Snodgrass

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:33 pm

Maybe the fact we've played the "Punching above our weight" card for too long, or failed to show that we wanted to fight and stay up 2 years ago due to lack of investment in the team, now folk see us as a small t that and it's coming back to bite us!

As fans of the club, we can understand why the board did what they did but to outsiders and the media, we looked like a fish out of water and were happy to take the money and run.

We need to sell our club more than all others due to the size of the Town and it's catchment area. We are/were punching above our weight but to keep spouting it wasn't the best way to sell ourselves to potential players was it, that label with take some shifting :idea:

ablueclaret
Posts: 3148
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
Been Liked: 403 times
Has Liked: 50 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by ablueclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:34 pm

From the number of views it looks as if Snodgrass was the one WE wanted.

DCWat
Posts: 9296
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 4131 times
Has Liked: 3599 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by DCWat » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Sums Talk Sport up pretty well if they're bringing in Windass for any sort of comment. The bloke is an absolute bell end of the highest order.
This user liked this post: MDWat

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Colburn_Claret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:44 pm

Barry_Chuckle wrote:Maybe the fact we've played the "Punching above our weight" card for too long, or failed to show that we wanted to fight and stay up 2 years ago due to lack of investment in the team, now folk see us as a small t that and it's coming back to bite us!

As fans of the club, we can understand why the board did what they did but to outsiders and the media, we looked like a fish out of water and were happy to take the money and run.

We need to sell our club more than all others due to the size of the Town and it's catchment area. We are/were punching above our weight but to keep spouting it wasn't the best way to sell ourselves to potential players was it, that label with take some shifting :idea:
I don't buy that. Even football players can realise the situation Burnley have been in, and with any common sense can understand it. The first promotion we paid off the debts. The second promotion secured the new training ground, ground improvements and secured the majority of the squad. The third promotion has seen us break the transfer record twice and 6 months later trying to break it again. An unblinkered view from outside is surely of a club that is moving forward at a steady pace (flying actually) and is looking good for staying up. The outcome of which is likely to be even more improvement.
Several years ago it must have been murder trying to sell Burnley, but today we shouldn't have to be selling ourselves.
These 3 users liked this post: Frenchclaret minnieclaret ants_g

KRBFC
Posts: 18018
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by KRBFC » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:53 pm

Who really cares if he comes or not? He's nearly 30 and looking for one last payday.
Brady is a better fit, younger and doesn't seem a d*ck like Snodgrass. Brady has handled himself well in all of this speculation, Snodgrass has spat his dummy out. If either of them were to spit out the dummy you expect it would be the Championship player desperate for a PL move not a player who's current club needs him to dig in and scrap for points.

If he doesn't want to be here, F**K him we'll get someone better
These 6 users liked this post: Heathclaret RalphCoatesComb k90bfc Longsider JPS71 ants_g

Heathclaret
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:49 am
Been Liked: 190 times
Has Liked: 179 times
Location: Bracebridge Heath, Lincoln.

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Heathclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:54 pm

Even more,SHP and none of it good. I struggle to understand why it's called talk sport, it's almost only about the top six football teams in the premier league with an occasional brief respite, when there is another subject. At four, on came Darren Gough and his co-presenter, who started to criticise Klopp, suggestingt they know where he's going wrong. This morning they were ripping Payet apart, as usual, when Ja Ja Binks came on to give his tuppence worth in his own eloquent style. It really is a crap station.
Just in case anyone asks, no, I wouldn't rather live in London and play for West Ham, and apparently Hull only payed 7 million for him, so I don't really understand how his value has increased by 3 million. I think Brady will be a better fit.

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:02 pm

It is a shocking radio station.

Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:07 pm

Colburn, players don't give a hoot what situation Burnley have been in and they most certainly wont be looking into our accounts. They will be aware that we've struggled in the transfer market in previous seasons and that could be taken as an indication of our lack of desire to give it a go.
Bournemouth don't seem to struggle like we do in the transfer market or Watford, neither of these have better gates than us or have a nice new stadium.

It's all about perception for me, and Burnley as a club struggle to sell themselves. IMO

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:08 pm

Bournemouth and Watford do have very rich foreign owners.
This user liked this post: minnieclaret

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by taio » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:10 pm

It's typically all about money

Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:12 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Bournemouth and Watford do have very rich foreign owners.
And so the Perception is that they Will be bankrolled....... that's my point Steve-Harper, it's about how you/your club are portrayed, be that in the media or in peoples opinions. We didn't do that perception any favors in previous years with the "punching above our weight" comments, which was my initial point, Whereas Bournemouth haven't made it a secret that their owner is loaded..... it has assisted them to "Punch above their weight".

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:17 pm

Agree with the 'punching above our weight' statement. Suppose we can only hope we've learnt from our previous mistakes in the transfer window.

Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:22 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Agree with the 'punching above our weight' statement. Suppose we can only hope we've learned from our previous mistakes in the transfer window.
I believe we have, but the saying is "$hit sticks" I just hope it's not too long before we can be seen as a club who have shook that stuff off.
Financially, we are in one of the best positions, better than the majority of the prem teams to be around once the Sky bubble bursts.
Last edited by Barry_Chuckle on Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PWBFC
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 139 times
Has Liked: 59 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by PWBFC » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:22 pm

Nixon says it's between Boro and West Ham. Wages too high for us.

SGr
Posts: 4412
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1022 times
Has Liked: 307 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by SGr » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:24 pm

Shock...

Gnulty
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:21 pm
Been Liked: 179 times
Has Liked: 119 times
Location: Moorway

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Gnulty » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:25 pm

We will get the players that we need...reject those we can not afford to feed...and get on with the job..UTC!

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5521 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by TheFamilyCat » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:28 pm

The longer this goes and as the Brady deal seemingly gets closer it seems like our bid was nothing more than a nudge to get things moving for all parties.

minnieclaret
Posts: 6842
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 2012 times
Has Liked: 2287 times
Location: lismore co. waterford

Re: Snodgrass

Post by minnieclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:37 pm

Barry_Chuckle wrote:And so the Perception is that they Will be bankrolled.......
No perception involved they are spreading the wealth.

Tall Paul
Posts: 7171
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2561 times
Has Liked: 690 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Tall Paul » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:45 pm

PWBFC wrote:Nixon says it's between Boro and West Ham. Wages too high for us.
Boro haven't had an offer accepted, so looks like it's the Hammers.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Colburn_Claret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:47 pm

Barry_Chuckle wrote:Colburn, players don't give a hoot what situation Burnley have been in and they most certainly wont be looking into our accounts. They will be aware that we've struggled in the transfer market in previous seasons and that could be taken as an indication of our lack of desire to give it a go.
Bournemouth don't seem to struggle like we do in the transfer market or Watford, neither of these have better gates than us or have a nice new stadium.

It's all about perception for me, and Burnley as a club struggle to sell themselves. IMO
But historically we've struggled for a reason. Times have changed. Well never be a Chelsea, or have some rich backer like Bournemouth, but what we do have is a club that continues to thrive, despite all logic. Stewardship of people who know football almost as much as they love Burnley and a manager that's a real man manager.
Boro are likely to lose Karanka before the seasons out, and are still in danger of going down.
He lives in Pickering, if he was wanting the bright lights of the big city believe me, he wouldn't be living in Pickering.

As club we have a lot to offer for the right players, but the right player isn't defined by ability alone. They need to understand the ethos of the club, the fans and the manager.
I haven't a clue where he will end up, but until he is having a medical elsewhere there's always hope.

Steddyman
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:45 pm
Been Liked: 624 times
Has Liked: 491 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Steddyman » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:52 pm

PWBFC wrote:Nixon says it's between Boro and West Ham. Wages too high for us.
Normally I would agree with him, however we may be structuring things differently now.

Let's say he wants £50k per week and this is £20k per week above our wage structure. We are only going to offer somebody his age a maximum 3 year contract. £20k x 150 weeks is approximately £3 million.

We could offer him a £3 million signing on bonus and it would cost us £13 million, the same as the reported Brady fee. That would keep him within our wage structure.

I'm sure the board understand our wage limits are going to cause us issues at the transfer fees we are dealing with and will be finding creative ways to deal with it.

Cheshireclaret
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 338 times
Has Liked: 20 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Cheshireclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:53 pm

To be honest, I don't ever believe Snodgrass was likely to sign for us regardless of whether Hull had accepted a fee for him - he was always going to want a weekly wage above our budget. As a result, his likely non-signature doesn't even register because we were all getting carried away by what was probably his agent's tactic to bring West Ham to the table.

If we sign Brady and a couple of, as yet, unknown others and keep the rest of the squad together then that, coupled with our current league position, is a darn sight better than the vast majority on here ever perceived we would have at the end of this transfer window, back on 1st September 2016!

South West Claret.
Posts: 5642
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
Been Liked: 766 times
Has Liked: 499 times
Location: Devon

Re: Snodgrass

Post by South West Claret. » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:24 pm

Stodgrass not even in the Hull squad tonigh, is he injured?

bfcmik
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 1100 times
Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre

Re: Snodgrass

Post by bfcmik » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:48 pm

Tall Paul wrote:My original question was why would West Ham offer more?

When you said it's likely that Hull would prefer to sell to us, I thought you were answering that question (maybe not directly).

So why would Hull prefer to sell to us?
Depends on how the deal is set up - how much is up front cash, how much is instalments and over how long, how much is 'add-ons'

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Lowbankclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:03 pm

He is going to WH.
We need to get over him.
It gone and in the past.

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Pstotto » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:09 pm

Let's hope he breaks both legs. In the meantime we've got a Dean Marney hole to fill as well as strengthening out squad and about five days to remedy it. DON'T PANIC MR. DYCHE, DON'T PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This user liked this post: Sutton-Claret

karatekid
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
Been Liked: 1103 times
Has Liked: 316 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by karatekid » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:16 pm

He's having a medical at WHU tomorrow according to sky.

Marlonspants
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:00 pm
Been Liked: 125 times
Has Liked: 53 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Marlonspants » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:19 pm

Who cares about Snodgrass? He's ok but I would rather have a fit Dean Marney.

I think Snodgrass is a tad overrated. IMO of course.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by TVC15 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:20 pm

F'in Scotch - don't trust em - it's why our Scotty turned Canadian!

Anyway 30 year old ; awful injury record ; dodgy beard ; diving cheat ; ex Leeds **** etc

Let's move on !
This user liked this post: Sutton-Claret

minnieclaret
Posts: 6842
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 2012 times
Has Liked: 2287 times
Location: lismore co. waterford

Re: Snodgrass

Post by minnieclaret » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:24 pm

Steddyman wrote:Normally I would agree with him, however we may be structuring things differently now.
Let's say he wants £50k per week and this is £20k per week above our wage structure. We are only going to offer somebody his age a maximum 3 year contract. £20k x 150 weeks is approximately £3 million.
We could offer him a £3 million signing on bonus and it would cost us £13 million, the same as the reported Brady fee. That would keep him within our wage structure.
I'm sure the board understand our wage limits are going to cause us issues at the transfer fees we are dealing with and will be finding creative ways to deal with it.
that's a strange way to get around it. You'd be better off giving him the extra £20k/week. £3m up front is dead money. Weekly covers for injury or even selling him after two years. If it's the squad structure you refer to there has to be a way around that.

claretblue
Posts: 6410
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:36 pm
Been Liked: 1831 times
Has Liked: 961 times
Location: cloud 9 since Dyche appointed

Re: Snodgrass

Post by claretblue » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:29 am

from 'Transfer Window Watch':

'...Hulls’s Robert Snodgrass is also undergoing a medical at West Ham today - and, given the seriousness of the knee injury which necessitated two operations and sidelined him for 16 months before the winger’s return to action last spring - it is likely to be thorough...'

Leisure
Posts: 18477
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:47 pm
Been Liked: 3772 times
Has Liked: 12364 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Leisure » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:39 am

Cheshireclaret wrote: he was always going to want a weekly wage above our budget.
Hit the nail on the head there!

ClaretTony
Posts: 67436
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Snodgrass

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:10 pm

Signing confirmed at West Ham - reported that he's doubled his wages to £50,000 pw.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3139 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:12 pm

Why did we bother, absolutely pointless.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:14 pm

I have to congratulate the board for trying. None of the messing about with small bids. The board forced WH to match the bid. Its not their fault he wanted to go to WH
Credit where credits due, I think they tried thier best. Your not going to get all your targets when teams like WH come in as well.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank

kaptin1
Posts: 1600
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 460 times
Has Liked: 109 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by kaptin1 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:15 pm

So, if say a 4 year deal, then will cost WHU £20m including transfer fee with probably little resale value at the end due to his age. Not the sort of deal we should have been doing.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:18 pm

kaptin1 wrote:So, if say a 4 year deal, then will cost WHU £20m including transfer fee with probably little resale value at the end due to his age. Not the sort of deal we should have been doing.
I agree.

Goobs
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:43 am
Been Liked: 1459 times
Has Liked: 992 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Goobs » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:18 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Signing confirmed at West Ham - reported that he's doubled his wages to £50,000 pw.
But I thought that he was already on 50k per week and we wouldn't match the 70k he wanted?

Next you will be saying that some people on here have no idea about things and just make up stuff so they have something to post. :lol:

ClaretTony
Posts: 67436
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Snodgrass

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:37 pm

boatshed bill wrote:Why did we bother, absolutely pointless.
Or anything but pointless if it forced Norwich into action

Cooperclaret
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:28 pm
Been Liked: 283 times
Has Liked: 225 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Cooperclaret » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:23 pm

Very pleased this did not happen for us.JBG much more potential, a lot younger and far far cheaper and in my opinion a better player.
This user liked this post: RingoMcCartney

Diesel
Posts: 3089
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:56 pm
Been Liked: 1228 times
Has Liked: 391 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Diesel » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:25 pm

He's fat, he's round, he's a waste of ten million pound, Snodgrass, Snodgrass....

bobinho
Posts: 9248
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 4071 times
Has Liked: 6538 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Snodgrass

Post by bobinho » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:28 pm

In reality, we could offer whatever we want for a player, but we have a wage structure. All the agents, all the players know we have a limit. Wages will be the stumbling block in every transfer. Going for players who are already on £30k ish a week is pointless. They will want a pay rise, and they won't get one here - and i'm ok with that.

I could have this wrong (often do) but I think that's the pointless that Bill meant.

DCWat
Posts: 9296
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 4131 times
Has Liked: 3599 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by DCWat » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 pm

boatshed bill wrote:Why did we bother, absolutely pointless.
Most defeatist post of the year so far?

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3139 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:10 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Or anything but pointless if it forced Norwich into action
Has it achieved that aim, CT?

boatshed bill
Posts: 15108
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3139 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by boatshed bill » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:40 pm

DCWat wrote:Most defeatist post of the year so far?
I can but try, DC. ;)
This user liked this post: DCWat

ClaretTony
Posts: 67436
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Snodgrass

Post by ClaretTony » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:12 pm

boatshed bill wrote:Has it achieved that aim, CT?
We'll see soon enough

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Colburn_Claret » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:22 pm

I'd have liked Snodgrass, he's still a good player, but that package was always going to be too much for us. Good luck to him he's got every right to go where he chooses.

It must be a real quandary for the club, the balance between the price of players then their wages. We seem to be able to afford one or the other, but not both.
IMO we have to pay our 1st team 'premiership' wages. I'd much rather face the problem of recruiting, than the prospect of losing some of our star players.

IF, and I haven't given up hope yet, we do fail to bring anyone in who is going to improve the starting XI, then at least we are in a sound position to stay up anyway, and an even better position in the summer.

I've said in the last few transfer windows, there are many reasons why a particular player may mot sign, you can't just chuck it on the doorstep of the board every time.

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Pstotto » Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:24 am

Snodgrass: "Doctor, I think I've joined West Ham."
Doctor: "Hang yourself and you'll be cured."
This user liked this post: HunterST_BFC

creepingdeath
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:44 am
Been Liked: 63 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Snodgrass

Post by creepingdeath » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:17 am

Clearly joined West Ham due to the terrific reception he always received there

https://twitter.com/footyawaydays_/stat ... 9151306752

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Snodgrass

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:20 am

To be fair to Alan Nixon, he always said that Snodgrass wanted a massive pay day.

He's certainly got that

Post Reply