The Snodgrass case

NAPMer

Well-known member
I thought this was common practise amongst sides?

Robert Snodgrass' omission from the West Brom squad beaten at West Ham on Tuesday is being investigated by the Premier League.
The former Scotland midfielder, 33, joined Albion from the Hammers on 8 January for an undisclosed fee, making his debut in Saturday's win at Wolves.
But he missed the West Ham game because of "an agreement between the clubs", West Brom boss Sam Allardyce said.
 
I thought this was common practise amongst sides?

Robert Snodgrass' omission from the West Brom squad beaten at West Ham on Tuesday is being investigated by the Premier League.
The former Scotland midfielder, 33, joined Albion from the Hammers on 8 January for an undisclosed fee, making his debut in Saturday's win at Wolves.
But he missed the West Ham game because of "an agreement between the clubs", West Brom boss Sam Allardyce said.
I agree it's now common practice but when did it first come in? It used to be a regular occurrence that players made their debut against their former clubs, because they'd come to the notice because of pre game scouting.

Is it more accepted for loanees not to play against their parent clubs?
 
Yep, this case is different because it's usually loanees that don't play against their parent club. This is on an entirely different level.
 
Didn't GTF sign for Leicester from us on a Friday and played against us at Bloomfield Road the next day, felt very weird.
 
I thought this was common practise amongst sides?

Robert Snodgrass' omission from the West Brom squad beaten at West Ham on Tuesday is being investigated by the Premier League.
The former Scotland midfielder, 33, joined Albion from the Hammers on 8 January for an undisclosed fee, making his debut in Saturday's win at Wolves.
But he missed the West Ham game because of "an agreement between the clubs", West Brom boss Sam Allardyce said.
These agreements were stopped some time ago . Hope they throw the book at them . The club secretaries could be in big bother .
 
I don't see a problem with clubs doing this.

Why sell a player to another club, who could play against you a week or two later and help to beat you, when you could just sell him after you've played the other team.
The conversation could have gone

Moyes- We play you next week so we'll do the deal after that.

Sam- Well we'd like him for the Wolves match so let us have him now and we won't play him against you.

Moyes- Fair enough
 
From memory - The rule they have broken is something like ‘having a third party influence your team selection for their benefit’

I think it is akin to match fixing.
 
Don't see the issue just a Gentleman's agreement between two clubs.
Depends because it could influence the table at the end of the season.
Why have a transfer window when effectively it can be extended with a gentlemans agreement?
 
Depends because it could influence the table at the end of the season.
Why have a transfer window when effectively it can be extended with a gentlemans agreement?
Then West Ham would have sold him today not last week.
I just don't see anything wrong with it but hey just my opinion.
 
Then West Ham would have sold him today not last week.
I just don't see anything wrong with it but hey just my opinion.
Yup I get that but in principle this agreement could happen post January. That said if you buy a player you either buy him or don't, and as a fan I wouldnt want to be contributing to someone sitting in the stands when he should be playing.
 
What if WBA had played him and said stuff your gentlemans agreement, what you gonna do about it? The answer is they probably could have done nothing.
 
I've always thought if I'd have made it in football and played for someone else I'd have had a clause in my contract to never have to play against the mighty 😀
 
Back
Top