I would like to get Hill's side in all this because although I think he'd lost the plot, the amount of help he got (or didn't) from the board could have had a massive stake in his demise. Let's say for instance he's told in June his transfer and wages budget for this season is set at a certain level and that takes some of the players he wants out of the equation. Later on in the season the board see that it's all going tits up and manage to find him some more money. Hill then still can't afford the quality of player he needs cos he's already blown most of the money in the bargain basement earlier on and signs more second raters. So he's left with a load of has beens and never will be's who were never his first choice!
He signed the ones he could afford, he wanted Gordon Greer and Oliver Norwood, didn't get em. He has made loads of bad signings this season and I'm not defending him but there's more to it than just Hill that we're bottom.
We offered a silly amount for Greer, the amount we offered was what Hill said he was worth. Norwood was offered more money per week, than what we could afford to pay him. We could afford the tranfer fee though. Same as Robins and Shackell, he spent a big wedge of his budget on getting him in, then brought loans in, Hill went for lower cost players , but more of them, same amount of money just different ways to spend it! I am not sure which way is the best way, but maybe we should have offered Brighton more cash for Greer !
Hill went for quantity over quality, spent months moaning about the budget and lack of funds, yet wasted it on loads of signings he had not intentions of playing. silva, mido, Collins, Edwards, Rooney, Kennedy, sure theres others i have forgotten all picking up a wage.
Yeah you can't deny the squad was/is pretty big but I definitely agree with enforcing a cap on what you are willing to pay players as it can have a big effect on morale - I've been in situations at previous jobs working next to people who earned thousands more than me per year but weren't necessarily as productive. He's signed some rubbish but so have all our previous managers, a player who is good at another club isn't always going to replicate their form at the previous club - you only need to look at some of the players who have left us to realise that. The problems aren't all down to Hill but no-one can deny his team selections have been confusing and he hasn't been able to give proper reasons at to why certain players, who were fit, have been left out. As many have said, his biggest mistake was not sorting the defence out, that should have been his starting point. After that, he could have looked at why we aren't converting enough chances - for me, it's all well and good playing good football but our players just aren't quite good enough to penetrate a defence with this style of play. He should have realised this and gone for a much more direct playing style that risked conceding possession more often but one that I'm sure would have allowed us to get in behind the opposition defence more often.
funny thing is when he took over he said clean sheets are key, said we'd had a negative goal difference for years and was going to change that, yet did f#ck all about it.
He did lose plot wi bad signings and bad team selection and did deserve the boot but it will be interesting what he's got to say...and probably bitter!!
Bad mouthing a club after you have gone doesn`t help your future job prospects. Chairmen have long memories.
