| Unity 17:15 - Jan 1 with 15558 views | RAFCBLUE |
Unity is what is called for now.
We are in such a better place than 12 months ago in terms of league position and there is no reason why the relevant points needed to get to 50 can't be obtained in the remaining league games.
P26 W8 D6 L12 F33 A52 Points 30.
I think everyone can see what adjustment is needed to stop that goals against figure changing.
I still don't think we are a bottom four team and it will be interesting to see the reactions/overreactions to a Christmas period which saw us pick up 6 points from 12! |  |
| |  |
| Unity on 21:08 - Jan 1 with 1958 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 20:52 - Jan 1 by MoonyDale |
Saw my first game in 1968 and every year since have stood on the sandy, so I for one know exactly how bad we were/have been....What a sweeping statement to say that 2019 Dale fans have only seen us winning games and beating teams....Utter rubbish. I'll say again, that is all past history and in no way should have any baring on what is happening on the pitch now.....Do you have a cut off point for when what managers have done in the past ceases to be a reason for keeping them in employment? |
If you were 10 and started watching us in 2007 and are 20 now you have seen 10 years of magnificent football.
Two promotions, a playoff final, a losing playoff semi final and a lowest place finish of 6th in League 2 and now five consecutive years of League 1 football.
Cup upsets vs Leeds (h), Nottingham Forest (h), Millwall (h). The Spurs games. Beating Southampton in the League home AND away.
All in 10 years. Halycon Days.
All under Keith Hill.
At the same time the club has generated itself a net £2m, paid off all of its debts and bought back 60% of the ground that it did not own.
Paid for by the sales of Glenn Murray, Scott Hogan, Craig Dawson, Conor Ronan and a raft of others.
All managed, developed and improved by Keith Hill.
As for your last question, I think a club considers its position when the objective is not achieved.
For us that would be failure to retain our League 1 status. The FA cup run to Round 2 vs Portsmouth was fair and the Carabao cup run to Round 2 vs Hull was fair. I'd say that it's par.
That doesn't mean of course that I'm happy with every aspect of what we do, but I'm being pragmatic.
Hill has taken this club here; he deserves the remainder of the 3.5 year contract given to him either as cash or time. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:09 - Jan 1 with 1944 views | finberty |
New Year wishes for KH:
1. A commanding playmaker who is not a stone overweight.
2. One or two wingers, like the former players Will Buckley and Will Atkinson, capable of beating defenders.
3. Centre backs who can defend set-pieces AND who can pose an aerial threat when we attack. Like former players Craig Dawson, Alan Reeves, John Bramhall, Mark Monington, Keith Hill (!!) even Rory McArdle.
4. A seasoned game-reader, like former players Keith Keane or Peter Cavanagh.
5. A seasoned goalkeeper with presence and the authority to boss the defence. KH often relied on loanees in his first spell - Fielding, Heaton and fon-Williams were good examples. Less good were later ones such as Pereira and Jones.
6. A return to attacking, enjoyable, fearless football. It has been done before, with success.
7. An end to farting around with negative passing. |  | | |
| Unity on 21:10 - Jan 1 with 1936 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 20:52 - Jan 1 by judd |
The kitman refused to go with him to Barnsley. |
He was the only one was had left.
Keith Hill was the infrastructure of that club in 2011 and the board of the time didn't have a plan for when he moved on, his choice in that circumstance but it could have easily been the other way around. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:11 - Jan 1 with 1932 views | D_Alien |
| Unity on 20:43 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
And DAlien, someone holding an employee to account is a positive thing.
I see the current predicament differently and excuse the parlence but:
1) Up to 1999 we were properly sh*te and potless. Bottom tier relegation fodder with the occasional cup run recovering from the misdemeanors of the past, the Tommy Cannon chairmanship and the defection of Danny Begara and the insult that was Graham Barrow.
2) Steve Parkin brought an initial professionalism and that saw improvement and flirting with the top 7 of the bottom division.
3) Parkin leaving the first time for Barnsley took a lot of that with him.
4) Parkin failed at Barnsley and returned in 2006 after we had had a go with Alan Buckley and Paul Simpson.
5) It didn't work for Parkin; the phrase never go back is there for a reason.
6) We took a risk on a young youth team manager called Hill and the rest in history.
Hill saw the way to get the job by winning games and so we started playing school football - we will score one more than you and not stop until we have scored 3,4,5,6 or 7 (at Stockport).
Hill changed our view. Winning was possible every week and we should try to win. If we couldn't win we would be solid, honest and professional.
That led to a playoff final, a losing semi final and FINALLY, the holy grail - promotion.
If you were born after 1965 (i.e under 45) in 2010 it was very likely you had seen Rochdale promoted in your lifetime. It put a lot of things to bed; "history" as Hill used to refer to it.
And so to League 1 - with teams like Southampton. Proper teams. Teams we had seen on the telly.
And we held our own. We played the same level of disrespectful we will attack you football that we had in League 2.
Then the phone calls came. From Sheff United and Barnsley. Hill went, took the lot, backroom staff, kitman and all of the plans.
We imploded. Three managers and a year later we were back in League 2.
The dream was over. Dead and Rochdale could go back to little old Rochdale.
Except Hill failed at Barnsley - and they didn't like him. The Championship it seems is a little more ruthless and nasty than little old Rochdale. Hill was fired. Sacked. Pushed out.
And what did we do. We sacked John Coleman to reappoint him. If you look at the dates, Hill left Barnsley days before coming back here to a club at the bottom of League 2 and made it finish 12th.
He did the same thing again the next season; except better. We didn't need the playoffs and for 15 minutes at Newport topped the league table. That's the closest we have been to winning a title.
We have progressively got stronger. League 1 finishes of 8th, 10th, 9th set the tone and then last year we scraped 20th. Five league 1 seasons on the bounce achieved.
In context, since 1907 this is only season 10 outside of the bottom tier.
And that's the problem.
The current 2019 Dale fan doesn't remember 1988. They don't really remember 1998 or 2008.
They remember winning against teams and not winning now; except the League 1 competition is much harder and richer than League 2.
If Hill is arrogant he has every right to be. 10 years in 112 outside the bottom tier; half his.
Reminding yourself of the sh*te endured under Graham Barrow, Alan Buckley and others in the bottom tier is a salvo when you lose 5-0 away in the League above - a league you thought that you might never see!
Having seen the football side achieve League 1 I'll suggest that the off field bit hasn't. Which is the disconnect and bad results don't help sore feelings. [Post edited 1 Jan 2019 20:44]
|
I've lived and followed Dale through it all, first game as a youngster Xmas 1965, and fully appreciate that newer fans will have a different perspective - though i'll never abide by negativity from whatever age group it appears
it doesn't alter the predicament that the years of success under KH failed to appreciably increase the fanbase; my point is that entertainment value is vital but insufficient, and raises the question regarding revenue from ST and other streams which KH has been largely instrumental in raising - which the board will have to take into account in the decision whether to replace him in addition to whether fans find our current football entertaining or not
(Also, we weren't at the bottom of L2 when KH returned, but certainly in danger of moving in that direction) |  |
| |
| Unity on 21:13 - Jan 1 with 1913 views | Shun |
Admirably, there are some very measured posts from RAFCBLUE on this thread to combat the hyperbole of others.
I disagree with those posters that say we're destined for League Two. We're having a pretty rubbish season, but if we carry on like we have been doing then we'll finish exactly where we are now, 17th, and we're on course to gain 54 points. Current bottom 4 teams like Bradford and Scunthorpe are picking up points, but that can't be used an argument for our demise because equally teams above us such as Wycombe and Walsall are in free-fall. The only member of the squad we know for certain we're losing this month is someone who, through no fault of his own, hasn't contributed anything to the season so far, so again it's unfair to use that as an argument too. Yes, the same mistakes have been made for at least a season and a half now, but we remain a League One club.
We haven't performed like a bottom 4 team in the first half of the season, we've performed like a team in 17th, and there's nothing to suggest that by the end of the season we'll be in the bottom 4. The following graph highlights our consistency well - since the end of August we've been 13th to 17th. What makes people think we're suddenly going to buck that trend and drop at least 4 places?
http://www.footipedia.com/Rochdale/2018-2019-season-stats/league-table-position-
But that just raises the question of whether finishing 17th in League One should be considered a success or not. On the face of it, it probably is. But we all know it's more than just the league position that's at stake. DA summed it up rather well in his post on this thread about getting the entertainment factor back again.
My two favourite things about Hill's footballing philosophy have always been his attacking, attractive football and his commitment to developing and playing our own youth. While one of those is still very much in evidence, whether the other is gone completely or can still be recovered is the most crucial factor in my eyes over whether Hill remains Rochdale manager or not. |  | | |
| Unity on 21:19 - Jan 1 with 1868 views | fitzochris |
| Unity on 21:13 - Jan 1 by Shun |
Admirably, there are some very measured posts from RAFCBLUE on this thread to combat the hyperbole of others.
I disagree with those posters that say we're destined for League Two. We're having a pretty rubbish season, but if we carry on like we have been doing then we'll finish exactly where we are now, 17th, and we're on course to gain 54 points. Current bottom 4 teams like Bradford and Scunthorpe are picking up points, but that can't be used an argument for our demise because equally teams above us such as Wycombe and Walsall are in free-fall. The only member of the squad we know for certain we're losing this month is someone who, through no fault of his own, hasn't contributed anything to the season so far, so again it's unfair to use that as an argument too. Yes, the same mistakes have been made for at least a season and a half now, but we remain a League One club.
We haven't performed like a bottom 4 team in the first half of the season, we've performed like a team in 17th, and there's nothing to suggest that by the end of the season we'll be in the bottom 4. The following graph highlights our consistency well - since the end of August we've been 13th to 17th. What makes people think we're suddenly going to buck that trend and drop at least 4 places?
http://www.footipedia.com/Rochdale/2018-2019-season-stats/league-table-position-
But that just raises the question of whether finishing 17th in League One should be considered a success or not. On the face of it, it probably is. But we all know it's more than just the league position that's at stake. DA summed it up rather well in his post on this thread about getting the entertainment factor back again.
My two favourite things about Hill's footballing philosophy have always been his attacking, attractive football and his commitment to developing and playing our own youth. While one of those is still very much in evidence, whether the other is gone completely or can still be recovered is the most crucial factor in my eyes over whether Hill remains Rochdale manager or not. |
As you say, Shun, it’s much more than just the results. It’s Hill himself and all that is happening within every facet of the club. |  |
| |
| Unity on 21:20 - Jan 1 with 1864 views | fitzochris |
| Unity on 21:08 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
If you were 10 and started watching us in 2007 and are 20 now you have seen 10 years of magnificent football.
Two promotions, a playoff final, a losing playoff semi final and a lowest place finish of 6th in League 2 and now five consecutive years of League 1 football.
Cup upsets vs Leeds (h), Nottingham Forest (h), Millwall (h). The Spurs games. Beating Southampton in the League home AND away.
All in 10 years. Halycon Days.
All under Keith Hill.
At the same time the club has generated itself a net £2m, paid off all of its debts and bought back 60% of the ground that it did not own.
Paid for by the sales of Glenn Murray, Scott Hogan, Craig Dawson, Conor Ronan and a raft of others.
All managed, developed and improved by Keith Hill.
As for your last question, I think a club considers its position when the objective is not achieved.
For us that would be failure to retain our League 1 status. The FA cup run to Round 2 vs Portsmouth was fair and the Carabao cup run to Round 2 vs Hull was fair. I'd say that it's par.
That doesn't mean of course that I'm happy with every aspect of what we do, but I'm being pragmatic.
Hill has taken this club here; he deserves the remainder of the 3.5 year contract given to him either as cash or time. |
Hull was three years ago, bud. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:20 - Jan 1 with 1859 views | MoonyDale |
| Unity on 21:08 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
If you were 10 and started watching us in 2007 and are 20 now you have seen 10 years of magnificent football.
Two promotions, a playoff final, a losing playoff semi final and a lowest place finish of 6th in League 2 and now five consecutive years of League 1 football.
Cup upsets vs Leeds (h), Nottingham Forest (h), Millwall (h). The Spurs games. Beating Southampton in the League home AND away.
All in 10 years. Halycon Days.
All under Keith Hill.
At the same time the club has generated itself a net £2m, paid off all of its debts and bought back 60% of the ground that it did not own.
Paid for by the sales of Glenn Murray, Scott Hogan, Craig Dawson, Conor Ronan and a raft of others.
All managed, developed and improved by Keith Hill.
As for your last question, I think a club considers its position when the objective is not achieved.
For us that would be failure to retain our League 1 status. The FA cup run to Round 2 vs Portsmouth was fair and the Carabao cup run to Round 2 vs Hull was fair. I'd say that it's par.
That doesn't mean of course that I'm happy with every aspect of what we do, but I'm being pragmatic.
Hill has taken this club here; he deserves the remainder of the 3.5 year contract given to him either as cash or time. |
Yes but wasn't 10 in 2007 but do concede that some were...Your comment re giving him the remaining 3.5 years of his contract in cash or time is a bit of a fudge....That means both things, either keep him or not, if there isn't some form of clause written into the contract re performance/league position I would be shocked. And when I asked the question I should have made it clear it wasn't just about Keith...How long should past glories be used as a reason not to terminate an appointment? I would say we have already passed that point...Other opinions may differ.. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Unity on 21:28 - Jan 1 with 1806 views | Bobbyjoe |
| Unity on 19:45 - Jan 1 by James1980 |
Isn't a better PL club to compare Dale to Burnley? Hill and Dyche have been at their respective clubs a similar length of time. Both are basically tasked first and foremost keeping their clubs in their current League. |
Interestingly (or possibly not), I've had the dubious pleasure of attending a couple of games at Turf Moor over the last few weeks. Against Brighton they were woeful (despite winning 1-0!), and looked nailed on for relegation. Against West Ham Dyche re-instated Heaton, the whole place got a lift, they were transformed, and could have had six. So things can change quickly...Dyche is a pragmatist, who will be retained come what may because fans can see he gets the best out of what's available to him. |  | | |
| Unity on 21:31 - Jan 1 with 1798 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 21:11 - Jan 1 by D_Alien |
I've lived and followed Dale through it all, first game as a youngster Xmas 1965, and fully appreciate that newer fans will have a different perspective - though i'll never abide by negativity from whatever age group it appears
it doesn't alter the predicament that the years of success under KH failed to appreciably increase the fanbase; my point is that entertainment value is vital but insufficient, and raises the question regarding revenue from ST and other streams which KH has been largely instrumental in raising - which the board will have to take into account in the decision whether to replace him in addition to whether fans find our current football entertaining or not
(Also, we weren't at the bottom of L2 when KH returned, but certainly in danger of moving in that direction) |
It's a fair point about the fanbase and of course, we'd all love entertaining football but winning football is what brings the crowds in.
The revenue streams would support Keith Hill's position and your point.
In the 2016-17 season (i.e. most recent accounts) we had revenue of £5.8m made up of:
1st - Transfer fees received - £2.2m
2nd - League, FA Pool and prize money - £1.6m
3rd - Gate Receipts - £0.9m
4th - Youth development grant - £0.3m
5th - Sponsorship and donations - £0.3m
6th - Shop and Ratcliffe Arms - £0.3m
7th - Other - £0.2m
The footballing operation generates 1, 2 and 4 which all sits under Keith Hill. £4.1m or 70% of revenue.
The commercial operation generates 3, 5, 6 and 7 or £1.7m or 30% of revenue.
Changing Keith Hill puts that £4.1m under threat; you might do better you might do worse but that's 70% currently.
When you consider replacing him that cost of that combined with the loss or disruption of revenue make that a no-brainer.
Financially silly to even think about it. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:35 - Jan 1 with 1780 views | DaleiLama |
| Unity on 20:52 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
I can see the perspective but I'd add to your "hasn't delivered" point the addition "in the League"
Last season's exploits at Doncaster (a), Millwall (a) and then the Millwall replay and then the first three halves against Tottenham were magnificent.
Perhaps, they did mask the League failings, but if you'd polled a Dale supporter in August 2017 and said by May 2018 League 1 safety would be achieved and a 5th round cup tie vs Tottenham then I think many would have seen that as "overachieving"
If we achieve League 1 safety this year that will the target next year too; we haven't the pockets to complete with the top end of this table and I include Doncaster's wage bill in that. |
Tip of the cap to you Blue - you have put up a spirited defence of your call to arms ……. perhaps if the performances were the same, there might be a few more fans hitching a ride on your Unity wagon. I have really kept away from the board today as I am a bit like 442 with it - "burnt out" from the circular arguments, the factions point-scoring and the fact that Hilly will do his own thing anyway. I'm still a fan and will turn up on Saturdays/Tuesdays, but getting too emotionally invested in a club which currently seems intransigent at best about it's fanbase at all levels is not something I've currently got the energy for.
Your arguments are well considered and well made and your projections I'm sure are well meaning, but they don't take into account a very intangible and important factor - morale/confidence.
You referenced the Spurs game. Here's the side for that game, which put up one of the best performances any Daley could have imagined, full of fire, passion and commitment.
Lillis
McGahey
McNulty Substituted for Inman at 89' minutes
Delaney
Rafferty Substituted for Rathbone at 81' minutes
Cannon
Camps
Kitching
Done
Humphrys Substituted for Davies at 75' minutes
Henderson
Who have we retained and let's look at the current status quo?
Lillis (in and out of the team and suffering from motion sickness on the goalie carousel)
McGahey (temporarily out of favour - back in today - a CH played at RB. On his way out?)
McNulty Substituted for Inman at 89' minutes (Not most fans first choice at CH?)
Delaney (First choice LCH still)
Rafferty Substituted for Rathbone at 81' minutes (In and out of the team and a shadow of his best - crosses over-hit and very sub-par)
Cannon (Couldn't get in the team and sold)
Camps (In and out of the team and improved recently but still a shadow of his best)
Kitching (Not a fan favourite and most were glad to see him go)
Done (In and out of the team and a shadow of his best also suffering from sub-par crossing)
Humphrys Substituted for Davies at 75' minutes (Both gone. At the time, neither seemed to be too greatly missed)
Henderson. Legend forever.
So if Keith chose, he could put McNulty back in and have 8 of that side on the pitch Saturday (9 until Cannon left today). I don't think they would put in anything approaching that level of performance due to all the reasons which have been dissected at length in various threads over the last year and which haven't gone away or been solved. It has led to a team which looked lost versus Bradford and which, according to all reports, took a big step backwards today. It's difficult to pick yourself up as a fan when faced with such a lack of promise. Keith's job is now utterly unenviable in terms of getting the lads up for Burton. The solution to the clubs problems will not come from the stands or the fans, however - the answers have to be found in-house. |  |
| |
| Unity on 21:38 - Jan 1 with 1760 views | James1980 |
| Unity on 21:28 - Jan 1 by Bobbyjoe |
Interestingly (or possibly not), I've had the dubious pleasure of attending a couple of games at Turf Moor over the last few weeks. Against Brighton they were woeful (despite winning 1-0!), and looked nailed on for relegation. Against West Ham Dyche re-instated Heaton, the whole place got a lift, they were transformed, and could have had six. So things can change quickly...Dyche is a pragmatist, who will be retained come what may because fans can see he gets the best out of what's available to him. |
Very much expect things could change quickly at Dale as well.
As said I think Burnley is a better club to compare Dale to than Arsenal. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:53 - Jan 1 with 1665 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 21:20 - Jan 1 by MoonyDale |
Yes but wasn't 10 in 2007 but do concede that some were...Your comment re giving him the remaining 3.5 years of his contract in cash or time is a bit of a fudge....That means both things, either keep him or not, if there isn't some form of clause written into the contract re performance/league position I would be shocked. And when I asked the question I should have made it clear it wasn't just about Keith...How long should past glories be used as a reason not to terminate an appointment? I would say we have already passed that point...Other opinions may differ.. |
No fudge. Keith's entitled to that 3.5 years under employment law.
In the same way Jose Mourinho got £22.5m from Man United a few weeks ago. That's how these contract works.
In the same way that if someone at another club had come to us an wanted to buy Hill we could have demanded that remaining term as value; it works both ways as a commitment between club and manager.
I'd review any manager's position at the end of every season; in that case it would be May 2019 and that tenet of keeping the manager would be if the objectives have been achieved. To me the primary objective is keeping League 1 status and we have a good chance of doing that with 20 games still to play.
If we did want to make a change at a point where League 1 status was achieved then I think that's a different question. In May 2019, Hill has 3 years on his deal.
Switching would be calculating the cost of those three years plus the cost of recruitment and the contact for the new man. The financial structure of Rochdale does not lend itself to that level of cash outlay in one go.
Of course, the bigger question is an objective one about what the success criteria are. For me that is League 1 safety however it comes. Slightly negative perhaps but I don't think we have the ability off the field to cope with the higher end of football. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:54 - Jan 1 with 1659 views | MoonyDale |
The thing is also, how many were surprised/shocked by today's result? I wasn't and fully expected it, to the extent that I had Donny to win 5 - 0 on the prediction league on here....When you start to expect results like this then something is badly wrong..... | |
| |
| Unity on 21:54 - Jan 1 with 1659 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 21:20 - Jan 1 by fitzochris |
Hull was three years ago, bud. |
Thanks for correcting. Still under Keith Hill. | |
| |
| Unity on 21:55 - Jan 1 with 1654 views | ChaffRAFC |
Some great posts on this thread from both sides of the coin. RAFCBLUE makes some very valid points in this and it's hard to argue with them.
I thought the Bradford City game was a massive low point. We were awful and I was expecting a few changes in the team selection and a freshness to try and come away with a point at least. What we saw today was as bad as any performance I can remember, not just under Hill but the likes of Eyre, Simpson, Coleman and even Barrow. Albeit we're playing a higher standard but it's all relative.
I can accept being beaten by teams who are just streets ahead of us like Barnsley at the beginning of the season and even Bradford last week, today was different.
The team selection was an issue. He's thrown Norman back in instead of Lillis despite the fact Norman goes back to Fulham this month. That along with the selection of Morley and Adshead in midfield was basically Hill saying to the new board, I need help, give me the backing to bring in players this month. Adshead and Morley were effectively thrown under the bus today go make a point to the board. It resulted in both being carted off at half time. Poor Adshead, a first year YTS lad, has completed one half of football in two games despite starting the games. How can that be good for his confidence? And don't get me started on the goalkeeper situation. Has anyone on here ever known a season where we've had so many goalkeeper mistakes?! Danny Baker could release an Own Goals and Gaffs DVD based on the first half of our season alone! Its absolutely no coincidence this is while we're f****** about chopping an changing keepers every week!
Today showed me a different kind of defeat. Players who are known to be hard working during games basically downed tools and gave nowhere near the work rate we are used to. They didnt play for the manager today. I'm looking at Rathbone and Done. Both very energetic players and I'm not saying they performed worse than anyone else but the running wasn't there with either! Didnt help that Done was being played in an almost defensive midfield role! Callum Camps was played in a centre forward role and walked through the whole time he was on the pitch. if the players aren't playing for the manager then that's a dangerous point to be at when we clearly cannot afford to sack a manager with three and a half years left on a well paid contract. It would cost the best part of half a million pounds to sack Hill so any calls for him to be sacked are going to go unheard.
Keith Hill's record at this club is a very good one and all the points RAFCBLUE has made are a very good reminder that this isn't just any old manager we have here, it's the greatest in our history, a history that must be taken into consideration. Even if Hill doesn't believe in history himself!
Not a clue what the answer is but Hill is going nowhere yet, whether that's the right course of action or not but I'm now of the opinion that Hill doesn't have that ability to admit his mistakes or learn from them.
Today hurt, a lot! |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Unity on 22:01 - Jan 1 with 1626 views | judd |
| Unity on 21:53 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
No fudge. Keith's entitled to that 3.5 years under employment law.
In the same way Jose Mourinho got £22.5m from Man United a few weeks ago. That's how these contract works.
In the same way that if someone at another club had come to us an wanted to buy Hill we could have demanded that remaining term as value; it works both ways as a commitment between club and manager.
I'd review any manager's position at the end of every season; in that case it would be May 2019 and that tenet of keeping the manager would be if the objectives have been achieved. To me the primary objective is keeping League 1 status and we have a good chance of doing that with 20 games still to play.
If we did want to make a change at a point where League 1 status was achieved then I think that's a different question. In May 2019, Hill has 3 years on his deal.
Switching would be calculating the cost of those three years plus the cost of recruitment and the contact for the new man. The financial structure of Rochdale does not lend itself to that level of cash outlay in one go.
Of course, the bigger question is an objective one about what the success criteria are. For me that is League 1 safety however it comes. Slightly negative perhaps but I don't think we have the ability off the field to cope with the higher end of football. |
I don't want rid, but I have to question the employment law bit.
There must be means of termination covered which would protect the club from an under-performing employee that would not mean paying up any remaining time at the time of cessation.
I have read elsewhere that more high profile sacked managers have been paid monthly until they gain employment elsewhere, and if that employment netts a significantly lower income then the difference is made up by the sacking club. Check out Ronald Koeman and Everton. |  |
| |
| Unity on 22:08 - Jan 1 with 1583 views | D_Alien |
| Unity on 22:01 - Jan 1 by judd |
I don't want rid, but I have to question the employment law bit.
There must be means of termination covered which would protect the club from an under-performing employee that would not mean paying up any remaining time at the time of cessation.
I have read elsewhere that more high profile sacked managers have been paid monthly until they gain employment elsewhere, and if that employment netts a significantly lower income then the difference is made up by the sacking club. Check out Ronald Koeman and Everton. |
Not disagreeing with your point about employment law, but couldn't your last point leave the process open to abuse, i.e. the new employer coming to an arrangement with the manager whereby they agreed a significantly less lucrative contract on the basis that the sacking club would make up the difference? | |
| |
| Unity on 22:11 - Jan 1 with 1562 views | judd |
| Unity on 22:08 - Jan 1 by D_Alien |
Not disagreeing with your point about employment law, but couldn't your last point leave the process open to abuse, i.e. the new employer coming to an arrangement with the manager whereby they agreed a significantly less lucrative contract on the basis that the sacking club would make up the difference? |
I'm sure it could.
The example cited is of a premiership manager taking on a national managers role, which I believe tends to be paid significantly less. | |
| |
| Unity on 22:22 - Jan 1 with 1524 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 21:35 - Jan 1 by DaleiLama |
Tip of the cap to you Blue - you have put up a spirited defence of your call to arms ……. perhaps if the performances were the same, there might be a few more fans hitching a ride on your Unity wagon. I have really kept away from the board today as I am a bit like 442 with it - "burnt out" from the circular arguments, the factions point-scoring and the fact that Hilly will do his own thing anyway. I'm still a fan and will turn up on Saturdays/Tuesdays, but getting too emotionally invested in a club which currently seems intransigent at best about it's fanbase at all levels is not something I've currently got the energy for.
Your arguments are well considered and well made and your projections I'm sure are well meaning, but they don't take into account a very intangible and important factor - morale/confidence.
You referenced the Spurs game. Here's the side for that game, which put up one of the best performances any Daley could have imagined, full of fire, passion and commitment.
Lillis
McGahey
McNulty Substituted for Inman at 89' minutes
Delaney
Rafferty Substituted for Rathbone at 81' minutes
Cannon
Camps
Kitching
Done
Humphrys Substituted for Davies at 75' minutes
Henderson
Who have we retained and let's look at the current status quo?
Lillis (in and out of the team and suffering from motion sickness on the goalie carousel)
McGahey (temporarily out of favour - back in today - a CH played at RB. On his way out?)
McNulty Substituted for Inman at 89' minutes (Not most fans first choice at CH?)
Delaney (First choice LCH still)
Rafferty Substituted for Rathbone at 81' minutes (In and out of the team and a shadow of his best - crosses over-hit and very sub-par)
Cannon (Couldn't get in the team and sold)
Camps (In and out of the team and improved recently but still a shadow of his best)
Kitching (Not a fan favourite and most were glad to see him go)
Done (In and out of the team and a shadow of his best also suffering from sub-par crossing)
Humphrys Substituted for Davies at 75' minutes (Both gone. At the time, neither seemed to be too greatly missed)
Henderson. Legend forever.
So if Keith chose, he could put McNulty back in and have 8 of that side on the pitch Saturday (9 until Cannon left today). I don't think they would put in anything approaching that level of performance due to all the reasons which have been dissected at length in various threads over the last year and which haven't gone away or been solved. It has led to a team which looked lost versus Bradford and which, according to all reports, took a big step backwards today. It's difficult to pick yourself up as a fan when faced with such a lack of promise. Keith's job is now utterly unenviable in terms of getting the lads up for Burton. The solution to the clubs problems will not come from the stands or the fans, however - the answers have to be found in-house. |
Great question.
I'll caveat my answer before I start in the slight difference between Spurs (then) and Doncaster or Burton (today) was the context.
Spurs was a one off game, on TV and the best side (in League placing terms) we have drawn under Keith Hill. He did play a weakened team on the game before away at Bristol and due to our well documented pitch issues the Spurs home game was only the 4th we had in February 2018.
Today's game was at the end of December where we had 7 games and a similar sized squad; so more "fatigue" in the legs before the game. I also think the Spurs fixture gave the carrot to play well in the League before it (albeit hampered by postponements)
In personnel terms:
Goalkeeper:
No idea of what is going on there with Lillis; there is a thread in itself that could be written on every GK we have had in the 10 years under Hill.
Defence:
I think vs Spurs we knew we were playing 5 at the back with McNulty in the middle. McNulty is not good enough for League 1 IMO which is why I don't think he has played lots this season. Harrison may/may not be off but the set up was containment.
We had MJ today at the back who is not a League 1 defender; he is a cultured passing Premiership academy produced player. We also played Kosi today who is also not good enough for League 1 IMO.
Midfield:
The midfield job vs Spurs was to protect that back three and track the runners. When you lose 5-0 there is neither protection of the back three or the runners.
I'm sure there is some more prestige to marking Dele Ali than Ben Whiteman but if you're a professional that is the job.
Up-front:
We played on the counter attack vs Spurs and it helped scoring first. The end goal for Steve Davies was legendary but a ball in the box that landed and was prodded goalwards.
What strikes me this season is the lack of formative structure. After that Spurs game we tinkered with formations but broadly it was about having McNulty in the middle of a three and him being a "sweeper" or extra defender and some good experience.
I'm not sure from all the games I have seen whether we play 4 or 5 at the back and when you add in the changing of the keeper plus changing of those defenders then you are never going to get a settled team.
Of course, you are right about morale and confidence; we also don't know about injuries and other issues with players but we are not told so until we are we can assume they are available for selection.
I think as Shun noted in another post the best Hill can do is to set us up to attack. Conceeding with this side is inevitable currently.
What is so infuriating is that he was a defender so of all the bits of the game he would know what good looked like or could recruit it.
No clean sheet in 7 (since 24th November vs Accrington) is the problem and if you know you've got to score at least two to win the game then you're on edge from the start.
Clean sheets win you points. I think we have had 5 in 26 games which tells you where the problems lie and you're right it's a job for all at the club to work on those problems. | |
| |
| Unity on 22:35 - Jan 1 with 1452 views | macro |
| Unity on 21:09 - Jan 1 by finberty |
New Year wishes for KH:
1. A commanding playmaker who is not a stone overweight.
2. One or two wingers, like the former players Will Buckley and Will Atkinson, capable of beating defenders.
3. Centre backs who can defend set-pieces AND who can pose an aerial threat when we attack. Like former players Craig Dawson, Alan Reeves, John Bramhall, Mark Monington, Keith Hill (!!) even Rory McArdle.
4. A seasoned game-reader, like former players Keith Keane or Peter Cavanagh.
5. A seasoned goalkeeper with presence and the authority to boss the defence. KH often relied on loanees in his first spell - Fielding, Heaton and fon-Williams were good examples. Less good were later ones such as Pereira and Jones.
6. A return to attacking, enjoyable, fearless football. It has been done before, with success.
7. An end to farting around with negative passing. |
Can’t complain with that |  | | |
| Unity on 22:36 - Jan 1 with 1448 views | D_Alien |
| Unity on 21:53 - Jan 1 by RAFCBLUE |
No fudge. Keith's entitled to that 3.5 years under employment law.
In the same way Jose Mourinho got £22.5m from Man United a few weeks ago. That's how these contract works.
In the same way that if someone at another club had come to us an wanted to buy Hill we could have demanded that remaining term as value; it works both ways as a commitment between club and manager.
I'd review any manager's position at the end of every season; in that case it would be May 2019 and that tenet of keeping the manager would be if the objectives have been achieved. To me the primary objective is keeping League 1 status and we have a good chance of doing that with 20 games still to play.
If we did want to make a change at a point where League 1 status was achieved then I think that's a different question. In May 2019, Hill has 3 years on his deal.
Switching would be calculating the cost of those three years plus the cost of recruitment and the contact for the new man. The financial structure of Rochdale does not lend itself to that level of cash outlay in one go.
Of course, the bigger question is an objective one about what the success criteria are. For me that is League 1 safety however it comes. Slightly negative perhaps but I don't think we have the ability off the field to cope with the higher end of football. |
Regarding your last point - the significance of which could be overlooked with everything else that's being discussed:
The reformed board must surely take a more pro-active approach to our off-field activities. Has the recruitment of Frances Fielding & Gina Buckley as directors made this more likely - indeed, was it done with this in mind?
[Post edited 1 Jan 2019 22:38]
| |
| |
| Unity on 22:37 - Jan 1 with 1442 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 22:01 - Jan 1 by judd |
I don't want rid, but I have to question the employment law bit.
There must be means of termination covered which would protect the club from an under-performing employee that would not mean paying up any remaining time at the time of cessation.
I have read elsewhere that more high profile sacked managers have been paid monthly until they gain employment elsewhere, and if that employment netts a significantly lower income then the difference is made up by the sacking club. Check out Ronald Koeman and Everton. |
It really depends on what was agreed judd.
Barnsley have a long standing and publicly reported position that they put in manager's contracts that they can be sacked for little cost to the club if the club is in the relegation zone.
David Moyes' for example could be removed at United when they couldn't qualify for the Champion's League which was obvious but United had to let the games pass to trigger the clause.
I don't think we will have been that sharp.
What I do think we have with Hill and certain players is an arrangement on their pay depending on the League we are in. So Hill in League 1 costs us more than Hill in League 2.
I'd also wager there is the "bigger club release clause" and money there; at which point that might be the value you could settle at but its arguable.
The hard thing with Hill's contract from what has been described will be the contingent element on player development. If you were getting a percentage of the profit made (say 5%) and you are removed before the end of the contract but the club profits (say Craig Dawson or Danny Adshead) how do you quantify that?
Legally there are only five fair ways to dismiss someone:
Gross Misconduct.
Capability/Performance.
Redundancy.
Statutory illegality or breach of a statutory restriction. ...
Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR)
Barnsley use the "capability" route - it would be very hard for us to do that with Hill unless we have all the way through his contract to date - in which case the performance criteria must exist and we can assume are being satisfied. If you ever introduce "capability" midway through a contract where it hasn't existed that is usually challengeable.
The Koeman/Everton piece usually arises as the lawyers have to agree a compensation package for the manager to waive his rights in return for a sum of money. The arguing usually gets to the "but if you hadn't breached my contract I would have earned X" which gives the circumstances you describe.
Given nothing in the internet era is secret; the Sheffield Star reported in January 2013 that Hill had left Barnsley via a compromise agreement.
Link can be found here:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/barnsley-fc/sacked-hill-gets-his-settle
Reds director Don Rowing confirmed: “We’ve done a compromise agreement with Keith. He tried his best for the club, but unfortunately things didn’t work out. We wish him all the best for the future."
Hill, as the article says, did not comment. | |
| |
| Unity on 22:41 - Jan 1 with 1417 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Unity on 22:36 - Jan 1 by D_Alien |
Regarding your last point - the significance of which could be overlooked with everything else that's being discussed:
The reformed board must surely take a more pro-active approach to our off-field activities. Has the recruitment of Frances Fielding & Gina Buckley as directors made this more likely - indeed, was it done with this in mind?
[Post edited 1 Jan 2019 22:38]
|
Completely agree.
And, if I may, I'd go slightly further.
* What are the targets?
* What does success look like and in what timescale?
* Who is measuring that success and how often is it being measured?
* What is the next step after a successful outcome?
* What is the next step after failure to achieve the target?
There are professionals in every walk of life and every type of job imaginable that face those questions - usually the targets get played down so they can be "overachieved" but it would be good to know what our off-field (non-playing) ones are, if we have them. | |
| |
| Unity on 22:42 - Jan 1 with 1403 views | TomRAFC |
You seem to be under the impression that if you post factual stats/quotes it means what you have to say about the whole issue becomes fact. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
