West Brom (H) - 6pm, 19th January

135678

Comments

  • yoyoyoyo
    edited January 2021
    Team:
    1Fabianski 5Coufal 15Dawson 21Ogbonna 3Cresswell 28Soucek 41Rice 20Bowen 10Lanzini 9Benrahma 30Antonio
    Substitutes 4Balbuena 7Yarmolenko 14Alves 16Noble 18Fornals 23Diop 24Fredericks 31Johnson 35Randolph
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    Cuz1 said:

    Formals swapped for lanzini

    Harsh on Fornals
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    thornburyiron said:

    Yarmo the only other forward on the bench.

    Wonder what's happened to Odubeko 🤔 Injured or not fancied? Whichever it is, it's worrying that Yarmolenko is now our No2 striker.
  • horshamhammerhorshamhammer
    OK Snodgrass isn't playing for them for some reason so you can scratch my prediction...
  • HamstewHamstew
    We have a lot of games. Fornals maybe just rested rather than dropped.
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    No Snodgrass. Probably part of the deal that he wouldn’t play against us.
  • puddleglumhammerspuddleglumhammers
    The balance of the subs is mad. 5 defenders, no place for Odubeko ! We had better be winning by 70 minutes because I doubt any of the subs will turn it around.
  • stevesteve
    Glad theres no snodgrass to bite us you know where ,But that connor gallager looks a good player to me
  • LukerzLukerz
    Is that not 1/3 party interference? Sam confirms Snodgrass does not play due to an agreement between the clubs.
  • LukerzLukerz
    I wonder if Sam was meant to state that publicly.

    Think we could be in trouble over that...
  • yoyoyoyo
    God forbid it happens but it'll be interesting to see the set up if Antonio limps off early on
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Why no Mipo (on the bench)
  • HamstewHamstew
    Lukerz said:

    Is that not 1/3 party interference? Sam confirms Snodgrass does not play due to an agreement between the clubs.

    I know nothing about contracts but can't anything be written into one as long as all parties are happy?
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    Apparently we would not have sold him to WBA earlier had they not agreed to not play him in this fixture.
  • LukerzLukerz
    But it’s not a loan, it’s a permanent transfer
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    edited January 2021
    Lots of club
    Lukerz said:

    I wonder if Sam was meant to state that publicly.

    Think we could be in trouble over that...

    I believe it’s been quite normal for signings in the past! Something to do with it being part of the contract makes it OK
  • LukerzLukerz
    I’m a bit worried about that to be honest. That could be a sanction for us and maybe a deduction.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    The easiest way round it is to insert a clause saying if they did play him against us, then it would trigger a £1m payment to us
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    ...or we wouldn’t sell him till the end of the month.

    Don’t worry Lukerz
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Lukerz said:

    I’m a bit worried about that to be honest. That could be a sanction for us and maybe a deduction.

    But surely the lawyers involved would have rejected that if it was against PL rules. I mean, look at the Tevez affair.................. oh, maybe not. =)
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    It will only be a problem if anyone employed by sheff Utd reads this forum
  • LukerzLukerz
    It must have been an informal agreement. It that’s in the contract that’s 1/3 party ownership 100%.
  • yoyoyoyo
    edited January 2021
    The TV pundits haven't made anything of it, they just mentioned it's the reason why he's not playing and moved on to talk about something else
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    No it’s a condition of sale, as ScottHammer says above we could have said no deal until after this match. I would be amazed if it led to a problem.
  • HamstewHamstew
    As yoyo says no one on BT sport really made anything of it.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Relax Lukerz, you'll give yourself a heart attack.
    Now, take a deep breath and repeat "no 1/3 party ownership" until blood pressure has returned to normal. ;)
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    Harsh on Fornals but maybe Moyes wants to get more goals in games where we have to take the initiative. Fornals has been good for counter-attacking but I guess he wants to see if Benrahma and Lanzini can do a better job of unpicking a tight defence. I thought that might’ve been the logic in having the two of them again the cup game as well
  • HamstewHamstew
    Maybe he feels Fornals will suit the Doncaster game more than Lanzini.
  • stevesteve
    Fornals does so much work .Bit of a worry for me ,But then something always worries me about every West Ham game
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    I prefer formals there but what do I know
Sign In or Register to comment.