The level of personal vicitimisation against Glenn Roeder is disgusting

[Wings 0]

How can you hope to have a reasoned argument with me if you don''t read anything I write? It''s like selective reading. Read back throughout my posts - I say quite clearly that I don''t agree with Hucks being released or the way he''s been treated. But equally I can see why he has been released - and it''s a compelling argument.

People shut off to this aren''t being objective and are letting emotion cloud things.

[Wings 0]

[quote user="Wings"]

 I say quite clearly that I don''t agree with Hucks being released or the way he''s been treated.

[/quote]

I say quite clearly time after time I don''t agree with Hucks being released...

Sorry, making a small amendment to the above to be absolutely clear to Fellas.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Ricky..

You didn''t say he had a bad game at Ipshxt.. you said he didn''t turn up. You implied he couldn''t be bothered in such an important game for the fans. You didn''t say all the others had a bad game either, you said it was "a total no show" Now did you make that up or not?

 

[ricky knight 0]

YES I SAID IT WAS A TOTAL NO SHOW, how is it relevant to the Hux situation, he probably had many bad games, but how does it make me a hypocrite for saying he should have had a send off, i really dont see what point you are making. You have called me a liar on here, prove it.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

No you didn''t say he had a bad game Ricky, you said it was a total no show. I''m getting fed up of this now because we both agree it was handled badly by the club and that the fans should have had the chance to give Hucks the send off he deserves and you should have had the chance to read about it.

 

[Terry Fied 0]

The Huckerby situation was very badly handled by a third rate manager in a fit of petulance. Rodents man- mangement skills were questionable before this example but now are beyond doubt as being non-existant

The decision to employ him made by Delia the dinner lady and her cohorts was a very bad one.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Wings"][quote user="Wings"]

 I say quite clearly that I don''t agree with Hucks being released or the way he''s been treated.

[/quote]

I say quite clearly time after time I don''t agree with Hucks being released...

Sorry, making a small amendment to the above to be absolutely clear to Fellas.

[/quote]Well I am sincerely sorry for mis-understanding that particular post but I still completely disagree with your first post and think it''s quite frankly ridiculous. Who is actually insulting roeder on this thread apart from the obvious candidate (and school kids who have registered within the last 24 hours).... You are making a mountain out of a mole hill off the words of a crazed ol'' boy.

[ricky knight 0]

read the above post TOTAL NO SHOW, Jeez this is getting hard work, i do think you at nit picking now but there you go and yes i would have liked to read about it because yes i have stated a million times why i refuse to attend. I forgot you are supporter of the year.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Am I Ricky [:^)]

WOWEEEEEE[<:o)]

Do I get a cup [C][:|]

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Am I Ricky [:^)]

WOWEEEEEE[<:o)]

Do I get a cup [C][:|]

 

[/quote]

I would say Nit picker of the year, it seems to be your strong point nutty and i think you know it.

[lucky green trainers 0]

sure hux had a tosh season by his standards, but in his last 10 games or so - he was getting back to some decent form imo.  he even managed to set up 2 goals by getting to the bye line - on his unfavoured right wing berth.  how many times did roedy play hucks in his favoured left wing recently???  in the last 30 mins against qpr - and at s.wed - where he scored a great goal!!!its a clear as mud, that hucks has managed to put his injured hip behind him enough to produce some good quality displays for city recently - and has probably looked our best player - and if not, our most dangerous going forward.  he must have been worth another years contract - at the right money - but dazza said contracts or terms were never discussed?!? in one fell swoop - roedy has in effect shown our best player the door - and imo it is personal - roedy hasn''t had the decency to allow hucks the chance to know his future before the last game of the season???  we were already safe - r u telling me that roedy truthfully didn''t know if hucks was staying or going until yesterday??? bollards - he knew - and before the s.wed game.  roedy could even have tipped off hucks before the s.wed game, then annpunced it over the tannoy immediately after the game.  hucks could''ve had the send off he deserved.make no mistake - roedy imo rubbed dazza''s ego right in the mud - and i''m not liking it one bit.  its petty and vindictive and not befitting a manager of this club.  not since another green and yella hero - malky makay - was imo shamefully  booted out by worthyless -  have i been so angry  at the treatment of  a NCFC player. sure hucks spoke his mind - and ruffled some feathers, but not for his own gain - but cos he genuinely was concerned for the club and as events proved RIGHTLY so.  imo - his agitation has cost him his job.  its a lamentable situaaashun - but i loved hucks for entertaining me like no other in the last 10 years, and i loved him for speaking his mind - rather than than watching a talentless load of brown-nosers churning out the same ole pap week in - week out.i hope roedy has some pretty impressive rabbits to pull outa the hat - and quickly, cos people are rightly concerned and disappointed.  however, i agree to victimise the poor bloke is going too far.

  

[Wings 0]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Wings"][quote user="Wings"]

 I say quite clearly that I don''t agree with Hucks being released or the way he''s been treated.

[/quote]

I say quite clearly time after time I don''t agree with Hucks being released...

Sorry, making a small amendment to the above to be absolutely clear to Fellas.

[/quote]

Well I am sincerely sorry for mis-understanding that particular post but I still completely disagree with your first post and think it''s quite frankly ridiculous. Who is actually insulting roeder on this thread apart from the obvious candidate (and school kids who have registered within the last 24 hours).... You are making a mountain out of a mole hill off the words of a crazed ol'' boy.

[/quote]

You clearly haven''t read this thread at all because I refer in the opening thread to remarks on the forum, not in this thread. How can I start a new thread about remarks in this thread? You''re confused.

[Wings 0]

[quote user="Wings"]You clearly haven''t read this thread at all because I refer in the opening thread to remarks on the forum, not in this thread. How can I start a new thread about remarks in this thread? You''re confused. [/quote]

Should read:

You clearly haven''t read this thread at all because I refer in the opening post to remarks on the forum, not in this thread. How can I start a new thread about remarks in this thread? You''re confused.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="Canary Poirot"]

Blahblahblah wrote:

"Exactly Wings, I have to say that you''ve been spot on with everything you''ve said here.  The level of anger being directed at Roeder over this bank holiday period is something that people only usually reserve for flat-pack furniture.  What''s up with people ?  Have MFI made chests of drawers easier to put together ?

Regardless of how "cheated" certain fans feel about the "selfish" manager, the only thing that matters is getting results.  They don''t give points out for feelings in the Championship, although in this country I am starting to wonder how long it will be before games are awarded on the basis of a clap-o-meter.

I wouldn''t worry too much about Huckerby either, he''s got a stack-full of cash to fall back on.  When top footballers of the past finished their careers, a lot of them went into things like selling insurance door-to-door to keep a roof over their heads.

As many others have said, he was a very good player, he''s only as good as he was in short patches now, we can do better.  So let''s try"

Blahblahblah - you are the biggest apologist for the failing board on this message forum. You have to find an excuse for them in everything they do. No doubt you think they are doing a good job. Or maybe you think you are a ‘balanced and reasonable poster’. But you are nothing of the sort. Sometimes criticism is justified. And criticism of Roeder, in my opinion, in how he handled the Huckerby departure is absolutely justified. Ignoring the footballing reasons for Huckerby’s departure, the fact that a player lauded by fans wasn’t given a proper send off in the manner afforded to Iwan and Dublin was a disgrace. It’s not like Huckerby was sold mid week to anyone. Roeder knew he was out of contract, and presumably knew he wasn’t going to offere him a contract. Why didn’t he announce it before the Sheff Wed game? To not do so is in my opinion a despicable act of spite, and presents Roeder as a Machiavellian operator who quite frankly isn’t a particularly nice piece of work by the sounds of it. Roeder didn’t have to handle this matter in the manner he has. He has unnecessarily put himself under pressure for the new season now after doing an excellent job since he’s taken over. Some fans will use this as another excuse to get the knives out should things start badly. Maybe an oversight on Roeder’s part, but I don’t think so. It is a PR disaster for the club, and whilst board apologists like you and a handful of other posters try and cover the cracks up once again, the majority of us, even reasonable posters, are extremely hacked off with the manner this has been handled.

[/quote]

I entirely agree.......[Y]

[Mello Yello 2,293]

Maybe Glenn......Is the ''right kind'' of manager our current board were looking for?

Tea and french fancies around Mickey and Deals no Deals''s Gaff?....."Now, Glenn, let''s about offering Brian Hamilton a position with our coaching staff"......[:P]

[Mello Yello 2,293]

Maybe Glenn......Is the ''right kind'' of manager our current board were looking for?

Tea and french fancies around Mickey and Deals no Deals''s Gaff?....."Now, Glenn, let''s ''talk'' about offering Brian Hamilton a position with our coaching staff"......[:P]

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Wings"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Wings"][quote user="Wings"]

 I say quite clearly that I don''t agree with Hucks being released or the way he''s been treated.

[/quote]

I say quite clearly time after time I don''t agree with Hucks being released...

Sorry, making a small amendment to the above to be absolutely clear to Fellas.

[/quote]Well I am sincerely sorry for mis-understanding that particular post but I still completely disagree with your first post and think it''s quite frankly ridiculous. Who is actually insulting roeder on this thread apart from the obvious candidate (and school kids who have registered within the last 24 hours).... You are making a mountain out of a mole hill off the words of a crazed ol'' boy.[/quote]

You clearly haven''t read this thread at all because I refer in the opening thread to remarks on the forum, not in this thread. How can I start a new thread about remarks in this thread? You''re confused.

[/quote]No I keep typing the wrong things... I meant on the message board as a whole. But then again, i''ve given past caring. bye.

[scott 0]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[YellowIce 0]

[quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]

 

You cannot build a team around one player - his lack of defending was painfully obvious aon sunday leaving Bertrand in the sh*t. He was getting too old and too expensive. There was no victimisation.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]The sort of victimisation of Hucks that led him to utter the epic comment - "there is nothing personal between me and Glenn, he is honest and genuine"Blimey - must be personal then.Maybe it WAS because he isn''t good enough, has a niggling hip injury, is losing his pace and on x thousand £ per week.

[scott 0]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]

The sort of victimisation of Hucks that led him to utter the epic comment - "there is nothing personal between me and Glenn, he is honest and genuine"

Blimey - must be personal then.

Maybe it WAS because he isn''t good enough, has a niggling hip injury, is losing his pace and on x thousand £ per week.
[/quote]

 

You really believe that Hucks was saying everything as it was in the interviews?

 

I believe Hucks was being diplomatic in the interview for once in his life and was seething at the decision!

 

If Hucks is no longer good enough then I''d like to know why Roeder continually played him in the run in to the seasons end when we needed results and I''d love to see a player in his left sided position who IS good enough and better than Hucks!

[scott 0]

[quote user="YellowIce"][quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]

 

You cannot build a team around one player - his lack of defending was painfully obvious aon sunday leaving Bertrand in the sh*t. He was getting too old and too expensive. There was no victimisation.

[/quote]

A, I never indicated that the team would be built around Hucks, far from it. All I know is that he is still clearly good enough to do a job for us next season.

[kick it off 1,952]

[quote user="scott"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]The sort of victimisation of Hucks that led him to utter the epic comment - "there is nothing personal between me and Glenn, he is honest and genuine"Blimey - must be personal then.Maybe it WAS because he isn''t good enough, has a niggling hip injury, is losing his pace and on x thousand £ per week.[/quote]

 

You really believe that Hucks was saying everything as it was in the interviews?

 

I believe Hucks was being diplomatic in the interview for once in his life and was seething at the decision!

 

If Hucks is no longer good enough then I''d like to know why Roeder continually played him in the run in to the seasons end when we needed results and I''d love to see a player in his left sided position who IS good enough and better than Hucks!

[/quote]So are you calling Mr Huckerby a Liar? Why would he not be diplomatic when his livelihood depends on the club, but when he is released and can say what he likes, keep it shut?How much angrier would you have been if Huckerby hadn''t played? Draw your own conclusions.....There are not many better than Hucks WAS, plenty better than he is, Nathan Tyson from Forest for starters...

[scott 0]

[quote user="kick it off"][quote user="scott"][quote user="kick it off"][quote user="scott"]

Nothing personal against  Glen Roeder but hes made a terrible decision releasing Huckerby which in my book makes him a bit of a prat full stop! - If thats personal; victimisation then so be it!

 

But please explain the release of Huckerby - It wasn''t cause he isn''t no longer good enough, so there was some personal victimisation from Roeder towards Huckerby!

[/quote]

The sort of victimisation of Hucks that led him to utter the epic comment - "there is nothing personal between me and Glenn, he is honest and genuine"

Blimey - must be personal then.

Maybe it WAS because he isn''t good enough, has a niggling hip injury, is losing his pace and on x thousand £ per week.
[/quote]

 

You really believe that Hucks was saying everything as it was in the interviews?

 

I believe Hucks was being diplomatic in the interview for once in his life and was seething at the decision!

 

If Hucks is no longer good enough then I''d like to know why Roeder continually played him in the run in to the seasons end when we needed results and I''d love to see a player in his left sided position who IS good enough and better than Hucks!

[/quote]

So are you calling Mr Huckerby a Liar?

Why would he not be diplomatic when his livelihood depends on the club, but when he is released and can say what he likes, keep it shut?

How much angrier would you have been if Huckerby hadn''t played? Draw your own conclusions.....

There are not many better than Hucks WAS, plenty better than he is, Nathan Tyson from Forest for starters...

[/quote]

 

Maybe Hucks loves the club so much he didn''t want to make things difficult for the club by launching a bitter verbal attack on Roeder?

 

I only want to see players in the Norwich 1st team cause they are worthy of their position. Hucks clearly was that in the last half of the season (for 99% of his games for Norwich he was more than worthy of his position!) and an integral part of the tactics as well!

 

Nathan Tyson would be a good addition to the Norwich squad but its debatable if he''d have the same effect as Huckerby over the next couple of seasons!

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="scott"]

 

You really believe that Hucks was saying everything as it was in the interviews?

 

I believe Hucks was being diplomatic in the interview for once in his life and was seething at the decision!

 

If Hucks is no longer good enough then I''d like to know why Roeder continually played him in the run in to the seasons end when we needed results and I''d love to see a player in his left sided position who IS good enough and better than Hucks!

[/quote]In other words, if somebody I like says something I agree with, they are telling the truth ( for the best of reasons).If they something contradictory to my beliefs, they are lying (for the best of reasons).An interesting point of view.Perhaps Roeder played Hux because he was the best available option at the time. As were the other ten players.

[scott 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="scott"]

 

You really believe that Hucks was saying everything as it was in the interviews?

 

I believe Hucks was being diplomatic in the interview for once in his life and was seething at the decision!

 

If Hucks is no longer good enough then I''d like to know why Roeder continually played him in the run in to the seasons end when we needed results and I''d love to see a player in his left sided position who IS good enough and better than Hucks!

[/quote]

In other words, if somebody I like says something I agree with, they are telling the truth ( for the best of reasons).
If they something contradictory to my beliefs, they are lying (for the best of reasons).

An interesting point of view.

Perhaps Roeder played Hux because he was the best available option at the time. As were the other ten players.
[/quote]

 

I did say MAYBE. just giving my opinion. I just can''t believe that Hucks is inside feeling as diplomatic as he made out in the interview, though I''m sure his extreme wealth would help to soften the blow!

 

I could be mistaken like all the other internet ''experts!''

[Wings 0]

It''s an interesting point, Scott. But it does beg the question why he would do it. After all, essentially when he''s found something wrong with the club on whatever level, he''s come out and said it. And that''s when he had a contract at the club!

Now he''s out of contract, he could say anything he liked. Yes, I appreciate he''s angling to return and work for the club one day, but I still don''t think that would stop him for telling the truth.

Hucks said yesterday on radio broadland he wanted to be remembered for being honest with the fans (among other things). I doubt he''d really jeopardise that.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

I can`t believe the level of abuse aimed at Hucks either -  "past it", "not worth it", "wants guaranteed first team football", "costs to much" etc. I listened to Hucks on the radio this morning, it is clear he loves Norwich City FC and the fans, he said he has taken 4/5 pay cuts to stay at the club. The guy had a hip problem at the beginning of the season and I accept that he was not at his best, but he was getting back to his best in the second half of the season and is worth a years contract on that basis. The stuff about his age is nonsense, Dion played in a lot of games despite being 39 and Cureton is hardly a spring chicken, has not performed as well as he could but he gets to stay....

[Wings 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Cureton is hardly a spring chicken, has not performed as well as he could but he gets to stay....[/quote]

Again, presumptuous. As Cureton is still in contract, he''d have to be sold to another team. If he''s still here when the transfer window shuts, your point is valid but until then I think we can''t say so definitively who is staying and who is going.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]I can`t believe the level of abuse aimed at Hucks either -  "past it", "not worth it", "wants guaranteed first team football", "costs to much" etc. ..[/quote]

I agree with this SOB. Some of the stuff said about Hucks seems unfair. Posters talk about tracking back and defending as though he is a lazy player and that''s far from the truth. Hucks gives everything when he wears the Norwich City shirt. The only time I felt he didn''t was that no show at Wolves under Grant last September. He certainly played for Worthy right up til the end. Defensively, I feel he''s part of a bigger problem we have at the club but some posters feel he is the whole problem.

I guess Roeder has decided that his playing budget would be better spent on other players. He has to live or die by that decision next season. If we are worse than the last 2 seasons we will almost certainly be relegated, if we are better then that decision will be at least partly vindicated however it won''t excuse the manner in which the decision was made.