If you're feeling a bit confused by Keith Hill's latest press conference

where he states that we can no longer compete financially in the championship and if you'd listened that's what the board have been saying all along, then I reckon you have every right to be.

Everything the club have released this close season is archived on their website. First they released this:

http://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/page/ClubStatements/0,,10309~2359777,00.html

This outlines the proposals of the football league "for the implementation of a break-even test and possible sanctions for those Championship clubs that fail the test in the future."

Oh Oh, looks like we're going to have to cut our budget. But no, as the article goes on to say:"It should be noted that the Barnsley FC accounts for the year about to end i.e. May 2011 would pass the break-even test as currently drafted by the Football League based on current TV-based revenues."

So it's OK. We broke even last season, so there's no reason to think we can't continue spending at our current levels and break even next season. It certainly doesn't state that we have to significantly reduce our budget and that we can no longer compete at this level. There's no reason to come to that conclusion at all.

There is a warning that TV money will reduce for the 2012/2013 season, but not for the 2011/2012 season.

It then states: "The club should reduce its use of high cost loan players in favour of recruiting players with development value."

Fine, we buy players rather than loan them. Makes sense.

The club then released this:

http://www.barnsleyfc.co.uk/page/ClubStatements/0,,10309~2362903,00.html

Personally I thought it was a load of flannel trying to cover up the fact that we were skint, but that's because I'm a cynical sod and I tend not to believe anything that comes out of the club. What it actually says is very up beat:

"The reality is that the Board has commissioned a root and branch review of the cost structure of the club to ensure that the focus of our resources in the future is directed at assembling the best possible squad to be competitive within the Championship."

A competitive championship squad. Excellent.

"We have also included within the review an appraisal of the opportunities for raising additional revenue from corporate sponsorship, an area in which we lag behind our local rival clubs."

So we'll have more money, not less. Again, excellent.

"The year on year improvement set as a target by the Board is long overdue for our fans."

You're damn right. Really looking forward to it.

"We have signed a significant number of new and renewed sponsorship deals for next season, including those relating to the new playing strip i.e. Nike, CK Beckett, Perrys and Scaffold Services UK and we are in discussion with other new potential sponsors in other areas of our business. It is through these commercial arrangements that we expect to compensate for the lost TV revenue."

So we're making so much more money that even the loss in TV revenue for 2012/2013 won't be a problem.

What, then, is Keith Hill talking about when he says we can no longer compete financially at championship level? What does he mean that we haven't been listening to the board? It's all there in black and white. We broke even last season, we'll be making more money from sponsorship this season. We're basically OK. There's no talk of shopping at Aldi for players, not even a hint that we can't compete. Indeed, the article goes on to say: "We need to create value within our squad, not to sell players, but to enjoy more success for our team, our sponsors and, most of all, our fans."

These articles are the polar opposite of what Keith Hill said in his latest press conference. There is no talk of struggling either financially or on the pitch. All the talk is of an improved financial status and an improved squad, no longer reliant on expensive loan signings, but achieved by recruiting quality players, not to sell, but to make the team more competitive.

If you're feeling confused, disillusioned, like you've had the wool pull over your eyes, cheated and lied to then I'm not surprised.

 

Has it occurred to you that Keith Hill is basing his statement on the information that he has been given by his employers? If that contradicts what the club have said recently, then it's hardly his fault.

Get off his back for 5 mins.

 

I agree with all that Jay but is he just comparing our situation with others.He hasn't said we're skint but we haven't as much money as some of the other teams.

 

I don't think that was 'getting at' Keith Hill actually.

 

Jay - thats a top post and very well researched.

 

Hasn`t that been the case for our club most of the time.

 

Didn't we all know that already though? We know we're not going to compete with the Leicester's, Southampton's, West Ham's of this world cos we never have. They all get twice more fans through the turnstyles for a start. Why do we only seem to have the budget of the Rochdale's and Tranmere's is what I want to know.

 

When you look at what most of the teams in this division are spending then we cant compete, but then again that has been the case for the like of us and other smaller clubs in this league for thepast 5 / 10 years.

 

There's no mention of any team strengthening coming from Hill though. He seems to imply we're going with what we've got. I'd still like to bet that the sum total of all our summer signings is less than the fee we received for Shackell.
That for me, definitely indicates we are skint.
The club dare not be honest with the fans during the summer because they knew the effect it would have on season ticket sales. If we're skint and likely to go down, so be it. At least let's be honest about things. The genuine fans amongst us would understand the situation, we're not stupid.

 

Yes, we outplayed Middlesborough last season on both occasions.

 

Its become a mini Premier League. I didn't want Burnley or Blackpool to go up which surprised a few of my mates with them being the underdogs but l explained to them that before their promotion they were in the smaller group of teams with us, Scunny, Donny etc.. Crowds of 12k and under & not much money to throw around, they have now come out of the Premier League with a few thousand on their crowds and money to spend from parachute payments, that group of small teams in the Championship each year is getting smaller and smaller and therefore every passing season we are being pushed down the ladder until we will be the smallest club in the division based on crowds, spending power etc..its making it very difficult to compete with teams in this division.

 

Also -

when he first came he said we were aiming at winning the league not just staying up - now its "get a reality check we will struggle to stay up"

also - after the SWFC game he went out begging to be able to sign some more players - was like a call to the club to loosen the purse strings.

imho Keith and Flicker has been sold a pup or Patrick Cryne really does think he could be in the doo doo with this court case and has said he cant put another penny into the club.

Whatever any of the above it doesnt really excuse the crap we have been served up. Even a non league side would put up a better attacking performance than what we have done last 3 games.

 

Very true - I'd be pleased if we can just hold on to our Championship status - is that lack of ambition or realism?

 

Have you read Jay's post ?

If so can you point out where he has criticised Keith Hill ?

It is a very well structured post which points out where the statements currently being made by Keith are at odds with the official statements made by the club during the summer. You accept that the information may have been given by his employer and then suggest that Jay is implying that it is Keith's fault. I believe that he is merely questioning the messages given by the club during the summer or that there may be some 'lack of communication' between the club and Keith.

Nice post Jay

 

Agreed and one by one on the whole, the smaller teams have fallen by the wayside into lower leagues.

 

Jay - thats a top post and very well researched............agree

.

 

Re: Jay - thats a top post and very well researched............agree

An excellent post.

 

And that is the point everyone screaming "Get off Hill's back" is missing. I'm quite happy to give him time, I can even accepet us losing games, but to lose games with the other side, and I include Morecambe in this, hardly stepping up a gear, then something needs to be said.

Oh and Jay. A top quality post.

 

Can't argue with any of that

About the confusion though, maybe it is possible, maybe unlikely, that the money is there and they just haven't been able to capture the right signatures as yet. Hill's cries of poverty may just be smoke to the agents. Even with a little money available, the club will still need to be very shrewd with the expenditure.

When Hill came to the club he brought with him what he considered to be the pick of the lower league players. There was, and still is for that matter, every reason to believe these players will come good. If this happens, and it's only in the last few weeks that doubts that some won't could have surfaced, then there would be less requirement to strengthen in those areas. Maybe Hill is waiting to see which of the gambles pay off before going back into the market. It's still early days and the weak areas are only just surfacing.

Maybe we are skint. But maybe things aren't as bad as they seem.

 

That sounds like the flimflam I give my boss when he asks for progress on one of his pie in the sky projects - doesn't actually say anything concrete has happened or will happen just a commitment to look at it, i.e f*ck off and leave me alone.

Just because we passed the current test, doesn't mean to say all the money we have spent has been generated by TV revenue or Gate Receipts, what is the actual rule? Doesn't mean to say the club doesn't have the same funds available this year - I thought that Cryne funded transfers outside of the clubs income, which covers running costs? In which case its perfectly possible for the club to still break even but not have any money for transfers if Cryne has closed his wallet.

How much money have we lost from TV revenue? Why has it gone down? the club expects to compensate - anyway sounds like something in the future not right now, so if the TV money hasn't gone down this year then whats changed in the clubs income? Season tickets sales down? Or is it back to the closure of Cryne's wallet?

Lets get real here, we have one of the lowest ticket prices, coupled with probably the 3rd lowest attendance in the league, in a poor area where sponsorship is going to be cheap to get, and other income streams such as shirt sales,etc are going to be tough to get. Unless you can pull a couple of million out of your ass its clear that any money we have spent to compete has come from a external source not linked to the income streams already mentioned - that would be Cryne's wallet, given that is based on a individuals desire and ability to fund such largese I would suggest that the club puts out hopeful statements based on a belief that Cryne would continue to fund such activities, even though Robins obviously asked him outright about money and the answer he got led to his resignation. I think the club has probably willfully swept this issue under the carpet, Keith Hill obviously took the job in the full knowledge of the circumstances which Robin's resigned under, and no doubt made sure he knew the financial position of the club when he took over. Now, I don't doubt if he had been told that we had money to spend he would have spent up to the limit he has been budgeted for, given we are buying Div1/2 players and free transfers rather than top end Championship players, or even any Championship players other than 1 on loan, that is what he has to spend, nothing to do with him wanting to buy div1 players because its all he knows.