Keith's Record - Updated (As Promised)

Agree with that.

Hill is making good progress. I also am told they are the hardest working management team this person has know. I respect his opinion and don't doubt it.

We have seen better signs, a glimpse if you like but then we see the seemingly inability or unwillingness to change to mix up when chasing a game.

Some are just bored with football in general and bored with déjà vu all over again. That's not Keefs fault. I personally look higher than him as you know.

I don't want him out. But I won't accept his record is anything other than dire. Even taking into account the contributing factors.

Until something changes above him fourth bottom will be a success but that is getting harder to justify.

 

All good indicators but goals and points are all that the FL are currently using to compose their league tables!

 

Can understand that but the league tables indicate that Robins was better than KH. The base budgets were the same except MR had extra support to bring GOC in. Which failed.

 

I thought that MR walked because they told him his budget would be reduced for the following year. I also thought that MR lost a considerable amount of money in his last season, thereby exceeding the budget that he had been given.

 

Seconded

 

As I understand it the change in policy was that the additional support was no longer going to be available meaning that the planned summer recruitment had to change.

He did lose money in terms of spending over budget but the books don't substantiate this

 

The majority of people on here didn't want Keith from day 1

 

I think you are wrong mate, its the majority of posters that did want him and now hate the fact that he is not as good as it seemed and therefore attack anyone that points out that fact.
RESULTS are the only thing that matter in the league table, not how many times we pass it square and how much possession we have, or if his coat looks good or if he comes out with a so called witty quote.

 

Why does it mean we will automatically be relegated if Hill goes?

Bloody hell we should never have got rid of McSeverney if that is the rule!!

 

Re: What I can't understand

Top post, different gravy. In full agreement.

 

I followed the discussion about what the accounts said in another thread about a month ago, but I did not contribute. Some contributors reckoned that he had lost over a million, but others who claimed to have seen the accounts said it was more like £400k. I know that the accounts of Barnsley Football Club are made up to 31 May, almost a whole month after the season finishes, and I also know that Jason Shackell was sold quite soon after the end of that season. Is it possible that both parties might be correct, that is Robbins lost considerably more than is indicated in the annual accounts, but the lost was partially made good by the year end. All of this assumes that managers are budgeted to break even over a year. Even if my reconciliation is not correct, and Shackell was sold in the following year, we know that Barnsley FC made a small profit in the first year of KH's reign, so his budget is bound to be lower than that of Robins. What is more, the Butterfield money will not be accounted for until May 2013, because his transfer fee was not agreed until August, and given KH has spent nothing on transfer fees and loan transfer fees, he is bound to be below budget once more.

 

Is that what I said? Get a grip of yourself.

 

Again as I understand it we would have lost money last season without player sales.

 

Re: serious question

Conan, Redstart, Madmark, Jay - on the assumption that the facts are correct, and on the assumption that none of you believe he's the right man for the job, what would you do.
If you believe he is the right man for the job what would you do?
Can't argue with the facts but interested in your constructive opinion / answers to the questions posed. Like.

 

Barnsley is a selling club. That is how we balance the books. I would imagine therefore, that the manager's budget is net of player sales. My original post was not meant to strike an argument about who is the better manager. It was about the use of false statistics to justify an argument. In that respect, I am well aware that £ per point is little better than points per game and I do not really want to push the justification of that statistic too far. As managers go, I prefer KH because, in my view, the entertainment is superior. I am sure that all our managers from Ritchie onward would have won more points if they had been given a larger budget.

 

Re: What I can't understand

I can answer that. People are upset because Conan's stats don't take into consideration the dramatic financial restructuring the club has faced during Keith Hill's tenure thus far and the work he is putting into developing a bargain basement squad of players. That and having the heart of the team ripped out 2nd half of last season. The stats don't account for these influences and are difficult to contextualise as a result. Therefore, Conan's motives are suspect to say the least, malicious in most folk's eyes.

I think it is quite refreshing that the facts behind the stats are understood by the majority of fans who have chosen to support Keith Hill and get behind the new vision for a secure and stable football club. It is a tough situation for a football manager, but Hill has done very well under the circumstances and there are glimpses now of his vision becoming reality. This is where the Cult-of-Keith has been born, in answer to your other question. People have warmed to his vulnerable honesty and straight forward talk - come abstract philosophy, he's old school but radically new at the same time. Conan clearly has not bought into this and uses stats as a means to attack Keith Hill, while conveniently forgetting the circumstances he is, and has been working within.

When BFC were promoted in 1997, it was noted at the time that we were, pound for pound - the most successful team in Europe. Consider untying Keith Hill's other arm and see where his stats sit in such a context.

'Brow-beaten' is getting some usage this week innit? Mine's knackered!

 

Re: serious question

If you read my posts then you will already know what I want.
I do not dislike the manager for his abilities, I do not like his accent(but that is a reason for me to hang apparently, according to one pm), he talks a load of twaddle most of the time and constantly moans about how other teams have more money, something he knew when he took over here. He believes he is a "Fantastic Manager", his words,yet his record is average to sat the least. I agree with some of his footballing theories, yes it is nice to have the ball,but if we are not scoring goals we need to tweak it a little, get the ball into the strikers feet quicker, yes we will still miss some chances but we will have more chance therefore we will put more away.
Quite a few on here do not want to believe that Hill is anything other than GOD, they are wrong, he is an average manager at an average club, we are not and never will be Premier League contenders unless we are given the same sort of money that City etc have.
Yet if anyone dares to say anything that can be taken as a negative about the club or especially the managerial team, then they are given a metaphorical kicking on here.
Hill`s record is nowhere near as good as some think it is, but they will never admit it.
I have no idea who could come in and do a better job, but that is not what I have ever said either!.

 

Conan, Redstart, Madmark, Jay - on the assumption that the facts are correct, and on the assumption that none of you believe he's the right man for the job, what would you do.
If you believe he is the right man for the job what would you do?
Can't argue with the facts but interested in your constructive opinion / answers to the questions posed. Like.

 

I've quite clearly NOT said we should sack him.