The Premier League will ask West Ham and West Brom to explain why Robert Snodgrass was not selected for Tuesday night’s Premier League clash at London Stadium.
Former West Ham manager Sam Allardyce had explained before the match to BT Sport: “That was an agreement between the clubs that this game he would not be allowed to play. We could only get the deal done with that agreement.”
After the match, Allardyce added: ““It’s up to the Premier League to let us know what and if we’ve done anything wrong and then I’ll answer whatever questions they decide to ask me. It’s not my big worry at the moment though, what the Premier League do or don’t think.”
Moyes said: “I don’t think it is any of my business. I am not sure it is any of yours, to be honest. The pl have to do what they have to do.
Premier League rule I7, listed in the competition’s 2020-21 handbook, states that: “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.”
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.
Claret and Hugh understand while the Premier League rules outlaw any formal agreement any perceived gentleman’s agreement between the two clubs was never committed to writing.
We all know BFS can’t keep his trap shut (bit like sullivan!) He even talked himself out of the England managers job in a tv interview!!!
The point is that Rule 17 refers to a ‘contract’ – the transfer contract is in writing: in law, you cannot amend a written contract other than in writing, signed or initialled as appropriate. Any verbal discussion cannot amend a written contract outside of the written documents. Boring but important!
I don’t suppose that Sam Allardyce was present at all moments of the transfer. I don’t suppose that everybody present was able to listen to all words spoken by all the time. When it comes down to it – just a misunderstanding of the situation. Job done.
COYI
PS If Robert Snodgrass did not want to play against us in this game – it would be very difficult to make him play. Maybe Snoddy asked for agreement? Any way up – none of our business – whatever the story.
DelBoy strikes again . . Market traders not Football club owner mentality.
There was no need for any agreement of any type, in writing or not, and yet again we are causing ourselves unnecessary grief. We had deemed RS superfluous to requirements and he wasn’t getting to play because we felt we had better options than him, so why would we be worried about him playing against us?
Completely agree. That plus BFS not being able to stop the flow of verbal diarrhoea spells a bit of trouble for the club, and, more importantly for me, further tarnishing of our image.
If there was a gentleman’s agreement, why didn’t Bfs just keep his mouth shut. I’m not sure, but he could land both clubs in hot water. But if no agreement in writing, we can just deny anyway.