"That is disgusting - there's no place for that in the game... Surely we can't have that sort of behaviour now? Anyone who does it should be put in prison... Stick them where they belong, in the nut-house...Oh, you'd still have teams, Harry. If there weren't any 'fantastic black players' there'd just be more native, white, British lads gaining all the plaudits and pocketing all the dosh, that's all.
I listen to the radio people talking about chants and singing songs to people at different clubs that just turn me over, I can't believe it. You've got to be some kind of nutter to do that... They are sickos who have got to be locked up somewhere. Put them away and don't let them come to football... Without the fantastic black players you wouldn't have teams"?
Harry Redknapp lives in Dorset, the whitest county in England. Actually, he lives in a waterfront villa in the 'millionaires’ playground' of Sandbanks, the poshest part of ultra-posh Poole.
Awarded the accolade of Britain's 'Monte Carlo,' Sandbanks is home to Redknapp's footballer son Jamie and pop-star wife Louise, who live in a penthouse nearby. Geoff Boycott, Max Bygraves, footballer David Seaman, DJ Ed Stewart and rock star Greg Lake all live just around the corner.
As the 14 April 2009 edition of The Daily Mail put it:
"At the last count, there were more millionaires in this small Dorset town than in Islington or Notting Hill in London."As Wikipedia puts it:
"Sandbanks has, by area, the fourth highest land value in the world".I wonder if the bloke who doesn't live in Brixton, Tottenham or anywhere else we white Brits have been ethnically cleansed out of, is angling for the England job?
The powers-that-be do love an I'm-all-right-Jack wide boy made good, who sneers in all the right places.
Update: THEY don't love him enough, apparently. On 1 May 2012, Roy Hodgson was appointed as manager of the England national team when Redknapp, the odds-on favourite to get the job, was, by a long way, the choice of the fans. Despite what I say above, he was my choice too. His record as a club and man manager is as good as it gets. Roy Hodgson is a decent man and a good manager but he is not Harry Redknapp.
The FA have this track record of choosing 'grey' or foreign men to manage the England team. Men the fans and pundits would not have chosen. They have a pretty dismal record. Apart from Bobby Robson, who wasn't 'grey' or 'foreign', our World and European Cup adventures haven't amounted to much since Alf Ramsey's time.
Personally, I think the foreign managers have been chosen for political reasons. For 'global' reasons. To take the p*** out of the nation. i.e. English/British managers aren't up to much, we 'need' alien excellence. Ecellence that, somehow, never seems to do much better than our own 'grey' worthies.
Similarly, I think the choice of the Turners, McClarens and Hodgsons is deliberate. The Brian Cloughs and Harry Redknapps, secure in their own personal standing, would, doubtless, not be so quick to jump when the FA's bosses barked.
When a press conference was called to welcome Hodgson to the fold, David Bernstein, Chairman of the FA, pointedly refused to answer the question we all wanted answered. He would not be drawn on the subject of Harry Redknapp's rejection. We are still in the dark about this.
Despite his enviable record as Tottenham manager, Redknapp was sacked at the end of the season.
Spurs has, for a long time, been the team most identified with Jewish support in this country and the club's movers and shakers have mirrored its fan base. For example, the bloke responsible for giving Harry the elbow, club Chairman Daniel Levy, is a Jew. Seeing as David Bernstein is also Jewish, one could be forgiven for thinking that Redknapp had upset British football's Hebraic hierachy in some way. Which would be surprising, given the on-message PC outburst cited above.
One day we'll find out what Bernstein (and Harry) aren't telling us. Until then, check out Bernstein, Terry and Cappello.
For some reason, The Sun now lists the article above as having been published on 12 January 2011.
I don't understand this. Unless, for some reason, the editor was happy to see it republished out of context. Anyway, the article WAS originally published on the date given, 26 September 2009.