused Spurs of unsettling Downing, Redknapp was at pains to stress that an increasingly rancorous saga had little to do with him. “The way it works with transfers here is that I tell the chairman, Daniel Levy, we need to get players in and here’s the name of someone I want,” he said. “I ask him to ask if the club are interested in selling and if he would make an enquiry and ring them to see if there’s a deal to be done. “I don’t get involved any more in any shape or form . . .” The only words missing were “honest, guv”. Thing is, his chairman isn’t always the only person that hears about Harry’s transfer targets. Who was it that told the papers on October 26 that “if he ever came back up for sale then I’m sure we would be interested”? The who was Rednapp.The he was Portsmouth’s Jermain Defoe. October 26 was the day after Harry arrived at Spurs. Downing? Why, before Spurs made a bid for him eight or nine days ago — almost a week before, in fact — Redknapp said: “I like Downing but I don’t know whether Middlesbrough want to sell him.” By pure coincidence — how could it be anything else? — Defoe was linked with Tottenham throughout November and December before, er, joining them on Tuesday gone. Oh, and Downing, pictured right handed in a transfer request at Boro last Monday. “We can only make an offer and it is up to the clubs if they want to accept it or not,” pleaded Harry. That’s fine, as long as you do only make an offer. But Redknapp discusses in public what other managers seek to keep quiet, and the upshot in the case of Defoe and Downing was two unsettled players. A not unprecedented upshot. I wish Boro luck as they try to keep hold of Downing. They’ll need it. And yet Harry goes on his merry way, buying favour with the media via the rentaquote business. Speaking of which, let me take you back to the summer of 2005, and a comment directed at Gordon Strachan. ‘’I’m sick of it. It’s time for Celtic to come up with money for my players or keep out of my affairs. Is Gordon trying to unsettle my entire team?” I kid you not, Redknapp said that . . . after Celtic had the temerity to approach Southampton (his then club) for a player at boardroom level. All of which begs the question: just what is Harry’s game? It’s a shame so few journalists see fit to ask it.

He was class today. Looking back now, it's almost comical the amount of grief he used to get on here.

If Jonas was English, he'd be crucified. Makes me laugh how so many people can call Butt a complete waste of space five days after he was excellent against Spurs, yet Jonas gets away with being consistently mediocre Since Butt has been here, you could probably count on one hand the amount of good performances he's put in. He played consistently well during the last dozen games of last season. Conveniently forgotten now by people who won't even acknowledge he was very good against the Spuds five days ago. Don't get me wrong, Butt was utter shite today, but the leeway given to Gutierrez on here is laughable.

If Jonas was English, he'd be crucified. Makes me laugh how so many people can call Butt a complete waste of space five days after he was excellent against Spurs, yet Jonas gets away with being consistently mediocre

I don't. He was a decent-ish player that wasn't really interested when he first came here, and since his return from Birmingham hes been a generally poor player with the odd decent game here and there. Absolute rubbish. He was our best player throughout the last 12-15 games of last season.

Spot on. It was pretty clear in the few weeks after KK went that someone in or close to the Ashley camp was feeding the press - particularly the Sunday papers - anti-KK material.

The question to be answered is whether any other Premier League manager would have been happy to be landed with two mediocre players they didn't want - and in the absence of other signings - on deadline day. If you think the answer to that is "none", then Keegan being a serial quitter is neither here nor there.

Kinnear is a grade a c***, let's hope he gets aids F***ing pathetic

Man U are No 1 - in both quality and quantity. West Ham always travel too. Liverpool have numbers but make nowhere near as much noise. Chelsea have been piss poor since the glory-hunters joined their bandwagon.

Yet another downplaying of Acuna though. What is it with these journos? He came in cheap, did a decent job, rarely let us down and got some important goals. Not bad for a cheap DM. I'd have had him at his peak over some centre mids we've seen in recent times. Agree re Acuna. I'll never forget how he and Jamie McClen got the better of Vieira and co in Arsenal's midfield at SJP. Dunno how many times we are gonna hear about Jonas being paralysed though. Must be the fourth time I've read that.

Got 5 out of 10 in the Daily Mail. Beyond belief, even by their standards.

Agreed. But stand by for some idiot to shoot you down...

So it wasn't great to watch? It wasnt aesthetically brilliant, no. Not a thing of beauty? Nope not in my opinion. "brilliant" being the operative word here, mind. i wouldnt describe Nayims goal as a thing of beauty, nor Pedro Mendez strike against Man U as a thing of beauty, i wouldnt even describe Ronaldihno gaols against england as a thing of beauty, I'd put bentleys goal in with those. Lampards goal agaisnt Hull was much better. Do you play football regularly? Not a trick question, just interested to know, as I'd argue - from my experience of playing the game - that what Bentley did was more difficult than what Lampard did. The ball was rolling towards Lampard (always easier to make a good connection that way) and was begging for him to attempt what he did. I also thought the keeper might have had a better stab at getting to it. Fair play to Lampard though, it was still a great goal. I do actually yes, thats why i said "technically brilliant, aesthetically not brilliant" But in my opinion Lampards was better, easy on the eye, delicate and precise with his wrong foot. Bentley had an element of hit and hope about it and it swerved like f*** in the air. Not the best looking goal. I make a point, you resort to taking a pop with a smiley. Ho hum. Easy now, to be fair to me, you were arguing a point i wasnt making. Just becasue a goal is arguably harder to do, doesnt make it the best. Take Laurent Roberts wierd flick agaisnt Fulham (?) technically through the roof, aesthetically not - ergo not the best goal. Now take Catonas chip agaisnt Scum (?) again, techincally no way near as difficult as what Robert did, but id argue was a better goal. You see my point? Perfectly. It's the patronising way you made it that I struggle to understand. You were arguing a point i wasnt making. Apologies anyway. No worries. There's nowt wrong in agreeing to differ.

So it wasn't great to watch? It wasnt aesthetically brilliant, no. Not a thing of beauty? Nope not in my opinion. "brilliant" being the operative word here, mind. i wouldnt describe Nayims goal as a thing of beauty, nor Pedro Mendez strike against Man U as a thing of beauty, i wouldnt even describe Ronaldihno gaols against england as a thing of beauty, I'd put bentleys goal in with those. Lampards goal agaisnt Hull was much better. Do you play football regularly? Not a trick question, just interested to know, as I'd argue - from my experience of playing the game - that what Bentley did was more difficult than what Lampard did. The ball was rolling towards Lampard (always easier to make a good connection that way) and was begging for him to attempt what he did. I also thought the keeper might have had a better stab at getting to it. Fair play to Lampard though, it was still a great goal. I do actually yes, thats why i said "technically brilliant, aesthetically not brilliant" But in my opinion Lampards was better, easy on the eye, delicate and precise with his wrong foot. Bentley had an element of hit and hope about it and it swerved like f*** in the air. Not the best looking goal. I make a point, you resort to taking a pop with a smiley. Ho hum. Easy now, to be fair to me, you were arguing a point i wasnt making. Just becasue a goal is arguably harder to do, doesnt make it the best. Take Laurent Roberts wierd flick agaisnt Fulham (?) technically through the roof, aesthetically not - ergo not the best goal. Now take Catonas chip agaisnt Scum (?) again, techincally no way near as difficult as what Robert did, but id argue was a better goal. You see my point? Perfectly. It's the patronising way you made it that I struggle to understand.

So it wasn't great to watch? It wasnt aesthetically brilliant, no. Not a thing of beauty? Nope not in my opinion. "brilliant" being the operative word here, mind. i wouldnt describe Nayims goal as a thing of beauty, nor Pedro Mendez strike against Man U as a thing of beauty, i wouldnt even describe Ronaldihno gaols against england as a thing of beauty, I'd put bentleys goal in with those. Lampards goal agaisnt Hull was much better. Do you play football regularly? Not a trick question, just interested to know, as I'd argue - from my experience of playing the game - that what Bentley did was more difficult than what Lampard did. The ball was rolling towards Lampard (always easier to make a good connection that way) and was begging for him to attempt what he did. I also thought the keeper might have had a better stab at getting to it. Fair play to Lampard though, it was still a great goal. I do actually yes, thats why i said "technically brilliant, aesthetically not brilliant" But in my opinion Lampards was better, easy on the eye, delicate and precise with his wrong foot. Bentley had an element of hit and hope about it and it swerved like f*** in the air. Not the best looking goal. I make a point, you resort to taking a pop with a smiley. Ho hum.