Rochdale and Bury

I'm only 24 so have no idea about some of the managers you've mentioned but my point is he didn't have the same budget as any of Davey, Robins & Flitcroft. I don't need statistics to know he was a better manager than both Davey & Flitcroft. I saw the side he was building with no money before it got ripped apart.

Stones had made roughly 20 appearances for us & the team was better without Davies & Flitcroft spent the money anyway, it's well known that he got the money & blew it. Ben Mansford's come out & said it.

Hill didn't get the Vaz Te, Butterfield & Shackell money to spend.

I don't get why people are even arguing this, it's common knowledge that we cut costs after Robins & then put more into it when Flitcroft got the job permanently.

 

A board member told me just after they'd set Hill on that the previous season Mark Robin had spent well over 2m on loanees alone and when they told him they were going to change tact and sign players they could develop and sell on for a profit he turned that chance down.As for Hill been the worse manager I don't think you have to look any further than Spackman he literally ruined the fabric of the club and for me that goes further than any stats.In my opinion of course.

 

We got about 3.5 million for Stones and Davies which players did we sign for 3.5 million I must have missed that. A percentage of that money was spent on O'Grady and Jennings about 1/2 million just as Hill spent a percentage of the fees he got for the players you mentioned. Just as all managers at Oakwell have been able to spend a percentage of the fees they accrue. No change.

In terms of Stones although he had played very little he was clearly our best player hence the transfer to a decent Premiership team.

The point about Davies was interesting yes we improved because Flitcroft recruited two players in Scotland and O'Grady who improved the team for little financial outlay. When presented with the same problems Hill could not find an answer.

Yes there was a reduction in budget. Before under Robins we had the lowest budget in the league afterwards we still had the lowest budget.

Yes there is no argument the facts are the facts. Hills record at Oakwell was appalling. He was an absolute failure. When faced with the challenges that most managers face he had no answer. Is he our worst ever manager? Probably not he was probably marginally better than Spackman.

Have other managers done better with fewer resources. As I pointed out to you before your time or not they have.

 

O'Grady was ready to sign for us under Keith but Wednesday said no at that point. We ended up with Tudgay.

I ain't ever crediting Flicker with that one.

Scotland though, huge transfer for us. Credit to Flicker, and to McCarthy for giving him a free.



Danny Wilson is all that matters in managerial terms. End of Fred.

Goodnight.

 

In Danny we trust. Proper grown up manager. I like how Luke Steele dissed the Rochdale Two in his Sky interview in such a gentlemanly way. Made me like him even more.

 

Exactly. Both on bugger all, hardly the sort of loan signings other managers in recent years have had the benefit of been able to recruit

 

Bang on.

People like to pretend Hill had the same budget as Robins because they don't like the bloke but all the evidence & comments from our directors suggest otherwise

 

I don't know where the money went to be honest, it doesn't seem to add up but Mansford is on record as saying it was all given to Flitcroft and was spent on fees / wages.

I think this debates been done to death and I can see others on here getting fed up with it but even though I didn't like the bloke I know Hill was a better manager than both of Davey & Flitcroft never mind the likes of Spackman so when I read people on here say he's our worst manager of all time it's hard to bite my tongue

 

Aye you're right it is boring. Though saying you know summat without any proof to back it up doesn't help the cause. I put Keith as the second worse manager we've ever had in 30 odd years of supporting Barnsley based on results, ability to cope under pressure, ability to manage under difficult circumstances and player recruitment.

Davey was a better manager than Hill by a long way. His achievement in getting us to the FA cup semi final on again a bottom 3 budget in the Championship towers over anything that Hill's couple of months if Vaz Te inspired success. Again you might think Beating Birmingham away is grader than beating a Liverpool and Chelsea but I'd have to disagree.

 

Keith is always on your mind , strange.

 

I'm definitely going to start a retaliatory Mel Machin thread for every Hill thread instead of replying it'll be more fun. First up Bald Genius or Bald Madman

 

BB
Boring bald

 

If only we had amanager that could sign players like Redfearn, Taggart and Fleming not to mention The magnificent Brendan o'Connell he could be as boring as he liked.

 

I don't either. The Birmingham games was just one of them one off great / fluke results. It didn't come in the middle of a great run of form or anything.

I actually think Hill had lost the heart for it by the second season, his whole demeanour in interviews suggested to me that he'd had enough of the circumstances he was working under.

I guess we'll never know how well he'd of done if he got the backing Davey, Robins & Flitcroft got. I personally think he'd of done better than Davey & Flitcroft but not better than Robins.

Davey was poor in my opinion. His signings on the whole were poor & he wasted plenty of money. I do thank him for bringing Anderson to the club though, a terrific midfielder who I loved watching.

I appreciate the cup run was great but you don't need a good manager to get up for cup games against some of the best teams in the country as you're up for it anyway, it's motivating the players week in & week out that's the hard thing, I'd almost say it goes against him as he had players running through brick walls for him in the cup but then we'd go away from home in the league & put in some of the most pathetic performances I've ever seen, certainly worse than any I've seen since under Robins, Hill & Flitcroft & none of them had a great away record.

Anyway Robins > Hill > Davey / Flitcroft IMO.

Bed time. I'm done

 

We paid Tonge £9k a week FACT !

 

The club appointed Hill purely for the fact that he seemingly knew how to manage a club with a tight budget whilst employing an attractive style of footbajll. The football was abysmal and the defeatist demeanour he projected after 6 months in job suggests that he was a complete and utter failure in his efforts as Barnsley Manager. Goodnight Vienna. In Danny We Trust!

 

Are you seriously trying to compare a modern budget to that of 20+ years ago?

 

Any proof? I can't believe that, especially as Hill named Steele as the highest earner who was on significantly less

 

Course you can with built in inflation Collins budget was still zero as was Wilson's for quite some time.

The point is that the nature of the job is exactly the same. Barnsley managers have to sell their best players are only allowed to spend a percentage of any incoming transfer fees and are competing on an uneven playing field against better funded rival teams. Absolutely nothing has changed since the end of the Hunter era at Barnsley. Most managers just got on with it with some being able to do an objectively good job and some an objectively bad job. If you can't see that I really despair.

 

I thought the loanees wages were well known Steele was the highest paid contracted player.