BFS under scrutiny again
BFS under scrutiny again
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
Nobody will go further than this guy to "massage" any rules
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... ier-league
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
At least he's stopped wearing a mask round his chin
This user liked this post: Steve1956
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
He couldn’t lie straight in bed!
Dodgy get!
Dodgy get!
-
- Posts: 11543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3195 times
- Has Liked: 1875 times
- Contact:
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:36 amHope 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
-
- Posts: 17283
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6492 times
- Has Liked: 2919 times
- Location: Fife
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
I cant stand the cud chewing arrogant fat slob.
-
- Posts: 1374
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:35 pm
- Been Liked: 247 times
- Has Liked: 90 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
Why is he under scrunity if its a west ham decision?
Pointless thread
Pointless thread
-
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 2:06 pm
- Been Liked: 352 times
- Has Liked: 294 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
They'll probably force them to replay the game and West Brom will win the replay.
This user liked this post: jojomk1
-
- Posts: 5915
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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....
I'm sure we did it once with during Stan's tenure but I can't remember who the player was....
This user liked this post: The Enclosure
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
BFS off the hook again, although hard to see how he was on the hook this time.
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:58 pm
- Been Liked: 55 times
- Has Liked: 92 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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 ?
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 ?
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
-
- Posts: 4077
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1509 times
- Has Liked: 582 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 16926
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6970 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
Both teams entered into the agreement, ergo both are culpable.
-
- Posts: 8159
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3087 times
- Has Liked: 5071 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3324
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 702 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
-
- Posts: 12376
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5211 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
-
- Posts: 5915
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
Not if Snodgrass had become a game changer for WBA against West Ham.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:56 amI 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.
He'd have a point to prove against his old club.
-
- Posts: 5915
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
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.
Last edited by claptrappers_union on Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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?
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
Surely BFS isn’t under scrutiny, it’ll be whoever negotiated the deal, BFS will identify targets, then somebody else does the deal.
-
- Posts: 5915
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.claptrappers_union wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:00 amI 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.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
This user liked this post: Devils_Advocate
-
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:37 pm
- Been Liked: 657 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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"Swizzlestick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:38 amIf 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.
-
- Posts: 5915
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
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
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
-
- Posts: 3960
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1774 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
* - word used loosely in his case
-
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:38 pm
- Been Liked: 2416 times
- Has Liked: 2115 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
No there wasn't.Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:45 amTechnically 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.
-
- Posts: 9919
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2352 times
- Has Liked: 3183 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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”.
‘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”.
-
- Posts: 9919
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2352 times
- Has Liked: 3183 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
Should be a points deduction for both teams if the Premier League finds that the rules have been broken.Conroysleftfoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:50 amThey'll probably force them to replay the game and West Brom will win the replay.
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.
-
- Posts: 4303
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1032 times
- Has Liked: 1522 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
It's hardly match fixing.
If the clubs both agree to it, I don't personally see a problem?
If the clubs both agree to it, I don't personally see a problem?
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
I really don't think anything will come of it,perhaps a warning but no more than that.
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
West Brom lost. Why are we worrying about something that may have helped that happen?
-
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 610 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.
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.
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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?Winstonswhite wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:28 pmSome 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.
It opens up a can of worms.
-
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm
- Been Liked: 662 times
- Has Liked: 1220 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:38 pmShould 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.
-
- Posts: 12376
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5211 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
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
Leave the tittle tattle to tim_noone and the Loose Women team
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
I know it was the Championship, but didn't we do it with Brentford when we signed Andre, or am I imagining something again?
-
- Posts: 4303
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1032 times
- Has Liked: 1522 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
The fat slob has again changed the narrative from discussing defeat.
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm
- Been Liked: 156 times
- Has Liked: 107 times
Re: BFS under scrutiny again
"Gentleman's agreement".
David Gold, David Sullivan, BFS.
Is it just me that sees the irony here.
David Gold, David Sullivan, BFS.
Is it just me that sees the irony here.
This user liked this post: Zlatan