Rochdale and Bury

I completely see where you are coming from, and in no way am I defending any of the regimes. However, the gap now is far bigger than ever before. While we still have bugger all after all this time, others are spending millions, or tens of millions - and that is our division, not the Premier League. Wolves were the big spenders when we beat them to promotion in '96, but they were pretty much the only ones. Bolton didn't spend a fortune. Now you get teams like Bournemouth who have spent over £2m on one player.

 

Aye I take your point too. The uneven playing field is much more uneven but you have to look for creative solutions to overcome this. We looked to Hill with his experience of bringing on young talent and securing bargain signings and selling them on for profit. Unfortunately he wasn't able to replicate this at a higher level and quickly ran out of steam and ideas which is unfortunate. Going forward whatever the outcome of this season we need to regroup and refocus and take a new approach to things.

The basic point remains though most Barnsley managers have a **** hand compared to their competitors in the promotion season under Danny although people weren't spending such daft money he would have had a significantly lower budget than most of his competitors given his costliest signings cost £250,000 and this was money raised by flogging Taggart.

 

Why are people still obsessed with Hill and Flitcroft? What point are people trying to prove?

 

He did make us near enough £5m by spending nowt on Vaz, Butts, Stonesy, Davies etc.

But yes he failed as BFC manager. As do most.

 

The OP was discussing Hillcroft and their success in League Two. But their detractors soon turned it into another 'KEITH IS ****' thread. So I'd suggest it's the anti-Hillcroft mob who are obsessed.

I've stayed out of this one, as even I know when a topic has died a death. Plus, I've won the argument every time previously so what's the point?

 

Did you not see or hear Steeles comments after Flitcroft had left.He said "Absolutely gutted for the gaffer,what he achieved last season was special".I prefer to believe Steele than people who have agendas against the manager.

 

A valid argument mate. As you say though, the playing field has always been stacked against us, but I believe now more than ever. The gap between the upper echelons of the Championship and the chaff at the bottom is far far bigger than it ever has been. Still not to say some of the lower spending teams can still do a good job, as Burnley have proved this season, but it's certainly a lot tougher than it ever was before.

 

But why did the OP post that? Should have known it'll turn into a anti Hillcroft thread.

 

Not sure we can really give him total credit for Butterfield, Stones or Davies given one was signed up in all but name and the other two already here and waiting to go. He did give them confidence and manage integration into the team well though.

 

Yes good managers like Dyche show what you can do on a limited budget as did Holloway last season But your right It gets more and more difficult.

 

Nah you just think you've one the argument..,

 

I don't. I credit those players the most for knuckling down and performing to their optimum under the managers guidance. But you suggested Keith was appointed because it was thought that he could develop saleable assets, but failed. My answer is that he did. Above and beyond all else, slag him as a **** tactician, a failure at winning games etc, but the one part of his remit that he certainly nailed was developing saleable assets. Nobody in the 21st century has matched that, or even come close.

 

Holloway, limited budget, at Palace? Aye, and Leeds are a well run club.

 

Comparatively limited yes. In the way that Burnley are also doing things the right way but are 70 million quid in debt

 

If I was serious.

 

Palace had a cracking budget, mate. Top ten. And once they got the Zaha cash, even more so. But that leads us back to developing assets.

 

Part of developing saleable assets is replacing them with equally saleable ones. It's not just get some players flog them them have no plan to replace them. You can only judge this over a long period of time in fairness to Keith but he was so ***** at the other elements of the job we never really got the opportunity to see whether he was able to reinvigorate the side in this way. His demeanour suggested that he did not have the belief tag the could. In terms of Stones and Davies technically wasn't it Flitcroft who flogged both?

 

Did you listen it the other hits there's more than be way to skin a cat as they say. I certainly have no gripe against Flitcroft he did a fantastic job last season for us. I can understand Luke being less than keen though given the way he systematically undermined him.

 

We're discussing development aren't we? Not which fella was manager the day they were flogged. It's my opinion that the three we're talking about were developed by Keith. Never mentioned owt else, just that. That he developed players we signed for very little outlay and made the club over £5m.
You can say he got the football and results badly wrong, and that he was a bit of a lovely person. But he did develop players. Did it at Rochdale as well. He's good at it. It dunt hurt to admit that, despite me believing he failed as BFC manager.

 

I genuinely believe that Robins handled Jacob as well as Keith just had him at a different period of his development.

Looking at a guy who could reinvest money obtained from flogging players and upgrade the team on a gradual upward scale. Look at the players a Danny got in after selling Taggart. He reinvested only part of the money and got De Zeeuw and Appleby. Improving the team and generating funds. hill managed to do the first part of the job very well. But he then failed on the second stage which is to replace those lost players and continue to improve the team further developing players. It has to be a continual process and is a long term one.