[drewks]

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.

.... but surely we were the ones that 'suffered' with this agreement - although I can see that we DID agree to something that was not allowed.

A thought: why didn't we just PLAY The Snod? Wet Sham couldn't have done a thing about it! To me THAT'S the question we should be asking!

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

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.

.... but surely we were the ones that 'suffered' with this agreement - although I can see that we DID agree to something that was not allowed.

A thought: why didn't we just PLAY The Snod? Wet Sham couldn't have done a thing about it! To me THAT'S the question we should be asking!

Because if we'd played Snodgrass after Allardyce agreed not to, then West Ham would have spread it far and wide that he broke his word, and Sam's chances of doing any kind of similar deal with any club in future would have gone up in smoke. And as a man who's been proven to have his fingers in many a pie over the years, I guess he didn't feel like trading that entire method of management away forever for a one-off chance of getting three points that we might have blown even with Snodgrass present.

[drewks]

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.

.... but surely we were the ones that 'suffered' with this agreement - although I can see that we DID agree to something that was not allowed.

A thought: why didn't we just PLAY The Snod? Wet Sham couldn't have done a thing about it! To me THAT'S the question we should be asking!

Because if we'd played Snodgrass after Allardyce agreed not to, then West Ham would have spread it far and wide that he broke his word, and Sam's chances of doing any kind of similar deal with any club in future would have gone up in smoke.  And as a man who's been proven to have his fingers in many a pie over the years, I guess he didn't feel like trading that entire method of management away forever for a one-off chance of getting three points that we might have blown even with Snodgrass present.

..... but a bit of basic spin could've made Sam whiter than white : " WH TRIED to tie us down to something that wasn't allowed, so I stuck with what I found out later to be right, and played someone who is now OUR PLAYER"....
After all Wet Ham are surely near the top of the Shady Practices league?

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

Yeah, I'm not talking about how Sam would spin it to the FA, I'm talking how it would be viewed by every other manager and chairman in the game. No more handshake agreements, no more comfy arrangements; he'd no longer be seen as a man of his word. Why do a deal with someone who'll stab you in the back?

[wba13]

Harper to Blues on loan for rest of season
Masi says we’re after Benfica striker Haris Seferovic Swiss internationalwho we looked at in the summer. Difficult to get this one over the line but Benfica are in big financial trouble. By all accounts we have a good relationship with Benfica, but I wonder if Krovinavic Lon deal may have p****d them off.

[Salopbaggie]

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

"We could only get the deal done with that agreement", those word imply previous knowledge.  I would not try and defend, any club if they clearly break the rules any more than I would condone any player taking a dive.  It may be the deal was done without SA'a knowledge, yes it is possible, we sign a player from the Sham which of course Sam is the ex manager of, he has been investigated by the FA for doggy dealing, twice and had to resign as England manager after taking a payment for advising on doggy dealing (whether he was set up or not), so historically the score is; Sam 3 - WBA 0, but yes it is possible, he knew nothing about it.  

Point is none of that matters, the one who picks the team is the manager, the issue is about Snodgrass being left out of the squad for a non legitimate reason, one that may very well breach FA Reg: 17.  From Sam's statement we know 'at least' he went along with the alleged breach, by not playing him, so at the least he was complicit in any breach which may or may not have occurred.   But fingers crossed the FA have not found anyone guilty of any  breach of regulations, yet.

[wba13]

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

"We could only get the deal done with that agreement", those word imply previous knowledge.  I would not try and defend, any club if they clearly break the rules any more than I would condone any player taking a dive.  It may be the deal was done without SA'a knowledge, yes it is possible, we sign a player from the Sham which of course Sam is the ex manager of, he has been investigated by the FA for doggy dealing, twice and had to resign as England manager after taking a payment for advising on doggy dealing (whether he was set up or not), so historically the score is; Sam 3 - WBA 0, but yes it is possible, he knew nothing about it.  

Point is none of that matters, the one who picks the team is the manager, the issue is about Snodgrass being left out of the squad for a non legitimate reason, one that may very well breach FA Reg: 17.  From Sam's statement we know 'at least' he went along with the alleged breach, by not playing him, so at the least he was complicit in any breach which may or may not have occurred.   But fingers crossed the FA have not found anyone guilty of any  breach of regulations, yet.  

I get it you want big Sam to fail. You obviously don’t like him. So I will leave it at that.

[WBA-Josh]

Sokratis Papastathopoulos has left Arsenal.

Would you guys be interested in him on a free transfer? The wages could be an issue and he is 32, turning 33 in June, but he could give us 18 months of solid service (as long as we stay up of course) before probably returning to Greece.

[Salopbaggie]

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

"We could only get the deal done with that agreement", those word imply previous knowledge.  I would not try and defend, any club if they clearly break the rules any more than I would condone any player taking a dive.  It may be the deal was done without SA'a knowledge, yes it is possible, we sign a player from the Sham which of course Sam is the ex manager of, he has been investigated by the FA for doggy dealing, twice and had to resign as England manager after taking a payment for advising on doggy dealing (whether he was set up or not), so historically the score is; Sam 3 - WBA 0, but yes it is possible, he knew nothing about it.  

Point is none of that matters, the one who picks the team is the manager, the issue is about Snodgrass being left out of the squad for a non legitimate reason, one that may very well breach FA Reg: 17.  From Sam's statement we know 'at least' he went along with the alleged breach, by not playing him, so at the least he was complicit in any breach which may or may not have occurred.   But fingers crossed the FA have not found anyone guilty of any  breach of regulations, yet.  

I get it you want big Sam to fail. You obviously don’t like him. So I will leave it at that.

I would have left it at that but to suggest that I want the manager of our team to fail, which in turn would mean I want our team to fail, is out of order. I don't quite get how you think stating the facts means I do not like Big Sam, the facts are the facts and would not changed whether I love or hate Allerdyce. If you can point at anything I said which is not factual, in order to show why you think I think I want him to fail, that would be interesting.

---

and the jibes on other site have started 'Bung Bung Baggies'

[wba13]

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

"We could only get the deal done with that agreement", those word imply previous knowledge.  I would not try and defend, any club if they clearly break the rules any more than I would condone any player taking a dive.  It may be the deal was done without SA'a knowledge, yes it is possible, we sign a player from the Sham which of course Sam is the ex manager of, he has been investigated by the FA for doggy dealing, twice and had to resign as England manager after taking a payment for advising on doggy dealing (whether he was set up or not), so historically the score is; Sam 3 - WBA 0, but yes it is possible, he knew nothing about it.  

Point is none of that matters, the one who picks the team is the manager, the issue is about Snodgrass being left out of the squad for a non legitimate reason, one that may very well breach FA Reg: 17.  From Sam's statement we know 'at least' he went along with the alleged breach, by not playing him, so at the least he was complicit in any breach which may or may not have occurred.   But fingers crossed the FA have not found anyone guilty of any  breach of regulations, yet.  

I get it you want big Sam to fail. You obviously don’t like him. So I will leave it at that.

I would have left it at that but to suggest that I want the manager of our team to fail, which in turn would mean I want our team to fail, is out of order.   I don't quite get how you think stating the facts means I do not like Big Sam, the facts are the facts and would not changed whether I love or hate Allerdyce.  If you can point at anything I said which is not factual, in order to show why you think I think I want him to fail, that would be interesting.

---

    and the jibes on other site have started 'Bung Bung Baggies'    

FACT your words. { So Allardyce is up to his doggy dealings already, } but as I stated you have no idea who made this agreement , you are implying in that first sentence that it was Allardyce when you don’t know. Never anywhere have I said you wanted Albion to fail and never would.