West Ham

H

Huddboro

Well-known member
Cheating again. Lets hope this time the FA throw the book at them; in the agreement to sign Snodgrass they've put in a clause that he can't play against them against league rules.
 
Is there actually any rule against that?
They can't throw the book at them if they haven't broken any rules, can they?

I guess West Brom must have agreed to it as part of the deal.
 
Frozen Horse said:
Is there actually any rule against that?
They can't throw the book at them if they haven't broken any rules, can they?

I guess West Brom must have agreed to it as part of the deal.
Click to expand...
It's 100% part of the rules SSN have just confirmed it. No deal is agreed to be allowed that favours another club in a situation like this; obviously loans are different.
 
Huddboro said:
Cheating again. Lets hope this time the FA throw the book at them; in the agreement to sign Snodgrass they've put in a clause that he can't play against them against league rules.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think a rule exists TBH, an agreement between teams that's drawn up & agreed
 
Don't think it's a big deal. The alternative would've been West Ham didn't sell him to West Brom until after the two teams had played. Probably wasn't even wrote down and more of a gentleman's agreement so West Brom could've broke the terms if they'd really wanted to. I imagine it happens a lot more than people realise. It just isn't made as public as it has been in this case.
 
They did just say on SSN that there is a Premier League rule to say you can't have an agreement. Usually it wouldn't matter, as no-one would probably know. However, apparently Allardyce was asked why Snodgrass wasn't playing, and he said it was because of an agreement between the two clubs. Oops!
 
Jan_Aage_Fjortoft said:
Don't think it's a big deal. The alternative would've been West Ham didn't sell him to West Brom until after the two teams had played. Probably wasn't even wrote down and more of a gentleman's agreement so West Brom could've broke the terms if they'd really wanted to. I imagine it happens a lot more than people realise. It just isn't made as public as it has been in this case.
Click to expand...

Certainly there would be no problem if they agreed the deal just wouldn't go through until after they'd played. However, if it were just down to the clubs to agree the deal, what would be to stop them agreeing that Snodgrass (or any other player they sell) could never play against them for the new club? That way madness lies, so I do think there should be outside control on this.
 
It's a strange one. You can see why it's done during loans but he's now a WBA player.

I guess if they hadn't agreed then they would maybe have delayed the transfer until tomorrow. Then they wouldn't have had him for the wolves game or tonight.

I guess it's a small 'price' for a player you want. I'm sure had they played West ham in a few weeks it wouldn't have been an issue.
 
Proterozoic Sam Allardyce once again misses the nuance of the modern game. As said, likely happens all the time "off the record" and would have gone entirely unnoticed if not mentioned by Sam. Chairmen be pulling out their hair and their wallets due to his incompetency.
 
TommyPlus said:
Proterozoic Sam Allardyce once again misses the nuance of the modern game. As said, likely happens all the time "off the record" and would have gone entirely unnoticed if not mentioned by Sam. Chairmen be pulling out their hair and their wallets due to his incompetency.
Click to expand...
Trying to deflect from the fact they lost again.
 
Huddboro said:
Trying to deflect from the fact they lost again.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly that. If it's against the rules then West Brom should have played him amd then challenged West Ham to take action against them. The truth is it was probably an agreement between Moyes and BFS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top