Harry Redknapp

[Glenn R]

To be fair I have read in plenty of other places that 'Arry wanted Cahill from Bolton and Tevez on loan and Levy wouldn't do the business and that's the major reason behind the fall out.

To be fair that is speculation and Levy bashing. Harry didn't come out and say that but the press.
 

Once again I say Levy dosen't normally splash in the January window or back his manager half way through the season he seems to think that if you haven't done it by Christmas then you ain't gonna do it !!!!!
 
 

Levy is a fan and director and wants Spurs to do well. I am sure he will splash out if he thinks it necessary and consultation with the manager wants it. Whatever way we read it the end result is what is important and the manager and Levy should be judged on that.

[Glenn R]

Ok this is a bit of a ramble. I have looked at the numbers for the past 8 years to give a fair indication of how things really are. Rather than making unsubstantiated claims.

During Arry's  period we spent an average of £10m per season net. In prem terms this the same sort of amount as Wigan and West Brom spend.
 

You still do not get it! You are unable to change your use of the inaccurate knowledge you claim to be fact, even when the information is there for you to see and use. Not everything you say is untrue, but just spend a little time looking at the information before making sweeping statements that are false. Now I know that the information can vary slightly from source to source but it is going to be within a narrow boundary of accuracy.

You keep talking about Harry's net spend but that is just part of the process. I pulled you up on that before, obviously no change in perspective Mr Blinker man. But as you are so keen to include this I will also share that aspect.

Transfer dealings look as follows.

Year         Transfers In         Transfers Out      Net spend
2012/13       57.0m            62.8m            +5.8m
2011/12      8.0m            35.0m         +27.0m
2010/11      18.5m            1.0m         -17.5m
2009/10      32.0m            33.0m         +1.0m
2008/09      87.2m            67.75m         -19.45m
2007/08       48.7m            14.75m         -33.95m
2006/07      48.9m            25.1m         -23.8m
2005/06      34.4m            16.65m         -17.75m
TOTAL         334.7m            256.05m      -78.65m
Average amount spent on players per season = 41.83m
Average Net  spend per season = 9.83m
Should this figure be a problem? Does it matter if the net spend is relatively low, or is it that a good way to run a club? Would we rather we spent more on players and then had to sell them on for less money. I think the fact that we have spent on average £40 million per season shows that even if players have left us, we have always replaced them with similar or better quality in most cases.

Now let us look at West Brom’s and Wigan’s figures. (I will summarise)
West Brom:
Average amount spent on transfers: 8.39m
Average Net spend: 2.3m
Wigan:
Average amount spent on transfers: 10.78
Average Net spend: -0.22 (that is profit)
Neither anywhere near comparable to Tottenham’s figures.

Rubbish, we did not spend more than top prem sides on transfer fees.

Now to look at this sweeping claim – (I will put both amount spent AS, average outlay AO and average net spend ANS)
Spurs: AS= 334.7, AO=41.83, ANS= 9.83
Man U: AS= 286.65, AO=35.83, ANS=11.7 (rather closer to us than us than Wigan)
Man C: AS=595.35, AO=74.41, ANS=54.08
Chelsea: AS= 410.4, AO= 51.3, ANS= 40.81
Liverpool: AS= 373.95, AO= 46.74, ANS = 16.28
Ars*nal: AS= 219.05, AO= 27.38, ANS= -5.22 (profit)
Newcastle: AS= 142.4, AO= 17.8, ANS= 0.13
West Brom: AS= 67.185, AO= 8.39, ANS = 2.3
Wigan: AS= 86.25, AO= 10.78, ANS= -0.22 (profit)

Looking at these figures shows that the model we most closely resemble is Man Utd. Would you rather we looked more like Man City or Chelsea? Their approach to money is disgusting and is the very reason why financial fair play is the right way forward. Their approach is not sustainable and I abhor it. The alternative is the Ars*nal approach which actually does line the boards pockets, but with no success attached. I do not think this model is any good either as any system which takes out more than it puts in will eventually collapse as well.

Now please can people stop talking about things as truth, without at least spending a little time checking their thoughts actually have some basis in reality, rather than the concoction they have brewed up with three hags, some pot (a black one or smoked) and a mixture of unidentifiable, unreal ideas!!!

Thanks for that information. I've printed it off. It is handy to know this.

[dimexi]

Thanks for that information. I've printed it off. It is handy to know this.

Sorry, meant to quote my source, but had do do some of my own calculations. 

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/


LOL - I just looked further down the front page, they have all the figures from 2003. Could have used those instead of me working them all out, DOH!

[RSS61]

I agree that we were in the top 4 (and I gave the reasons why) but I do believe it wouldn’t have lasted. That is why we needed somebody else to take us in another direction. As for available transfer funds. Apart from this season we spent more than some of the top 4 clubs. If Levy is to be blamed for anything it is picking the wrong managers. When he picked Harry he picked him in the view of getting us out of relegation. He picked our current manager to take us to the next level. Let us hope this time he got it right.

Rubbish, we did not spend more than top prem sides on transfer fees. During Arry's  period we spent an average of £10m per season net. In prem terms this the same sort of amount as Wigan and West Brom spend.

Nobody will ever know if Arry could of taken us the extra mile. Personally I don't think there is a manager on the planet that will be able to do, because our Chairman does not have the ambition. We were probably only about £30m away from challenging for a title, in stead Levy decided to make some money in the transfer market. Our squad is now a lot loss talented and has a lot loss depth. It is my belief that Levy's plans are what made him and Arry fall out. Of course, some people actually think Arry was sacked because we didn't get 3rd spot, and others think it has something to with the England job. They are entitled to their opinions, but they are wrong. Arry had ambition, and that just isn't shared by Levy or the board. Unfortunately the only trophy our club is interested in is a figure on the bottom line of a spread sheet !![/quote]

That is also just an opinion.

[spursjoolz]

I am not at all convinced that Arry had great ambition other than fill his pockets and boost his ego. The way I see it, he wanted some success and got it to quite a fair point, but that is as far as he could have gone.

It is possible that he fell out with Levy over transfers, but for me the England job and the 3rd place saga will always be the reason for his sacking. I mean, if he had clearly announced in the press that his heart was at Tottenham an nowhere else and had got us 3rd, would he have got sacked. NO!

In fact, I believe that AVB has far more drive and ambition than Arry ever had and given the support from the board and the players, he will do as well if not better than Arry even with the thinner squad we have today.

As I mentioned before, I do sincerely hope that we do re-enforce in Jan. We are prone to injuries in key positions with very little cover.

[RiffHard]

In fact, I believe that AVB has far more drive and ambition than Arry ever had...

I too think so because I'm sure Villas-Boas wants to prove doubters (and Chelsea) wrong. He's a young manager and despite winning a thing or two with FC Porto, doesn't really have much to show. Redknapp had only won the FA Cup, but nevertheless he is one of the so-called elder statesmen who has been around for ages, he is experienced and has lots of connections and friends in the game.

[Metalanimal]

Rumours are that AVB is trying again to land Moutinho in the January window.

I agree he has alot to prove and i too feel he is more motivated than Arry ever was!

[dimexi]

Motivation is a very hard thing to judge. How can we say that the man running up and down with placards, shouting loudly, is more motivated than the man who sits quietly under a tree? One may look very motivated but the other maybe using his energy to find ways to think through problem. The proof is in the pudding. There is no way that Harry was not motivated, you simply cannot get a team playing as well as he did without having motivation. That is not to say that AVB is not equally, less or more motivated than Harry. I think AVB is also very motivated but shows it differently.

[spursjoolz]

There is a noticeable difference when AVB is interviewed on TV which (to me) oozes passion and enthousiasm which I didn't always find with Arry.

I did not say that Arry lacked ambition or was not motivated. I just said that  that AVB has more of it and it shows. As a young manager he has a lot to prove if he wants to stay in the game and not only to Abramovich.

No direspect to Arry, but he hasn't achieved a great deal in his career and will retire from football with just the one one trophy. I dare say AVB will collect a few more by the time he is 65.

[dimexi]

There is a noticeable difference when AVB is interviewed on TV which (to me) oozes passion and enthousiasm which I didn't always find with Arry.

I did not say that Arry lacked ambition or was not motivated. I just said that  that AVB has more of it and it shows. As a young manager he has a lot to prove if he wants to stay in the game and not only to Abramovich.

No direspect to Arry, but he hasn't achieved a great deal in his career and will retire from football with just the one one trophy. I dare say AVB will collect a few more by the time he is 65.

Guess you missed the point then. How can you say AVB has more ambition? Whether he looks like he is ambitious on tv, cannot be compared with how another human being shows his ambition.

Achievement has very little to do with ambition as well. You can have all the ambition in the world, but without the ability and success it means nothing. Or you could have very little ambition but still have great success.

Comparing the two is futile IMHO.

[RSS61]

All I hope is that AVB is given at least as long as Harry was, whatever the outcome this season and next.

Only after he has been given time to bring in one or two of his own players, and allowed everybody to adapt to his system, will it be clear if he is the step up from Harry that all Spurs fans must hope for.

[Paul Finch]

      But a lot of that surely depends on whether Mr Levy allows him to do that or not, we saw what Levy did in the last transfer window, or should I say what he didn't do, he made three ridiculous offers for the players that AVB wanted, Moutinho being one, and the others were Willan and Remy, the problem will be if he does spend money to get these players who is he going to sell in order to finance it. It could be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I for one hope that it isn't, but I am not going to hold my breath.
     Why should AVB be given the same amount of time as Harry, (who showed us what he could do in two seasons with a limited amount of funds) AVB has been given far more money too spend already than Harry was. As I have already stated, I am not a Fan of AVB, never have been and probably never will be, (I will not apologise for that) but his success hinges on whether or not Mr Levy allows him to buy the players he wants. Again I am not going to hold my breath.


 

[RSS61]

      But a lot of that surely depends on whether Mr Levy allows him to do that or not, we saw what Levy did in the last transfer window, or should I say what he didn't do, he made three ridiculous offers for the players that AVB wanted, Moutinho being one, and the others were Willan and Remy, the problem will be if he does spend money to get these players who is he going to sell in order to finance it. It could be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I for one hope that it isn't, but I am not going to hold my breath.
     Why should AVB be given the same amount of time as Harry, (who showed us what he could do in two seasons with a limited amount of funds) AVB has been given far more money too spend already than Harry was. As I have already stated, I am not a Fan of AVB, never have been and probably never will be, (I will not apologise for that) but his success hinges on whether or not Mr Levy allows him to buy the players he wants. Again I am not going to hold my breath.


 

Whilst I agree that its all down to Levy, I think that if you add up all the money that Harry spent ( Defoe Keane Crouch VDV Parker Kaboul  to mention a few, ) then I am sure it adds up to far more than AVB has spent so far.
I really do think that any manager needs 3 years minimum to make his mark.

[spursjoolz]

Guess you missed the point then. How can you say AVB has more ambition? Whether he looks like he is ambitious on tv, cannot be compared with how another human being shows his ambition.

Achievement has very little to do with ambition as well. You can have all the ambition in the world, but without the ability and success it means nothing. Or you could have very little ambition but still have great success.

Comparing the two is futile IMHO.
[/quote]

No I haven't missed the point. It's all about observation.

I work with a bunch of people, some are ambitious and others are not and it shows in their behaviour as a whole.

There are tryers and slackers in this world and AVB is a tryer.  As just one exemple, he takes Europa seriously and goes all out to win it. What did Arry do?

An ambitious person is more likely to succeed than someone without and a person who doesn't care is more likely to fail. Fact. I am surrounded by both categories in my work and I have seen the tryers move up and the slakers pack their bags.

[baldbloke]

Ok this is a bit of a ramble. I have looked at the numbers for the past 8 years (From 2005/06) to give a fair indication of how things really are. Rather than making unsubstantiated claims.

During Arry's  period we spent an average of £10m per season net. In prem terms this the same sort of amount as Wigan and West Brom spend.
 

You still do not get it! You are unable to change your use of the inaccurate knowledge you claim to be fact, even when the information is there for you to see and use. Not everything you say is untrue, but just spend a little time looking at the information before making sweeping statements that are false. Now I know that the information can vary slightly from source to source but it is going to be within a narrow boundary of accuracy.

You keep talking about Harry's net spend but that is just part of the process. I pulled you up on that before, obviously no change in perspective Mr Blinker man. But as you are so keen to include this I will also share that aspect.

Transfer dealings look as follows.

Year         Transfers In         Transfers Out      Net spend
2012/13       57.0m            62.8m            +5.8m
2011/12      8.0m                 35.0m         +27.0m
2010/11      18.5m            1.0m                 -17.5m
2009/10      32.0m            33.0m         +1.0m
2008/09      87.2m            67.75m         -19.45m
2007/08       48.7m            14.75m         -33.95m
2006/07      48.9m            25.1m         -23.8m
2005/06      34.4m            16.65m         -17.75m
TOTAL      334.7m            256.05m              -78.65m

Average amount spent on players per season = 41.83m

Average Net  spend per season = 9.83m

Should this figure be a problem? Does it matter if the net spend is relatively low, or is it that a good way to run a club? Would we rather we spent more on players and then had to sell them on for less money. I think the fact that we have spent on average £40 million per season shows that even if players have left us, we have always replaced them with similar or better quality in most cases.

Now let us look at West Brom’s and Wigan’s figures. (I will summarise)

West Brom:

Average amount spent on transfers: 8.39m

Average Net spend: 2.3m


Wigan:

Average amount spent on transfers: 10.78

Average Net spend: -0.22 (that is profit)


Neither anywhere near comparable to Tottenham’s figures.

Rubbish, we did not spend more than top prem sides on transfer fees.

Now to look at this sweeping claim –

(I will include amount spent AS, average outlay AO and average net spend ANS)

Spurs:         AS= 334.7,                    AO=41.83,                  ANS= 9.83

Man U:        AS= 286.65,                  AO=35.83,                  ANS=11.7 (rather closer to us than us than Wigan)

Man C:        AS=595.35,                   AO=74.41,                  ANS=54.08

Chelsea:     AS= 410.4,                    AO= 51.3,                   ANS= 40.81

Liverpool:   AS= 373.95,                   AO= 46.74,                 ANS = 16.28

Ars*nal:     AS= 219.05,                   AO= 27.38,                 ANS= -5.22 (profit)

Newcastle: AS= 142.4,                    AO= 17.8,                   ANS= 0.13

West Brom: AS= 67.185,                 AO= 8.39,                   ANS = 2.3

Wigan:        AS= 86.25,                   AO= 10.78,                 ANS= -0.22 (profit)


Looking at these figures shows that the model we most closely resemble is Man Utd. Would you rather we looked more like Man City or Chelsea? Their approach to money is disgusting and is the very reason why financial fair play is the right way forward. Their approach is not sustainable and I abhor it. The alternative is the Ars*nal approach which actually does line the boards pockets, but with no success attached. I do not think this model is any good either as any system which takes out more than it puts in will eventually collapse as well.


Now please can people stop talking about things as truth, without at least spending a little time checking their thoughts actually have some basis in reality, rather than the concoction they have brewed up with three hags, some pot (a black one or smoked) and a mixture of unidentifiable, unreal ideas!!!

Dimexi, look on 10 different sites and you will get different figures, Spurs do not announce the figures them selves. You have chosen the site that suits your purposes.