[Football] Is this allowed? (PL investigate WHU / WBA / Snodgrass rule breach)

Super Steve Earle · Jan 20, 2021

Lincolnshire Seagull said:
West Brom leave a player out of a game which they then lose. That's good for us isn't it?

It is. But but he signed on a contract with either a rule breach or a gentleman's agreement to breach the rules, then he played and they won at Wolves. Cheats can't be seen to prosper. Maybe only a fine and a slap in the wrists, but they aren't a Top Six club, so in worst case scenario, could even have those three points deducted for that win and same for West Ham for theirs after colluding with West Brom to weaken the team against them. This is serious stuff.

Neville's Breakfast · Jan 20, 2021

Farehamseagull said:
Have you read the wording of the rule? I doubt they'll even get a fine it's such a mealy mouthed, flimsy rule. Any punishment will be very minor. The Premier League know things like this go on all the time and there's nothing they can do about it.

'No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches.'

Seems pretty clear cut to me

bluenitsuj · Jan 20, 2021

30 point reduction for both teams would be the fairest result ...............for us

SittingbourneSeagull · Jan 20, 2021

beorhthelm said:
seems Allardyce should have kept his mouth shut.

No surprise there.

Lincolnshire Seagull · Jan 20, 2021

Super Steve Earle said:
It is. But but he signed on a contract with either a rule breach or a gentleman's agreement to breach the rules, then he played and they won at Wolves. Cheats can't be seen to prosper. Maybe only a fine and a slap in the wrists, but they aren't a Top Six club, so in worst case scenario, could even have those three points deducted for that win and same for West Ham for theirs after colluding with West Brom to weaken the team against them. This is serious stuff.

Fair enough - I hadn't realised that he played in the win over Wolves. I see the point now!

SAC · Jan 20, 2021

blockhseagull said:
If West Ham get a points deduction .... and that’s a huge IF then West Brom will get one as well.

It doesn’t matter WHO suggested the ‘agreement’ the fact is both clubs are as guilty as each other. You won’t get one club punished more than the other.

My reasoning was that West Brom didn't gain any points from it so wouldn't be deducted any. I'd be more than happy for both teams to be deducted points.

essbee1 · Jan 20, 2021

SAC said:
My reasoning was that West Brom didn't gain any points from it so wouldn't be deducted any. I'd be more than happy for both teams to be deducted points.

Agreed. But West Ham benefitting with three points now could have huge implications between now and the end of the season for teams
either end of the table, so it's not so clear cut. If the PL let this go, then where does it end?

Green Cross Code Man · Jan 20, 2021

SAC said:
My reasoning was that West Brom didn't gain any points from it so wouldn't be deducted any. I'd be more than happy for both teams to be deducted points.

West Brom clearly benefited from him playing against Wolves. If West Ham didn't want him to play a few days later against them, then they should have sold him after both teams had played one-another.

vegster · Jan 20, 2021

essbee1 said:
Agreed. But West Ham benefitting with three points now could have huge implications between now and the end of the season for teams
either end of the table, so it's not so clear cut. If the PL let this go, then where does it end?

I think there have always been little get outs since time immemorial, some players really don't want to play against their old club and I'm pretty sure that it was unwritten in some transfers that players would not play against their old clubs as a part of a gentleman's agreement.

Eeyore · Jan 20, 2021

SeagullinExile said:
Those old enough remember us being the victim of that many years ago. Slightly more serious than agreeing not to play a player I reckon!

There is no evidence that we were victims that day- excepting stories that cannot be verified. I'm sure someone would have broken rank by now.

Why would Southampton not have wanted to score ? They would have won the title.

Worried Man Blues · Jan 20, 2021

In future all transfers will have a hamstring tweak, or head's not quite in the right place ( yes above their neck).

blockhseagull · Jan 20, 2021

SAC said:
My reasoning was that West Brom didn't gain any points from it so wouldn't be deducted any. I'd be more than happy for both teams to be deducted points.

I completely get where you are coming from.

However they have both broken the rule, so one club would never get a punishment and the other not.

They are both complicit in this and both have gained an advantage from the deal. West Brom have managed to sign him earlier than they would have done (assuming Wet Sham would have waiting until today to do the deal if the agreement wasn’t made) and West Ham have stopped him playing against them.

In fact West Brom have probably gained more as West Ham wouldn’t have sold him at the stage they did

SeagullinExile · Jan 20, 2021

Brighton Lines said:
There is no evidence that we were victims that day- excepting stories that cannot be verified. I'm sure someone would have broken rank by now.

Why would Southampton not have wanted to score ? They would have won the title.

No evidence for the Disgrace of Gijon either - We know it happened though!

Eeyore · Jan 20, 2021

SeagullinExile said:
No evidence for the Disgrace of Gijon either - We know it happened though!

I think, if Southampton did apply the breaks, the most likely source was the Spurs fans. Terrible reputation that season and they had already done damage at The Dell before the start of the game. I'm not convinced there was any 'agreement' -just players who planned on returning to their families safe. Don't blame them really. Albion didn't have the goals to overhaul them. Just play it out.

SeagullinExile · Jan 20, 2021

Brighton Lines said:
I think, if Southampton did apply the breaks, the most likely source was the Spurs fans. Terrible reputation that season and they had already done damage at The Dell before the start of the game. I'm not convinced there was any 'agreement' -just players who planned on returning to their families safe. Don't blame them really. Albion didn't have the goals to overhaul them. Just play it out.

We'll never know i guess! One things for sure, my old man was absolutely livid at the time, which was unusual for him. That really sticks in my mind.

This day and age, the FA would pull that fixture apart looking for irregularities, which is the way it should be done tbh.

Eeyore · Jan 20, 2021

SeagullinExile said:
We'll never know i guess! One things for sure, my old man was absolutely livid at the time, which was unusual for him. That really sticks in my mind.

This day and age, the FA would pull that fixture apart looking for irregularities, which is the way it should be done tbh.

Quite. But the truth is there was absolutely no reason for Southampton to agree anything. Especially as there was a title to play for.

I don't believe there was collusion because:

1) Southampton had a plus 7 goal difference over Albion.
2) Bolton were drawing at Fulham
3) As the match got to the final quarter it was clear that Southampton were up even if they lost. Albion needed another four goals and Southampton needed to ship three.

The match was apparently pretty tame although Spurs were not shy of trying to claim a dodgy penalty at one stage.

If anything Southampton should have launched a full on assault in the last few minutes. I can only think that a few thousand Spurs fans smashing the place up was a bar.

Dorset Seagull · Jan 20, 2021

clapham_gull said:
But that hasn't happened has it? Straight from the horse's mouth, a player isn't available because of an agreement with his FORMER club.

It's clearly happened before, but not after the player has started playing for the new club.

New rules were introduced in 2007, both clubs will get a fine.

It didnt say it had. What I meant was you couldnt stop a gentlemans agreement if everybody kept there mouths shut and said the player was injured etc

Sheebo · Jan 20, 2021

Lincolnshire Seagull said:
Fair enough - I hadn't realised that he played in the win over Wolves. I see the point now!

Point is there’s a slim chance of a points deduction so it’s very much our interests to keep tabs on it...

Baldseagull · Jan 20, 2021

Pinkie Brown said:
I wasn't aware of that tbh. Makes sense I guess. Never used to be the case. Pre PL I remember Peter Ward playing for us against Forest whilst on loan from them.

Jake Robinson scored twice against Shrewsbury in L2, whilst on loan from them to Torquay, and played in both legs for Torquay against Shrewsbury in the play offs.

drew · Jan 21, 2021

Baldseagull said:
Jake Robinson scored twice against Shrewsbury in L2, whilst on loan from them to Torquay, and played in both legs for Torquay against Shrewsbury in the play offs.

Robinson and Ward happened in a different era before the rules were changed.

If there was an agreement, informal or not, BFS seems to have put his foot in it which is par for the course. WHU should lose the points they gained because they obviously made it a condition of the transfer and they should both lose a further 3 pts as punishment.

Of course, BFS might be acting a little cute here because I doubt it was something he wanted but WHU made it a deal breaker so they were forced to accept. He might be doing it to get back at his former club!!!

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Is this allowed? (PL investigate WHU / WBA / Snodgrass rule breach)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Listen to me!!!

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Wunt be druv

Sanity Clause

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Once Dolphin, Now Seagull

Well-known member

Well-known member

Drew

Share this page