| West Ham and Snodgrass 13:35 - Jan 20 with 665 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
As I understand it West Ham sold he Scot to WBA with a gentlemans agreemnt the WBA would not play in the game at the Taxpayers stadium 2-3 weeks later.
This seems anti competetive to me and should not be allowed.
Consider if Bornemouth sold David Brookes or King to Nottigham Forest just in time for the Swansea game but said he could not play against Bornemouth a week later. Throw the book at west Ham I say.
[Post edited 20 Jan 2021 13:55]
|  |
| |  |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 13:56 - Jan 20 with 626 views | hobo |
If that's what the two teams agreed then there's nothing wrong with it |  | | |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 13:59 - Jan 20 with 610 views | Joe_bradshaw |
I see that fat Sam brought this up post match. Maybe he wants the game replayed with his new signing available for selection?
One thing we can be sure of is that if West Brom had won the game he wouldn’t have said a dicky bird about it. |  |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 14:02 - Jan 20 with 608 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 13:56 - Jan 20 by hobo |
If that's what the two teams agreed then there's nothing wrong with it |
It open to croneyism and result manipulation in a particlar set of circumstances. It required thinking out side the box to see it. It is a model that is open for abuse. | |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 14:11 - Jan 20 with 581 views | Highjack |
It’s not like Sam allardyce to be involved in shady under the counter gentlemen’s agreements. |  |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 15:45 - Jan 20 with 519 views | MrSwerve |
If he’s not a West Ham player any more, they shouldn’t have any say in whether he plays or not.
Ridiculous agreement in the first place. |  |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 16:29 - Jan 20 with 481 views | Catullus |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 13:56 - Jan 20 by hobo |
If that's what the two teams agreed then there's nothing wrong with it |
It's against the rules, simple as that. Mind you when Manyoo and Everton were caught doing it with Tim Howard they weren't punished.
These under the counter arrangements always happen. How to stop them is the problem? Any club can give a perfectly reasonable reason why that player didn't play and who can prove otherwise, unless the player speaks out which won't happen. |  |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 16:35 - Jan 20 with 475 views | dobjack2 |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 13:56 - Jan 20 by hobo |
If that's what the two teams agreed then there's nothing wrong with it |
Apart from it being breaching premier league rules. If it had been included in the terms of the transfer the transfer wouldn’t have been allowed.
Will probably get away with a slapped wrist as the teams are yet to play each other, circumstances of season etc. | | | |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 17:00 - Jan 20 with 455 views | Catullus |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 16:35 - Jan 20 by dobjack2 |
Apart from it being breaching premier league rules. If it had been included in the terms of the transfer the transfer wouldn’t have been allowed.
Will probably get away with a slapped wrist as the teams are yet to play each other, circumstances of season etc. |
Will they get away with it though? If Snodgrass doesn't play when they meet, with this being in the public domain, will they risk it?
What is the point of the rule if they never enforce it? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 17:18 - Jan 20 with 441 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 17:00 - Jan 20 by Catullus |
Will they get away with it though? If Snodgrass doesn't play when they meet, with this being in the public domain, will they risk it?
What is the point of the rule if they never enforce it? |
That's the point. They met last night and he didn't play. Sam brought it up after the game. | |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 18:05 - Jan 20 with 413 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
The FA 'light touch' approach will make PL football a very attactive prospect for media maniipulators and criminals relating to gambling. It is not unreasonable for one chairman to ring another chairman to ask favour to facilitate a wager that might be made.
They are so green teams accross the land put the logo of a USA marxist group all over their website without having any idea what they stood for. (Commune living in place of the traditional family and defunding the Police). This of course incudes our own Mr Birch.
The FA embarassed at their carelessness then changed the 'Protest' for BLM into a 'message' against inequality hoping no one noticed the difference. Even today the red top press have not noticed. In true limp wristed style they have left the decision to the clubs / players whether to cntinue the "message".
Like all weak managers they like letting the shop floor get on with it. They will not interrfere until it really gets bad like in Italy. [Post edited 20 Jan 2021 18:22]
| |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 19:13 - Jan 20 with 369 views | jasper_T |
Big Sam seems to have as clear an understanding of the rules as some fans. It's explicitly against the rules to include clauses like this in permanent transfers. | | | |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 19:57 - Jan 20 with 335 views | Catullus |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 19:13 - Jan 20 by jasper_T |
Big Sam seems to have as clear an understanding of the rules as some fans. It's explicitly against the rules to include clauses like this in permanent transfers. |
He knows it's in the rules though, that's why this gentlemans agreement happened.
As I asked earlier, what is the point of the rule if it's not enforced. The EPL should deduct 6 points from both teams to set an example...saying that, what is the proscribed punishment? | |
| |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 20:08 - Jan 20 with 324 views | jasper_T |
| West Ham and Snodgrass on 19:57 - Jan 20 by Catullus |
He knows it's in the rules though, that's why this gentlemans agreement happened.
As I asked earlier, what is the point of the rule if it's not enforced. The EPL should deduct 6 points from both teams to set an example...saying that, what is the proscribed punishment? |
A transfer ban seems the only logical response to clubs failing to conduct transfers properly within the rules. Any fine or unrelated punishment will simply be added into the cost of doing business in future. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
