Sam (Snod)Grasses

edited January 2021 in West Ham Miscellaneous
This discussion was created from comments split from: West Brom (H) - 6pm, 19th January.

Discussion about the Snodgrass 'agreement' that led to his omission in our match against WBA...
«1345

Comments

  • Do the FA not check contracts nowadays? both clubs would be sanctioned I imagine and if nothing written down I doubt any consequences.
  • I stand corrected - if Sky have said it it must be true!!!?
  • Do the FA not check contracts nowadays? both clubs would be sanctioned I imagine and if nothing written down I doubt any consequences.

    It won’t be formal but can still constitute a breach of rules if there is evidence in an email etc to suggest that it was ‘agreed’.
  • If it isn't written down, then the owners can deny it.
  • edited January 2021
    Big Sam getting his little ownback on the owners but landing his current club in a lot of bother too !
  • Our owners are professionals at pulling the wool over people's eyes. I can't believe they haven't thought about this and covered themselves in some dodgy crooked way.
  • I reckon it was more like us saying you can have him but not until after the game and they said we need him now but won’t play him. Otherwise it’s insane from our point of view. He’s a decent player but not one of fear enough to risk getting punished for.
  • Three points to be forfeited by both West Ham and West Brom and awarded to Sheffield Utd, plus £20 million compensation payable on the event of their relegation.

    Sounds like the way forward to me.
  • Presumably if WBA had said ‘unlucky mate’ & picked him, they were more than entitled to?
  • What annoys me is that we get a half decent season once in a millennium and some idiot goes what can we do to screw it up. Oh I know let’s do a dodgy transfer and risk a points deduction. >:)
  • I reckon it was more like us saying you can have him but not until after the game and they said we need him now but won’t play him. Otherwise it’s insane from our point of view. He’s a decent player but not one of fear enough to risk getting punished for.

    If that was the case surely we could have just loaned him to them with a commitment to buy on January 20th.
  • What is Rule 17) I looked at the pl handbook and there seem to be lots of rule 17s. With different letters.

    Doubt it's TPO as that's all about economic interest, and benefitting from future transfers.
  • edited January 2021
    Sky Sports interview says Premier League are investigating the Snodgrass situation.

    I sense a 30 point deduction and 50 trillion pound fine.
  • It's rule 1.7 Mrs. Grey.
  • As we said, no doubt we refused to sell him until the 20th Jan, they wanted him for the Wolves game & said they would leave him out of our game if we sold him now. Nothing in the contract.

    At the end of the day, nothing actually stopped them selecting him today, other than themselves.
  • Lukerz said:

    As we said, no doubt we refused to sell him until the 20th Jan, they wanted him for the Wolves game & said they would leave him out of our game if we sold him now. Nothing in the contract.

    At the end of the day, nothing actually stopped them selecting him today, other than themselves.

    I think so. And it makes it even worse that Allardyce has gone and said it, if so.
  • Cheers, Preston. Same question though ... All the rules seems to be preceded by a letter of the alphabet?
  • edited January 2021
    Who at Sky knows the details of all Premier League contracts, how certain clauses are written and even if things are written down. This is an excuse for Sky to claim another “exclusive”. It doesn’t involve one of the big clubs, so they make mountains out of mole hills.
    My other thoughts would be modded!🤬
  • Big Sam was asked when he knew he couldn’t pick snodderz he said let the premier league ask him if there investigating he’d got more important things to worry about, I’d have added yes a yogurt in my fridge that’s nearly out of date, I doubt owt will come of it as it must have been agreed by other teams previously
  • 22 points awarded to Blunts and carries a 12 match ban for Tevez
  • Cuz1 said:

    Big Sam was asked when he knew he couldn’t pick snodderz he said let the premier league ask him if there investigating he’d got more important things to worry about, I’d have added yes a yogurt in my fridge that’s nearly out of date, I doubt owt will come of it as it must have been agreed by other teams previously

    I think he’s said two different things before and after the game
  • edited January 2021
    MrsGrey said:

    Cheers, Preston. Same question though ... All the rules seems to be preceded by a letter of the alphabet?

    BT flashed this up earlier


  • WBA more in a sticky spot than us in that case...
  • I'll be flabbergasted if we have left a paper trail putting our name to that agreement
  • Can you imagine if those 3 points v Wolves with snodgrass keep WBA up at the expense of Sheff Utd. Obvs unlikely due to sheff Utd’s position but it would just be majestic.
  • yoyo said:

    I'll be flabbergasted if we have left a paper trail putting our name to that agreement

    Well if it is a gentleman’s agreement, the nature of those means there will be zilch.

    I mean why on Earth did allardyce simply not say he had a slightly tight calf. He could have put his own club in a heap of trouble.
  • All Sam had to say was "two games in three/four days is too much for him given his lack of match time of late".

    Simple stuff, Sam.
  • His actions that led to him leaving the England job suggests he isn't the brightest star in the sky, so it's no surprise he didn't engage his brain first. He looked a bit rattled when it was mentioned in the post-match interview so I think he knows he's dropped a clanger here.
  • I have to say, the wording (name) of this thread is absolutely top drawer
  • edited January 2021
    Cheers ocs. As I said earlier, seems if anybody is in trouble it would be wba.
Sign In or Register to comment.