keith hill relegation fight

So am I right in thinking that if he had accepted £500k for Done (who even he clearly doesnt rate as he hardly plays him) then his budget would actually have been higher than Robins'?

 

Probably similar considering the extra funds Cryne made available.

The difference is the years playing budget is the same. Robins got support to sign O'Connor and Harewood that Hill has never got (and probably never will).

 

Just to make some sense of this budget argument.

I am sure that Don Rowing said that Keith was on the same budget as Mark Robins. However, according to reports, he all stated that those figures ignored the fact that PC paid for O'Connor and Harewood during the later part of Robins reign, so whilst Robins budget was x, he was actually allowed to spend y.

Since Robins left, Keith's budget has been kept at the same level as Robin's. Fair enough. However, that has only be possible because the money from player sales has been used to top up the budget to that level. So the money from the sales of Shackell, Vaz Te and Butterfield have allow the club to keep the budget the same, but the club's best players have been sold, and no cash has been provided to replace those players with players of the same standard.

Technically, I suppose the budgets are the same, but I think that most readers would expect the same to mean on a like for like basis, which is not the case. Any argument to the contrary is disingenuous.

 

thats how i see it.

 

To be fair though, Vaz Te sale allowed us to bring in Tonge/Smith/Higginbotham as replacements. So those were extra funds on top of the original but he earned that (and promptly pissed it away).

 

I do not think that the players fees were paid by Mr Cryne in the same way that he paid for O'Connor and Harewood. I would suggest that the sale of Vaz Te simply allowed Keith to match budgets with Robins. I have no evidence for this other than the fact that we made a small profit last year, which would suggest he did not spend more than his budget. I agree that the money for those three was wasted, but if you remember, at the time, as well as losing Vaz Te, Butterfield and Drinkwater, we were also without Perkins for a spell and O'Brien for a spell. They were panic purchases, but he was in a mess.

 

**** comparing budgets.
Be honest, Robins had a small budget and so has Hill.
But compare their results and there's only one winner.
Compare them on recruitment and developing our own assets, and it's hard to choose a winner. Because Clark, RNL and Butterfield were blooded by Robins. And his only sale of note was Hammill, who he didn't bring to the club, but certainly got the best out of him.
Keith sold Shackell, but he was a Robins player. But Keith gets credit for Vaz Te, and perhaps the emergence of Stones and Digby. But he did bring in Perkins, Davies and Drinkwater, who were all quality gambles.
Then again, Robins did similarly with O'Brien and Trippier.
IMO, we haven't improved nor progressed either on or off the field since changing the manager.

 

If the point of the discussion is to compare this manager with his predecessor, then the amount of money they both had to spend is an important factor in the comparison, just as it is in the comparison of Barnsley FC's performance measured against the performance of every other club in this league. A manager who is required to sell his best players, and who also has one of the smallest budgets simply cannot expect his team to perform at the same level on a consistent basis. Therefore, you are right that the club has not progressed since Robins left, but whilst you clearly hold Keith responsible for that lack of progression, I believe the problem lies with the absence of quality players because of a lack of funds, for wages in particular. If you do not believe me, simply count the number of players we were linked with in the last 6 months who decided to go elsewhere for more money, and then ask yourself the question, would we have been a better team with those players instead of the playesr Keith was eventually forced to take on, when all his other options ran out.

As for your comparison of the development of players, I actually think that RNL played his first game under Davey, and Butterfield definitely played under Davey. The player I would concentrate on though is Butterfield. Under the previous two managers, Butterfield was struggling for an identity. They both liked 4-4-2 but feared the effect of playing Butterfield in central midfield would have on the goals against column, so he played mostly, and ineffectively on the left side. Keith recognised his quality and built a team around him, covering him defensive inadequacies, as well as recognising his strengths by playing 4-4-1-1. Before Keith, Butterfield was a talented individual going nowhere. After Keith he was a player with a future who is, in my opinion, still very limited in a 4-4-2 system.

 

The amount of money they had to spend is the same so where is this leading?

 

Robins lost his best players - Hammill and Shackell.
Davey may have first played Butterfield and RNL but they were blooded by Robins, as was Clark.
Agree regarding Robins' fear of playing Jake where he would be effective. He played Lovre behind Gray for ages, but only saw fit to play Jake out wide.
And yes, Keith appreciated Jake more, and used him effectively. But Keith gets no credit for RNL, not from me.
The lad should have been utilised way more often last year, and this year. But he brought dross in like Nouble, Cotterill, Higginbotham and Smith, and got nowt out of a talented Tonge.

 

Robins did lose his best player in Hammill. And did not spend the next six months bairning about it.

 

Oh, and I don't blame KH for our lack of progress. I suggest a myriad of mistakes from those above him are more critical, and Keith is merely human and will make mistakes. Can't blame him for not quite being as good as we all hoped, or were told he would be, by him.

 

But it's not is it?

We go out drinking and we've both got £50 to spend, for a bit of snap and a taxi home.

Half way through the night you 'borrow' £30 from a mate. At the end of the night you spent £80, I spent £50.

That's exactly what happened with Robins and Hill. Or summat.

 

Dealing with your points one by one:

Shackell was not sold until after Robins left. I believe that he had been told that this would have to happened, and that it was this as much as the budget wrangle that caused his sudden departure.

Either blooded means that they were first introduced to the team, or blooded means they became regulars in the team. In neither case can you claim credit for Robbins. As for RNL, I do not class him as a regular after starting only three games. He still has much to prove, particularly as a left sided midfield player who is required to cover in front of the full back. If he becomes established in the team at some future time, then we can discuss who should take the credit for his development.

Nouble was also brought in by Robins. Tonge was unable to last 90 minutes due to lack of fitness. Cotterill, Higginbottom and Smith were a panic reaction to the fact that our midfield had been sold or was injured. Unfortunately, January is a bad time to be shopping in the loan market because bargains are hard to find.