A recent quote from everybody's favourite manager..

Davies signed after Hill joined you though. Whether Robins wanted him or not, Hill was manager.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13679383

 

If you try to argue that Keith Hill left us with good players, which you did, then it deserves nothing but sarcasm. Keith Hill was not to blame for our relegation, but to absolve him of any responsibility what-so-ever is equally as ridiculous. You realised this when you saw the players that were tying up the squad, but instead of admitting as much, instead of conceding that you could have possibly got something wrong, you came out with a piss weak argument that insulted my intelligence. You're not alone in this, hardly anyone will ever admit they're wrong, particularly on the internet, but I'm ****** if I'm going to bother humouring anyone who continues down that road. So yes, you got sarcasm.

Admitting that you're fallible, that you don't always get things right is the most liberating experience you'll ever try. Give it a go some time.

 

In fairness the mandate K.Hill was given was always going to be difficult to progress in the Championship.

 

I agree, it was. Really tough ask. Keith made some mistakes too though. Our poor form for the first half the 2012-13 season wasn't entirely down to the small budget. It didn't help, but neither did decisions like refusing £700K from Palace for Matt Done, or however much it was, who has spent half of this season on the bench in League 2.

 

No I didn't realise this. If anything it strengthened by belief that Keith Hill wasnt to blame for our relegation. What I realised was a lot of the squad left by Keith Hill were out of contract and could have been released. It was fully Flickers decision not to release these players. The rest of the squad baring Wiseman were thought to be good enough to keep.

That summer it was then believed by most with the additions Flicker had made we were more than good enough to stay up, maybe achieve a mid table finish. It turned out the squad wasn't good enough (Flickers fault not Hills). The poor squad alongside terrible tactics put us in a position we were unlikely to recover from. We didn't recover. And here we find ourselves in league 1. Nothing to do with Keith Hill.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

You've not gone for liberation then. Ah well.

I can't put my argument any other way. When your manager and 11 of the players in the squad were originally brought to the club by a previous manager, it's clear that his influence is still having an effect on your club. It cannot be any more obvious. If your club is then relegated it's equally as clear that he was a factor in that relegation. He's not to blame, but to claim it was nothing at all to do with him, that his tenure didn't influence our fortunes in any way at all is, well, I don't know what it is, I'm struggling to find a word for it.

 

Who appointed Keith Hill and mandated him to run the club post the 'definition of madness' press release after we parted company with Robins, but then found we had to load the squad with loan players, then sacked Hill, nearly appointed Hignett but 1 result changed that - after interviewing 2 other managers and then settling on Flitcroft - signed off his 'assurances' and then sacked him? And then saw us relegated under another new manager ?


No it's all the (present) manager's fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is no way that the top scorer in League was allowed to leave his previous club without anyone offering him a contract until the berk approached him in June. No way on this earth.

 

Where do you draw the line at that? Was Mark Robins a major factor towards us losing in the last second in the game at Hillsborough this season? Does him bringing Jim O'brien to the football club mean he influenced our fortunes within that game?

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

 

Simon Davey gets the credit for Luke Steele then. Mark Robins for Jim O'Brien. Wow.

As for blaming Wilson, who has done that? Certainly not me.

You are - by way of this post I've quoted - I take it supporting the suggestion from Mario that Keith Hill is to blame for our relegation, yes? You the other day denied Wilson was culpable. So I'm confused.

Glad you're involved in this debate though as I enjoy reading your arguments. I don't always agree. I definitely don't if - as suggested - you are blaming Hill for this relegation, but at least you put your argument/points forward in a well reasoned manner. Better than I often try my best to do.

For the record, I'm on post number 22. I've not read the next twenty or so (yet). I therefore apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick purely because I felt the need to respond to this post as soon as I'd read it.

 

We were doing really well under Hill, got up to around 10th if I remember correctly.

We were playing a very attractive passing game, with a midfield of Drinkwater/Butterfield/VazTe/Perkins, and a top half finish looked easily on the cards.

Then zap! Three of them went, out of his hands I assume, and it went downhill thereafter. We never recovered from the loss of that midfield.

 

I was expecting something from Jim Iley. Damn!

 

So he signed players that weren't good enough on a free transfer. Who doesn't?

I could lay into every manager we've ever had if that's what we're doing.

 

Bad fit for our club negative, one dimensional and he laid the foundations for relegation. And such a whinging fcuker. He had the same hand as all other Barnsley managers but oh how he whined. I don't think Flitcroft turned around the negativity in the long term. Hill's preference for Matty Done over Vaz Te tells you everything you need to know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

If someone gave Keith sole credit for Stones' development I'd suggest the academy staff and John himself would think 'hang on a minute'. But seeing as we're all quick to pat Danny on the back for the development of Eaden, Watson, Liddell etc then I don't see why it's seen as a bad thing when I refer to Stones as a young player that Keith Hill developed.

If you're knocking him for signing Wiseman et al, then you're surely praising him for blooding Stones, and giving Butterfield his opportunity, no?

 

Davies signing agreed before go got here. Dagnall we had to pay to leave. Stones here already any foul would have played him. Golbourne a good signing as was Vaz Te. Also signed Kennedy and McNulty and Dawson...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Hill is a thing of the past, one of our most unsuccessful managers, and the stats prove it. Move on...

 

Who's arguing against that fact?

Paul Hart signed a lot of the 2005-06 promotion squad, do we ever credit him for that promotion?

I've no real idea anymore what it is we're arguing about.


I only know that Keith Hill isn't to blame for our relegation. If we're deciding - as a board - that he is, then I want to be the first to congratulate him for keeping us up last season at Huddersfield..

 

Chris O'Grady agreed to sign for Keith, but Wednesday wanted to wait until January. Do we credit him for COG then, you know, if we're crediting Robins for Davies? Still seen **** all to prove this assumption anyway.

As for Stones, he picked him for 20 games didn't he? Gave him his chance? Same with Butterfield.

Quite clearly, some of you can't abide him getting any praise.

 

They'll not have a better squad come August the 9th. They cannot compete with us financially.

Nice to be able to say that for once. And, to be able to say it in the knowledge it's nothing to do with a rich owner or breaking the rules etc. It's because we'll average at least 5,000 fans per week more than they will, we're Barnsley FC, and everything that represents, and even though Keith has a good reputation for bringing players on, our managers reputation for the same thing stretches back into the mid nineties.

Can't wait for it to kick off mi sen.