Mark Robins' first day in the job...

Re: I think he's very popular

Which would be rightly so, considering the financial shift since Danny was in charge. I agree the results haven't been exceptional, yet we are still in this division (in line with previous managers) and currently playing decent football.

 

Re: I think he's very popular

When you consider that the results have been ***** and that he's a bit of a bell end it's a wonder why anyone likes Hill.

Robins was far more personable.

 

Re: I think he's very popular

What's that got to do with loan signings?

I think Keith is alright - but then again, I'm not insecure about my place in the world.

 

**** me, I wish I'd kept me gob shut!

The OP wasn't a dig at Robins at all, but was a cheeky reference to the comments on here yesterday that Coventry should get ready for a load of loan signings, what with him making two in his first day in the job. It was tongue in cheek, as can be guessed by the comment that he only has 9 to go (I think even the Football League draws a line before the whole team becomes loanees!).

But seeing as though it descended into a pro/anti Keith Hill argument (!?!!?), I can say that the reason the heirarchy at the club made a particular reference to Mark Robins' use of the loan market, when Keith Hill has brought in a similar number of loanees in his time here, is down to the amount of money that Robins spent on loanees. Hill hasn't spent a fraction of that amount on loanees. The club see it as throwing money away, because if we develop a loanee it's the parent club that benefits. Hence we now bring our loanees in with far less money, if any, going to the parent club/player.

Pro-Hill or anti-Hill, you can't really compare Hill and Robins with regard to their use of the transfer market. Hill doesn't spend much on loanees, apart from the fee to Port Vale for Collins (ironically the one new face who can't get a game) we spent nowt this summer on transfer fees, signing on fees or agents fees, Hill has brought players in for next to nowt who are subject to sizeable bids from rivals, Hill has brought players in on short-term contracts who have brought in sizeable transfer fees, etc, etc. And Hill has brought a player in on loan and helped develop him to the extent that his parent club got a million quid for him, which is going to make other big clubs look favourably on us when we approach them for young loanees in future. Let's not forget that Robins felt that he couldn't work under these financial constraints (which makes his appointment at Coventry somewhat ironic!).

So the OP wasn't meant as a comparison between Robins and Hill, but all things considered I'd choose Hill.

 

Re: I think he's very popular

I was replying to Jay's post - number 19. Hope this is ok?

Glad you're happy within yourself but what relevance does that have to this thread?

 

Re: **** me, I wish I'd kept me gob shut!

It's only been a debate mate. I'm lost as to why MadMark sees it as an argument. It's a message board, and we've all given our point of view. That is all. Let's all agree on everything, then watch the board die out.

 

I was also a fan of M.R but to compare his loan signings to the ones K.H has done is plain daft.I've not said before but from the top source at Oakwell Robins spent over £2m on loanees alone and although you can blame the club for sanctioning these deals once this policy had to stop M.R chose to walk.

 

The amount of money is not in dispute, just the amount of loan players. Hill used as many as Robins but is seen as a saint rather than the Devil that is Robins for using the same .

 

I must have missed the point when Hill was heralded as a saint by Barnsley fans, and that is withstanding the obvious shift in the financial state of club from when Robins was in charge vs Hill. Evidence being that Robins refused to work with the budget that Hill did.

 

I'm sorry but your top source is wrong

All the ridiculous claims about how much Robins spent on loan players were put to bed when the accounts were released earlier this year. Go to companies house and download them for yourself. I believe it'll cost you a quid.

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/

 

Re: I'm sorry but your top source is wrong

Fecking hell Jay, that's going to some lengths to prove a point. Respect.

 

Not really

I was under the impression that Mark Robins over spent while in charge. It was repeated so often on here that it became a fact. But when the accounts came out earlier this year a couple of people who post on here sent me a copy. An accountant also gave a run through of them on this BBS. We didn't make a massive loss under Robins. We didn't spend silly on loan players. The club was well run while he was a manager. I believe we made a loss of £400,000 in the year ending April 2011. We sold Shackell for about a million not long after which would have actually put us in to profit.

I believe Don Rowing has stated that if you take the Gary O'Connor deal out of the equation then Robins and Hill enjoyed similar budgets. That was a gamble that didn't pay off and if you want to point the finger Robins was definitely guilty on that score. But generally Robins wasn't over spending and the club weren't acting like mavericks during his tenure. The same level headed business men were in charge of the purse strings during Robins' time as manager just as they are under Hill's. But for some reason all that has got lost, even though the truth is out there and has been published on this very site. It's not information from top sources at the club though it's cold hard accounts available to all and filed at companies house.

 

Re: I'm sorry but your top source is wrong

Sometimes you have to on here or you end up with the drivel that Gordon Ottershaw posted about an hour ago - completely lacking any factual information.

 

Re: Not really

Jay all these things you say are true, but not believed by the masses on here.
Robins must be vilified and Hill has a lot less money than Robins had , mainly because Hill keeps saying so !!!

 

Re: Not really

Thanks for those insights. Great to hear. Doesn't really change my view that Hill didn't deserve dragging in to the OP, but I respect your level of research. Cheers.

 

Re: Not really

Mark Robins' loanees....


Nathan Doyle
Carl Dickinson
Ryan Shotton
Bartosz Bialkowski
Carl Dickinson
Ryan Shotton
Jay Rodriguez
Filipe Teixeira
Kieran Trippier
Diego Arismendi
Kieran Trippier
Garry O'Connor
Chris Wood
Matt Hill
Paul Hayes
Garry O'Connor
Jacob Mellis
Frank Nouble
Paul McShane
Marlon Harewood

That's 20 loan signings, over 2 seasons. Obviously, a few players were loaned twice (O'Connor, Trippier, Dickinson, Shotton) but they still count as another loan.
So that equates to 10 a season.

Keith Hill's loanees....


Miles Addison
Cameron Park
Danny Drinkwater
Nile Ranger
Michael Tonge
Korey Smith
Frank Nouble
Lee Collins
David Button
Kallum Higginbotham

So that's 10 last season, and so far this season he's yet to delve into the loan market.

So you could say, that they both used the market as often as each other. If that's your argument (I'm not aiming that at anybody in particular, I mean in general).

However, the big difference for me is the timing of the loans. Mark made a lot of his, early in the season, and they formed pretty much half of his usual side. Often ahead of the permanent transfers he'd made.
Keith made one key loan signing in Addison (marquee Miles) and was forced to recruit Drinkwater and Park after injuries tore our small squad apart. Similarly, the likes of Tonge, Smith, Button and Higginbotham were recruited after yet more injuries.

I could now list the permanent signings both men made, but I won't, as some would suggest I'm degrading Robins, and lauding Hill. And I'm really not. I'm trying to add weight/fact to this rather intersting, if somewhat tedious debate. But let's just say this - Keith hasn't spent as much on all of his permanent signings, as Mark did when recruiting just Shackell, Dickinson and Haynes. And let's also not mention the difference in wages.


Remember, I'm a big fan of Keith Hill. He was my choice for the position. However, I never once called for Mark Robins' head, and neither did I want a managerial change.

I was however, always critical of Mark's propensity to use the loan market. I don't/didn't believe you could ever build a side mainly with loanees. It's like building on quick-sand.

And, last season I did voice my concerns over Keith going down a similar route. But for me at least, I saw he had little choice. He saw his squad ripped apart by injuries, and of course the January window. So I did understand it, whilst not liking it.

I quite like the fact we haven't loaned anyone yet. It's refreshing.

However, I'll end this tedious post with one worry - Keith also built upon quick-sand last season. Or at least upon a rug that was later pulled... let us pray that the club HAVE actually learnt this time.

In other words, get Cywka, Hassell, Done, McNulty, Davies, Steele and Cranie in for contract talks sooner rather than later.

 

Re: Not really

Mate, seriously. Say something valid instead of just piggy-backing others. The basis of reality is observation, yet you continue to bang the same drum without stepping back and looking at the landscape.

 

Re: Not really

I will defend Robins on one point though - a fair amount of his loanees were quality. Trippier, Dickinson, Shotton, McShane, Harewood etc.

Only Drinkwater was any good out of the dross Hill fetched in on loan.

Another reason it's refreshing to see no loans in thus far. Because Keith's eye for a short-term fix is awful.

 

Re: Not really

I like Mark (of the mad variety) but mate, he's never going to agree with you on this, nor love Keith Hill. I learnt this months and months ago.

And fair play to him (MadMark). Because he's never once changed his mind about it. And I admire that.

 

Re: Not really

Not aimed at you, but why has it become Robins vs Hill?