Hucks would have reponded very well
to a lot of the quality that has now been bought in and lifted his game a lot I am sure. But Bell is for longer term and Hucks wasn't ...shame the whole situation really
Posted By: bowfront1 on August 13th 2008 at 19:05:49
Message Thread
- Does anyone really believe we are better off without Hucks? (n/m) (NCFC) - greencanary, Aug 13, 18:55:21
- yup...Hucks' agent : ) (n/m) (NCFC) - 1902, Aug 13, 19:12:06
- Hucks would have reponded very well (NCFC) - bowfront1, Aug 13, 19:05:49
- Errr... surely you mean Hoolahan (n/m) (NCFC) - The Judge, Aug 13, 19:22:43
- ...well maybe but do you think this present crop would (NCFC) - bowfront1, Aug 13, 19:27:14
- Sorry - maybe I misunderstood you (NCFC) - The Judge, Aug 13, 19:31:59
- What I am asking is: do you think Huckerby would have had a better season amongst this new (NCFC) - bowfront1, Aug 13, 19:51:16
- Sorry - maybe I misunderstood you (NCFC) - The Judge, Aug 13, 19:31:59
- ...well maybe but do you think this present crop would (NCFC) - bowfront1, Aug 13, 19:27:14
- Errr... surely you mean Hoolahan (n/m) (NCFC) - The Judge, Aug 13, 19:22:43
- Very hard to quantify (NCFC) - The Judge, Aug 13, 19:05:11
- No, but we're not worse off either (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Aug 13, 18:58:05
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.