Hope they throw the book at him
Nobody will go further than this guy to "massage" any rules
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... ier-league

What is more astonishing, is that he's come out and told everyone what happened

At least he's stopped wearing a mask round his chin

He couldn’t lie straight in bed!
Dodgy get!

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:36 am

Hope they throw the book at him
Nobody will go further than this guy to "massage" any rules
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... ier-league

Surely this was a condition set by West Ham though not West Brom?
Not sure what you are suggesting Sam has done here other than agree to the terms set by WHU

I cant stand the cud chewing arrogant fat slob.

Grumps wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:43 am

What is more astonishing, is that he's come out and told everyone what happened

At least he's stopped wearing a mask round his chin

Brilliant.

Why is he under scrunity if its a west ham decision?
Pointless thread

They'll probably force them to replay the game and West Brom will win the replay.

I'm sure this used to be a normal thing - like a gentleman's agreement for a player not being available for selection after being transferred the same week he was debuting against his former club.

I'm sure we did it once with during Stan's tenure but I can't remember who the player was....

The deal favoured West Spam and penalised WBA so if anything West Spam will be in the doghouse for insisting on that aspect of the deal not WBA.
BFS off the hook again, although hard to see how he was on the hook this time.

The rules were changed in 2007 and although it may have been a West Ham request it facilitated the deal so both clubs to blame. I expect a fine for both clubs.

It looks like an agreement between the two clubs so both at fault if Premier League rules are broken

What really galls me is that both managers seem to think of it as a bit of a joke

I am sure WBA fans are so happy this morning when they read why BFS had "rested" Snodgrass, and they had lost a vital game

Presume both sets of owners were kept informed of these agreements ?

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:03 am

The deal favoured West Spam and penalised WBA so if anything West Spam will be in the doghouse for insisting on that aspect of the deal not WBA.
BFS off the hook again, although hard to see how he was on the hook this time.

If BFS agreed to the deal and it breaks Prem League rules then he is culpable

Yes, it favours WHU and their closest league rivals will be no doubt be complaining about an unfair advantage being taken

But, as a BFC supporter, would you be happy if Dyche negotiated a similar transaction

Just despise the guy

As Steve1956 says " a cud chewing arrogant fat slob"

Couldn't put it better

If it was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to get a player over the line, and Dyche went with it, I wouldn’t be totally against it. At least they’re signing players eh?

Don’t really see the big fuss here and, like others, unsure why Allardyce is getting the flak when it’s clearly a West Ham demand.

Both teams entered into the agreement, ergo both are culpable.

If he'd done anything wrong he wouldn't have said anything.
It's West Ham that have insisted on this, so BFS has rightly dropped them in it.
I doubt the prem will punish them though.

I'm sure Sam isn't bothered one way or the other. He's not the employer and he wouldn't have put the clause in. I can't see what the fuss is surrounding him. Just another story made bigger by including Sam's name.

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:18 am

But, as a BFC supporter, would you be happy if Dyche negotiated a similar transaction

Yes, if it meant we could get a player Dyche wanted and felt could improve the side at the cost of him missing one game against his old club then rules aside I would be more than happy for Dyche to get the deal over the line in this way.

If it was Dyche instead of Allardyche then I think the view on here would be very different and im sure most people wouldn't be blaming or having a go at Dyche or Burnley about this.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have agreement. Especially if the player had been training with his former club all week in preparation to play against his new club.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:56 am

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have agreement. Especially if the player had been training with his former club all week in preparation to play against his new club.

Not if Snodgrass had become a game changer for WBA against West Ham.
He'd have a point to prove against his old club.

I worded that wrong

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have agreement. Especially if the player had been training with his former club all week in preparation to play for his new club.

The Premier League rule says ‘contract’, the article says ‘agreement’. If it’s a verbal agreement where does that stand with the Premier League rules?

Surely BFS isn’t under scrutiny, it’ll be whoever negotiated the deal, BFS will identify targets, then somebody else does the deal.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:00 am

I worded that wrong

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have agreement. Especially if the player had been training with his former club all week in preparation to play for his new club.

Actually, I'm going to take this back - I thought Snodgrass moved to West Brom just a few days ago. I hadn't realised it was earlier in the month (8th). I think Premier League have the right to look into this very seriously.

Shouldn't this Be discussed on Loose Women.. Fellas are becoming such Gossiping fish wives these days...all a do about nothing.The times they are a changing.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:38 am

If it was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to get a player over the line, and Dyche went with it, I wouldn’t be totally against it. At least they’re signing players eh?

Don’t really see the big fuss here and, like others, unsure why Allardyce is getting the flak when it’s clearly a West Ham demand.

Agreed Swizzlestick. I'd imagine the conversation was along the lines of 'yes you can buy him, but ideally we don't want to sell him til the end of the month. When we can possibly bring a replacement in/spend that money elsewhere. Ideally we don't want him playing against us either! If you want him now, we'd need to agree he doesn't play against us"

I appreciate the transparency though - at the end of the day though, no-one cares.

They could've used a couple of loopholes

Say he's injured or ill
Sign on an initial months loan with a view to a permanent move - this would've ruled Snodgrass out of the game anyway
Have him an unused sub on the bench

Instead the managers have just been honest.

Nothing will come from it anyway

Can't see what BFS has done wrong personally. It often happened in the last with verbal agreements between clubs that a player would not play in the next game against the selling club, there's obviously a rule now to stop that from happening. Can only think if anyone's at fault it's West Ham.

Technically there was nothing to stop BFS selecting Snodgrass last night then? Can't see how WHU would have any comeback if he has been selected.

I dont understand the stupidity of it and also him admitting it. Surely if there was a "gentleman's* agreement" then surely they would have just said he had a calf strain or some other non entity "injury" to avoid scrutiny. Just plain stupid some people.



* - word used loosely in his case

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:46 am

I cant stand the cud chewing arrogant fat slob.

I love him. He's still held in awe by many from Horwich Wanderers and he's doing a wonderful job at West Brom. Could there be a relegation from the Premier League on his CV this year?

Taken from The Guardian December 2020:

"It would kill me if it were to happen, I’d be massively upset” I'd be massively upset if they stay up

Herts Clarets wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:45 am

Technically there was nothing to stop BFS selecting Snodgrass last night then? Can't see how WHU would have any comeback if he has been selected.

No there wasn't.

The Times report:

‘We could only do deal with this agreement’ – Robert Snodgrass deal under scrutiny

Gary Jacob, Matt Lawton Wednesday January 20 2021, 12.01am, The Times

The Premier League last night launched an investigation after Sam Allardyce said he did not include Robert Snodgrass in his West Bromwich Albion team to play West Ham United because of an “agreement” between the clubs.

Snodgrass joined West Brom from West Ham on a free transfer a fortnight ago and Allardyce appeared to suggest in an interview shortly before last night’s game that a condition of the move had been that the winger sit out the meeting with his former club.

Such an agreement could risk being in breach of a Premier League regulation that says teams must not make agreements that allow other clubs to influence issues such as team selection.

Speaking to BT Sport before the game, Allardyce said: “That was an agreement between the clubs that this game [against West Ham] he would not be allowed to play. We could only get the deal done with that agreement.”

The Times understands there is nothing in Snodgrass’s contract with West Brom that forbids him from playing against his former club.

But Allardyce’s comments mean the Premier League will have to establish whether West Ham made a verbal agreement with West Brom that Snodgrass would not play against them.

The Premier League said last night their investigation was not yet a formal one and would first seek further information from the clubs.

Snodgrass, 33, was at last night’s match, which West Ham won 2-1. After the game Allardyce appeared to have realised his earlier comments had interested the Premier League.

He said: “I can’t answer that, I’ll have to wait and see before I answer anything that might cause me, West Ham or anybody else any trouble. I’ll wait to see what the Premier League say,” he said. “I’ve got bigger things to worry about than what the Premier League thinks. The players played their best today. Whether Robert Snodgrass played or not it wouldn’t have had any hand in the two goals we conceded.”

The West Ham manager David Moyes said it was a matter for the Premier League to investigate. He said: “I don’t think it is any of my business. I am not sure it is any of yours, to be honest. The Premier League have to do what they have to do. Robert Snodgrass is a very good player, we will miss him a lot. We sent him with our best wishes, we did not take any fee for him because we have so much respect for him and what he has done here.”

The Premier League’s rule I7, in relation to club contracts, states that “no club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in League matches”.

Conroysleftfoot wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:50 am

They'll probably force them to replay the game and West Brom will win the replay.

Should be a points deduction for both teams if the Premier League finds that the rules have been broken.

If what SA has said is correct, West Ham agreed to transfer RS with an agreement that he be left out of the game last night. That appears to assist West Ham in their pursuit of 3 points.

Similarly, West Brom agreed to these terms and this enabled them to have RS available for other games, including their defeat of Wolves.

I don't think it can be settled as a fine. RS moved on a free transfer. What were the weekly wages West Ham were saving? What are the weekly wages West Brom are paying?

Imagine if two clubs agreed a transfer fee that was £X, but an extra payment was made based on avoiding relegation, or qualifying for Europe or some other footballing success measure? How big would a fine have to be to stop this sort of distortion across the league?

But, points deductions for both teams mean that there can never be a "winner" from breaking these rules.

It's hardly match fixing.

If the clubs both agree to it, I don't personally see a problem?

I really don't think anything will come of it,perhaps a warning but no more than that.

West Brom lost. Why are we worrying about something that may have helped that happen?

Some people really do look for anything don’t they.

I would love it if we came to a similar sort of agreement with another club as it would mean we were signing someone.

Fat Sam came out the other day and said he’d telephoned around 250 players/agents about moves. Even though he’s obviously exaggerating, I’d be amazed if we have done anything like that. Especially given Paces’ comments that he didn’t want to deal with agents in his opening press interview.

Winstonswhite wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:28 pm

Some people really do look for anything don’t they.

I would love it if we came to a similar sort of agreement with another club as it would mean we were signing someone.

Fat Sam came out the other day and said he’d telephoned around 250 players/agents about moves. Even though he’s obviously exaggerating, I’d be amazed if we have done anything like that. Especially given Paces’ comments that he didn’t want to deal with agents in his opening press interview.

But what's to stop a club saying to another club you can only buy our player if you don't play him against us for the next five seasons?

It opens up a can of worms.

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Should be a points deduction for both teams if the Premier League finds that the rules have been broken.

If what SA has said is correct, West Ham agreed to transfer RS with an agreement that he be left out of the game last night. That appears to assist West Ham in their pursuit of 3 points.

Similarly, West Brom agreed to these terms and this enabled them to have RS available for other games, including their defeat of Wolves.

I don't think it can be settled as a fine. RS moved on a free transfer. What were the weekly wages West Ham were saving? What are the weekly wages West Brom are paying?

Imagine if two clubs agreed a transfer fee that was £X, but an extra payment was made based on avoiding relegation, or qualifying for Europe or some other footballing success measure? How big would a fine have to be to stop this sort of distortion across the league?

But, points deductions for both teams mean that there can never be a "winner" from breaking these rules.

Exactly this, it was an illegal transfer which helped West Brom field what would have been an illegible player in the game against wolves. Without that agreement he wouldn’t have been at the club.

Whats to stop a club saying to another club you can only buy our player if you play the next two games blindfolded and hopping on one leg? Lets just deal with the situation as it is which is something and nothing and if they've broken the rules then a fine and a warning seems perfectly reasonable punishment.

Leave the tittle tattle to tim_noone and the Loose Women team

I know it was the Championship, but didn't we do it with Brentford when we signed Andre, or am I imagining something again?

Spijed wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:41 pm

But what's to stop a club saying to another club you can only buy our player if you don't play him against us for the next five seasons?

Common sense from the buying club.

The fat slob has again changed the narrative from discussing defeat.

"Gentleman's agreement".

David Gold, David Sullivan, BFS.

Is it just me that sees the irony here.