Is Harry Redknapp a cock?

[Tesco in Disguise]

a giant bell.

 

[Simster]

Had NSC been around 30 years ago we'd no doubt have seen the following:

Poll: Brian Clough - Cock or Not A Cock.

Cock - 69%
Not A Cock - 31%

Not quite.

Clough did himself a few massive favours. Two league titles (with different provincial clubs), and a European Cup, plus a few league cups and one or two FA Cup fnial appearances.

I believe that pisses all over Arry's CV. The other thing about Clough is that while he was fairly unintelligent, he certainly commanded the respect of players and wouldn't have them acting all billy big bollocks in his presence.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'm not comparing Harry's CV to Clough's. I'm saying I reckon 69% of NSC would have labelled Clough a cock if this was 1980.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm not comparing Harry's CV to Clough's. I'm saying I reckon 69% of NSC would have labelled Clough a cock if this was 1980.

I can think of one way to find out....

 

[tottenhamseagull]

I can think of one way to find out....

Time travel?

 

[magoo]

He seems a cock but he also seems to get the job done.

And surely the manager can't be blamed for a clubs financial downfall, if all his previous clubs problems were his fault then they would have come out and said.

*EDIT*

Unless of course to do that would be to implicate themselves...

 

[tonymgc]

Yes he's a great big sweating donkey cock

 

[Jookbeard Eagle]

cant deny that he is a good manager and doesn't seem a bad bloke on the surface but he is as bent as a nine bob note

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The reason I can't stand the bloke is because he never, ever accepts responsibility for anything going wrong.

The team win, and he claims all the glory, naturally it's all thanks to his brilliance.

The team lose, and it's down to a particular player being a twat, or the team not following his instructions, or because of the ridiculous fixture list, or the fact that he's down to the bare bones of a squad due to injuries (for "bare bones", read "last 32 fit players"). Nothing is EVER his fault.

He left Pompey the first time having signed a shedload of players (as usual) then came crawling back a year or so later, complaining about how the interim manager had left him with a completely shit team. Yet 95% of that team were players HE'd signed.

The worst thing is that certain elements of the media fall for his chirpy Cockney geezer persona, and lap it up because he's fairly quotable. Very few of them ever actually bother to question whether a particularly shit performance might be down to 'Arry, as opposed to falling for his usual, deflecting-the-blame crap.

 

[MJsGhost]

the reason i can't stand the bloke is because he never, ever accepts responsibility for anything going wrong.

The team win, and he claims all the glory, naturally it's all thanks to his brilliance.

The team lose, and it's down to a particular player being a twat, or the team not following his instructions, or because of the ridiculous fixture list, or the fact that he's down to the bare bones of a squad due to injuries (for "bare bones", read "last 32 fit players"). Nothing is ever his fault.

He left pompey the first time having signed a shedload of players (as usual) then came crawling back a year or so later, complaining about how the interim manager had left him with a completely shit team. Yet 95% of that team were players he'd signed.

The worst thing is that certain elements of the media fall for his chirpy cockney geezer persona, and lap it up because he's fairly quotable. Very few of them ever actually bother to question whether a particularly shit performance might be down to 'arry, as opposed to falling for his usual, deflecting-the-blame crap.

this!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Did he ever mention Spurs only had two points when he took over? Bloody miracle worker that man, and no mistake. All his doing.

Nice quote here from another site on Mr Redknapp.

- Leeds fans being ***** can't have helped, but at Bournemouth 'Arry did his usual thing of being a solid enough manager to bring some initial success, then whining and nagging his naive chairman right up until each transfer deadline for cash over and above what they could really afford (wages and transfer fees) because the success it would bring would make them more money in the long run (see: his FA Cup win at Pompey for what a giant load of bollocks this is at small or medium sized clubs). He then got out for an Assistant's job at a bigger club while his stock was high then went back for Bournemouth's best players at far below market value because he and he alone knew that his old club were papering over the cracks and had to sell for any cash offer to get them off their books.

- at West Ham again, after stabbing Billy Bonds in the back to get the top job, he badgered Terrence Brown relentlessly via his growing army of press cohorts and his ally at the club, one Peter Storrie, who was supposed to be a buffer between Redknapp the 'football man' and Brown the businessman. I'm sure Storrie's siding with 'Arry every time was purely a result of buying into his footballing vision, and nothing to do with seeing how much could be skimmed off the top of deals involving superagents like Pini Zahavi, Rune Hauge and Willie McKay. Broken Dreams details the sheer cheek of his approach at his peak, where after spending his allocated transfer budget, he kept insisting to Brown they were too weak at RB, and he needed £1.5m to sign Gary Charles. Brown relented, Charles played a handful of games, Redknapp demanded money for a RB again - when challenged about using Charles more "he's shit, what do you expect for £1.5m?". Redknapp's transfer policy, particularly after their one good season under him, was historically bad - insane fees spent on has beens and never weres. Samassi Abou? Titi Camara? Ragnvald Soma? Marco Boogers?. For every genuine coup like Paolo Di Canio there were two top class players who Redknapp made play like pub players - Paolo Futre, Davor Suker? Might as well have been Trevor Benjamin for all this 'great motivator' got out of them.

- key point at West Ham - during Redknapp's reign they spent about £500k less than Arsenal in the same period. Arsenal saw Wenger revamp not just the playing staff but the whole mentality of the club, turning them from mid-table mediocrity to perennial title contenders on a sensible wage structure. Redknapp had one good UEFA-qualifying season, bought a load of aging shit, lumbered them with terrible contracts that contributed to their later relegation (few players increase in value under Redknapp at any club) and turned the megamoney sale of Rio Ferdinand into about 8 really crap players (before complaining he hadn't been given any of the money).

- Southampton was probably the least of his sins, he wasn't there long enough to be able to say that their board wouldn't have messed them anyway. His transfer record was again legendarily bad though, and he not only failed to assemble a team that could keep them up, he failed to put together one that looked like much in the division below.

- Portsmouth he brought Peter Storrie to the club who again acted as a buffer, championing his endless demands to spend above their means without reservation. Storrie of course played a big part in bringing all the crooks in that have been chairman after incumbent crook Milan Mandaric. Going back to Bournemouth, he did the same thing here after moving to Spurs - ruthlessly stripping PFC's corpse of any valuable assets with his inside information, this time that they'd never actually paid properly for most of the players they own. An iluminating quote from his time here was from the Independent from October last year:

"I got a percentage of sell-on [fees] in my contract if I sold a player. The club paid me five per cent [for Crouch]. I went to Milan because I had signed a new contract that said five per cent but I said, 'No, when I signed Crouch it was 10 per cent, so I want 10 per cent' and Milan said, 'OK.'"

Have a look at any of Redknapp's clubs during his spell in charge - the transfer traffic in and out of the club is insane, only Barry Fry has ever topped him in seasons that don't involve promotion or relegation. By his own admission he's paid a significant sum for selling players, so his motivation is pretty obvious. Spurs are probably too financially robust to suffer the way all four of his previous clubs have - but the squad turnover remains incredibly high, has only not been 'bad value' overall because of his picking at the Portsmouth carcass (and they've now got nothing left of interest), and your club's past form with this sort of character (Venables did you a lot of damage in the 90s, again Broken Dreams deals with this in great depth) should make you very very wary indeed.

I'd also remind everyone that football's 'master wheeler dealer' once spent £13m in a day. What did he have to show for this? John Utaka and David Nugent, two forwards who managed 9 league goals between them.

 

[kevtherev]

He certainly is a slippery old bastard, right out of the Venables envelope. Whatever shit Harry finds himself in he always comes up smelling of roses.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Harry Redknapp

• 23 July 09: "I like Crouchy but he's not a priority." 27 July: Signs him.

• 2 Aug 09: "Signing Bassong? It's not true." 6 Aug: Signs him.

• 31 Jan 09: "I don't know why Rafa Benítez gets upset about everything - it's strange. I just said Robbie Keane's a terrific player, but he belongs to Liverpool. It was never a goer." 2 Feb: Signs him.

 

[bhaexpress]

The John Holmes of the Premier League.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Did he ever mention Spurs only had two points when he took over? Bloody miracle worker that man, and no mistake. All his doing.

Nice quote here from another site on Mr Redknapp.

- Leeds fans being ***** can't have helped, but at Bournemouth 'Arry did his usual thing of being a solid enough manager to bring some initial success, then whining and nagging his naive chairman right up until each transfer deadline for cash over and above what they could really afford (wages and transfer fees) because the success it would bring would make them more money in the long run (see: his FA Cup win at Pompey for what a giant load of bollocks this is at small or medium sized clubs). He then got out for an Assistant's job at a bigger club while his stock was high then went back for Bournemouth's best players at far below market value because he and he alone knew that his old club were papering over the cracks and had to sell for any cash offer to get them off their books.

- at West Ham again, after stabbing Billy Bonds in the back to get the top job, he badgered Terrence Brown relentlessly via his growing army of press cohorts and his ally at the club, one Peter Storrie, who was supposed to be a buffer between Redknapp the 'football man' and Brown the businessman. I'm sure Storrie's siding with 'Arry every time was purely a result of buying into his footballing vision, and nothing to do with seeing how much could be skimmed off the top of deals involving superagents like Pini Zahavi, Rune Hauge and Willie McKay. Broken Dreams details the sheer cheek of his approach at his peak, where after spending his allocated transfer budget, he kept insisting to Brown they were too weak at RB, and he needed £1.5m to sign Gary Charles. Brown relented, Charles played a handful of games, Redknapp demanded money for a RB again - when challenged about using Charles more "he's shit, what do you expect for £1.5m?". Redknapp's transfer policy, particularly after their one good season under him, was historically bad - insane fees spent on has beens and never weres. Samassi Abou? Titi Camara? Ragnvald Soma? Marco Boogers?. For every genuine coup like Paolo Di Canio there were two top class players who Redknapp made play like pub players - Paolo Futre, Davor Suker? Might as well have been Trevor Benjamin for all this 'great motivator' got out of them.

- key point at West Ham - during Redknapp's reign they spent about £500k less than Arsenal in the same period. Arsenal saw Wenger revamp not just the playing staff but the whole mentality of the club, turning them from mid-table mediocrity to perennial title contenders on a sensible wage structure. Redknapp had one good UEFA-qualifying season, bought a load of aging shit, lumbered them with terrible contracts that contributed to their later relegation (few players increase in value under Redknapp at any club) and turned the megamoney sale of Rio Ferdinand into about 8 really crap players (before complaining he hadn't been given any of the money).

- Southampton was probably the least of his sins, he wasn't there long enough to be able to say that their board wouldn't have messed them anyway. His transfer record was again legendarily bad though, and he not only failed to assemble a team that could keep them up, he failed to put together one that looked like much in the division below.

- Portsmouth he brought Peter Storrie to the club who again acted as a buffer, championing his endless demands to spend above their means without reservation. Storrie of course played a big part in bringing all the crooks in that have been chairman after incumbent crook Milan Mandaric. Going back to Bournemouth, he did the same thing here after moving to Spurs - ruthlessly stripping PFC's corpse of any valuable assets with his inside information, this time that they'd never actually paid properly for most of the players they own. An iluminating quote from his time here was from the Independent from October last year:

"I got a percentage of sell-on [fees] in my contract if I sold a player. The club paid me five per cent [for Crouch]. I went to Milan because I had signed a new contract that said five per cent but I said, 'No, when I signed Crouch it was 10 per cent, so I want 10 per cent' and Milan said, 'OK.'"

Have a look at any of Redknapp's clubs during his spell in charge - the transfer traffic in and out of the club is insane, only Barry Fry has ever topped him in seasons that don't involve promotion or relegation. By his own admission he's paid a significant sum for selling players, so his motivation is pretty obvious. Spurs are probably too financially robust to suffer the way all four of his previous clubs have - but the squad turnover remains incredibly high, has only not been 'bad value' overall because of his picking at the Portsmouth carcass (and they've now got nothing left of interest), and your club's past form with this sort of character (Venables did you a lot of damage in the 90s, again Broken Dreams deals with this in great depth) should make you very very wary indeed.

I'd also remind everyone that football's 'master wheeler dealer' once spent £13m in a day. What did he have to show for this? John Utaka and David Nugent, two forwards who managed 9 league goals between them.

This is all so true how any football fan can think the cock is good for the game i will never know.
It was plain to see what a Cock HR was when he stabbed Billy Bonds he was a cock from that moment and he hasn't let me down in his cock status since.
In short Harry Rednapp is a COCK.

 

[fire&skill]

nah

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Looking forward to him becoming the next England Manager

 

[Insel affe]

I think he is a......................

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Do Bears shit in the woods?

You have to feel for him though, he's always down to the "bare bones of the squad" once we get this far into the season.

It'll be interesting to hear how he gets round the 25man squad limit. Especially as (if the guardian is correct) he has the biggest registered squad in the premier league: an additional THIRTEEN under 21 players added to his full quota of 25 'senior' players.

 

[Lush]

Wide Boy rather than a cock.