Portsmouth given Winding up Order
- Thread starter platypus
- Start date
You have to remember that a manager will have virtually no say in the financial side of a football club. Harry will have had no say over the fees, nor the wages the players are being paid.
He will be asked to identify targets, and the chief executive/chairman will negotiate the transfer with regards to the financial side of things.
It wasn't Harry signing the cheques.
![[ASSE]Hinchy](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,054
- Location
- Disley, Cheshire
He manages to spend over his means every where else. He did exactly the same at Southampton. Luckily this time he's at a club where they can afford to buy his teams.
If you forfit a game, you lose it three - nothing. iirc.
[ASSE]Hinchy;15935492 said:
Actually I thought he underspent at Southampton, the over spending was done under George Burley. Harrys big mistake was loosing all our strikers when we got relegated and replacing them with 90K's worth of Ricardo Fuller and a teenager who hadn't signed a pro contract. He filled saints squad with some terrible loans and freebies in the prem and then did the same in the championship, Davenport and Tomaz Hajto being prime examples.
Trouble does seem to follow him from club to club though and some of his signings seem to be very much about agents fees and brown paper bags, hopefully the tax man will nail him to the wall in court today.
Last edited:
With Dodgy Harry it's not just the finances you see but the money the fan does not see. Sol Campbell for instance was getting £100,000 a week wages plus £30,000 a week image rights. I bet Southamptons wage bill went through the roof under Harry just as Tottenhams will have done. This last transfer window Tottenham have sent players out on loan all over the place to reduce the wage bill so maybe someone at Spurs is keeping an eye on finance to make sure they don't end up running up huge deficits.
It's the wage bill that cripples clubs more than transfer fees.
It's the wage bill that cripples clubs more than transfer fees.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,054
- Location
- Disley, Cheshire
That is how I was going to respond to Alex's post as well. Its the wages that people were on that was more than likely damaging us rather than the fees paid.
[ASSE]Hinchy;15939736 said:
Harrys spell wasn't the financially damaging one though, it was under George Burley and Wilde that Saints blew a fortune on transfers like Rasiac and Skacel plus the massive wages of such players and others like Idakez. comparively speaking Harry was pretty frugal when we went down especially with the money he brought in through player sales. I would love us to have been much more bold in the first season down and really pushed to get straight backup instead of bringing in players like Fuller, Hajto and Kosowski.
Portsmouth have added to the wage bill they can't pay.
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11674_5944834,00.html
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11674_5944834,00.html
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Firstly, they'd yet to miss a payment for wages yet, which is millions a month, so theres money and its coming from the owners. Also the guys who lent the previous owners the money, are now in charge, its better to spend several million keeping the club going, than lose your entire investment in general.
They aren't remotely assured of relegation yet, and spending an extra 500k on wages, that could maybe be the difference between staying up and not, would change the value of the club for a sale by tens of millions, and really its the current owners choice to risk whatever he wants.
They haven't been played off the park in a lot of their games, and were again ridiculously unlucky to get their player sent off for, Bent tripping himself up. Theres been several other very poor decisions against them this year, and they are still only a few wins from pushing right out of the relegation zone. Three wins would take them to 14th, its hardly an unsaveable situation.
While the last owner obviously needed a huge loan to afford to buy the club and pay wages, he was borrowing real money from the new owner, so this guy actually did have that money spare to loan out, which would suggest he has significantly more money around aswell.
But for people that think managers have no say in the wages, well, thats ridiculous. There might be a club or two out there that tell their managers they have no say, most don't. Wenger is heavily involved in contract renegotiations and its HIS policy to not offer huge wages nor offer over 1 year contracts to 30year old and over players(except when it suits him, like for Silvestre), thats not the boards choice.
The board don't hide their finances from managers, Redknapp would have known how much players were getting, being offered and I would be highly surprised if it was Redknapp saying we have to get X, Y and Z to stay up, if we need to pay them X amount, get them.
Considering the trouble every club he's managed got into, well, yes, I blame him entirely.
I also think its him who comes up with the fancy contracts that persuades money grabbing players to sign. Like Kanu and James, we'll give you a decent wage now, but play X amount of games and you'll get a ridiculous increase in wages and get new contracts.
Spurs should be thanking their lucky stars that Levy is so heavily involved in the clubs transfer dealings, without him a weaker and stupider board would simply believe in Redknapp and he'd spend them into trouble aswell.
But without Redknapps spending on new players all the time, and riding that new player form and constantly bringing in new players to replace those who have lost form or been crapped on by Redknapps ridiculous comments, well, he'll fail and hopefully finally be seen for the completely average/poor manager he is.
They aren't remotely assured of relegation yet, and spending an extra 500k on wages, that could maybe be the difference between staying up and not, would change the value of the club for a sale by tens of millions, and really its the current owners choice to risk whatever he wants.
They haven't been played off the park in a lot of their games, and were again ridiculously unlucky to get their player sent off for, Bent tripping himself up. Theres been several other very poor decisions against them this year, and they are still only a few wins from pushing right out of the relegation zone. Three wins would take them to 14th, its hardly an unsaveable situation.
While the last owner obviously needed a huge loan to afford to buy the club and pay wages, he was borrowing real money from the new owner, so this guy actually did have that money spare to loan out, which would suggest he has significantly more money around aswell.
But for people that think managers have no say in the wages, well, thats ridiculous. There might be a club or two out there that tell their managers they have no say, most don't. Wenger is heavily involved in contract renegotiations and its HIS policy to not offer huge wages nor offer over 1 year contracts to 30year old and over players(except when it suits him, like for Silvestre), thats not the boards choice.
The board don't hide their finances from managers, Redknapp would have known how much players were getting, being offered and I would be highly surprised if it was Redknapp saying we have to get X, Y and Z to stay up, if we need to pay them X amount, get them.
Considering the trouble every club he's managed got into, well, yes, I blame him entirely.
I also think its him who comes up with the fancy contracts that persuades money grabbing players to sign. Like Kanu and James, we'll give you a decent wage now, but play X amount of games and you'll get a ridiculous increase in wages and get new contracts.
Spurs should be thanking their lucky stars that Levy is so heavily involved in the clubs transfer dealings, without him a weaker and stupider board would simply believe in Redknapp and he'd spend them into trouble aswell.
But without Redknapps spending on new players all the time, and riding that new player form and constantly bringing in new players to replace those who have lost form or been crapped on by Redknapps ridiculous comments, well, he'll fail and hopefully finally be seen for the completely average/poor manager he is.
They sold Kaboul to pay Januarys wages. Who are they going to sell to pay Februarys? No one the transfer window is shut.
How they got an extra week from the high court god knows when they are trading while insolvent which is a criminal offence. If they have 2 parties who are serious buyers why did they sell to the other people with no money twice?
My understanding was that Portsmouth had missed the last four wage payments and then scrapped them together days late through didgy loans and selling players and even the most ardent fan will admit that to escape relegation will take a miracle the likes of which has rarely been seen before.
The idea that they are still allowed to sign players despite being totally insolvent is somewhat repulsive and must be truely galling for all the companies they owe money too.
The idea that they are still allowed to sign players despite being totally insolvent is somewhat repulsive and must be truely galling for all the companies they owe money too.
Still no news on the sale of the club, methinks the worst will happen .....
Looking on the positive side, if they were wound up, would it be sensible to not fill the position with another team and drop down to a 36 game season permanently?
Al
Looking on the positive side, if they were wound up, would it be sensible to not fill the position with another team and drop down to a 36 game season permanently?
Al
Agreed, asking to sell players outside the transfer window is a complete farce. I hope Fifa tell them to get lost.
They should be wound up and got rid off. This whole fiasco has gone on long enough.
Last edited: