The conduct of NCFC
I know this is a tired old cliché, but the responsibility of how NCFC conduct themselves on and off the pitch rests with the board of directors.
I posted yesterday that the decision yesterday to let Hucks go was a football decision, and one that Roeder has made. We have to respect Roeder for that.
However the way that it was handled was not a football decision and calls into question how this was approved. The Board must have known how the supporters would react, and backed Roeder’s decision on the timing of the announcement. Perhaps they felt they had no other option than to back Roeder as regards the timing. I don’t agree with this at all.
And I don’t buy the argument that may get trotted out about keeping the players on their toes, playing for a new deal etc at all. Hucks loyalty to NCFC has never been called into question. In last game of the Worthington era, when other players were going through the motions Hucks gave his all when not fully fit.
I can’t believe any apology from the Board will be forthcoming. Not only would it be an insult to our intelligence, it would be an admission that they (or Roeder) got it very badly wrong, and in my opinion an error of this magnitude would mean that whoever approved the decision was not fit for office.
Expect sandbags, tin-hats and radio silence from Carrow Road bunker for the next few days as they ride out the media storm.
Posted By: KentonCanary on May 7th 2008 at 09:55:17
Message Thread
- The conduct of NCFC (NCFC) - KentonCanary, May 7, 09:55:17
- In spite of what I put on here yesterday..... (NCFC) - the101ers, May 7, 10:06:25
- The fit for office opinion (NCFC) - KentonCanary, May 7, 10:22:01
- I understand the emotion of the view (NCFC) - the101ers, May 7, 10:26:30
- The directors have a responsibility to avoid PR disasters like this! (NCFC) - Johnny Comecardiff, May 7, 10:54:56
- I understand the emotion of the view (NCFC) - the101ers, May 7, 10:26:30
- The fit for office opinion (NCFC) - KentonCanary, May 7, 10:22:01
- Its almost as if Roeder set up Dion to get a great send off (NCFC) - phrankin, May 7, 10:02:20
- To be fair, it was Dion who announced his retirement. Not GR. (n/m) (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 7, 10:07:32
- true, but roeder has delayed announcing Hucks lack of contract renewal (NCFC) - phrankin, May 7, 10:13:19
- sure. My point is that Roeder didn't set up Dion to get a great send off (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 7, 10:14:16
- Well he certainlt denied Hucks the opportuinity (NCFC) - phrankin, May 7, 10:18:03
- ^^^ hearing voices... (n/m) (NCFC) - blindasabat, May 7, 10:24:21
- Well he certainlt denied Hucks the opportuinity (NCFC) - phrankin, May 7, 10:18:03
- sure. My point is that Roeder didn't set up Dion to get a great send off (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 7, 10:14:16
- true, but roeder has delayed announcing Hucks lack of contract renewal (NCFC) - phrankin, May 7, 10:13:19
- It does appear like that and I'm convinced thats how Hucks sees it (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, May 7, 10:07:23
- To be fair, it was Dion who announced his retirement. Not GR. (n/m) (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 7, 10:07:32
- they won't need tin hats (NCFC) - Tomblander, May 7, 09:58:26
- In spite of what I put on here yesterday..... (NCFC) - the101ers, May 7, 10:06:25
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.