I must say there is some bull spouted on here from time to time....

..... so what if any manager has a 'dodgy' accent (whatever that might mean)? So what if any manager is arrogant? So what if any manager looks like an emaciated E.T? (or a chubby version) It's all irelevant to the main issue and the main issue is.... is the manager the best person for the job now and in the longer term? I am still of the opinion that Hill is the best guy for the job in the current circumstances and I do think that if we were to go down (which is a possibility) then he would still be the best bet to keep the stability at the club and prepare Barnsley for the longer term. I think he has done better than most people on here give him credit for given the budget he has had to work on and the lack of crowds that have been spending money. He is in a no-win situation really in my opinion. People want BFC to survive and prosper (like we all do) but there is simply no patience... The guy has been here for nearly a year and a half. Is that such a long time given the league the team are in and the competitiveness of the opposition? I don't think it is. I am sick to death of sacking managers after 18 months because there is a decline in results/groundswell of opinion against the incumbent. Its about time we bit the bullet and stuck with someone for the longer term. Hill has had his team playing good stuff on several occasions since taking over and in some ways I still think we arent far off being a good team. In the LONGER term he is the best guy for the job. Slag me off and call me naive etc... but that's my view
Cheers

If I dont post again in next few days a merry Xmas to all

 

Not naive at all just totally bonkers....Frank Bough would be proud of some of the posts in support of Hills record on here, footballs favourite S&M bulletin board

 

Chunky post, scanned it - means well. up the reds!!!!!!!!!!

 

Tell you what , I really got to some of you lot didnt I when I said I didnt like his accent. Fooking hell, I never said anything about anything other than his accent, it seems that has been translated into Keith Hill is a lovely person and he ate my hamster while shagging Hassell`s wife! I still don`t like his accent, but now I dont like his brand of football either! Probabaly more threats and insults now.

Some on here really do need to get a fecking life !!

 

Worst record as a Barnsley manager at this level in the clubs history, fact!!

Let me ask this, are you putting up with hill for putting ups sake cos of all our previous managerial casualties? If so thats a pi$$ poor reason. Cos lets face it, he's done nowt in nearly 12 months to make me believe he's slowly building summat good.
Lets not forget it was our current boards decision to get shut of Robins, who was actually taking us forward slightly and get Hill in in order to penny pinch. Well the fookin plan looks like failing and will cost them a hell of a lot more when we are relegated!

 

Some people would have forgiven you quicker had you broken into their homes and pi55ed on their kids. You're a marked man for life I'm afraid.

 

He's been a marked man since his mum named him.

 

Putting his abysmal record to one side. This is the guy who is so desperate to return to Lancashire that he allegedly applies for every job that comes up there! This is also the guy that inexplicably sticks by the players that are, or have been allegedly represented by his and flitcrofts own agent despite their ineptitude and unsuitability for championship football!

I'm absolutely staggered that anyone tries to defend him, but when they do, it's always based around "we need continuity and shouldn't be changing managers every 18 months" or "who else could do it better under the same conditions", both appear to be "better the devil you know" type statements. I'll tell you what I know, if results don't take an unlikely dramatic upturn, we will be relegated and it'll be league one next season in front of 5000 crowds. If you think that's acceptable you have either been brainwashed or haven't got an ounce of spirit or fight in you. Staggering

 

Exactly. Nobody ever defends Keith Hill based on facts or even on the pitch evidence. He's only defended or praised based on the propaganda that HE has said.

Defence one: We sack too many managers.
Keith Hill: Regularly telling everyone we sack too many managers because 'its what barnsley do'
Reality: He only got the job because we sacked (forced out) somebody and was happy to come to Barnsley then. He has been given far longer at Barnsley than he would at many other clubs if he performed so badly.

Defence two: He's the best we can get on such a tiny budget.
Keith hill: Often tells everyone how good and intelligent he is before pointing out that his budget is tiny and he is doing a magnificent job.
Reality: Same budget as Robins. Football matches played on the pitch not in a bank. Can't be that intelligent if he is out-thought every week by managers who work out his tactics within seconds.

Defence three: We're punching above our weight and going down is expected, it's not hills fault.
Keith Hill: walkrope, broken legs, aldi, harrods, etc etc
Reality: More time in this division than any other club. Same budget as Robins. His own attitude driving fans away and therefore reducing his own budget.

Defence four: It's part of a bigger plan so even if we go down the long term plan is still in action and can only be done by hill.
Keith Hill: Tells us that people don't see the behind the scenes that he does and that his players are improving because it is a long term plan etc etc.
Reality: Nobody has seen any evidence of this, it is merely hills word. Swapping players every week, refusing to give any game time to players HE has signed. No evidence of long term improvement. Defence getting worse as is attack.

Defence five: He's doing a lot of work with the youngsters and has made them all brilliant in the academy, it's all his doing and sacking him would ruin this future squad.
Keith Hill: Tells us that he's made the academy and young lads a set of world beaters.
Reality: Academy were winning when he was still at Rochdale. He's doing such a good job that he only has ONE academy player in the side and drops him first chance he gets weekly.

Keith Hill is only defended by people who have fallen for his propaganda, and never by people commenting on what they SEE, only what they HEAR.

 

I can't argue with that breakdown.

 

There is no argument that Keith Hill,s record is not good. The league position provides all the evidence that we need to see. However, according to your argument, he is not to be allowed to produce evidence in mitigation before sentencing. How you judge that mitigating evidence is open to individual judgement. Because I judge it differently to yourself does not mean that I have fallen for his propaganda, it simply means that I have not fallen for the propaganda of the lynch mob.

What I would like the anti-Hill mob to try to do is this. I would like you all to forget that Hill replaced a manager that you obviously rated, because that is not his fault, and I would like you to look at the reasons he was appointed and I would like you to look at his record for his previous club, because that record is why he was appointed in the first place.

When the board were looking for a replacement for Mark Robins, they had in mind that they could not afford to compete with most other clubs in the division for wages and transfers. Mr Cryne had decided that the club must stand on it own feet and the Financial Fair Play Regulations were coming along anyway, so the club may as well get used to that situation now, rather than later. So the sort of manager they were looking for was one with a record of finding “rough diamonds” who he had polished up and later sold. They were looking for a manager who could beat the odds and compete with a lower budget than most of the other teams in the division. And they were looking for a manager that they could afford, which dictated that he would come from a lower division. Nevertheless, the task of beating the odds consistently in order to stay in this division for a long period would still need one quality in a manager that is hard to predict. That quality is luck, because without luck, however good or bad you are as an individual, circumstances will conspire against you.

Keith Hill was appointed because his record at Rochdale ticked all the boxes. He had beaten the odds to take Rochdale from their perennial position, deep within the depths of the fourth tier, to the previously unheard of heights of the third tier and he had done so by continually selling his better players.

Now you may have a point, that Keith Hill is not the best manager for Barnsley FC under different circumstances. For example, if the club has large sums of cash to spend, then perhaps the board would be looking for a manager with a record of spending large sums of money effectively. However, there is no evidence that circumstances have changed, so if Keith Hill is sacked, the club would again search the lower leagues for a replacement with a record as good, if not better than Keith Hill's record was 18 months ago. They would be searching for that man in the full knowledge of every prospective candidate that the club has had 10 managers in 15 years and has sacked its previous managers with CVs at least at good as their own because of fan pressure when the going got tough. On the basis that we would not be offering the new manager brilliant salary. On the basis that the team is struggling in the lower reaches of the division. On the basis that the is little money left in the budget to turn this situation around and on the basis that we have not given our last 10 managers enough time to turn things around, just how would you sell the job as manager of BFC to the potential new and improved management team.

I have no doubt that you will not like these unpleasant circumstances, and I have no doubt that you will try to ignore their existence by producing a list of names that you will claim to be better than the present incumbent, but in order to convince me, I first need to be sure that their CV is better than was Keith Hill's 18 months ago. Secondly, I need to be convinced that they would actually be interested. Because that is what is wrong with the anti-Hill argument. They can convince people that the current management is bad, but they cannot convince people like me that the replacement will be any better.

 

Totally agree with - and a Merry Christmas to you too. COYR

 

And what evidence do you have that he has "allegedly" applied for evry Lancashire job - perhaps you could name them (with evidence of course!!)

 

Personally l wouldnt believe a word that comes out of The Dons mouth, based on past experience. We'll see when the accounts are released to see if the budgets are the same and if Keef's working with a wage bill near the £8-£8.5 million the past managers have had and take a peek at the transfer dealings.

 

It'll be interesting given this season we've got one of the largest playing squads in the league....

 

All but a few of them on peanuts and bought for next to nowt or nowt.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head - it seems the only reason anyone is still backing Hill is due to our previous history of changing managers - whilst completely disregarding the question of whether he is doing a good/the best job that anyone could.

I used to think he was the best man for the job, but over time I've changed my mind due to the evidence of our performances, our horrific record, his failure to solve our central defensive issue, and team selections/player treatment that I don't agree with or believe in.

However, I haven't yet called for him to be sacked as my despondency with the club as a whole has negated much of my passion recently, and to be honest I think Hill is a guy with generally good values - so I have nothing personal against him.

Rowing out though.

 

One of the most insightful posts I've ever read on the BBS. Spot on.