Sam (Snod)Grasses

245

Comments

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Lukerz said:

    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.

    But that assumes there's something dodgy to be covered up.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Maybe Sam realises it is a list cause and aims to be sacked before relegation is confirmed- thus maintaining his record 🧐
  • LukerzLukerz
    Sam Allardyce, when asked about the 'agreement':

    “I can’t answer that. I’ll have to wait and see.

    “Before I answer anything that might cause me or West Ham any trouble then I’ll wait and see what the Premier League say but I’ve got bigger things to worry about."
  • LukerzLukerz
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/e/everton/6629661.stm

    Sounds identical to this to me...

    Reality is WBA were free to select Snodgrass, but chose not too. Whether we verbally agreed an omission or not, nothing stopped them selecting him other than honouring that promise.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    I was just coming to comment on that old case, which is referred to in the BBC story about Snodgrass. Can't post a link, sorry.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2021
    BBC Sport, of the incident from 2007 said:

    The Premier League would not have sanctioned the permanent transfer if United had requested a clause preventing Howard from playing against them.
    But before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.
    The Premier League's statement added: "Everton were free to play Tim Howard in their fixture against Manchester United had they so wished - and this has been confirmed by both clubs."

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Close the thread, nothing to see here. 😂
  • SlackerSlacker
    It’s got a whiff of Tevezgate about it. It would be so West Ham to finish in the top four then get 20 points deducted.
  • Cuz1Cuz1
    Seems moyes is the common denominator 😂😂
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I think as Mrs Grey suggests it would be WBA in trouble as they have entered into the contract and its that entering into that is against the rules. On that thinking our asking for it in the contract is not wrong but they should not have accepted that deal.

    I suspect little will come as I doubt there is actually anything in the contract itself.
  • Brother_SledgeBrother_Sledge
    That was my initial interpretation but there are two parties to the contract and if the contract is in breach of the rules then both parties are culpable if they enter into it.
    Also I am no legal expert but I thought a verbal agreement still constitutes a contract.
  • MunichHammerMunichHammer
    Whilst a verbal agreement still constitutes a contract, it is fiendishly difficult to prove. They might have enquired about Snoddy and we pointed yesterday's game out to them.
    But regardless of what was said I think it will only prove harmful if there was anything in place to actually stop West Brom from fielding him.
    If Sheffield decide to after it then we'd be safe as I seriously doubt that leaving out Snodgrass strengthens West Brom and we ourselves are out of sight anyway.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Bottom line is WBA were perfectly free to play Snodgrass yesterday and chose not to. Had they done so there is nothing we could have done.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    baracks_a_hammer said:

    Bottom line is WBA were perfectly free to play Snodgrass yesterday and chose not to. Had they done so there is nothing we could have done.

    Yeah, I think that's where I'm with it now. I'm just hoping that even Sullivan isn't stupid enough to have committed that kind of agreement to paper.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Even if he did, do the Premier League not check their own contracts before confirming them? Thought that was the whole point in submitting relevant paperwork?
  • LukerzLukerz
    It sounds like we did them a massive favour by giving them him for the Wolves game for a nominal fee, even though we wanted to wait until after yesterday’s game. They were happy to leave him out yesterday if it meant they could have him sooner. Nothing stopped them selecting him, other than probably ruining any future transfer relationship between us & them. However it could now be argued they should lose the 3 points won against Wolves with Snodgrass in the side & we should lose the 3 points from last night. I think that’s the worse case scenario but imagine it will be a warning & maybe a small fine.

    Simple solution for our club which we need to learn from; make them wait. Given our squad is thin & given we basically received no fee, we should have made them wait. Unless we had an interest in them beating Wolves...
  • LukerzLukerz
    MrsG - I suppose the key thing to the Howard incident is that it appears that this new rule we may have breached was created as a result of it. So whilst an identical thing happened in 2007, there was no such law ruling it illegal, whereas there is now.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Lukerz

    I don’t believe we should be losing 3 points as them not playing him was not within our control
  • alderzalderz
    baracks

    Isn't that the argument though? That we had an influence over their team selection, whether legally binding or perceived? It seems that Sam believed that Snodgrass was unavailable for selection against us due to the negotiations between the club.

    Personally, I think this will probably blow over, but who knows

    Lukerz

    Where has the 3pts thing come from? Is that written into the laws as a punishment?
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    What would need to proved though is that there would have been an actual consequence of some sorts had they played him. In the absence of one, there cannot be a case to answer IMO
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2021
    Well there wouldn't have been.

    WBA pick Snodgrass and we say "but you promised".

    That's all there really is to it, unless they have inserted some clause in the deal which presumably is checked by a PL official before being signed off.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Seems crazy that we didn't loan him to them, even with an obligation to buy, and then make the move permanent after last night's match. Instead we open ourselves up to investigation and the worry of sanctions.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    buffybegood said:

    Seems crazy that we didn't loan him to them, even with an obligation to buy, and then make the move permanent after last night's match. Instead we open ourselves up to investigation and the worry of sanctions.

    Maybe they didn’t want that because of the limit on loans. It would be a waste if it meant they couldn’t loan someone else
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    OutcastLondoner said:

    buffybegood said:

    Seems crazy that we didn't loan him to them, even with an obligation to buy, and then make the move permanent after last night's match. Instead we open ourselves up to investigation and the worry of sanctions.

    Maybe they didn’t want that because of the limit on loans. It would be a waste if it meant they couldn’t loan someone else
    They could have freed that loan space up today, although it may be that they're already at their limit; I must admit I hadn't thought of that.
  • alderzalderz
    They aren’t at the limit. The only domestic loan they have is Gallagher
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I would guess, seeing as let him him go on a free, the conversation would be along the lines of “you can have in at the end of the window on a permanent or you can have him on loan now but you can’t play him against us”. Sam may have said “but I’m looking for more loans so a permanent would be better but we need him now. How about we don’t play him on Tuesday”.
    No commitment as such and Sam could still play him if he wished.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Lukerz said:

    Well there wouldn't have been.

    WBA pick Snodgrass and we say "but you promised".

    That's all there really is to it, unless they have inserted some clause in the deal which presumably is checked by a PL official before being signed off.

    Isn't there a precedent for this too? I'm sure I read somewhere that a manager had a similar 'gentleman's agreement' in place but played the player anyway.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited January 2021
    OldCastleSwift said:

    Lukerz said:

    Well there wouldn't have been.

    WBA pick Snodgrass and we say "but you promised".

    That's all there really is to it, unless they have inserted some clause in the deal which presumably is checked by a PL official before being signed off.

    Isn't there a precedent for this too? I'm sure I read somewhere that a manager had a similar 'gentleman's agreement' in place but played the player anyway.
    Just found it...

    Everton v Tottenham (March 2012)
    David Moyes claimed that he had a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with Harry Redknapp that Louis Saha would not be selected for the game after the former Everton striker joined Spurs.

    Moyes said:
    “I think I have an agreement with Harry that he doesn't play," said the Scot.

    "If that is the case then Louis does not play unless Tottenham have lots of injuries.

    “It was just something but if he plays it is not a problem. Harry told me if he is short of players he will play but if he is not he might not use him.”

    Moyes went on to say:

    "If you are gentleman it is allowed isn't it?" added Moyes.

    "I don't think it takes place that often but sometimes you can do it.

    "Gentlemen shake hands and do things and me and Harry did that - but if he needs that then he will play."

    Louis Saha did go on to make an appearance in the game, coming off the bench in the 54th minute.

    From Mirror article dated 9th March 2012.
    www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/david-moyes-claims-gentlemans-agreement-3306835.amp
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    Why is it always Moyes?
  • LukerzLukerz
    That wasn’t even investigated, btw.
Sign In or Register to comment.