Well well well I hope King Keith is pi55ing his sen tonight

A poster called Caretaker stated this earlier this evening:-

hill should have stayed at rochdale instead he brought rochdale to barnsley and now we are sunk

Is this a Board with vision or lack of it?

 

Keeping the manager for keeping's sake is not the real issue... It's the fact that it always happens and no real time is given for anyone. Constant chopping and changing is not the way to get a good, settled club which is run well. No one wants relegation but whoever had been appointed in 2011 would have struggled with the limitations imposed so to hammer Hill misses the point. The board need to be brave and stick with someone when we have a tough time. Doncaster stuck with Saunders after relegation and didnt panic...... Hill will one day prove himself to be a good manager I believe if given the time he didnt have here. To slag off KHJ for essentially saying a similar thing is also what really peed me off. We're all BFC fans after all and whatever happens we are entitled to our opinions being respected and not abused

 

He didn't have a reduced budget though did he.

 

According to Don when he wanted to undermine him. Then we released the accounts...

 

The wage bill had to be reduced which Hill I think did reading from previous posts about BFC's budget and the knowledge that he brought in lower league players.. Even so.... it's still the board's responsibility to give someone the time required to see some fruits of development. I personally saw some cause for hope but with the poor results and the league position the board decided that they couldn't wait any longer. I think they were wrong. For me, just over a season in charge is not long enough for any manager to complete any kind of redevelopment/revolution in football. I'll shut up now!

 

What did the accounts show?

 

good

 

A £1.3m (17.3%) reduction

 

Come on, I backed him until right near the end but our results in 2012 were the worst of ANY team in the country. I think Hill will have a very good managerial career but the way things were going the board had no choice.

 

Absolutely correct

a Board might have discussed the merits of stability versus the perpetulation 18 month cycle of hiring and firing. But we dont have a board, we have Patrick and a couple of puppets on the payroll, so ho hum, we are going down with a n other manager who most probably has no recent track record of turning clubs around and getting promotion unlike the bloke we've just sacked and paid off.

Wouldnt surprise me one bit if another club appoints Hill soon and Flicroft joins him leaving Ronnie Branson to guide us into League 1.

 

It amazes me how any fans can still be behind Hill and Flitcroft. Accepting the 'tough job' that they had to do, with a minimum amount of money, the facts are plain to see, the worst record in the whole of the Premier and Football League in 2012, points per game, with the lowest number of goals scored - Pathetic.

We have never had much money to spend, but I doubt we will have ever hit the depths that Hill and Flitcroft led us to.

It just amazes me that Hill lasted so long - as somebody said to me a few weeks ago, he should have gone after the debacle away at Coventry last season (played for a 0-0 against the bottom club with no strikers on the pitch and we lost 1-0) because he clearly had lost the plot at that point. He took us down last season points wise, we were only saved by Pompey's 10 point deduction, and he recruited nobody to the squad of any note between May 2012 and August 2012, so is it any real surprise that we are bottom of the league and he is out of work?

He will end up back at Rochdale at some point, nailed on, and I doubt he will ever better that

 

Agree with all of that.

 

SPOT, ON.

 

In Keith Hill's budget compared to Mark Robins' budget or just the wage budget between the two? They're not the same.

A budget includes signing on fees, agents fees and transfer fees not just wages.

 

Good point.

 

PS The wage budget doesn't even necessarily relate to the managers budget because it includes wages of directors and administrative staff, all outside the managers budget.

I think the accounts have been analysed very badly on here.

 

Where was this clamour? On here yes, but at the ground there was very little "clamour" for his head. Most folk were resigned to relegation as Keef had proved unable to develop a winning team on a regular enough basis.

 

He'd proved unable to develop another winning team after his first was ripped apart.

 

Donny were resigned to relegation when they appointed him.

I fail to see how relegation under Hill would still have resulted in stability. He woudl have had to make massive changes to the squad in order to cope with a L1 budget and indications point to this being a failure.

 

Its a criticism of me, not you, but I don't follow that Jay. I am very dense when it comes to economics. I understood the clubs wage budget decreased by £1.3m. This covers all club staff but I presume it is largely down to players wages. Are you saying that there was an increase in expenditure elsewhere on other items, which offsets that reduction meaning total budget for Robins and Hill remained the same? If so I don't quite get that because how did we break even despite a significant fall in revenue?

Where's BFC Dave when I need him!