eskimo joe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:58 am
Bit of a farce really, playing with words for the occasion. Would have easily been better for us to have done the sale after the game and no issues would have arose. A loan deal with the obligation to buy by the end of january, " yeh we will sell him to you after our game" " But we need him now, we promise we wont play him against you" Or are there rules against that. So it was basically done in the open, well more so than the previous mentioned one.
Why they are even wasting office time on this is stupid, its not as if we were trying to affect the outcome of every game WBA plays, not really likely we were trying to affect the outcome of this game either,.. its a side of the third party rule that irks them and they would probably have a hard job, if Sullivan has got the nuts he professes to have, to pin any deductions on us.
Funny Lard Arse is in the centre of this, Smells a bit like sour grapes to me, Andbefore anyone else points it out, the club came out with it also before. oh whoopee dee. Like Lardy cant have a word in their shell likes.
If rules have been broken West Brom are equally guilty. So what possible benefit would anyone at West Brom , including the porker, gain by stirring up the shit FFS ?
eskimo joe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:58 am
Bit of a farce really, playing with words for the occasion. Would have easily been better for us to have done the sale after the game and no issues would have arose. A loan deal with the obligation to buy by the end of january, " yeh we will sell him to you after our game" " But we need him now, we promise we wont play him against you" Or are there rules against that. So it was basically done in the open, well more so than the previous mentioned one.
Why they are even wasting office time on this is stupid, its not as if we were trying to affect the outcome of every game WBA plays, not really likely we were trying to affect the outcome of this game either,.. its a side of the third party rule that irks them and they would probably have a hard job, if Sullivan has got the nuts he professes to have, to pin any deductions on us.
Funny Lard Arse is in the centre of this, Smells a bit like sour grapes to me, Andbefore anyone else points it out, the club came out with it also before. oh whoopee dee. Like Lardy cant have a word in their shell likes.
If rules have been broken West Brom are equally guilty. So what possible benefit would anyone at West Brom , including the porker, gain by stirring up the shit FFS ?
The Premier League have released a statement.
'In accordance with Premier League rules and regulations, an investigation has begun to determine any breaches.
To be fair to the other 18 members of the Premier League, while the investigation takes place there will be no further comment but we have decided to award Manchester United a penalty'.
If rules have been broken West Brom are equally guilty. So what possible benefit would anyone at West Brom , including the porker, gain by stirring up the shit FFS ?
So why even open their traps FFS?
No idea who did open their trap. But it's fairly bloody obvious the press would want to know why Snodgrass wasn't included. But, as I said, if rules have been broken both clubs have broken them and both will be punished. So absolutely no advantage to anybody to spill the beans. Stupid ? Yes. But ulterior motives ? No.
And the Evening Standard is saying that nothing was put in writing so if that's the case then the classic getout is available to all and sundry. I am of course referring to deniability.
I never said that guv.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Fear not.
Lady B is awaiting his arrival, tackled up to the hilt, with a box of accessories that the Gestapo would be proud of.
I'm like a rutting Rhino at the mere thought of it!
You two are the comedians on here.You crack me up.
I don't believe Allardici was deliberately looking to throw either side under the bus, rather it was a case of him, as normal , scrabbling to find an excuse for a loss and Snodgrass just happened to be the first thing that popped in to his fat head - and as usual his mouth engaged before his brain.
If we had just loaned Snodgrass with a view to a contract in the summer, then he wouldn't have played against us anyway so this is just an exercise in semantics imo. As others have said, it appears there is nothing in writing re this agreement anyway so hopefully it'll all blow over with just a quiet reprimand.
Who the fuck is General Failure and why is he reading my harddisk?
No idea who did open their trap. But it's fairly bloody obvious the press would want to know why Snodgrass wasn't included. But, as I said, if rules have been broken both clubs have broken them and both will be punished. So absolutely no advantage to anybody to spill the beans. Stupid ? Yes. But ulterior motives ? No.
And the Evening Standard is saying that nothing was put in writing so if that's the case then the classic getout is available to all and sundry. I am of course referring to deniability.
I never said that guv.
The Lad himself, admitted having Robert Snodgrass on the field would not have prevented West Ham scoring two goals - he thinks the Prem league are all staffed by unqualified cunts...
BillyDWhizz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:41 pm
I don't believe Allardici was deliberately looking to throw either side under the bus, rather it was a case of him, as normal , scrabbling to find an excuse for a loss and Snodgrass just happened to be the first thing that popped in to his fat head - and as usual his mouth engaged before his brain.
If we had just loaned Snodgrass with a view to a contract in the summer, then he wouldn't have played against us anyway so this is just an exercise in semantics imo. As others have said, it appears there is nothing in writing re this agreement anyway so hopefully it'll all blow over with just a quiet reprimand.
hi Billy
he let it out the bag before kick off, im sure this has been done in the past just cant remember the teams
