https://www.hammerschat.com/forum/
https://www.hammerschat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13134
Only at West Ham.Whiskyman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:18 pmOr do a loan deal to the end of the season with an option to buy. This sort of incompetence is on a par with the Omoyinmi fiasco.terrya1965 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:05 pm Should just have said he was injured,,Why tell the world?Sure many others have done this.
Is the correct answer. There will be nothing in writingBlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:41 pm The difference is the arrangement. We said you can have Snoddy after our game with you or you can have him before but he doesn't feature against us.
They chose the second option, Snoddy played against Wolves which they won. Then not used against us. Nothing sneaky or underhand was just a condition on the timing of the transfer.
...and the journalists reporting the story had not researched deeply enough
Think you have summed it up about right BD.BlackDiamond wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:41 pm The difference is the arrangement. We said you can have Snoddy after our game with you or you can have him before but he doesn't feature against us.
They chose the second option, Snoddy played against Wolves which they won. Then not used against us. Nothing sneaky or underhand was just a condition on the timing of the transfer.
...and the journalists reporting the story had not researched deeply enough
A "gentleman's agreement" is just that. It isn't legally binding , just a verbal understanding. What we and West Brom have apparently done is contractual. If it is written into the terms of the contract, and none of us have a scooby whether it is or not, then the PLs rules have been broken. It came up on the screen a little while after the game. I think it was Rule 17.1, but I honestly can't be arsed to look it up. But the wording was pretty clear and unambiguous. Legally I guess it depends on the wording of the actual contract, which in any event, presumably, has to be sanctioned by the PL.terrya1965 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:32 pm It is not the first time there has been controversy regarding a player not facing a former club after a transfer.
In April 2007, goalkeeper Tim Howard was left out of the Everton side to play Manchester United at Goodison Park.
Howard had moved to Everton from Old Trafford on loan in July 2006, but the deal was made permanent in February 2007 - meaning he could have faced United two months later.
Everton left him out because of a 'gentleman's agreement' made when the USA international joined permanently.
The Premier League said in 2007 that it would not have sanctioned the permanent transfer if United had requested a clause preventing Howard from playing against them.
Following an investigation, though, the league said it was satisfied that neither club had done anything wrong.
I bet it`s a different outcome this time..One rule for the big teams,another rule for us.
We will just have to see.