premier league to investigating Snodgrass deal

[WBA123]

A bit naïve of Big Sam to say this to the press, especially with his experience.

He could quite easily have just said Snodgrass picked up a small knock v Wolves or something and we wouldn't have this investigation.

[regis80]

Personally, having only learnt of the rules in place now, why didn’t we just play Snotgrass last night anyway? What could west ham do to enforce it if it was against the PL rules? By playing him would have been like sticking two fingers up at them, cheeky gits.
Also Fat Sam mentioning that West Ham had this rule in place knowing this is against the rules, you’d keep hush about it? Something more untoward about this.

[regis80]

A bit naïve of Big Sam to say this to the press, especially with his experience.

He could quite easily have just said Snodgrass picked up a small knock v Wolves or something and we wouldn't have this investigation.

exactly what i thought 123

[Q165]

Always thought that was the rule anyway, that a loan player couldn't play against his registered club ??

Same here

[Albionic68]

Always thought that was the rule anyway, that a loan player couldn't play against his registered club ??

He isn't on loan though, he signed on a permanent basis. West Ham released him from his contract with no fee involved.

To be honest I can only see this being an issue if there was a clause in his written contract with us, as clubs haven't been able to insist on such clauses since 2007.

David Moyes has gone on record to say he knows nothing about it. Verbal gentleman's agreement at board level perhaps.

[boingy]

only one fair way to resolve this dock them 30 points

[baggieal]

Personally, having only learnt of the rules in place now, why didn’t we just play Snotgrass last night anyway? What could west ham do to enforce it if it was against the PL rules? By playing him would have been like sticking two fingers up at them, cheeky gits.
Also Fat Sam mentioning that West Ham had this rule in place knowing this is against the rules, you’d keep hush about it? Something more untoward about this.

Best post so far!! Obviously by playing him as Regis said we would have been doing the right thing when it's clearly wrong! West Ham could have done nothing and as a buying professional - I know this for a fact!

Obviously the PL rules are correct - what if this decided the outcome of who could get in Europe/who couldn't - who could be relegated/who couldn't because of a weakened team!!!! Due to the match being played yesterday is irrelevant! Rules are rules!

We should have played him! West Ham would not have had a legal leg to stand on especially after the agreement we as a club could have gone back and said - he's playing as we always stick to the FA rules!!

We are far too naive as a club!

[regis80]

Best post so far!! Obviously by playing him as Regis said we would have been doing the right thing when it's clearly wrong! West Ham could have done nothing and as a buying professional - I know this for a fact!

Obviously the PL rules are correct - what if this decided the outcome of who could get in Europe/who couldn't - who could be relegated/who couldn't because of a weakened team!!!! Due to the match being played yesterday is irrelevant! Rules are rules!

We should have played him! West Ham would not have had a legal leg to stand on especially after the agreement we as a club could have gone back and said - he's playing as we always stick to the FA rules!!

We are far too naive as a club!

That’s exactly my point Al. But also how can West Ham be so naive to put this term in? But as said a gentleman’s agreement not to play him.. but again this is wrong as you say it can depend on the success or survival of a club.

[Albionic68]

I suppose it says a lot for our summer recruitment when the absence of a 33 year old with one game under his belt for us and little game time for West Ham is deemed to have weakened our side.

[baggieal]

That’s exactly my point Al. But also how can West Ham be so naive to put this term in? But as said a gentleman’s agreement not to play him.. but again this is wrong as you say it can depend on the success or survival of a club.

Some legal departments Regis don't check out rules as no doubt the FA would have pages of them! A quick thinking Dowling could have turned this around after the agreement and communicated to West Ham - he's playing as we have just checked the rules!

We all know Dowling is not quick thinking and useless. I bet Ashworth would have handled this better. So West Brom being a naive club - lose three points and picking up the salary for a player because West Ham decide they want this clause. Incredible!

The FA won't do nothing but the spineless bunch would have done if the outcome decided on Europe/Relegation places but timing is irrelevant. Rules are rules.