Dave Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Round where? Berlin? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Is O'Hara on loan? I think so, yeah. I'd definitely take him off Spurs hands should they get relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Round where? Berlin? Yorkshire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Round where? Berlin? Leeds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Kaboul, no deal. Big CB that can play Lb we need a squad not just a first XI. Think he's played rb more than lb, he's a right footed player. Has been known to slot in at holding midfield too. As for belhadj: good and exciting player but he's an attacking left back rather than a winger really, comes into his own overlapping. Fast as fuck, but I'd stick with José anyday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Kaboul, no deal. Big CB that can play Lb we need a squad not just a first XI. Think he's played rb more than lb, he's a right footed player. Has been known to slot in at holding midfield too. As for belhadj: good and exciting player but he's an attacking left back rather than a winger really, comes into his own overlapping. Fast as f***, but I'd stick with José anyday. No need to think bra he has been played more at rb than lb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 He'd probably cost £3m, that's a lot for a squad player. We need a strong squad, so we should pay it. What we need to do is bring in Premiership quality players if we are promoted. That £3m on Kaboul would more than likely be a fair chunk of our budget in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 He'd probably cost £3m, that's a lot for a squad player. We need a strong squad, so we should pay it. What we need to do is bring in Premiership quality players if we are promoted. That £3m on Kaboul would more than likely be a fair chunk of our budget in the summer. No shit Sherlock! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 He'd probably cost £3m, that's a lot for a squad player. We need a strong squad, so we should pay it. What we need to do is bring in Premiership quality players if we are promoted. That £3m on Kaboul would more than likely be a fair chunk of our budget in the summer. No s*** Sherlock! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Just another club that Redknapp royally f***ed over. Not saying you're wrong but I need educating on this and am willing to learn. At first glance it looks like he bought some canny players with money and on a budget made available to him by the owners, overall did the club eventually sell those players at a profit? And whilst he was manager they won the FA Cup. He's no angel by any means but what did he do wrong at Pompey? Portsmouth probably made a profit on transfer dealings under Redknapp tbf. The problem is the wage bill he tends to leave clubs saddled with. At West Ham & Pompey he would offer whatever daft money he could get away with to get players to sign up. As you point out, the board have the ultimate say but at the end of the day people like Redknapp aren't daft. They know what a reasonable budget is for a club like Pompey but just bury their heads in the sand and splash money about like it's going out of fashion regardless. The manager of a club should have more responsibility than that imo. I know we've missed out on players the manager really wanted because Moyes wouldn't go above the wage he thought the player was worth. I think O'Neil is the same. Fair comment on the wages. Although the owner/board ultimately has to sign off the deals the manager does and so they have to carry the can on that, and with the way things turned out I suppose you could say they did. Portsmouth are one of the few clubs that makes us look stable. From what I can gather until recently I don't think anyone knew who even owned the club. I do think Arry did exceptionally well in the transfer market for Pompey though. If you look at 4 players like Diarra, Glen Johnson, Defoe and Distin I reckon Portsmouth made more than £40 million profit on that lot, and they were all in the squad at the same time. Off the top of my head I can't even come up with any list of players we've sold profitably over the last 10 years that adds up to £40 millon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 They made a big profit on some of his players, yet that big profit still wasn't enough to stop them from basically going bust due the wages Redknapp had players on. Nobody could argue that whoever was running the club at the very top wasn't ultimately responsible for that due to the fact that they allowed Redknapp to offer those wages. But I do agree that Redknapp seems to have been the catalyst for a lot of clubs getting into a lot of trouble over the years. He seems to spend and spend until the club is on the brink and then leave for another victim, lets hope the pattern doesn't change with the Spuds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I hate to say it but the Spuds are pretty well run by a board of people who seem to know what they are doing (the Jol episode apart). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 The wages they were paying were insane, Campbell £105k, Diarra £90k, Muntari £60k, James and Distin about £60-70k, Johnson £40-50k (all rough but generally accepted). Racked up the debt to outrageous levels, they can only hold about 18k at their ground. Good team he built mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I wonder how 'arry would have done under Ashley with little money available and no full control over transfers and bungs... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I wonder how 'arry would have done under Ashley with little money available and no full control over transfers and bungs... It clearly wouldn't have worked and the attempt to recruit Arry as manager to fit into our "structure" was the first example we had that demonstrated without doubt that Ashley was clueless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 yeap, a 90m wage bill for a team and club that had a turnover of 45m last season, simply bonkers and now they are thankfully paying for it chelsea did exactly the same under ken bates, they we're a week from going out of business Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I wonder how 'arry would have done under Ashley with little money available and no full control over transfers and bungs... I dont think how it worked out with plan B is how it would of went with plan A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 yeap, a 90m wage bill for a team and club that had a turnover of 45m last season, simply bonkers and now they are thankfully paying for it chelsea did exactly the same under ken bates, they we're a week from going out of business 24 hours wasn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I wonder how 'arry would have done under Ashley with little money available and no full control over transfers and bungs... I dont think how it worked out with plan B is how it would of went with plan A Of course it is hypothetical. Though looking at Redknapp's interpretation of managerial duties and especially how he deals in the transfer market I do indeed wonder about the logic of approaching him when it clearly contradicts the 'continental structure'. On the other hand Redknapp probably wouldn't have vetoed the Gonzalez deal if had got the right amount of nachos himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I wonder how 'arry would have done under Ashley with little money available and no full control over transfers and bungs... I dont think how it worked out with plan B is how it would of went with plan A Of course it is hypothetical. Though looking at Redknapp's interpretation of managerial duties and especially how he deals in the transfer market I do indeed wonder about the logic of approaching him when it clearly contradicts the 'continental structure'. If Arry had of come in we would not of went down the "Mort structure" way as we have seen when Arry took over Spurs the DOF era ended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I hate to say it but the Spuds are pretty well run by a board of people who seem to know what they are doing (the Jol episode apart). We were well enough run financially for a long time, buts things got out of hand very quickly, so there's always hope Not likely though, for all the noise in the media and around Football every transfer window about the Spuds spending big they usually sell as many players as they bring in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 yeap, a 90m wage bill for a team and club that had a turnover of 45m last season, simply bonkers and now they are thankfully paying for it chelsea did exactly the same under ken bates, they we're a week from going out of business Where did you find the info on their wage bill ect? They honestly had a £90m wage bill?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now