|
31 Aug, 2021 Transfer Window: Championship Rebuild
|
17-01-2021, 18:52
Sam Johnstone has COVID, if that's who you're asking about.
"I would rather spend a holiday in Tuscany than in the Black Country, but if I were compelled to choose between living in West Bromwich or Florence, I should make straight for West Bromwich." - J.B. Priestley
19-01-2021, 19:35
Snodgrass could have been bought by Bilic in the summer but he wanted Krovinavic, that worked out well didn’t it.
Also pathetic spam would not sanction Snodgrass move until the 20th Jan unless we left him our side against them. 
20-01-2021, 00:22
So Allardyce is up to his doggy dealings already, his very first transfer and the FA are investigating it for irregularities (we agreed Snodgrass would not play against the Sham), this is fine for a loan, but not for a permanent. I suppose when you have an track record for doggy dealings, the FA would keep an eye on you.
20-01-2021, 00:31
Why blame Allardyce when you don’t know what went on. Why not blame the cockneys for being childish,you can’t have your new player , playing against us.
20-01-2021, 00:43
It all seems a bit bizarre investigating this really. I'm pretty sure verbal agreements like this happen in football on a daily basis.
Obviously Allardyce didn't know any rules were being breached or he wouldn't have said it. Would've said he was injured or whatever. I can understand why it's not allowed as it could be seen as teams doing each other favours. It's clearly not a case of that here, it's simply that West Ham didn't want to look stupid if he scored the winner against them so soon after what was basically giving him away. So rather than wait until after our game to sell, a basic verbal agreement was reached. Hopefully some common sense is applied by the FA. 
20-01-2021, 00:46
The Express & Star understands they initially told Albion they wouldn’t sanction Snodgrass’s transfer until today (January 20). But the Baggies wanted him to play against Wolves and intergrate him into the group earlier.
That led to the clubs coming to an agreement preventing the midfielder from playing last night. The agreement, though, may constitute a breach of Premier League regulation I7 which states: “No club shall enter into a contract which enables another party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches.” https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/foo...o-hammers/
20-01-2021, 01:53
(This post was last modified: 20-01-2021, 02:05 by Salopbaggie.)
(20-01-2021, 00:31)wba13 Wrote: Why blame Allardyce when you don’t know what went on. Why not blame the cockneys for being childish,you can’t have your new player , playing against us. Simple I do not need to know who said what when. We do know that we signed Snodgrass from West Sham. We know he was not played against the Sham. We know that Allardyce made a statement saying it was agreed that we would not play him against the Sham in this game. it takes two sides to make a deal, even if the conditions were totally West Sham's, we did not have to agree to it. And like was mentioned Allardyce does have form for this type of transaction (doggy). Premier League regulation I7: “No club shall enter into a contract which enables another party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league match. (20-01-2021, 00:43)Slick_Footwork Wrote: It all seems a bit bizarre investigating this really. I'm pretty sure verbal agreements like this happen in football on a daily basis. It would not be a problem if he had not played against the Dingles or if we had signed him on loan for two weeks with the option to buy, but as soon as he took the field against Wolves as a 'full' West Brom player. he can not legitimately then be left out because of a deal between two club.
20-01-2021, 03:58
(20-01-2021, 01:53)Salopbaggie Wrote:(20-01-2021, 00:31)wba13 Wrote: Why blame Allardyce when you don’t know what went on. Why not blame the cockneys for being childish,you can’t have your new player , playing against us. I suspect it will not be in the contract that he couldn't play in the game, because 2 Premier League clubs should have legal departments that know the rules inside out. It's more likely to be a verbal agreement "we will only sell him now if he doesn't play against us" type of thing. Whether or not an a verbal agreement outside of contract is breaking the rules, who knows, one for the legal gurus... Obviously if we have written it into the contract it's a royal cock up. But if not, my guess is that it's verbal and therefore not breaking the rule. But what we can say with confidence is Sam obviously didn't know it was breaking rules, or he could've made up any excuse why he wasn't playing. Injury being the obvious. Hopefully some common sense is applied when looking into this, because it's no more "influential" on a selection than any loan deal. As you say, had we loaned Snodgrass, he wouldn't have been able to play anyway. Until details come out, the club is innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.
20-01-2021, 11:35
(20-01-2021, 01:53)Salopbaggie Wrote:(20-01-2021, 00:31)wba13 Wrote: Why blame Allardyce when you don’t know what went on. Why not blame the cockneys for being childish,you can’t have your new player , playing against us. Agreed Allardyce made the statement, but we don’t know who made the agreement. For me someone is innocent until proven Guilty. What has happened before has nothing to do with this. Now I’m no big Allardyce fan but making statements when you you don’t know what happened is wrong. Remember Moyes has previous he was manager of Everton when the same thing happened with Tim Howard when signed from Man Utd 
20-01-2021, 11:46
Most worrying about this situation is that if this arrangement is found to be illegal, we could be fined or worse still deducted points. Something that we can ill afford.
Some days I'm top dog, most days I'm just the lamp post.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
