POMPEY - what a mess!

[Kinky Gerbil]

No, I don't. I agree, Bloom appears emminently sensible. I don't expect Poyet to be asking for unlimited funds either.

As I've said, I'm only highlighting circumstantial evidence. Why did they have a massive wage bill the two times Redknapp was manager, only for it to be slashed in the year he wasn't there-in line with the clubs stated principles. Redknapp returns, debts spiral. It could, of course, just be a coincidence and under whichever manager they appointed the wages would have spiralled. It just seems strange that the club 6 months previously state that wages need to be kept under control otherwise a southampton situation could happen only to give their new manager(who has previous with wage spendthriftery...ath their club!) excessive funds. I just can't help but feel that Redknapp must have had some say in the issue. But it could all be coincidental and of course whatever blame might be lain at his door it's nowhere near as much as that which should be thrown at Storrie et al.

You cold argue most clubs spunk money they dont have to avoid the drop... Didnt Charlton do the same? Plus when he was there the first time the chairman they had was actually wealthy and could afford it.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

But...
If Storrie is on a bonus to shift players, as he's said, then its not a HUGE leap to suspect 'Arry could get a little kickback into the bargain as well. It could be in BOTH their interests to maintain this huge turnover in players.

At least until Gaydamak got cold feet and went running for the hills.

So its still storrie and the boards fault for having him anywhere near the club and being weak

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

No, I don't. I agree, Bloom appears emminently sensible. I don't expect Poyet to be asking for unlimited funds either.

As I've said, I'm only highlighting circumstantial evidence. Why did they have a massive wage bill the two times Redknapp was manager, only for it to be slashed in the year he wasn't there-in line with the clubs stated principles. Redknapp returns, debts spiral. It could, of course, just be a coincidence and under whichever manager they appointed the wages would have spiralled. It just seems strange that the club 6 months previously state that wages need to be kept under control otherwise a southampton situation could happen only to give their new manager(who has previous with wage spendthriftery...ath their club!) excessive funds. I just can't help but feel that Redknapp must have had some say in the issue. But it could all be coincidental and of course whatever blame might be lain at his door it's nowhere near as much as that which should be thrown at Storrie et al.

As far as we know did Redknapp have any control of the finances at Portsmouth or Southampton? As far as I know, he didn't.
In which case when Redknapp returned to Portsmouth and then asked Peter Storrie for all this money that Pompey couldn't afford to buy players, what should Peter Storrie have said?

a. Sorry Arry we can't afford what you are asking of the club.
b. There you go Arry, come back to me when you need some more.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

As far as we know did Redknapp have any control of the finances at Portsmouth or Southampton? As far as I know, he didn't.
In which case when Redknapp returned to Portsmouth and then asked Peter Storrie for all this money that Pompey couldn't afford to buy players, what should Peter Storrie have said?

a. Sorry Arry we can't afford what you are asking of the club.
b. There you go Arry, come back to me when you need some more.

And I bet he was promised X amount to spend if he returned

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

No buts mate, the buck stops at the board full stop. There are no excuses for the people who ran Pompey, the buck stops with them. If they are so weak that they can get bullied by a manager to make such overspends that the club they are running will be made bankrupt then they shouldn't be running a football club.
It's like blaming a ten year old for spending two grand on stuff in Toys R Us, when the money was given to them by their parents, then the parents default on a mortgage payment that month.

Harry Redknapp - I want to sign Utaka
Peter Storrie - How does he want?
Harry Redknapp - 80K a week
Peter Storrie then has two answers he can give... yes because the club can afford it, or no clearly he didnt have any idea about how to run a club

Christ I'm a slow typer, I can't keep up!

Southover, I wouldn't compare Redknapp to a 10 year old. He is apparently, a pretty astute business man.

Kinky, 6 months prior to Redknapps return Storrie apparently did have a clue how to run a club. God knows why he then decided to let Redknapp spend what he wanted on players and wages.

Actually, if what Easy10 says here is true:

"bearing in mind Storrie has already openly admitted he was getting paid a BONUS for when a player leaves the club "

And if what you say here is true:

Yes... so he(Redknapp) may take bungs...

Then it all makes a bit more sense.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Christ I'm a slow typer, I can't keep up!

Southover, I wouldn't compare Redknapp to a 10 year old. He is apparently, a pretty astute business man.

Kinky, 6 months prior to Redknapps return Storrie apparently did have a clue how to run a club. God knows why he then decided to let Redknapp spend what he wanted on players and wages.

Actually, if what Easy10 says here is true:

"bearing in mind Storrie has already openly admitted he was getting paid a BONUS for when a player leaves the club "

And if what you say here is true:

Yes... so he(Redknapp) may take bungs...

Then it all makes a bit more sense.

As I said in reply to Easy isnt that the boards fault for being weak and not sacking Storrie or turning down this unreal bonus scheme?

I should point out here i dont like Redknapp

 

[Publius Ovidius]

this makes interesting reading

Peter Storrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Barrel of Fun]

this makes interesting reading

Peter Storrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All four have suffered from financial meltdown at some point.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

All four have suffered from financial meltdown at some point.

he sounds a bit like that Leeds bloke - Ridsdale.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

As far as we know did Redknapp have any control of the finances at Portsmouth or Southampton? As far as I know, he didn't.
In which case when Redknapp returned to Portsmouth and then asked Peter Storrie for all this money that Pompey couldn't afford to buy players, what should Peter Storrie have said?

a. Sorry Arry we can't afford what you are asking of the club.
b. There you go Arry, come back to me when you need some more.

We all know what the answer to that question should be.

Here's a poser:

What if a man-lets call him Steve- had a mortgage on a nice little house. He had a friend(George) who had a sure fire business idea. A great idea that couldn't fail to make money. The trouble was George didn't have any start up capital so he asks Steve if he can lend him the two thousand pounds he needs. Steve says he can't really afford two thousand...he has it but it's for the mortgage. He really can't afford to lose it. Don't worry, says George, I can pretty much guarantee you a profit. Steve thinks about it and then decides to lend George the money.

Is George entirely innocent in this scenario? Surely he is a t least slightly culpable?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Christ I'm a slow typer, I can't keep up!

Southover, I wouldn't compare Redknapp to a 10 year old. He is apparently, a pretty astute business man.

Kinky, 6 months prior to Redknapps return Storrie apparently did have a clue how to run a club. God knows why he then decided to let Redknapp spend what he wanted on players and wages.

Actually, if what Easy10 says here is true:

"bearing in mind Storrie has already openly admitted he was getting paid a BONUS for when a player leaves the club "


And if what you say here is true:

Yes... so he(Redknapp) may take bungs...

Then it all makes a bit more sense.

I wasn't comparing Redknapp with a ten year old, I was trying to show in basic terms how all this looks to me. It is really quite simple to me and I will use another analogy that has nothing to do with Redknapp.

Person A who runs a company is asked by person B who has no financial input into but works for that company for some money to spend on some commodities for that company. The company can't afford it, but person A still gives them the money to spend anyway. Whose fault is it ultimately?

If Redknapp was taking bungs, then he shouldn't have been employed by Storrie to manage Portsmouth should he?
The buck stops with the board, full stop!

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

We all know what the answer to that question should be.

Here's a poser:

What if a man-lets call him Steve- had a mortgage on a nice little house. He had a friend(George) who had a sure fire business idea. A great idea that couldn't fail to make money. The trouble was George didn't have any start up capital so he asks Steve if he can lend him the two thousand pounds he needs. Steve says he can't really afford two thousand...he has it but it's for the mortgage. He really can't afford to lose it. Don't worry, says George, I can pretty much guarantee you a profit. Steve thinks about it and then decides to lend George the money.

Is George entirely innocent in this scenario? Surely he is a t least slightly culpable?

I would say it is down to Steve to ensure the sure fire business idea is just that. Is it not down to Steve to be a lot tougher on George and make sure that George's idea is financially sound?

Can you lend me any spare cash you have Mr Left Foot please? I have a fantastic business idea that will make both of us fortunes!!!

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

As I said in reply to Easy isnt that the boards fault for being weak and not sacking Storrie or turning down this unreal bonus scheme?

I should point out here i dont like Redknapp

Yeah-, there's no doubt that the board are ultimately the most guilty. I just think that Redknapp could possibly also shoulder some of the blame- at the very least morally.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I wasn't comparing Redknapp with a ten year old, I was trying to show in basic terms how all this looks to me. It is really quite simple to me and I will use another analogy that has nothing to do with Redknapp.

Person A who runs a company is asked by person B who has no financial input into but works for that company for some money to spend on some commodities for that company. The company can't afford it, but person A still gives them the money to spend anyway. Whose fault is it ultimately?

If Redknapp was taking bungs, then he shouldn't have been employed by Storrie to manage Portsmouth should he?
The buck stops with the board, full stop!

I would say it is down to Steve to ensure the sure fire business idea is just that. Is it not down to Steve to be a lot tougher on George and make sure that George's idea is financially sound?

I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think our difference lies in whether we think Redknapp was aware of the clubs finances. In your scenario Person B appears to not be aware whether the company can afford the extra commodoties. In mine George is aware. I'm of the opinion that if you're aware of the consequences of your actions then you must shoulder some of the blame if it goes wrong. Person B is unaware so he takes no blame whereas George is aware so he does take some responsibility.

I think Redknapp is closer to George than he is to Person B, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: tell me more about this business idea of yours...

 

[Easy 10]

So its still storrie and the boards fault for having him anywhere near the club and being weak

Ultimately, it is mostly Storrie and the boards fault.

But Redknapp is certainly not TOTALLY blameless, as you are making out. He'll have gone back there on the proviso that funds would be made available for him, or he'd walk. You CANNOT leave a trail of destruction behind you the likes of which Redknapp has done, and seriously believe he is completely and utterly absolved of all responsibilty.

He is a cancer on a football club, and is adept at manipulating people and situations to meet his own ends. 'A fool and his money are easily parted'.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I want in.....

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think our difference lies in whether we think Redknapp was aware of the clubs finances. In your scenario Person B appears to not be aware whether the company can afford the extra commodoties. In mine George is aware. I'm of the opinion that if you're aware of the consequences of your actions then you must shoulder some of the blame if it goes wrong. Person B is unaware so he takes no blame whereas George is aware so he does take some responsibility.

I think Redknapp is closer to George than he is to Person B, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: tell me more about this business idea of yours...

Yes I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I do think Redknapp had some knowledge of the situation by the way, but I still firmly believe it is not his fault that Pompey got in debt and that it lies solely at the door of Storrie and Co.
As you said in a previous post the playing staff was cut between the two spells of Redknapp at the club, but you still had Storrie in charge throughout that period and the in between bit! Storrie is at fault and this proves this, he obviously wasn't strong enough to stand up to Arry, qualities that you need if you are running a football club or any large business.
You never know, we may hear more about this in the future, where the relationship between Storrie and Redknapp at Pompey may become clearer.

Well first you have to trust me implicitly, then I'll tell you my business idea...

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Yes I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I do think Redknapp had some knowledge of the situation by the way, but I still firmly believe it is not his fault that Pompey got in debt and that it lies solely at the door of Storrie and Co.
As you said in a previous post the playing staff was cut between the two spells of Redknapp at the club, but you still had Storrie in charge throughout that period and the in between bit! Storrie is at fault and this proves this, he obviously wasn't strong enough to stand up to Arry, qualities that you need if you are running a football club or any large business.
You never know, we may hear more about this in the future, where the relationship between Storrie and Redknapp at Pompey may become clearer.

Well first you have to trust me implicitly, then I'll tell you my business idea...

I'm a trusting kind of fella. I've counted my loose change and I have 1,026yen waiting to be ploughed into the right business opportunity...

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I do think Redknapp had some knowledge of the situation by the way, but I still firmly believe it is not his fault that Pompey got in debt and that it lies solely at the door of Storrie and Co.

im not sure Redknapp can be blamed for no paying the St Johns or local florist etc.

as for their business dealings, i was told there was a property deal involving the ground move and alot of people, including Redknapp, jumped when that fell apart. but thats rather seperate from the debts the playing side incurred.

 

[pasty]

No buts mate, the buck stops at the board full stop. There are no excuses for the people who ran Pompey, the buck stops with them. If they are so weak that they can get bullied by a manager to make such overspends that the club they are running will be made bankrupt then they shouldn't be running a football club.
It's like blaming a ten year old for spending two grand on stuff in Toys R Us, when the money was given to them by their parents, then the parents default on a mortgage payment that month.

Completely agree with you. On a much lesser scale, but precisely the same isssue, a couple of clients that I look after would like certain enhancements to their print files. The current configuration of the software I use doesn't allow for they want without a £20K upgrade, but the people in the company that hold the purse strings won't sanction the expenditure because the means doesn't justify the ends.