[Football] Is this allowed? (PL investigate WHU / WBA / Snodgrass rule breach)
- Thread starter lawros left foot
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Lincolnshire Seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 9, 2009
- 777
Why are we bothered about this?
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,538
There are other threads available.
Change at Barnham
Well-known member
Part of an article from The Athletic:
The Premier League is investigating whether West Ham United and West Bromwich Albion breached regulations with an agreement that Robert Snodgrass would not play in tonight’s match at London Stadium, reports Oliver Kay.
West Brom manager Sam Allardyce revealed beforehand that Snodgrass was unavailable for the game due to “an agreement between the clubs” as part of the deal to sign the former Scotland midfielder from West Ham on January 8.
Such an agreement — whether written or informal — might constitute a breach of Premier League regulation I 7, which states that “no club shall enter into a contract which enables another party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches”.
The league is investigating the matter.
https://theathletic.com/news/snodgrass-west-ham-west-brom/m7vJL39LS6ZZ
The Premier League is investigating whether West Ham United and West Bromwich Albion breached regulations with an agreement that Robert Snodgrass would not play in tonight’s match at London Stadium, reports Oliver Kay.
West Brom manager Sam Allardyce revealed beforehand that Snodgrass was unavailable for the game due to “an agreement between the clubs” as part of the deal to sign the former Scotland midfielder from West Ham on January 8.
Such an agreement — whether written or informal — might constitute a breach of Premier League regulation I 7, which states that “no club shall enter into a contract which enables another party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches”.
The league is investigating the matter.
https://theathletic.com/news/snodgrass-west-ham-west-brom/m7vJL39LS6ZZ
Dock them both 30 points.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
He’s such a liability. How he keeps getting jobs in football I have no idea.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
There is nothing that can stop this. A team don’t have to play a player if they don't want to. Also they could say he had a slight injury if they wanted to. The only real problem with this is Fat Sam admitting they broke a rule rather than either of the above
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,538
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.
Last edited:
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Because a long time ago Bolton punched above their weight.
Because he’s given rescue jobs and so far has a 100% record of keeping these teams up. Never been relegated.
An incredible achievement. However it looks like this year may end that record.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
Seriously?!
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,538
The worst bit for me is Moyes comments to the press
Alright mate....
Alright mate....
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,538
Both clubs have been very naughty if true. All the focus on West Brom, but I'm not sure what West Ham were thinking. Not learnt a lot from the Tevez affair quite obviously.
You know Tevez....
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/brighton-query-tevez-eligibility-in-fa-cup-6585470.html
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
As I said on the other thread:
I can’t see there being any major sanctions. It has gone on for years and I don’t see the problem with it anyway personally. Why is it underhand? If that’s something they’ve agreed themselves as part of the transfer then so be it.
Why is it any different to the loan situation when players can’t play against parent clubs?
And it’s not up to the Premier League what price a team pays for a player so why should this term be?
Don’t like either side and can’t stand Allardyce but I can’t see the big deal here.
I can’t see there being any major sanctions. It has gone on for years and I don’t see the problem with it anyway personally. Why is it underhand? If that’s something they’ve agreed themselves as part of the transfer then so be it.
Why is it any different to the loan situation when players can’t play against parent clubs?
And it’s not up to the Premier League what price a team pays for a player so why should this term be?
Don’t like either side and can’t stand Allardyce but I can’t see the big deal here.
This is the man that did himself out of the England job after 1 game. Big Fat Sam is thick as mince
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,538
It's against the rules.
Because it isn't a loan. The loan rules are there to stop a potential conflict of interest. The rule potentially broken here is to stop a potential conflict of interest.
Can't you honestly see the difference?
el punal
Well-known member
His absence benefited us. West Brom lost so we maintain a 6 point gap over them. Viva la loophole! 
Change at Barnham
Well-known member
From The Athletic:
Why is that rule in place?
In the interests of integrity, the Premier League introduced that rule in 2007 in response to a situation involving former United States goalkeeper Tim Howard’s transfer from Manchester United to Everton.
Howard initially joined Everton on loan in the summer of 2006. When the two clubs negotiated a permanent transfer in February 2007, the deal contained a “gentlemen’s agreement” that he would not play against United later in the campaign. His understudy Iain Turner was in goal for Everton in that game, which United won 4-2, taking a significant step towards the Premier League title.
The Premier League felt the integrity of the competition could be compromised if a club was allowed to dictate the availability of another club’s player after selling him. Players on loan are not allowed to play against their parent club in the Premier League due to a potential conflict of interests, but different regulations apply to permanent transfers.
Why is that rule in place?
In the interests of integrity, the Premier League introduced that rule in 2007 in response to a situation involving former United States goalkeeper Tim Howard’s transfer from Manchester United to Everton.
Howard initially joined Everton on loan in the summer of 2006. When the two clubs negotiated a permanent transfer in February 2007, the deal contained a “gentlemen’s agreement” that he would not play against United later in the campaign. His understudy Iain Turner was in goal for Everton in that game, which United won 4-2, taking a significant step towards the Premier League title.
The Premier League felt the integrity of the competition could be compromised if a club was allowed to dictate the availability of another club’s player after selling him. Players on loan are not allowed to play against their parent club in the Premier League due to a potential conflict of interests, but different regulations apply to permanent transfers.