[H_B]

AUFC Somerset, on 10 February 2012 - 14:06, said:

What I was getting at was that surely a manager is expected to try and improve the final league placing of a team in comparison to where they are ranked in the wage budget table,

Of course they are. but very very few (only 2 in England since who knows when) achieve what Redknapp has.

Which is breaking into a protectionist cabal in the top 4, all of whom have 100 million plus wage bills and have had for years.

It can't be emphasised too much how much of an advantage every season Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and now Man City have.

Man City have been able to muscle into the traditional top 4 purely by throwing enormous sums of money at the problem. Several hundred million in transfer fees and a wage bill of almost 200 million.

Spurs have done it whilst making a profit and with a wage bill of less than 80 million, something no one has done since Moyes at Everton, an exceptional feat but a one season wonder. Redknapp did it two years ago, just missed out last season and is now safely ensconced in the top 4 again, batting aside behemoths like Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool in the process.

A stunning achievement.

This post has been edited by H_B: 10 February 2012 - 15:50

[H_B]

Diamonds are Forever, on 10 February 2012 - 15:37, said:

I do find his reputation as this wizard in the transfer market a bit strange though.

I've never heard anyone suggest Redknapp is a whizz in the transfer market. I'd actually say his success is based on building excellent footballing sides, with some pretty average talent all things considered. the Spurs team at the moment are hardly a Who's Who of World Footballing elite. Because they can't afford them.

He's more of a man manager than anything else.

Alex Ferguson has signed a lot of utter dross over the last 10 years as well incidentally, so he's in pretty good company there.

[SuperCaleyGoBallistic]

I'm mixed on Redknapp personally. He's done an excellent job at Spurs and I don't really see how anybody could argue otherwise. On the other hand, him and Mandaric have brought Portsmouth to its knees and the financial mis-management and dodgy dealings at the club under his tenure leave a bit of a bad taste.

[H_B]

SuperCaleyGoBallistic, on 10 February 2012 - 16:10, said:

I'm mixed on Redknapp personally. He's done an excellent job at Spurs and I don't really see how anybody could argue otherwise. On the other hand, him and Mandaric have brought Portsmouth to its knees and the financial mis-management and dodgy dealings at the club under his tenure leave a bit of a bad taste.

Can't disagree with that to be honest. The whole Portsmouth/Southampton thing was a shambles too to be honest.

[Diamonds are Forever]

H_B, on 10 February 2012 - 15:56, said:

I've never heard anyone suggest Redknapp is a whizz in the transfer market. I'd actually say his success is based on building excellent footballing sides, with some pretty average talent all things considered. the Spurs team at the moment are hardly a Who's Who of World Footballing elite. Because they can't afford them.

He's more of a man manager than anything else.

Alex Ferguson has signed a lot of utter dross over the last 10 years as well incidentally, so he's in pretty good company there.

I certainly have.

Redknapp hasn't been there for 10 years though, he's fitted all that dross in in the space of 3. His transfer policy seems to be to just bring in a load of players, one or two will be a success and the rest they sneak out through the back door a year later with no-one any the wiser. In comparison with someone like Kenny Dalglish though he looks like a genius in that area.

I agree that he's a good man manager though. I wasn't convinced after his Portsmouth stint which was just a case of throwing ridiculous amounts of money at players by a club which couldn't afford it. His spell at Spurs has convinced me otherwise, players seem to respect him but also like him, which is what the England manager needs. McClaren had the players 'liking' him but not respecting him, and vice versa with Capello, Redknapp seems to have both.The press are also so far up his arse that they will give him a fighting chance, unlike McClaren or Capello.

[H_B]

Diamonds are Forever, on 10 February 2012 - 16:14, said:

I agree that he's a good man manager though. I wasn't convinced after his Portsmouth stint which was just a case of throwing ridiculous amounts of money at players by a club which couldn't afford it. His spell at Spurs has convinced me otherwise, players seem to respect him but also like him, which is what the England manager needs. McClaren had the players 'liking' him but not respecting him, and vice versa with Capello, Redknapp seems to have both.The press are also so far up his arse that they will give him a fighting chance, unlike McClaren or Capello.

Totally agree. Although Warnock is a fud and expressed it badly, his spiel about Redknapp getting the English "humour" was spot on...

The England camp looked fucking miserable at the last World Cup. Have to think they will be a happier unit with Redknapp in charge.

[SuperCaleyGoBallistic]

Diamonds are Forever, on 10 February 2012 - 16:14, said:

I certainly have.

Redknapp hasn't been there for 10 years though, he's fitted all that dross in in the space of 3. His transfer policy seems to be to just bring in a load of players, one or two will be a success and the rest they sneak out through the back door a year later with no-one any the wiser. In comparison with someone like Kenny Dalglish though he looks like a genius in that area.

I agree that he's a good man manager though. I wasn't convinced after his Portsmouth stint which was just a case of throwing ridiculous amounts of money at players by a club which couldn't afford it. His spell at Spurs has convinced me otherwise, players seem to respect him but also like him, which is what the England manager needs. McClaren had the players 'liking' him but not respecting him, and vice versa with Capello, Redknapp seems to have both.The press are also so far up his arse that they will give him a fighting chance, unlike McClaren or Capello.

Alot of the top clubs do this. They'll bring in alot of cheap players from around Europe and a good number of them never even make it to the first team.

I'm not sure how Redknapp will fare at England. Probably alright, but not brilliant, it's hardly a particularly good England side. Quarters maybe. You're right that he'll be given a bit more lee-way than say, McClaren, who absolutely nobody wanted in the first place.

[Diamonds are Forever]

SuperCaleyGoBallistic, on 10 February 2012 - 16:25, said:

Alot of the top clubs do this. They'll bring in alot of cheap players from around Europe and a good number of them never even make it to the first team.

I'm not sure how Redknapp will fare at England. Probably alright, but not brilliant, it's hardly a particularly good England side. Quarters maybe. You're right that he'll be given a bit more lee-way than say, McClaren, who absolutely nobody wanted in the first place.

I'd predict a close quarter/semi-final defeat, but for once the reaction to going out will be positive with everyone claiming their young team is building towards the World Cup anyway.

I think he will relatively succesful, they won't win anything but he'll get the best out of the players he has.

[Milo]

GingerSaint, on 10 February 2012 - 11:47, said:

Don't be a dick, I was providing an expanded version of the story.

I'm glad you agree with me that it's the same story; but name-calling? Really!!!

[Supras]

H_Bs slavish devotion to wages produces some incredible conclusions.

He earlier admitted Holloway was a fantastic manager because he managed to finish ahead of higher spending West Ham - despite getting relegated and managing in the Championship.

Quite why he loves Redknapp so much is anyones guess but like Paul Jewells sex tape it's best kept private.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 10 February 2012 - 19:03, said:

H_Bs slavish devotion to wages produces some incredible conclusions.

He more or less states what Szymanski and Kuper say in their book. That in a study of 80% of English managers over a period of 30 or so years there is an extremely strong correlation between wages and finishing league position. I think it was something like wages and final league position in being as expected in 90% of cases.

There are of course other factors such as luck, injuries etc but there is no avoiding the fact that wages have a huge impact upon finishing league position.

As for the Paul Jewell sex tape, we can but wonder what is in H_B's locked drawer at home. Salad roll recipe is my guess.

This post has been edited by fueradejuego: 10 February 2012 - 22:01

[partick_twinny]

H_B, on 10 February 2012 - 15:49, said:

Of course they are. but very very few (only 2 in England since who knows when) achieve what Redknapp has.

Which is breaking into a protectionist cabal in the top 4, all of whom have 100 million plus wage bills and have had for years.

It can't be emphasised too much how much of an advantage every season Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and now Man City have.

Man City have been able to muscle into the traditional top 4 purely by throwing enormous sums of money at the problem. Several hundred million in transfer fees and a wage bill of almost 200 million.

Spurs have done it whilst making a profit and with a wage bill of less than 80 million, something no one has done since Moyes at Everton, an exceptional feat but a one season wonder. Redknapp did it two years ago, just missed out last season and is now safely ensconced in the top 4 again, batting aside behemoths like Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool in the process.

A stunning achievement.

To be fair, when Spurs last finished fourth, did they not have the fifth highest budget in the league? So not that big an over-achievement.

[H_B]

fueradejuego, on 10 February 2012 - 21:42, said:

I think it was something like wages and final league position in being as expected in 90% of cases.

I haven't read that book, but it sounds to be honest like they are stating the obvious really.

Financial clout is by a country mile the most important thing in any football club. Far more important than choice of manager for instance.

If John Hughes was given the Arsenal job they would comfortably finish ahead of Wigan every season, even if Jose Mourinho took over the reins there. That's the reality.

Where I would take issue with the conclusions there is in dealing with the differentials.

Obviously 80 million to 110 million is a massive jump, as from say Spurs to Liverpool. However in the middle to lower reaches, when you have a tight bunching of 35 million, 38 million, 40 million etc., it starts to be a fairly level playing field, where having a better manager can make more of a difference vis-a-vis your rivals.

Quote

. Salad roll recipe is my guess.

[H_B]

partick_twinny, on 10 February 2012 - 23:18, said:

To be fair, when Spurs last finished fourth, did they not have the fifth highest budget in the league?

No, no they did not.

Happy to help you there. And in any rate, that's a pretty pointless comparison also.

Hearts have the 3rd biggest wage bill in the SPL. Does that mean it wouldn't be that much of a surprise if they finished 1st or 2nd?

Well, no. It would be a huge surprise, because if you are dwarfed by those ahead of you in the wages league, it doesn't matter if you are "best of the rest". You'll still have to perform miracles to break into the rich club.

This post has been edited by H_B: 13 February 2012 - 09:57

[partick_twinny]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 09:37, said:

No, no they did not.

Happy to help you there. And in any rate, that's a pretty pointless comparison also.

Hearts have the 3rd biggest wage bill in the SPL. Does that mean it wouldn't be that much of a surprise if they finished 1st or 2nd?

Well, no. It would be a huge surprise, because if you are dwarfed by those ahead of you in the wages league, it doesn't matter if you are "best of the rest". You'll still have to perform miracles to break into the rich club.

1 year out of every so many it will happen by chance/luck/whatever you want to call it. Hearts have finished second in the SPL. Yes that was a surprise, but in England at that point Spurs needed one of four teams to f**k up to help them reach fourth place, chances are lower with Hearts as they need one of two teams to f**k up to reach second.

[H_B]

partick_twinny, on 13 February 2012 - 10:17, said:

1 year out of every so many it will happen by chance/luck/whatever you want to call it.

Great management I would call it. As when David Moyes did it also.

Quote

but in England at that point Spurs needed one of four teams to f**k up to help them reach fourth place.

No, they needed 2 of 5 teams to "f**k up" as you call it. Given that all of Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea dwarf them.

[partick_twinny]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 10:38, said:

Great management I would call it. As when David Moyes did it also.




No, they needed 2 of 5 teams to "f**k up" as you call it. Given that all of Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea dwarf them.

Yes, of course great management is involved, particularly when Everton did it.

Two teams out of five not making it is still more likely than one of two, especially when they (Premier League top 4/5) take so many points form each other. Man City, however had not established themselves at that point and had never made the top four previously. The Man City squad at that time was a number of high profile players that had been thrown together that didn't work as well as a team, Redknapp managed to put a team together so he should be given credit for that, but the way his achievements have been lauded down south is ridiculous.

[Swampy]

Anzhi coach resigns, looks like it's Capello to join. Good on him, plenty of money for that job.

[Supras]

H_B, on 13 February 2012 - 09:36, said:

I haven't read that book, but it sounds to be honest like they are stating the obvious really.

Financial clout is by a country mile the most important thing in any football club. Far more important than choice of manager for instance.

If John Hughes was given the Arsenal job they would comfortably finish ahead of Wigan every season, even if Jose Mourinho took over the reins there. That's the reality.

Where I would take issue with the conclusions there is in dealing with the differentials.

Obviously 80 million to 110 million is a massive jump, as from say Spurs to Liverpool. However in the middle to lower reaches, when you have a tight bunching of 35 million, 38 million, 40 million etc., it starts to be a fairly level playing field, where having a better manager can make more of a difference vis-a-vis your rivals.

Yeah, right, and as your analysis showed Ian Holloway done brilliantly to well, finish in the relegation places. Cause it was above the higher spending West Ham?

Having the 6th biggest wage budget in the league and finishing 4th is not a great achievement, I wouldn't be surprised if Motherwell achieved more than that every year. And it cannot be looked at purely in isolation, they finished 4th at a time when Liverpool had owner issues - and Spanish waiter issues - before plunging under the disastrous Hodgson reign whilst Man City were no where near the force they are now.

Spurs finished 4th more as a result of Liverpool fucking up as opposed as inspired leadership from the barely literate Redknapp. He was in the right place at the right time and still did so with a very big and rich club.

And of course that is not counting net transfer spend where they dwarf Arsenal who still finish above them every season.

I see Portsmouth are totally fucked now, well done 'arry.

And when Liverpool dropped out the top four didn't they finish 7th or something ridiculous like that? They were woeful.

This post has been edited by Supras: 13 February 2012 - 20:17

[H_B]

Supras, on 13 February 2012 - 17:18, said:

Having the 6th biggest wage budget in the league and finishing 4th is not a great achievement,

Yes it is, when those above you have 40 or 50 million more to spend in wages.

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if Motherwell achieved more than that every year.

lol wut?

Quote

And of course that is not counting net transfer spend where they dwarf Arsenal who still finish above them every season.

Arsenal's footballing expenditure (transfers and wages) dwarfs Spurs, and has done for the last decade.

I get your whole anti-English thing - it's great, no really it is, but let's stick to the facts.

[banterman86]

Supras, on 13 February 2012 - 17:18, said:

Yeah, right, and as your analysis showed Ian Holloway done brilliantly to well, finish in the relegation places. Cause it was above the higher spending West Ham?

Having the 6th biggest wage budget in the league and finishing 4th is not a great achievement, I wouldn't be surprised if Motherwell achieved more than that every year. And it cannot be looked at purely in isolation, they finished 4th at a time when Liverpool had owner issues - and Spanish waiter issues - before plunging under the disastrous Hodgson reign whilst Man City were no where near the force they are now.

Spurs finished 4th more as a result of Liverpool fucking up as opposed as inspired leadership from the barely literate Redknapp. He was in the right place at the right time and still did so with a very big and rich club.

Man City were still significantly outspending them though - they should have been the benefciaries of the Liverpool collapse, not Spurs.

And lets not forget. Redknapp took Spurs from gross underachievement to overacheivemnt in the space of what, 18 months? By contrast, martin O'neill couldn;t take a Villa side any higher than david O'Leary did, despite spending significantly more. whilst AVB has Chelsea struggling to make the CL stages.

No one is denying that Spurs are a big or rich club, the point is there are at least five clubs in England who are bigger and richer. Redknapp has them consistently punching above their weight.

[H_B]

According to Ian McGarry on the Monday Night club on Five Live, when discussing whether Hazard will move there in the summer, Spurs still have a maximum wage of £75K a week and aren't prepared to move on that.

That immediately prices them out of the kind of target they need to move to the next level. Which is why the only way they have been able to get league topping talent has been by getting them early and developing them, something Redknapp has proven particularly adept at.

It's been really surprising how consistent they have been in the league this season. The only way that has been possible is by avoiding injury to 2 or 3 players they can't replace.

[Supras]

H_B, on 14 February 2012 - 09:15, said:

Yes it is, when those above you have 40 or 50 million more to spend in wages.

Again, that is looking at the factor totally in isolation. There were many other problems within Liverpool at that time, the fact they were paying Degan and Riera 70k a week each doesn't give them a god given right to finish 4th. They were really badly mismanaged with severe organisational rifts between the board and management. Three teams finished above where there wage level indicates they should be (or 2 if they were below Man City but above Arsenal - or something, you know what I fucking mean). Surely you accept Spurs finishing 4th was as much Liverpool grossly underachieving as opposed to Spurs greatly overachieving?.

If you have the fifth highest wage bill and the team who has the fourth highest is having an organisational breakdown then surely you've a good chance of getting in ahead of them? This isn't the miracle on elm street despite your hyperbole surrounding finishing 4th.

Quote

lol wut?

I don't know but I imagine Motherwells wage budget is below Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United and substansially below Hearts yet they seem to do a lot better than them. Gannon/Brown/McCall must all be great, no?

Quote

Arsenal's footballing expenditure (transfers and wages) dwarfs Spurs, and has done for the last decade.

I get your whole anti-English thing - it's great, no really it is, but let's stick to the facts.

And so has their footballing achievement, despite have a minus net transfer spend. Surely consistenntly finishing in the top four despite this is an excellent achievement, no? Or because they give Abou Diaby 60k a week does this mean they should expect to finish fourth without any factors beyond wage bill being brought into contention? It's no surprise that Arsenal and Liverpool have higher wage bills than Spurs, they perform better and have a history of European achievement to attract top players. Given the length of contracts wages, to a certain extent, indicate how a club was doing say 2/3 years ago but this historical achievement doesn't insulate them from problems down the line.

Let's say, for example, Carragher is given 80k a week and was given this at the time when Liverpool were in the CL quarters every year. 2/3 years down the line he is still being paid that much or roughly equivalent despite the fact he is now totally useless. You can have management problems and struggle but your team will still have high wages.*

Take Spurs, when Harry took over they were pish and paid relatively modest wages - cause they had to. They weren't achieveing anything to warrant higher wages but kept it at a level above the usual dross but just below the top 5 (now including Man City). Liverpool had just ome off the back of finishing 2nd so were paying big wages but for innumerable organisational reasons they were utterly dreadful that season.

The two teams in contention, as turned out, would be the 6th higest spenders and Man City - a brand new team with a new manager and in transition. Had to go through the pain of Mark Hughes bizarrely drawing 9 games in a row at the start of the season.

So one of their competitors is in complete disarray whilst the other hires a new manager mid season and has 7-9 players first team players in their first season at the club and sometimes first season in the country.

Redknapp didn't part the sea, he beat one wounded animal and a caterpillar still underoing metamorphosis. As if to compound this theory he failed to finish in the top 4 the next year. If Spurs consistently finish in the top 4 their wages would start to represent that in 2,3 years. That 75k per week pish (which is probably complete pish just now) will be out the window.

Of course it is an achievement but don't let him fool you that because of the wage structure Redknapp has suddenly achieved something spectacular.

There is nothing "anti English" about not thinking finsihing 4th under these circumstances is an incredible achievement. Honestly, you lose all legitimacy posting nonsense like that.

Because of this computer I wrote much of this with a really weird time delay that pissed me off so I'll reply to the other two posts later. And yes this does excuse typos



*Carragher signed a new contract recently and won't be on that - it was an example.

[H_B]

Supras, on 14 February 2012 - 12:36, said:

Surely you accept Spurs finishing 4th was as much Liverpool grossly underachieving as opposed to Spurs greatly overachieving?.

Normally, it has to partly be both. A club like Spurs, with their lack of depth and quality of player can only achieve a certain number of points, no matter how well they do.

For that to be enough to be top 4, you need an Arsenal or a Liverpool to gain less than their expected minimum number of points.

This season is different again, as Spurs have achieved a hugely increased number of points on anything previous. Even a close to fully functioning Arsenal or Liverpool would only be level with Spurs at this point at best.

Quote

If you have the fifth highest wage bill and the team who has the fourth highest is having an organisational breakdown then surely you've a good chance of getting in ahead of them? This isn't the miracle on elm street despite your hyperbole surrounding finishing 4th.

Spurs didn't have the 5th highest wage bill. They had the 6th highest. And the gap from 6 to 5 was and is massive.

Quote

I don't know but I imagine Motherwells wage budget is below Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee United and substansially below Hearts yet they seem to do a lot better than them. Gannon/Brown/McCall must all be great, no?

I covered that point before. In the SPL, the differences are tiny. Hibs, Dundee Utd and Motherwell's wage bills will all be within a couple of hundred thousand of each other.

If the top 6 wage bills were 60 m, 59 m, 57 m, 56m, 55m and 53m then wage budget wouldn't really matter.

The only reason Redknapp#s achivements are so astonishing is that you are talking about the top 8 being :-

200m, 175m, 120m, 110m, 105m, 70m, 67m and 60m.

Big gaps. Massive advantages.

Quote

If Spurs consistently finish in the top 4 their wages would start to represent that in 2,3 years.

No, they wouldn't. They know that their stadium is too small and their turnover can only be a certain amount. They just can't increase the wage bill to 100 million, or they would be in Leeds situation sharpish.

[Supras]

banterman86, on 14 February 2012 - 10:33, said:

Man City were still significantly outspending them though - they should have been the benefciaries of the Liverpool collapse, not Spurs.

And lets not forget. Redknapp took Spurs from gross underachievement to overacheivemnt in the space of what, 18 months? By contrast, martin O'neill couldn;t take a Villa side any higher than david O'Leary did, despite spending significantly more. whilst AVB has Chelsea struggling to make the CL stages.

No one is denying that Spurs are a big or rich club, the point is there are at least five clubs in England who are bigger and richer. Redknapp has them consistently punching above their weight.

They had their own internal problems, most pertinently a new manager mid season who has never managed outside of Italy before. As I have already covered, they also had an almost brand new first team squad. You can spend big but you never really win in your first season, Chelsea didn't, Man City didn't and it'd be interesting to see how Malaga and PSG do this season.

The Spurs team was dramatically under performing and it was still only a few games into the season. He's clearly done a good job, nobody is denying that, he took advantage of the situation and snatched fourth. Well done, but it doesn't make him a great manager at all. O'Neill and O'Leary are limited managers at best.

AVB is in a difficult situation, he has taken on a very big job very young and is being given the job of stripping out old shit whilst the club sign replacements. He is being opposed every step of the way by an overly powerful cabal of players. He might be the fall guy and leave, but what he is doing needs to be done and is for the best in the long run.

Does he though? He finished 4th once, whilst last season Liverpool and Spurs were fighting each other to avoid the Europa League. He has done it once and might potentially do it this year. There is nothing "consistent" about it. And plenty of managers punch above their weight if all you are looking at is wage budgets, including 6-7 teams who finished above massive over spenders West Ham who finished bottom. Did every manager above them do great?

H_B, on 14 February 2012 - 10:50, said:

According to Ian McGarry on the Monday Night club on Five Live, when discussing whether Hazard will move there in the summer, Spurs still have a maximum wage of £75K a week and aren't prepared to move on that.

That immediately prices them out of the kind of target they need to move to the next level. Which is why the only way they have been able to get league topping talent has been by getting them early and developing them, something Redknapp has proven particularly adept at.

It's been really surprising how consistent they have been in the league this season. The only way that has been possible is by avoiding injury to 2 or 3 players they can't replace.

Yeah, well, journalists consistently and categorically make things up so I'm not paying too much heed to that.

Particularly adept at? Who has he developed? He inherited Bale and tried to shunt him out on loan!? What other players has he developed?

It is surprising, given how inconsistent they were last year.

H_B, on 14 February 2012 - 13:01, said:

Normally, it has to partly be both. A club like Spurs, with their lack of depth and quality of player can only achieve a certain number of points, no matter how well they do.

What?! That's complete nonsense, it's only relevant with regards to the quality of the opposition. Spurs could feasibly get many more points. What a strange thing to say.

Quote

For that to be enough to be top 4, you need an Arsenal or a Liverpool to gain less than their expected minimum number of points.

This season is different again, as Spurs have achieved a hugely increased number of points on anything previous. Even a close to fully functioning Arsenal or Liverpool would only be level with Spurs at this point at best.

Well, no, for the season Spurs finished 4th only Liverpool dropped out whilst Man City were still in transition. One team dropped out due to internal organisational problems and were leapfrogged by three other teams (at least two spending far less than them).

I disagree, the standard is piss poor this year. The Liverpool or Arsenal team of a few years ago would have walked it with only Man City realistically challenging. Even Man Utd are relying on a fantastic manager rather but this is one of their worst teams in years.

Quote

Spurs didn't have the 5th highest wage bill. They had the 6th highest. And the gap from 6 to 5 was and is massive.

I covered that point before. In the SPL, the differences are tiny. Hibs, Dundee Utd and Motherwell's wage bills will all be within a couple of hundred thousand of each other.

So they finished 2 points ahead of what their wage bill alone would dictate? Well stop the presses! Two of their competitors, as I've discussed, had pretty major problems of their own.

The actual differentials are "tiny" in comparison but how are the relative differentials? In SPL terms a couple of hundred thousand is 3, 4 good players.

Quote

If the top 6 wage bills were 60 m, 59 m, 57 m, 56m, 55m and 53m then wage budget wouldn't really matter.

The only reason Redknapp#s achivements are so astonishing is that you are talking about the top 8 being :-

200m, 175m, 120m, 110m, 105m, 70m, 67m and 60m.

Big gaps. Massive advantages.

Why include the top 3 when he only finished 4th? It doesn't matter how massive the difference is when at one of your competitors the board and manager are at odds and your other competitor has Mark Hughes in charge. Massive disadvantages.

Quote

No, they wouldn't. They know that their stadium is too small and their turnover can only be a certain amount. They just can't increase the wage bill to 100 million, or they would be in Leeds situation sharpish.

Redknapp has a long and distinguished history of spending well beyond his means and destroying clubs financially. It will be a big surprise if he doesn't do it again.