Huckerby out - little man sydrome strikes again - we might as well be managed by Steve Maclaren . . .

[Wimbledon Canary 0]

This is Glenn Roeder''s ''Steve Maclaren'' moment. (and who knows it may all be down hill from here?)

The little man makes himself appear big by slaying the champion.

It is Steve Maclaren & David Beckham all over again and it is nauseating.

We have been veritably blessed to have Hucks in our team for the past 4 or so years. To get rid of a player who has shown such commitment to the Canary cause (when he has had many bigger suitors at different times) and remains potentially one of our very best (so he hasn''t been so wonderful this season, but there have been flashes and he has been dogged by injury) is madness.

The only explanation is something along the lines of Roeder is jealous of Huckerby''s popularity / is using the ''slaying'' of Hucks to demonstrate who is boss around here etc - i.e. trying to cover up for his own small . . .

It''s certainly not because we scored so many goals this season that we don''t need him (as demonstrated on Sunday . . .). At a minimum Huckerby will be an excellent impact-sub next season for some lucky club at a similar level (and I wouldn''t blame him at all if he went back on his word and signed for a championship rival after the way he has been treated here)

Glenn Roeder must be the only man in football who would rather keep Gary Docherty over Darren Huckerby . . .

I''m horrified. Over and out.

 

[Taxing 0]

Totally agree, I just wrote this on the other thread : What a shocking decision. The most skilful player at the club, the only player with the sheer ability to create something out of nothing, an incredibly experienced head on his shoulders and we don''t renew his contract. It''s the same old slippery slope. Get rid of Hucks and Roeder will replace him with someone no more than half as good. Hucks clearly had another season in him but this decision smacks of a new manager sweeping clean. Now Roeder, in his mind anyway, has complete and utter control of the team. IMO he regarded Hucks as a challenge to his authority. And, of course, the Board will support this decision because look at the money that will be saved, and I mean saved, by letting Hucks go ! The two players that I wanted released are retained - Doherty and Shackell - two players who in my opinion are associated with abject failure in defence.

[MyGodWeArePoorToWatch 0]

Sorry, but as good as hucks WAS, he doesnt have that much left to offer, certainly not enough to warrent the money he was on.History is just that, history.You cant turn the clock back you know, he is well past his best and the money he was on could be used for better players.Sorry if this upsets people, but iam just not the sentimental type.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="the1englishman"]Sorry, but as good as hucks WAS, he doesnt have that much left to offer, certainly not enough to warrent the money he was on.
History is just that, history.
You cant turn the clock back you know, he is well past his best and the money he was on could be used for better players.

Sorry if this upsets people, but iam just not the sentimental type.
[/quote]Cant wait to see all these better players........dream on

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Taxing 0]

[quote user="the1englishman"]Sorry, but as good as hucks WAS, he doesnt have that much left to offer, certainly not enough to warrent the money he was on.
History is just that, history.
You cant turn the clock back you know, he is well past his best and the money he was on could be used for better players.

Sorry if this upsets people, but iam just not the sentimental type.
[/quote]

 

Why, do you think my post was sentimental ? Far from it, more like factual. Let''s see how these better players will be but as another poster said "dream on" because when you wake up you will obviously be disappointed.

[Taxing 0]

Another thought - I know that Hucks stated that if he can''t play for Norwich he won''t play for any other club but I wonder what he will do now that he has been told, so unceremoniously, that his services are no longer required.  It''s no secret that other clubs are interested in him so, watch this space, let''s see what happens.

[Ginja 43]

[quote]The only explanation is something along the lines of Roeder is jealous of Huckerby''s popularity [/quote]

I must say I love the vivid imagination of some people on this board...

Some people are far to caught up in their emotions for Huckerby, rather than thinking logically about why this desision has been made, which imo is that Huckerby, while he has been a legend for us and will go down in the same lore as Iwan and many others, he is simply not as great as he used to be and the club can no longer afford to keep him on the great wages he has been receiving.

I think Glenn had the greatest respect for him, which is why he didn''t offer Huckerby a contact that would have been insulting to him and one he probably would have turned down. Maybe that was where the respect was? Glenn has made himself the bad guy and Huckerby leaves with his head high and will continue to be the hero and legend in many peoples eyes

[blahblahblah 2]

Is this his McClaren moment, or his Alf Ramsey moment ?

Ramsey always picked the players that would make the best team, not neccesarily the most gifted players.

Didn''t do Sir Alf any harm in ''66, did it ?

Who knows, maybe we can get a winger for those wages who will track back ? [:o]

[renegade tootsie 0]

Oh get a grip on reality.

Hucks had one last season in him as an impact player, that means 20 mins a week for 14k wages.

Why not wait and see who Glenn Roeder brings in now he has saved a top-level Championship wage.

Hucks is a city legend, lets celebrate that rather than moaning like kids.

 

[quote user="Wimbledon Canary"]

This is Glenn Roeder''s ''Steve Maclaren'' moment. (and who knows it may all be down hill from here?)

The little man makes himself appear big by slaying the champion.

It is Steve Maclaren & David Beckham all over again and it is nauseating.

We have been veritably blessed to have Hucks in our team for the past 4 or so years. To get rid of a player who has shown such commitment to the Canary cause (when he has had many bigger suitors at different times) and remains potentially one of our very best (so he hasn''t been so wonderful this season, but there have been flashes and he has been dogged by injury) is madness.

The only explanation is something along the lines of Roeder is jealous of Huckerby''s popularity / is using the ''slaying'' of Hucks to demonstrate who is boss around here etc - i.e. trying to cover up for his own small . . .

It''s certainly not because we scored so many goals this season that we don''t need him (as demonstrated on Sunday . . .). At a minimum Huckerby will be an excellent impact-sub next season for some lucky club at a similar level (and I wouldn''t blame him at all if he went back on his word and signed for a championship rival after the way he has been treated here)

Glenn Roeder must be the only man in football who would rather keep Gary Docherty over Darren Huckerby . . .

I''m horrified. Over and out.

 

[/quote]

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Who knows, maybe we can get a winger for those wages who will track back ? [:o]

[/quote]

Yeah, maybe Roeder can search out the left sided Croft [:S]