macca888 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Yes, a decent profit on all those but shoiuld they have been signed in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Yes, a decent profit on all those but shoiuld they have been signed in the first place? Redknapp was given the go ahead by the owners to buy players - it wasn't his money. And if you buy something you can't afford and then sell it at £40 odd million profit was it a mistake to have bought it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca888 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Well, it would seem the profit they made just wasnt anywhere near enough anyway. They must have already been in one hell of a financial state when they brought these players in at over inflated salaries in the first place. You would think their administration would have realised that they could not sustain such costs beforehand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Apparently even if thye filled the ground every week they couldn't pay the wage bill....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Surely the real issue here isn't how much they paid for players, but the wages they paid out. They made a good profit on buying and selling players, but the wages they gave those players while they were at the club was so exorbitant they still bankrupted themselves. So at the end of the day no matter how much profit they made on selling these players it was still a mistake to sign them. Both Redknapp and Storrie should have known better and both are to blame IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 thats my point exactly - they couldn't cover their own running costs FFS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Chelsea couldn't cover their running costs either but they have an owner who is prepared to fund any shortfalls. Portsmouth thought they had a similarly minded and well resourced owner and Redknapp was given the geeen light to do what he did. If Abramavitch went tits up you would have an even worse situation at Chelsea and it would not be Mourinho's fault imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Chelsea couldn't cover their running costs either but they have an owner who is prepared to fund any shortfalls. Portsmouth thought they had a similarly resourced owner and Redknapp was given the geeen light to do what he did. If Abramavitch went tits up you would have an even worse situation at Chelsea and it would not be Mourinho's fault imo. Very true, but the hatred for Redknapp on here will not allow for sensible thinking like that. I for one think he should be jailed; even if its just for being an ugly cunt, there's at least several custodial years there the state of his face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Chelsea couldn't cover their running costs either but they have an owner who is prepared to fund any shortfalls. Portsmouth thought they had a similarly resourced owner and Redknapp was given the geeen light to do what he did. If Abramavitch went tits up you would have an even worse situation at Chelsea and it would not be Mourinho's fault imo. Very true, but the hatred for Redknapp on here will not allow for sensible thinking like that. I for one think he should be jailed; even if its just for being an ugly c***, there's at least several custodial years there the state of his face. still could be jailed (highly unlikely though) as i think he is still being investigated by the tax people on personal tax issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Chelsea couldn't cover their running costs either but they have an owner who is prepared to fund any shortfalls. Portsmouth thought they had a similarly minded and well resourced owner and Redknapp was given the geeen light to do what he did. If Abramavitch went tits up you would have an even worse situation at Chelsea and it would not be Mourinho's fault imo. For a while Portsmouth did have an owner who was willing to cover their debts, unfortunately for Portsmouth the supply of cash dried up and the owner decided to get out whilst he could. 2 or 3 owners down the line & none of them have really had enough spare cash to keep the club afloat without bankrupting themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Indeed - and some seem to be blaming Redknapp for that sequence of events. I don't like him either but he did what was asked of him at Portsmouth. He won a trophy and put together a good squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 all id ask is who the hell authorised 80k a week for utaka (which is what some media are saying hes on) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era "where is the money comng from and can we sustain this long term?" Would be my question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era "where is the money comng from and can we sustain this long term?" Would be my question. and when answered "our rich owner and of course we can" ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era "where is the money comng from and can we sustain this long term?" Would be my question. and when answered "our rich owner and of course we can" ? "Awesome...lets do this" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 redknapp things a pointless argument unless he broke a cap set by the club on fees and/or wages if he was given a blank cheque or operated within a set "budget" (ahem) then the current predicament is certainly not his fault, some people want to review their expectations of what a football managers remit is that said he is a prick of the highest order... People generally get a feeling when something isn't right. I can't believe that Redknapp didn't have the 'this is wrong' moment when he was signing some of the players on the wages begin paid. He may not have signed the cheques, but imo any manager has a responsibility to question the chairman when stupid figures are being paid, especially in the post Leeds United era well, i kind of see it the other way around; the manager should tell the chairman who he wants to sign in order to achieve success on the pitch and it's up to the chairman (or whoever controls the money) to be the check and balance to the manager if it's outwith what they can afford given unlimited funding, or even what pompey provided, i'd guess most managers in the game would sign the players they need to achieve immediate success which redknapp did...i mean really how many managers in the game have the capacity/desire to think long-term anyway in the way that a fergie/wenger do? it's an immediate results based business, can't blame him really - imagine if he'd turned down the distins, campbells etc. because the wages were high, the ones who got them the cup...he'd have been called a fuckin idiot and sacked for not using the funds at his disposal unless of course he succeeded with cheaper buys as madras said, even if he asked they'd probably have told him the mega-rich dude would fork it all out anyways Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 madras talking a lot of sense in here, about the signings. although I do hold 'arry quite responsible for all this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Pompey players stil haven't been paid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Pompey players stil haven't been paid Wonder if that means that the club weren't able to get the bank loan they were talking about, there'll be a mass clear-out if they haven't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The one player who has looked good (Prince Boateng) isn't actually a saleable asset as he's played for two clubs already this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Talking of 'arry, just noticed this http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/2616/redknapp.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 It's not a fake either. 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