Gomes

[SpurSince57]

'we have very little idea' suggests pretty clearly that I don't know, does it not? And yes, if you fall out with Harry, you're right out and unlikely to get back into favour quickly. No-one's disputing that. That seems to be the case with a lot of managers. Do I think Gomes was treated unfairly? I don't know the full circumstances, so I can't answer.

No, the argument that Harry stood by Gomes is not spurious.

The reason I asked about Alex is that he was dropped after a series of high-profile goofs, asked for a transfer (perhaps thinking he would be denied), was told, 'Sure thing,' and shunted off to the outer darkness. When the Bearded Wonder found himself a CB short, he was a bit stuffed; by contrast, although it was clear Harry had lost patience with Stupor Pav he kept him sufficiently onside so that he could fill in for Ade.

How is Villas-Boas relevant anyway?

 

[StartingPrice]

'we have very little idea' suggests pretty clearly that I don't know, does it not? And yes, if you fall out with Harry, you're right out and unlikely to get back into favour quickly. No-one's disputing that. That seems to be the case with a lot of managers. Do I think Gomes was treated unfairly? I don't know the full circumstances, so I can't answer.

No, the argument that Harry stood by Gomes is not spurious.

The reason I asked about Alex is that he was dropped after a series of high-profile goofs, asked for a transfer (perhaps thinking he would be denied), was told, 'Sure thing,' and shunted off to the outer darkness. When the Bearded Wonder found himself a CB short, he was a bit stuffed; by contrast, although it was clear Harry had lost patience with Stupor Pav he kept him sufficiently onside so that he could fill in for Ade.

How is Villas-Boas relevant anyway?

Yes, we have little ideai does suggest pretty clearly that you don't know. I wasn't in the least bit confused about that. I was establishing my reasoning process for reaching the conclusion I have, and then restating your lack of proven knowledge as a way of illustrating that your critique was hardly emphatic.

The problem with Gomes is that he did not fall out with 'Arry. If he had, it would be more understandable. But Mr Redknapp tends to just cast players adrift when they don't suit his immediate plans, and that seemed to be the case, here - which is what we are commenting on when we say he was treated harshly.

Of course the argument about standing by Gomes is spurious, I have shown you how it is. We are discussing Mr Redknapp's attitude towards Gomes after he stopped standing by him - I don't see how the inherent fact that he did stand by him before he stopped standing by him can possibly have any relevance. It's like a murderer defending himself on the grounds that he had never shot his victim before he shot him.

Yes, your inclusion of Alex shows that AVB was capable of selling players that he subsequently may have wished he kept (not something Mr Redknapp could have been accused of with Pienaar, Basssong and Corluka...oh wait ). But that wasn't the purpose of me asking the question, which, I note, you still haven't directly answered. Your analogy also falls down in that, technically, Mr Redknapp retained Pav until January when he replaced him with Saha (no matter how you rate that), whereas AVB literally (so far as I know, anyway) didn't sell but replace Alex. The purpose of me asking you the question, which you still haven't answered, is to ascertain whether you thought AVB freezing out the Old Guard to be a negative mark against him. The purpose...well, I thought that would have been obvious, given the topic of discussion.

 

[SpurSince57]

Yes, we have little ideai does suggest pretty clearly that you don't know. I wasn't in the least bit confused about that. I was establishing my reasoning process for reaching the conclusion I have, and then restating your lack of proven knowledge as a way of illustrating that your critique was hardly emphatic.

The problem with Gomes is that he did not fall out with 'Arry. If he had, it would be more understandable. But Mr Redknapp tends to just cast players adrift when they don't suit his immediate plans, and that seemed to be the case, here - which is what we are commenting on when we say he was treated harshly.

Of course the argument about standing by Gomes is spurious, I have shown you how it is. We are discussing Mr Redknapp's attitude towards Gomes after he stopped standing by him - I don't see how the inherent fact that he did stand by him before he stopped standing by him can possibly have any relevance. It's like a murderer defending himself on the grounds that he had never shot his victim before he shot him.

Yes, your inclusion of Alex shows that AVB was capable of selling players that he subsequently may have wished he kept (not something Mr Redknapp could have been accused of with Pienaar, Basssong and Corluka...oh wait ). But that wasn't the purpose of me asking the question, which, I note, you still haven't directly answered. Your analogy also falls down in that, technically, Mr Redknapp retained Pav until January when he replaced him with Saha (no matter how you rate that), whereas AVB literally (so far as I know, anyway) didn't sell but replace Alex. The purpose of me asking you the question, which you still haven't answered, is to ascertain whether you thought AVB freezing out the Old Guard to be a negative mark against him. The purpose...well, I thought that would have been obvious, given the topic of discussion.

We don't know this.

No you haven't.

No it isn't. Don't be silly.

He hadn't sold Alex when he still needed him.

As it backfired spectacularly and resulted in his dismissal, it certainly wasn't too bright.

The topic of discussion was whether Harry's treatment of Gomes was 'unfair' and a 'disgrace'.

 

[StartingPrice]

We don't know this.

No you haven't.

No it isn't. Don't be silly.

He hadn't sold Alex when he still needed him.

As it backfired spectacularly and resulted in his dismissal, it certainly wasn't too bright.

The topic of discussion was whether Harry's treatment of Gomes was 'unfair' and a 'disgrace'.

Whether we know it or not is not the point, whether I had made a reasoned assessment as to its proability or not, is. I don't believe he fell out with him, I believe Mr Redknapp froze him out after he decided he had no use for him, and that, rightly, upset Gomes - it could have been handled better.

Yes, yes I have. We are discussing how he was treated after Redknapp stopped supporting him - how he supported him before he stopped supporting him is totally irrelevant.

A little bit trite, maybe...but not so silly. You could use any number of analaogies, all of which would be slightly trite (as is the nature of analogies). But the fact remains, it doesn't matter how well he treated him before, if the debate is about how badly (or otherwise) he treated him, after.

If he hadn't sold Alex when he needed him, my guess is that, having decided to get rid early on, and then Alex being rather poor in his last run-out (Liverpool, cup game), he decided to stick by his decision. By the way you constructed your sentence, it seemed that you were referring to needing him after he was sold.

I don't think it did result in his dismissal. I think Abrahmivich failing to stick by him after giving him every assurance that he would, is what cost him his job.

Yes, I know what the topic of the discussion was. I noted that you hadn't answered a direct question after it being posed twice (and you still haven't answered it - I would like an answer, please). I then said I would have thought it was obvious why I had posed it - if you can't see why it is obvious (I'm sure you could if you really tried) I will tell you, but I would prefer you to answer it, first.