Aus Fox Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 I don't like the idea of fining teams for being financially mismanaged all that's going to do is make a bad situation worse for the particular club, but how about deducting 1 point for each million over 8million a team is in debt, done at the end of each season would end clubs buying the league and benefit the well run clubs. Would also make the league tables interesting in May
Ashley Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 So why has that ridiculous spending stopped now that he's gone? There's a common denominator where Sven's involved - it's him. We've changed chief executives etc since then haven't we?
sylofox Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 You really should look into pompey deeper. Was not just down to managers was down to one owner lendig the club money it could not afford. The debt got passed on when sold but no one could afford the debt. Just the same as we are with our owners atm.
Guest MattP Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Harry being absorbed of blame again? Amazing stuff. This was a man who told his Chairman to pay John Utaka 'whatever he wants. The day the ilk of him and Sven etc leave football for good might be the day we can all try and get bavk to football normality.
Corky Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Oh yeah, he really ****ed Spurs up!? He's got a proper chairman there who knew how to balance the books and not be sucked in by "football men" like Redknapp who know what's what and pay ridiculous money for shit and average players who they clearly couldn't afford. Let us not forget that Arry said last year that it was absurd that QPR would pay players £80k a week when they have such a small ground, then procedes to spend £100k a week and £12 million on Chris Samba.
Soar Fox Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Mark Hughes surely must take some of the blame for the ridiculous spending at QPR. £80k a week supposedly for Boswinga is a criminal amount to pay him.
GingerrrFox Posted 18 November 2013 Author Posted 18 November 2013 How many times do people need to realise that managers do not get involved with finances even Sir Alex Ferguson the greatest manager of all time says in his book that he never got involved with figures. He chose the players and the CEO did the deal and at times he was told no (Ronaldinho as an example was too expensive and Barcelona paid him more). Same with Redknapp he's a football manager nothing else. All through out his career he's been told yes and no by the men in charge of the money. The only difference between Spurs and Pompey is that Daniel Levy is a financial mastermind. If you judge Redknapp on the football you can't say he was anything but a success at Pompey and Spurs. As for QPR he wasn't in charge when they spent ridiculous amounts on average players. Everywhere he's managed he's been successful apart from Southampton.
Dan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 We've changed chief executives etc since then haven't we? We had Lee Hoos (nobhead) and now Susan Whelan (slightly better)
Dan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 How many times do people need to realise that managers do not get involved with finances even Sir Alex Ferguson the greatest manager of all time says in his book that he never got involved with figures. He chose the players and the CEO did the deal and at times he was told no (Ronaldinho as an example was too expensive and Barcelona paid him more). Same with Redknapp he's a football manager nothing else. All through out his career he's been told yes and no by the men in charge of the money. The only difference between Spurs and Pompey is that Daniel Levy is a financial mastermind. If you judge Redknapp on the football you can't say he was anything but a success at Pompey and Spurs. As for QPR he wasn't in charge when they spent ridiculous amounts on average players. Everywhere he's managed he's been successful apart from Southampton. Yeh, how could we possibly think that when it's the same names cropping up time and time again. It's absolutely sensational that actual fans (who will pay in the long-term) are the ones defending the likes of Sven & Redknapp. They're both complete poison.
GingerrrFox Posted 19 November 2013 Author Posted 19 November 2013 Yeh, how could we possibly think that when it's the same names cropping up time and time again. It's absolutely sensational that actual fans (who will pay in the long-term) are the ones defending the likes of Sven & Redknapp. They're both complete poison. Or it's the fact that short sighted people blame the "manager" because he's in charge of everything at the club. He's in charge of everything football related, if you think Sven or Harry have any say over the finances of the teams they have managed you are very narrow minded and wrong. Football managers manage football they get no access to the chequebook.
Dan Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 Or it's the fact that short sighted people blame the "manager" because he's in charge of everything at the club. He's in charge of everything football related, if you think Sven or Harry have any say over the finances of the teams they have managed you are very narrow minded and wrong. Football managers manage football they get no access to the chequebook. No-one's put the sole blame on the manager. It just amazes me that people defend the likes of Sven & Redknapp. They both have track records of being utter prats when it comes to finances - why does it always seem to be those two (and it isn't just them pair either but they're as bad as anyone I can think of). Why did it all stop once Sven left?
Guest MattP Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 How can anyone defend Arry He came out saying how ridiculous it was they had players on 80k and then asked them to sign Chris Samba, did he think he was coming in on a 90k a week paycut? As Dan says, if they have nothing to do with the finances why does the outrageous spending atop when they leave? At best these people are doing some serious leaning on people in the club.
Dan Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 To think QPR have actually kept spending this year. I'm completely losing track of the game.
Guest MattP Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 To think QPR have actually kept spending this year. I'm completely losing track of the game. I honestly think I'd rather see Derby or Forest go up in place of them, it would be absolutely brilliant if Redknapp couldn't get them out of this league with that squad and wage bill.
Dan Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 I'd agree but Forest under Al-Hasawi are just like a variation of them, only not as bad. Derby I definitely agree with though. I don't like them as it's Derby, but taking off my Leicester specs I don't think there's a massive deal wrong with them as a club.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 Forest practically have the same owners as us.
Ashley Posted 20 November 2013 Posted 20 November 2013 We had Lee Hoos (nobhead) and now Susan Whelan (slightly better) There you go then. Mr Hoos would of been handing out contracts. Sven would of just gave a list.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.