[bakebaggie]

How is our credibility already tarnished? Very odd take.

Madeley's article lists our recent crimes and misdemeanors; blowing the 3-0 lead at Chelsea, the Hegazi fiasco, sacking Bilic after drawing with City, losing to Blackpool in the cup and so on. I guess the 'tarnish' is the cumulative embarassment of these events.

[TheJacko2000]

Madeley's article lists our recent crimes and misdemeanors; blowing the 3-0 lead at Chelsea, the Hegazi fiasco, sacking Bilic after drawing with City, losing to Blackpool in the cup and so on. I guess the 'tarnish' is the cumulative embarassment of these events.

None are embarrassing or impact our reputation as a club.

[bakebaggie]

Agreed.
Madeley's exact words were 'left Albion fans open to ridicule'.

[timdon]

Agreed.
Madeley's exact words were 'left Albion fans open to ridicule'.

Really? Leaving the fans open to ridicule?

[timdon]

Being suggested that Allardyce was just joking when he made the comment about Snodgrass. Might have been a possible defence if the club hadn't confirmed it on the official website.

https://www.claretandhugh.info/no-agreement-with-sam-allardyce/

[LiamTheBaggie]

Madeley's article lists our recent crimes and misdemeanors; blowing the 3-0 lead at Chelsea, the Hegazi fiasco, sacking Bilic after drawing with City, losing to Blackpool in the cup and so on. I guess the 'tarnish' is the cumulative embarassment of these events.

None of which tarnish our reputation.

Madeley drumming it up a bit to sell some subscriptions

[timdon]

None of which tarnish our reputation.

Madeley drumming it up a bit to sell some subscriptions

I think he said tarnishing our credibility, which is a bit different to tarnishing our reputation.

[LiamTheBaggie]

I think he said tarnishing our credibility, which is a bit different to tarnishing our reputation.

Okay..

None of which tarnish our credibility .

Madeley drumming it up a bit to sell some subscriptions

[Dexy]

Okay..

None of which tarnish our credibility .

Madeley drumming it up a bit to sell some subscriptions

Still reeling a bit from Pereira shooting down the article about him sulking.

[cad]

While I can understand the reasoning behind the rule, it seems strange to me that this rule is in place while the rule that covered Tim Howard has now been changed.

If we signed Gallagher this month then he could play against Chelsea, but according to the Premier League Handbook, Albion and Chelsea could make an agreement that he would not, and if both clubs informed the Premier League then they would enforce this.

Surely once the player is a permanent signing it shouldn't matter whether they were on loan previously or not? Either allow these agreements or don't...

[baggiejohn]

While I can understand the reasoning behind the rule, it seems strange to me that this rule is in place while the rule that covered Tim Howard has now been changed.

If we signed Gallagher this month then he could play against Chelsea, but according to the Premier League Handbook, Albion and Chelsea could make an agreement that he would not, and if both clubs informed the Premier League then they would enforce this.

Surely once the player is a permanent signing it shouldn't matter whether they were on loan previously or not? Either allow these agreements or don't...

Where have you seen this in the Premier League Handbook?

The only ruling I've seen is that loan players are not allowed to play against parent clubs, can't see anything that allows individual arrangements when player registrations are transferred.

[cad]

Where have you seen this in the Premier League Handbook?

The only ruling I've seen is that loan players are not allowed to play against parent clubs, can't see anything that allows individual arrangements when player registrations are transferred.

"V.7.3.  if  during  the  period  of  a  Temporary  Transfer  the  Player’s  registration  is  transferred permanently from the Transferor Club to the Transferee Club, the  two  Clubs  may  agree  in  writing  (with  such  agreement  copied  to  the  League) that the Player shall not play against the Transferor Club for the remainder of the Season"

[baggiejohn]

"V.7.3.  if  during  the  period  of  a  Temporary  Transfer  the  Player’s  registration  is  transferred permanently from the Transferor Club to the Transferee Club, the  two  Clubs  may  agree  in  writing  (with  such  agreement  copied  to  the  League) that the Player shall not play against the Transferor Club for the remainder of the Season"

Yep, next clause down, I didn't look closely enough.

Are you aware of any conditions in the player registration section that prohibits a similar arrangement for straight transfer of registrations.
(The Tim Howard revision)

[SmethDan]

"V.7.3.  if  during  the  period  of  a  Temporary  Transfer  the  Player’s  registration  is  transferred permanently from the Transferor Club to the Transferee Club, the  two  Clubs  may  agree  in  writing  (with  such  agreement  copied  to  the  League) that the Player shall not play against the Transferor Club for the remainder of the Season"

Smacks of big club bias given most loan players would come from teams higher in the food chain.

[cad]

Yep, next clause down, I didn't look closely enough.

Are you aware of any conditions in the player registration section that prohibits a similar arrangement for straight transfer of registrations.
(The Tim Howard revision)

No, I'm not aware of anything in the player registration section relating to this, most people seem to be quoting clause I.7 from the finance and governance section. Would loan fees that reduce in value based on appearances not also be prohibited by clause I.7?

My understanding of the Tim Howard case was that it was the same as the Gallagher example I gave above - I assume clause V.7.3 was introduced at some point after that.

[baggiejohn]

No, I'm not aware of anything in the player registration section relating to this, most people seem to be quoting clause I.7 from the finance and governance section. Would loan fees that reduce in value based on appearances not also be prohibited by clause I.7?

My understanding of the Tim Howard case was that it was the same as the Gallagher example I gave above - I assume clause V.7.3 was introduced at some point after that.

I would imagine that any conditions that inhibit player selection would be prohibited by clause I.7. Appearance related payments to the seller club, for example.

Starting to become a can of worms isn't it?

[cad]

After reading clause I.7 again, it seems to not just be a huge can of worms, but also an absolute joke...

"No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies"...

I don't think that it is a huge stretch to assume that, for example, Man Utd's marketing deals with US companies are contingent on them playing pre-season games in the US - this would also fall foul of the rule.

I just hope the Albion legal team are giving it as much thought as we are... or they are reading this thread and looking for outside counsel!!!

[AlbionFan]

After reading clause I.7 again, it seems to not just be a huge can of worms, but also an absolute joke...

"No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies"...

I don't think that it is a huge stretch to assume that, for example, Man Utd's marketing deals with US companies are contingent on them playing pre-season games in the US - this would also fall foul of the rule.

I just hope the Albion legal team are giving it as much thought as we are... or they are reading this thread and looking for outside counsel!!!

Or you could contact the club and offer to undertake some pro bono work. The money saved to be put towards loans/transfer fees 

[baggie82]

Sky sports were reporting last night what whatever has happened is a very minor issue which at worst will be a small  fine, so it's really a storm in a teacup.

[Hull Baggie]

Sky sports were reporting last night what whatever has happened is a very minor issue which at worst will be a small  fine, so it's really a storm in a teacup.

unless Sky Sports were talking *****.

I do think they are probably right though and it'll be a small fine.

[mifos]

Sky sports were reporting last night what whatever has happened is a very minor issue which at worst will be a small  fine, so it's really a storm in a teacup.

agree, storm in a tea cup

it's an unenforceable rule ; All the rule will do is make clubs tell lies in future (e.g. "its a tactical decision not to select him") , we could have played him if we wanted to , but chose not to , as is any club's right.

clubs choose to rest players all the time

[AlbionFan]

‘I’m Hearing…’ – Exclusive: – Finance expert shares huge West Brom news

Source: https://www.footballinsider247.com/exclusive-west-brom-news-maguire-baggies-unlikely-to-face-points-dedcution/

Asked whether this indiscretion might damage their reputation among other clubs, Kieran Maguire told Football Insider: “It won’t impact them going forward, not at all. It shouldn’t have been included in the clause anyway but it’s not actually in the written contract because that would be a breach of regulations. (I mentioned this earlier in the thread)

[timdon]

Allardyce (and a few fans) made a big song and dance about him signing, and now he can't even get in the side. When he does (sometimes) make an entrance at the end of a match, he offers nothing to improve us. What's worse, we will be stuck with his wages next season. Poor signing overall.

[Standaman]

Nothing has been posted in this thread since January when there was a bit of a storm around him not playing against West Ham. That might be the biggest impact he has made on our season. I look forward to watching him lumber around the Championship (when will we ever learn)

[KN22]

Yes, one of 4 signings made to improve the team in January. Two months on and we see that only one of the 4, a gem without doubt, has made much impact.