Just heard on the BBC News that's he's sacked................not a surprise really
Just heard on the BBC News that's he's sacked................not a surprise really
Blimey it said in today's paper before yesterday's game you could have got 8 - 1 then they slashed it to 4-1 on
It seems to have been a quick decision.......but I reckon it's been on the cards for some time. Something's just not right..........wonder if the 'dirty washing' will come out.
He won't get a fat pay off from Totnum like he did from Roman- still he can now enjoy pork pies & saveloys
They go and sell their best player and then avb gets used as a scapegoat typical action of a faceless businessman
But they did spend £100 million plus on players he couldn't get to performOriginally Posted by tiger31
Apparently Gazza has arrived at White Hart Lane with a KFC some beers and a fishing rod claiming to be a friend of AVB!
Probably Baldini and Levy chose the new players but AVB was like Bambi in the headlights when it came to tactics. If it wasn`t for Bale last season the sacking may have come sooner.
His fate was sealed this season after losing to West ham. Yesterday was final straw, playing style was unacceptable.
Rednapp could have bought Suarez but turned him down as he thought his playing style was too similar to Van Der Vaart
Levy is as much to blame. AVB couldn't handle a team of champions at Chelsea and yet he puts him in charge of his shiite pot outfit and lets him blow over £100 million.
You must of attended the same charm school as John Terry
Bale was their talisman..any manager would of had trouble lifting the players when the star was sold. ''Clubs with ambition don't sell their best player''..that's how the remaining players would of seen it.Probably Baldini and Levy chose the new players but AVB was like Bambi in the headlights when it came to tactics. If it wasn`t for Bale last season the sacking may have come sooner.
His fate was sealed this season after losing to West ham. Yesterday was final straw, playing style was unacceptable.
Rednapp could have bought Suarez but turned him down as he thought his playing style was too similar to Van Der Vaart
The old guard let him down..they wouldn't play for him. Shameful anticsTotal disrespect for CFC and it's supporters..the folks who break themselves year in year out to go watch their club..The said players were paid hansomly to go out and do that job..they didn't. Disgusting
A recipe for disaster. The manager should choose the players he wants within the financial budget. Too many cooks spoiling the broth at clubs in football today.
He failed at Chelsea so i cant see why Spurs employed him
AVB purchased many players and then did not know what to do with them
AVB maybe should have purchased 2 top quality players
Suarez may have been prised from Liverpool if the money was right......he is worth 10 ordinary players lol
These failed football managers seem to keep on getting job offers = Mark Hughes
I think he was employed because there was no compensation to be paid, and with all the dithering with Rednapp we missed out on Rodgers. Apparently he came across very well at his interview which I find hard to believe as his post match interviews when we lost were unfathomable.
I don't get what all the hype is about Rednapp..he singlehandedly destroyed Portsmonth, nearly doing the same with QPR..remember that player he brought in to save them..his wages alone was more than all the players, combined!
I don't think Spurs would of touched Rodgers..he was an unknown quantity. The trouble with Spurs, they are living on past glories of decades ago. They expect the impossible
Keith - Administrator
Can't really blame managers for financial difficulties at the club. That's down to those in the boardroom.
And as for Portsmouth, I think their demise was down to several dodgy foreign owners creaming the club.
The Redknapp policy on joining a club has been to introduce a fair number of changes, moving out current players and bringing in his own men and it is the result of this process I want to have a look at.
My first example is an obvious one: John Utaka, who was and remains Portsmouth’s record signing. He is on a salary of £80,000 a week – and that salary was arranged under H Redknapp’s stewardship. So adding together the cost of his salary and his transfer fee, the costs of this unused player would be enough to get the club out of trouble.
So it is interesting to see what H Redknapp said of J Utaka. He said, John “will give us an awful lot up front. We’re bringing in people who are ready to play and it will make us stronger.”
H Redknapp brought in Utaka to play along another big signing, David Nugent. Nugent and Utaka together cost £13m, a lot for a club like Portsmouth. But Nugent never got a regular run in the team, only played 18 games in three years before going out on loan.
What H Redknapp did at Portsmouth was to take the wage bill to over £50m a year often with players who have nowhere to go and no reason to leave. Rather amusingly he is now stuck with trying to offload the likes of Bentley who the Tiny Totts gave a whacking six year contract to. But still he did score a great goal in the reserves against the Arsenal under 18s least season.
H Redknapp’s argument was that it was not his fault that money was wasted – it was the stupid club owner who let him have the money. It is an interesting concept, which seems to suggest that he is willing to ignore the fact that Nugent and Utaka were both expensive, both got long contracts, both got very high wages, and both were then hardly played. Or perhaps if I broke into H Redknapp’s house in Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset, I could argue that it is fault for having a weakness in his defence system.
But is it then just a conincidence that H Redknapp’s ex-clubs have problems? Perhaps it is too much to look at the administration, points deduction and other problems of AFC Bournemouth since he left, but the fact is that Bournemouth along with West Ham, Southampton and Portsmouth have all gone through troubled times since he left.
http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/2211
I didn't hav time to reply to Kieth's comment earlier today...Our arry is a chancer with other people's money. That is my opinion of the guy..a likeable rogue
Good post Gwapito, its the reason Levy always kept a tight reign on cash for transfers.
With all due respect to the others teams he's managed...Spurs knew his flaws and weren't afraid to say no
I think we can all agree dirty 'arry isn't a choir boy but his job is to get results not worry about the finances, just like any other manager. If his chairman says to him you've got an open cheque book to buy new players he's hardly going to argue. For one it's not his money and two, he'll create a better team, making him look good.
Maybe you just need to keep Redknapp away from the purse strings
George Graham and Terry Venables were both like that
These managers do get results on the field which is important
Redknapp is not doing bad at QPR in my opinion......
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
