Rochdale and Bury

Hill and Flitcroft were logical choice when they were appointed and might get a crack at a Higher level again players have to take some responsibility for the clubs league position. Most managers fail eventually.

 

YES !!

He had already got his targets for the next season, was told that there was now more restrictions on money and then said he wanted to reassess his options for taking the club forward.
Have you never read this before ? It has been written on here about 1000 times , but it is always dismissed by the Hill backers. Also they fail to remember the way Hill moaned all the time about having no money, yet always say Robins left because he could not work without it ! Hypocritical to moan about something after you say that you done need the money wouldnt you say ?

 

Yes.

 

Have you not seen the squad Flicker has available? He's a load of players with championship experience like Sedgwick, McNulty, Nardiello etc. They should be winning matches at that level with the players they have to pick from. It won't be a cheap wage bill by division four standards.

 

I genuinely believe Hill's a good manager. His win percentage means nothing as it's all about context. He was doing a superb job until he lost his best players & wasn't handed the money to replace them. My main issue with him is that he upsets too many folk, which you can get away with in the lower leagues but it'll hard for him to get another job at this level unless he tones it down a bit regardless of how well he continues to do at Rochdale.

With Flitcroft it seemed to be more of new manager syndrome & great team spirit. When he got the money to spend in the summer that Hill didn't get he made a balls of it.

I believe Hill would've done better with the same backing. However noone knows for sure.

Anyway I'm happy with Danny he's doing a good job, he knows the club inside out, he understands the fans & he's a bloody good manager. Onwards & upwards hopefully.

 

How many players did he bring in after losing Butterfield and Drinkwater and Vaz Te ?
I bet it is more than you think !

 

He brought in a fair few but wasn't backed with the money he brought into the club, it was all free agents or gambles from the lower leagues

 

I love the argument that the amount of games we won as nowt go do with evaluating Hill's management and recruitment skills. Very convenient. Of course it does. He had no more or less backing than any other Barnsley manager He just whined about it more. People believe any lie if repeated often wnpugh. Hill is a good lower league manager no more no less. Id rather have Danny any day.

 

Mate I agree with you, but it seems that people are blinded by his bull sh*t !!

 

You're wrong.

Davey, Robins & Flitcroft all had more money than Hill.

Tell me when Hill was able to spend £1.2m on a striker like Davey did or bring expensive loans like Garry O'Connor when he was taking 10k a week from us like Robins did or go out & spend money on O'Grady & Jennings.

The only lie around here is that he was backed as much as other managers. His best player was sold from under him before he even took the job (Shackell).

The above 3 all had more money to spend & had a higher P.P.G tally than Hill so you can't read much into it.

I would much rather have Wilson in charge but I get fed up reading lies about someone just because they didn't like him as a man.

I didn't particularly like Hill either but I'm able to separate his record from his personality

 

How can a player be sold from under you if you're not the manager?

 

No you are not mate, his record is the worst of any manager we have had !
What you are doing is putting spin on to it !

 

Same way he can sign Craig Davies ?

 

I can split his record from his personality, quite easily.

Arrogant to55 pot personality.

Pi55 poor record.

EASY.

 

Good point. Maybe he's that good he can sign players for clubs he doesn't even manage.

 

He was the manager. He said numerous times he wanted to speak to Shackell before pre-season started but never got the chance to as he was sold before hand.

 

Not sure what your point is on Davies, he wasn't much of a player anyway

 

Oh good another thread about Keith Hill.

 

Didn't Flitcroft have to sell our Best player in Stones and leading scorer in Davies?

Danny Wilson first time round sold Taggart his best player lsigned Malcolm Shotton. Lower budget than Hill

Bobby Collins finished 11th sold David Geddis lower budget than Hill. The money Hill had at his disposal would've been a fairytale to him. He still signed Futcher, and Baker

Mel Machin sold David Currie (in exchange we got Taggart and Fleming and change) lower budget than Hill. Consistently finished higher

All did better than Keef. In terms of wages Hill had a roughly comparable budget to any previous Oakwell Manager. Like said just cos he whined about it doesn't mean he had a smaller budget than any of the rest. It just means he whined about it.

Other than Clarkey pretty much every manager we have had has had one of the lowest budgets in the league we were and consistently had their best players sold out from under them. It's a fact of life.

Managers in all walks of life are judged by results. That is how we Evaluate performance. Any analysis of Hill!s performance based on actual results not what people thought is pretty damning.

 

Tongue on loan, smyth on loan both from prem clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk