HUCKERBY

[Beaker 0]

was on £22,000 a week. no wonder he was released, nowhere near value for money

[Lincs CR 0]

22k a week? If this is true and this is what he demanded then no wonder Glenn felt it was hard to keep hold of him... all this talk of the 9k a week budget or whatever it was... if Hucks wanted 22k then it may be more understandable why he was let go

[ncfc90 0]

ummm i heard 14k and he offered to drop down to 6k to stay this season

[scrimmage 0]

But he said he was willing to take a paycut....

End of.

[Beaker 0]

its a long story how i know that was what he was on, dont know what he wanted or what we offered

[Lincs CR 0]

He did? Sorry, didn''t know about that... maybe taking a pay-cut in his eyes were different to the way Glenn saw a first team pay-cut if he was on 22k

[AndyJR 0]

I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned.

[singing canary 0]

considering we got promoted with him..well won the championship by almost 10 points i think he is worth 22k a week when you consider what premiership players are on...

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Beaker"]its a long story how i know that was what he was on[/quote]

That''s ok beaker, we''ve got all night . . .

 

[Beaker 0]

basically someone who was an associate of the chairman of sheffield united, who enquired about huckerby at some point, (dont know when), but basically they were put off by his wage

[ron obvious 1,495]

[quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]Not in my Universe, I''m afraid. And I was one of Hux''s biggest fans.

[Huddy 0]

[quote user="Beaker"]

but basically they were put off by his wage[/quote]

or the factthat Huckerby would never have joined them in a million years?!

[Beaker 0]

[quote user="Huddy "]

[quote user="Beaker"]

but basically they were put off by his wage[/quote]

or the factthat Huckerby would never have joined them in a million years?!

[/quote]

not when they were in the prem and we were languishing?

[Old Boy 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]Not in my Universe, I''m afraid. And I was one of Hux''s biggest fans.[/quote]Not in any other universe either. Hux made an error of judgement where Roeder was concerned, is nearer the mark. If he''d played up to his billing (and his bill apparently) he''d still be here. But he basically took the piss for the last couple of seasons.

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="Strawberry"]

[quote user="Beaker"]its a long story how i know that was what he was on[/quote]

That''s ok beaker, we''ve got all night . . .

 

[/quote]I''m sure he told you personally Beaker.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]In the way he was let go, yes it has.  In letting him go, no it hasn''t.

[Bury Yellow 2]

As we know, Hucks wages were partly (or all) paid by a local businessman.

We also know that Hucks would have taken a wage cut.

Those who went to some of the away games last year know that he gained us valuable points and having just recovered from injury was a valuable member of the squad.

There were several clubs in this league interested in signing him, one of which is not too far from here but he refused to play against us.

Can''t see why you raised this thread Beaker other than to stir old wounds

[Buncey 1]

Well if that''s the truth beaker then hats off to ol'' Hux because he was really willing to take a pay-cut, a £19k a week one.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Beaker"]basically someone who was an associate of the chairman of sheffield united, who enquired about huckerby at some point, (dont know when), but basically they were put off by his wage[/quote]

Where did Sheff U get this information from?  Hucks'' agent?  Must be true then . . .

Whatever, he''s on the equivalent of about £3k at SJE.  In the MLS they publish a list of all players wages.  Pity they don''t do that here, it would put a stop to all this rumour mongering.

 

[ncfcstar 287]

Not not widely agreed at all Andy, maybe Huckerby wasn''t treated as well as he could have been, but letting him go was 100% right IMO and I am sure in a lot of others as well. If he was on 22k all more the reason to get shot, even with a paycut I am sure he wasn''t going to be around the 8k wage cap that Roeder apparently has.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned.

[/quote]

As this thread has shown I don''t think it is universally agreed or close to being that. Personally, I think it was an error of judgement. He was, in my opinion, the best footballer at the club when he left and I think if he was here now he''d still be the best player. People question his fitness and his form but I don''t think he was finished, I think he''d have still done the business this season (at least).

I think Lupoli has got a shot at becoming a big favourite with the crowd. Not convinced Hoolahan will hit the highs though but that''s not to say he isn''t a good player.

[Ex-greenoschin 0]

Having spoken to the guy who helped fund his wages recently I think the wage was £16-17000 per week not £22000

OTBC

[hurricane 0]

will some people ever get over huckerby?? yes he was a good player and served us well(as have many many players) but he has moved on as has the club........thats the way it goes.

[canary cherub 1]

Not entirely OT there''s a new thread at the top of the Hucks subforum with a link to a really interesting piece in the SJ local press.  Sounds like he''s really loving California, I wouldn''t be surprised if he stays.  Good luck to him.

 

[Stevie Wonder 0]

[quote user="Old Boy"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned.

[/quote]

Not in my Universe, I''m afraid. And I was one of Hux''s biggest fans.
[/quote]
Not in any other universe either. Hux made an error of judgement where Roeder was concerned, is nearer the mark. If he''d played up to his billing (and his bill apparently) he''d still be here. But he basically took the piss for the last couple of seasons.
[/quote]

Oh dear lord! I know this is digging up long dead news but are you serious?

Yes, he clearly took the piss a couple of seasons ago when he was player of the year and was quite sensational (as good as when he first arrived) playing a large part in our survival. I distinctly remember walking ou of CR after the Birmingham, Leeds, Stoke etc etc games and thinking "Jesus Hucks is really taking the piss at the moment we should get shot of him as soon as possible...". Even last year he was far more effective and productive that Messrs Croft, Chadwick etc even with a dodgy hip.

No wonder this club is going to the dogs. With fans like you who needs Binners!!

[ncfcstar 287]

Come on end this now please, it is beyond boredom.

[The Saturday Boy 0]

[quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]err... no it''s not. he was a great player in his prime but is well past it now. turned it on only a few times last season and even if he would''ve taken a pay-cut would still been our best paid player, and we''ve probably got two or three players by saving his wages. It was the correct decision in my book, but could''ve been handled better to give the fans a chance to say a proper goodbye.

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="The Saturday Boy"][quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]err... no it''s not. he was a great player in his prime but is well past it now. turned it on only a few times last season and even if he would''ve taken a pay-cut would still been our best paid player, and we''ve probably got two or three players by saving his wages. It was the correct decision in my book, but could''ve been handled better to give the fans a chance to say a proper goodbye.[/quote]Am I the only person he didn''t tell, what he was paid whilst at Norwich?

[The Saturday Boy 0]

[quote user="AndyJR"][quote user="The Saturday Boy"][quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]err... no it''s not. he was a great player in his prime but is well past it now. turned it on only a few times last season and even if he would''ve taken a pay-cut would still been our best paid player, and we''ve probably got two or three players by saving his wages. It was the correct decision in my book, but could''ve been handled better to give the fans a chance to say a proper goodbye.[/quote]Am I the only person he didn''t tell, what he was paid whilst at Norwich?[/quote]Am I the only person you didn''t ask when you got your ''universal'' agreement that Glenn was wrong?

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="The Saturday Boy"][quote user="AndyJR"][quote user="The Saturday Boy"][quote user="AndyJR"]I think it''s almost been universally agreed that Roeder simply made an error of judgment where Huck''s was concerned. [/quote]err... no it''s not. he was a great player in his prime but is well past it now. turned it on only a few times last season and even if he would''ve taken a pay-cut would still been our best paid player, and we''ve probably got two or three players by saving his wages. It was the correct decision in my book, but could''ve been handled better to give the fans a chance to say a proper goodbye.[/quote]Am I the only person he didn''t tell, what he was paid whilst at Norwich?[/quote]Am I the only person you didn''t ask when you got your ''universal'' agreement that Glenn was wrong?[/quote]''almost universally''.