"I didn't mean to offend anybody" - Keith Hill explains post-Rochdale outburst

Keith Hill has explained why he came out on the offensive after watching his side beaten 2-0 by Rochdale at the weekend.

Eyebrows were raised among Wanderers fans as the Bolton boss hinted at discord within the club, the supporters and the media in his post-match press conference.

But as the Whites head to Lincoln City looking to get themselves back on track, Hill insists no harm was meant by his plea for all and sundry to “get on the same page.”

“I can’t apologise for being emotional about the day itself or the lack of reward for the players’ efforts,” he told The Bolton News.

“My support of the club, the staff, the local area is passionate and sometimes it’s too raw.

“But it’s a love and a protection mechanism I have used to support the players and the people who employ me.

“I have not meant to offend anybody. If I have and they can’t deal with it then unfortunately that’s life.

“Sometimes you put yourself in a position of what people consider weakness on purpose to see if people are really going to support you, or the methodology of the new BWFC.”

Wanderers are at the halfway stage of their own season in League One and have a 17-point gap between themselves and safety.

Speaking of his frustration at Spotland, Hill said he is determined to keep united front in the months to come.

“It was me being me,” he said. “My mum’s had to deal with that all my life.

“I am not afraid to be passionate, receiving criticism, giving it out, or asking for a reaction from everybody. Am I brave or stupid putting myself in a more vulnerable position having been beaten on Saturday? I am looking for reaction and I need the support of everyone, including the players who I trust immensely, and the supporters, who I adore, and the people I work for.

“To enjoy the good times you have to get through a lot of hard, hard work, and that’s what we are going through at the moment. We can’t beat each other up about results.”

Hill accepted, however, that his reference to Wanderers’ past achievements under the reigns of Sam Allardyce and Phil Parkinson were misjudged.

“I can’t take away the success of this football club, massive success, which was thoroughly enjoyed. I can’t keep referring back to history so I do apologise for that. We are trying to create a new history.

“It was off the back of a difficult week and emotionally on Saturday I’d been beaten by a team I’d been at for so long. I hate losing games with a passion and if I ever get used to it then I might as well retire.

“Watching a team that I was more than partly responsible for building really hurt me. And I don’t think the players deserved to be beaten 2-0.

“I have got passion and a desire, I hate getting beat. My job is to try and build a siege mentality, a collective all-inclusive one so that we can move forward and everybody enjoys the success.”

Source

Total made up bollocks again from Hill.

Wish he'd just keep his mouth shut and get on with the job he's paid to do on the football pitch.

KH refers to Bolton Wanderers as 'the football club' a bit too often imo. It implies a sort of detachment.

He was appointed in necessary haste but I suspect Sharon prefers folk who can be relied upon to stay 'on message'.

Do you think, Sluffy, that Marc Iles might get round to asking about who actually owns the club and how much is still owed and to whom?

Or is nobody much interested? I was interested in BWFC finance when I was 13 and BWFC got to the FA Cup Final with a team that cost £110, one of whom was campaigning for the abolition of the maximum wage.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:KH refers to Bolton Wanderers as 'the football club' a bit too often imo. It implies a sort of detachment.

He was appointed in necessary haste but I suspect Sharon prefers folk who can be relied upon to stay 'on message'.

Do you think, Sluffy, that Marc Iles might get round to asking about who actually owns the club and how much is still owed and to whom?

Or is nobody much interested? I was interested in BWFC finance when I was 13 and BWFC got to the FA Cup Final with a team that cost £110, one of whom was campaigning for the abolition of the maximum wage.

If Sharon wanted someone to stay on message then she must be pulling her hair out with the substantial collateral damage resulting from Hill's bizarre rantings about everyone being on the wrong page to him.  It seems the vast majority of fans now believe from it (and the equally bizarre showing the door to three defenders whilst only bringing one in to replacement, who himself has hardly played this season - and the subsequent losses as a consequence of this action) that FV have decided to cut player funding and accept the fate of relegation with half a season to go yet!

This may or may not actually be the case but the crowd as clearly turned on Hill now and questions are being asked as to why FV have allowed all this to happen - or conversely are they the ones who have cut the player wages budget for the second half of the season?

It's a mess and quite frankly one of Hill/FV's own making as up to then everybody was prepared to give them both the season to do their best in with most expecting relegation to the fourth tier due to the points penalty, embargo and the takeover happening after the season had started and we had lost nearly all our games to that point.

All that's changed now.

Iles inferred in a reply to someone that Hill might not be solely to blame and FV might well have intervened with the transfer dealings but as usual Mr Esteemed had not bothered to seek out the full story.

Not sure it should be a case of apportioning blame. More understanding exactly what forces are at play. What is affecting recruitment? What is the longer-term vision? We've got to dial down the drama in this place...

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) January 14, 2020

If he's incapable of chasing down what is happening this very minute under his nose, then I hold out absolutely no hope whatsoever that he will bother himself with crucial stuff like who owns the club - and thus pays the bills and gives the orders and who therefore is actually setting the tune the Hill is required to dance to.

It is quite concerning though IF FV is actually worried about cashflow right now and it impacting on the player recruitment and retention in this transfer window.  I must admit I'd ruled such a thing out in my head and had laid the blame completely at Hill's feet but maybe he had been hamstrung through no fault of his own?

I still stick to this reasoning because cost-cutting by FV already implies financially that something is badly wrong.  And that is highly worrying.

As usual though it seems only you and I have any interest in the clubs finances even though we've faced two major crises' (Eddie pulling the plug, then Ken not bankrupting himself to pay the clubs debts) in the last four years.  Seems most fans still cannot grasp the simple concept of cause and effect.

As for detachment, you make a well observed and good point (and one that I had missed), he says that he is emotional and passionate but as you rightly point out he doesn't identify himself with the club by using the word 'we' but talks about it with detachment from himself as 'the club'.

Maybe Sharon has decided to write off this season and told Keith his contract won't be being renewed for the start of the next!

And kept him in the loop on this!


(Anyone know how long his contract is actually for?).

I'd expect Sharon to be working within tight financial constraints and would be unwilling to invest too much in a manager without full confidence in the manager's judgement. If there were doubts before, KH's expressions of frustration will not have helped.

Marc Iles comments are interesting. The leading member of FIBS has influenced 'the drama' far too much and for far too long imo and its not served BWFC's interests at all.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:I'd expect Sharon to be working within tight financial constraints and would be unwilling to invest too much in a manager without full confidence in the manager's judgement. If there were doubts before, KH's expressions of frustration will not have helped.

Marc Iles comments are interesting. The leading member of FIBS has influenced 'the drama' far too much and for far too long imo and its not served BWFC's interests at all.

I'm not sure that Sharon had too much of an idea of Hill or any other potential manager when she appointed him.  She's not from the football world herself and I would imagine someone who was helped her select the ones she interviewed (again it seemed to be a 'Bolton' connection with Hill (Bolton native), Kevin Nolan and Phil What's his name (as Hill referred to Parkinson in his live on air outburst) seemed to be the three interviewed for the job.

On paper Hill at least had a good CV, experienced and with some success.  He can talk (dream job manager of his home town club, etc) and no doubt impressed Sharon during the lead up to his appointment.

Fwiw gossip says that Hill persistently approached FV for an interview as soon as they took over the club, which seems to be confirmed in the link below - if so it was a rushed appointment and not a planned one.

I thought it was very interesting though to re-read what Sharon said about the appointment at the time -

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17902280.bolton-chairman-explains-decision-appoint-keith-hill/

Whatever her reasons were we are stuck with him now until he is shown the door or his contract expires.  Interestingly I can find no mention anywhere of the length of his contract?

There is all this talk from Hill of there being a ten year plan, the purchase of the club had a three year plan to pass EFL's criteria for new owners, and Sharon talks specifically about having a one year target in the link above, so was she thinking the appointment of her manager should be long term and a lengthy or rolling contract, or short term 'let's see what happens' fixed one, which can be renewed depending on what they achieve in that time?

I'm sure Sharon would not have wanted to find a hefty severance amount to get rid of Hill if he turned out to be a dud so maybe Hill is indeed on a season long contract and perhaps Sharon has already seen enough?

Pure speculation on my part but I thought Hill was a good appointment based on what he did at Rochdale for all those years and he did sound passionate when he first talked about his appointment - maybe Sharon thought the same?

However just a few weeks in I quickly stopped listening to his drivel to the press and now I'm questioning what he's doing football wise weakening the team when we clearly need the points in order to survive this season.

Maybe Sharon has seen through him as I think I have and doesn't like what she sees?

With reference again to her interview in the link above it certainly doesn't look as though we are 'doing everything that we can to stay up this season' by basically forfeiting the last two games by weakening our defence, with yet no sign of strengthening it again for the upcoming games?

Very hard to say. Left back clearly a priority but Hill didn't sound convinced he's get one in.

— Marc Iles (@MarcIles) January 15, 2020

I'm guessing Hill has not been in Sharon's good books for sometime - possibly resulting from around the time of the 7-1 Accrington debacle.

I'm certainly not on the same page as Hill is, probably not even the same book and I'm beginning to wonder if Sharon has reached the same conclusion herself?

Appoint in haste, repent in leisure to paraphrase somewhat!

Totally in agreement with you about Iles as always.