[timdon]

Amateur hour.

All we needed to say was that he was struggling for fitness due to the limited amount of time he’s had on the pitch.

Or maybe, instead of lying, we could have just obeyed the rules.

[baggiejohn]

If the argument is, we knew about the clause, but could have done a workaround, then we're pretty close to deceit & could be in some trouble.

Changes in the rules following the Tim Howard case should have been dealt with in the section on player registration.

The club has to argue that it understood clause 17 (quoted last night) did not apply to player registration contracts.

[kc56wba]

Or maybe, instead of lying, we could have just obeyed the rules.

Doesn't that apply to West Ham as well?

[gazberg]

Probably because if we had peddled the old 'he is injured' story and West Ham confirm the 'gentleman's agreement', then this forum would go into meltdown about the untruth.

Its one game, its done and he is now fully available. He may or may not have influenced last nights result, we will never know. To suggest it was one of Sam's 'under the table' is disrespectful and without any substance. Sam clearly wanted the player and it would appear that we were only going to get him if we agreed to this. The FA will sort it and nothing will happen.

This forum going into a meltdown has no relevance or value to anything to do with the club or PL though.

As another poster said we should have done a loan-to-perm deal and no issues. We really do have a chronically inept management group.

[BB74]

Does this set a precedent that we could rely on?

"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"

The common denominator here is David Moyes.

Everton Manager - 2007
West Ham Manager - 2021

Dodgy so and so.

[BB74]

You can take the man out of the Wrenna, but you can't take the Wrenna out of the man 

Why is Sam being depicted as dodgy here. David Moyes has track records of 'gentlemans agreements'.

[Dudleylad]

Im also unsure how much Big Sam would have know about it until a deal was done.

[Standaman]

I don't know who cooked this up but it is a mess and one entirely of our own creation. It cannot have been in the formal contract because that would have been lodged at the Premier League who might have said something (although that isn't a given) if it were a "gentleman's agreement" it rather depends on which gentleman entered into it and when. I hope the "gentlemen" concerned get their stories straight because there will be a stewards enquiry here.

I cannot think for moment that the whole cockamamie scheme was put in place without the involvement of the Head Coach. 

[ex coseley kid]

I'm sure others have said it - not read this whole thread yet - but we certainly can't afford to drop points...

[dangerman]

I'm sure others have said it - not read this whole thread yet - but we certainly can't afford to drop points...

We're going down anyway so in the grand scheme of things it don't really matter.

[seteefeet]

Or maybe, instead of lying, we could have just obeyed the rules.

Exactly.
Was it really a game changer? If we'd said, no we will play him, would they have pulled the plug?
All a bit silly and unnecessary.

If we'd lied and it came out later, it would have looked far more sinister so at least glad it's all out in the open

[skyclad99]

This forum going into a meltdown has no relevance or value to anything to do with the club or PL though.

As another poster said we should have done a loan-to-perm deal and no issues. We really do have a chronically inept management group.

The point of my post gazberg is that it is best to tell the truth and not lie. This has happened and it is still being debated. What is not right is that some posters immediately link this to 'Shady Sam' without a shred of evidence. 

[wodenson46]

All if's and but's. Shame our negotiators fell for it. Will not make any difference to the result now, and may not have done on the day but it certainly enhance the reputation of the premier league, and particularly that of the London conglomerate. Only ever come across this once before though and believe Moyes was involved then. Move on. COYB

[gazberg]

The point of my post gazberg is that it is best to tell the truth and not lie. This has happened and it is still being debated. What is not right is that some posters immediately link this to 'Shady Sam' without a shred of evidence.

Sorry I misunderstood your original post. Yes I agree, very unlikely that the absolute truth will come out. Just messy.

[gazberg]

Widely reported now that punishment likely to be warning or small fine as first offences.

[alex1]

Doesn't WBA employ a legal advisor or isn't legal advice covered in someone's job description? Can't expect a team manager or even Dowling to have mugged up on all the legal details of contract law. You can't blame SA for wanting to get him over the line as soon as possible, but there should have been someone in authority to spell out the possible consequences. If that person has messed up, then they have to accept responsibility. 

[Albionic]

The point of my post gazberg is that it is best to tell the truth and not lie. This has happened and it is still being debated. What is not right is that some posters immediately link this to 'Shady Sam' without a shred of evidence.

Not sure people have said Sam was involved, but rather sam was the one who put it in the public domain - which was pretty dumb really

[AlbionFan]

If it was a "gentleman's agreement" and a shake of the hand, surely, it wouldn't be in the contract document and, would therefore, not have been subject to scrutiny by our legal bods.

So, if it wasn't covered in the contract between the two clubs, could it be argued that Rule 17 has not been breached?

Asking for a friend who knows little or nothing about this type of contract law   

[skyclad99]

If it was a "gentleman's agreement" and a shake of the hand, surely, it wouldn't be in the contract document and, would therefore, not have been subject to scrutiny by our legal bods.

So, if it wasn't covered in the contract between the two clubs, could it be argued that Rule 17 has not been breached?

Asking for a friend who knows little or nothing about this type of contract law 

Given that it is West Ham we are talking about and the known source of the owners wealth, I think you need to rephrase that........

[baggiejohn]

Not knowing the rules is not normally acceptable as a defence, but judges would normally have some sympathy & give a light punishment.

Knowing the rules, & attempting a workaround would be considered to be deceitful, & as such, would get a severe punishment.

[AlbionFan]

Given that it is West Ham we are talking about and the known source of the owners wealth, I think you need to rephrase that........

You do make me laugh at myself, which is good therapy 

[timdon]

Doesn't that apply to West Ham as well?

Yes of course, neither club should have done this. West Ham shouldn't have asked and we shouldn't have agreed.
But my post was in answer to Liam, who was suggesting that we should have just lied and said he was unfit for the West Ham match.

[AlbionFan]

Steve Madeley Tweeted

“Albion's punishment for breaching Premier League rules by leaving out Robert Snodgrass is likely to be a warning or small fine at worst.

The real cost is further damage to the club's already tarnished credibility. @TheAthleticUK #WBA”

[TheJacko2000]

Steve Madeley Tweeted

“Albion's punishment for breaching Premier League rules by leaving out Robert Snodgrass is likely to be a warning or small fine at worst.

The real cost is further damage to the club's already tarnished credibility. @TheAthleticUK #WBA”

How is our credibility already tarnished? Very odd take.

[timdon]

How is our credibility already tarnished? Very odd take.

I'd have thought that was fairly apparent.