Sam (Snod)Grasses

135

Comments

  • LukerzLukerz
    OutcastLondoner said:

    Why is it always Moyes?

    When you look at those involved in it on record; Moyes, Redknapp, Ferguson & Allardyce, it’s that same sort of manager from that same era of football. I imagine it was commonplace.
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    edited January 2021
    I really think this is a non-issue created by the media to fill minutes, or column inches. This has been a suspected practice previously, with very limited investigation. Even if it is looked at in depth there seem to be precedents.
    “....but let’s make it a big issue, because West Ham have a history of being dodgy!”
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    If it is true, then it is daft arrangement, as someone said earlier, he is a decent player but not one worth risking getting into hot water over
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    edited January 2021
    So is this what happened?

    WBA: We'd like to buy Snodgrass and get him in asap
    WHU: OK, you can have him but after we've played you
    WBA: But we'd love to have him available for the Wolves game, so let us have him now and we won't play him against you.
    WHU: OK, he's been good for us, so you can have him on a 'Free' too, we're not short of players or cash ;-)

    If so, I still can't see how this transgresses the regs.

    However, IF it is written into the contract, there could be trouble ahead - although as others have said, why wasn't this picked up when the contract was reviewed by the administrators?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Lukerz said:

    OutcastLondoner said:

    Why is it always Moyes?

    When you look at those involved in it on record; Moyes, Redknapp, Ferguson & Allardyce, it’s that same sort of manager from that same era of football. I imagine it was commonplace.
    A time of gentlemen? ;-)
  • Ravel49Ravel49
    ScotHammer said:

    I really think this is a non-issue created by the media to fill minutes, or column inches. This has been a suspected practice previously, with very limited investigation. Even if it is looked at in depth there seem to be precedents.
    “....but let’s make it a big issue, because West Ham have a history of being dodgy!”

    Well there’s no transfers happening so they need something...
  • LukerzLukerz
    Wouldn't it be funny if WHU just said "we haven't got a clue what Sam is going on about. Snodgrass is their player and they chose not to select him". Impossible to prove otherwise (unless written down).
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    But who would believe anything GSB says? 🤔
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    IronHerb, I do when they say they tried to buy a new player but the deal didn’t quite happen! 😉
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    Lukerz said:

    Wouldn't it be funny if WHU just said "we haven't got a clue what Sam is going on about. Snodgrass is their player and they chose not to select him". Impossible to prove otherwise (unless written down).

    And this is exactly the point

    The premier league may think it can operate and give judgment outside the law but I can’t. That they didn’t play him was their choice and had they done there is nothing we could have done except be a bit peeved
  • LukerzLukerz
    West Brom & West Ham 'set to avoid serious punishment':
    https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12193409/robert-snodgrass-transfer-west-brom-and-west-ham-set-to-avoid-serious-punishment-after-midfielder-misses-game
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    Phew! Now SSN have said it, I feel a lot better.🤦‍♂️
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    It would be good if the club would verify whether this clause was included in the contract or simply something shook on between two managers unbeknown to the clubs.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    I wouldn’t want the club to say anything to be honest. Keep it zipped.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    baracks_a_hammer said:

    I wouldn’t want the club to say anything to be honest. Keep it zipped.

    West Ham fans: "Keep it zipped"

    Sullivan:


  • Cuz1Cuz1
    He looks like soucek
  • yoyoyoyo
    I thought he looked like The Thing
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    He just looks scary to me 👹
  • PrestonHammerPrestonHammer
    I reckon Sam should be renamed Loose Lips.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Mail report FA may get involved once PL concludes it’s investigation.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    ScotHammer said:

    I really think this is a non-issue created by the media to fill minutes, or column inches. This has been a suspected practice previously, with very limited investigation. Even if it is looked at in depth there seem to be precedents.
    “....but let’s make it a big issue, because West Ham have a history of being dodgy!”

    Tbh a lot of fans were wondering it aloud on social media and then Sam went and said it. It was strange to everyone. It’s definitely a story, just hopefully nothing more than that
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    edited January 2021
    baracks_a_hammer said:

    I wouldn’t want the club to say anything to be honest. Keep it zipped.

    Well, looks like someone couldn't make it through the day:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/13798733/west-ham-west-brom-snodgrass-transfer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    "An insider said: “If there had been an agreement that Snodgrass was not allowed to play against West Ham, why did he travel to London Stadium for the game?"

    And given the article goes on to say:

    "Moyes understands that although the club will back him in the transfer market, it does not look right given the issues in the country. The Scot, 57, said: “I’ve got to say the board have backed me great since I’ve been here. I’ve had anything I’ve really asked for. I also know I am not going to go and ask for money in a period in football where wages could not be paid and the NHS is struggling. We see so many difficulties outside of football. Do I want a top striker? I really do, to help us. But I’m mindful a lot of clubs are on the verge of going bust and I’ve got to make sure I do things correctly.”"

    I have my suspicions as to who cracked.



    (Nb; I realise this is from The Sun and therefore may have no grounding in actual truth. Also, apologies for posting a link to The Sun)
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    That is disturbing on so many levels, and I do not mean the story :-)
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    edited January 2021
    Russian looking garden gnome comes to mind ...... 👨‍🌾
  • LukerzLukerz
    Snoderz was sat in the stands with another player, wasn't he, who also wasn't playing.

    Anybody remember who it was? Not sure him travelling and not playing means a great deal.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Dodger - to be fair, I think (as long as there is no recorded proof, email trail or contact terms that indicate any understanding he would not play, the club have done the right thing to deny it. I would call the evidence pretty poor (loads of players watch a game and don't play), but Sam was the one who threw everybody under the bus by blurting out a private, informal agreement that both parties agreed to, so play him at his own game and deny it whether it happened or not.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Why lie?
  • LukerzLukerz
    IronHerb said:

    Why lie?

    To be fair, the dodgy agreement was not ideal either, so may as well go the whole hog.
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    If the club are asked, they should only give one answer which should be:

    “If West Brom had chosen to play Snodgrass, then there would have been nothing we could have done about it”
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Lukerz said:

    IronHerb said:

    Why lie?

    To be fair, the dodgy agreement was not ideal either, so may as well go the whole hog.
    But is it dodgy? It hasnt been considered so in the past, although I don't know if any rules have been changed since then.
Sign In or Register to comment.