[Football] Is this allowed? (PL investigate WHU / WBA / Snodgrass rule breach)

[clapham_gull]

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.

Exactly, I'm not sure what some others are seeing. The rule was brought in, in reaction to a similar transfer.

The major difference? Snodgrass had already played a game !

 

[yxee]

As already mentioned, a gentlemans agreement I would imagine. Nothing authorities can do about it. Besides, I really don't see a problem tbh.

We could enter a "gentleman's agreement" to draw against another team in order to survive and relegate someone else. It's collusion, and surely in breach of some kind of rule.

 

[Lincolnshire Seagull]

Seriously?!

West Brom leave a player out of a game which they then lose. That's good for us isn't it?

 

[blue-shifted]

It shouldn't be happening ..... but the idea of a points deduction is fanciful.

The only evidence for it happening is that Sam confessed to it ... but he'll be being advised by club lawyers right now to claim he mis-spoke and he knew nothing about the transfer dealings.

Both clubs fined and warned ... the issue will be forgotten

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

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?

Nope, not all at all. I don't agree with the rule one bit. If that is what the two teams decide then so be it. It's no different to the negotiation of a price or players between clubs. Other clubs might disagree on that price but it's not up to them. If West Brom really wanted Snodgrass, that is what they had to agree to or West Ham don't let him go, it's simple.

If we were selling a player to a club we were playing in a few weeks, I hope we would do the same. I'm sure there wouldn't be as much pearl clutching on here then.

There won't be any major action taken because it's such a flimsy law that the Premier League have very little ability to punish in a big way.

If they're worried about integrity of the competition, they want to be looking more closely at VAR rather than wasting time on this.

 

[Arthur]

To be fair if anyone should be getting points docked it should be us!

How we got away with playing White against his ONLY club I'll never know......

......And then the barefaced cheek of the lad to have probably his best game for us! Fine him too!

Shameful scenes!

 

[hampshirebrightonboy]

I'm amazed that Allardyce has actually stated what he did (assuming the OP is correct).

He's not that bright!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Nope, not all at all. I don't agree with the rule one bit. If that is what the two teams decide then so be it. It's no different to the negotiation of a price or players between clubs. Other clubs might disagree on that price but it's not up to them. If West Brom really wanted Snodgrass, that is what they had to agree to or West Ham don't let him go, it's simple.

If we were selling a player to a club we were playing in a few weeks, I hope we would do the same. I'm sure there wouldn't be as much pearl clutching on here then.

There won't be any major action taken because it's such a flimsy law that the Premier League have very little ability to punish in a big way.

If they're worried about integrity of the competition, they want to be looking more closely at VAR rather than wasting time on this.

Whataboutery about VAR is irrelevant. Collusion between clubs over team selection clearly cannot be allowed and according to the rules it isn’t. West Ham and WBA signed up to those rules.

 

[SAC]

I expect the FA to fine both clubs and take the three points West Ham won away from them.

If West Ham didn't want him to play, they should have delayed the sale. If West Brom wanted someone sooner, they should have bought someone else.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Why didn't they just make it a loan deal to start with so Snodgrass wouldn't have been able to play against West Ham and then change it into a full transfer after the game? They've only got one player on loan from another Premier League club and I'm sure rules allow for two loans at any time from different PL clubs. This would have avoided the whole situation or Big Sam could have just kept his gob shut and said Snodgrass was injured or ill and no-one would have been any the wiser.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Whataboutery about VAR is irrelevant. Collusion between clubs over team selection clearly cannot be allowed and according to the rules it isn’t. West Ham and WBA signed up to those rules.

Have you read the wording of the rule? I doubt they'll even get a fine it's such a mealy mouthed, flimsy rule. Any punishment will be very minor. The Premier League know things like this go on all the time and there's nothing they can do about it.

 

[schmunk]

How we got away with playing White against his ONLY club I'll never know......

That's not true - he played against Leeds as well.

 

[essbee1]

It will all be brushed under the carpet, because the PL are a bunch of clueless, spineless, shallow morons.

 

[clapham_gull]

Nope, not all at all. I don't agree with the rule one bit. If that is what the two teams decide then so be it. It's no different to the negotiation of a price or players between clubs. Other clubs might disagree on that price but it's not up to them. If West Brom really wanted Snodgrass, that is what they had to agree to or West Ham don't let him go, it's simple.

If we were selling a player to a club we were playing in a few weeks, I hope we would do the same. I'm sure there wouldn't be as much pearl clutching on here then.

There won't be any major action taken because it's such a flimsy law that the Premier League have very little ability to punish in a big way.

If they're worried about integrity of the competition, they want to be looking more closely at VAR rather than wasting time on this.

Whatever...........

 

[Papa Lazarou]

That's not true - he played against Leeds as well.

But that was during his loan to Newport from Leeds

 

[blockhseagull]

Why didn't they just make it a loan deal to start with so Snodgrass wouldn't have been able to play against West Ham and then change it into a full transfer after the game? They've only got one player on loan from another Premier League club and I'm sure rules allow for two loans at any time from different PL clubs. This would have avoided the whole situation or Big Sam could have just kept his gob shut and said Snodgrass was injured or ill and no-one would have been any the wiser.

Because BFS didn’t want to use up one of his allowed loans on him.

 

[blockhseagull]

I expect the FA to fine both clubs and take the three points West Ham won away from them.

If West Ham didn't want him to play, they should have delayed the sale. If West Brom wanted someone sooner, they should have bought someone else.

If West Ham get a points deduction .... and that’s a huge IF then West Brom will get one as well.

It doesn’t matter WHO suggested the ‘agreement’ the fact is both clubs are as guilty as each other. You won’t get one club punished more than the other.

 

[SeagullinExile]

We could enter a "gentleman's agreement" to draw against another team in order to survive and relegate someone else. It's collusion, and surely in breach of some kind of rule.

Those old enough remember us being the victim of that many years ago. Slightly more serious than agreeing not to play a player I reckon!

 

[Pinkie Brown]

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.

I wasn't aware of that tbh. Makes sense I guess. Never used to be the case. Pre PL I remember Peter Ward playing for us against Forest whilst on loan from them.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Because BFS didn’t want to use up one of his allowed loans on him.

West Brom and Big Sam need to read up on the rules then. As soon the loan is turned permanent then they'd have been able to sign someone else on loan.

PL Clubs are allowed 2 players on loan from other English Clubs at any one time and 4 over the season. West Brom have only had Connor Gallagher on loan this season, so even if they'd used one on a temp loan for Snodgrass they'd still have allowances for another loan when they turned Snodgrass transfer permanent, which they could do at anytime. Players from overseas clubs do not count towards the maximum of 4 loan deals a season.

Big Sam really shouldn't have said anything about the agreement and no-one would have been any the wiser, I'm sure it happens occasionally but some people just can't keep their traps shut.