Or they get someone to do it for them. The precise reason this has been posted is because of the backlash and to try and change opinion as you've stated above.
West Ham have essentially bought our version of "Payet" which is ironic. A key player who actively wanted/wants out of the club and did anything to try and drive the move. If he was going regardless, I'd have left them sweating til Deadlines Day (but already had our replacement in).
Only in football would anyone think, that being offered more money 18 months before your current contract, that you agreed to and signed, actually runs out, is a **** offer. Sorry but footballers are not in the real world and we condone it? I love the game, but will never agree that this is a reasonable way to carry on.
Of course he did. He'd have had no choice. Do you think our medical professionals don't request a copy of the player's medical records?
I read an interview where he complained he didn't know anything about it being extended and he said something disparaging like "that's the club's perogative".
I didn't say they didn't ask for his records. It's our medical team's fault for not picking up on it, but the fact remains it was an injury he had before he came here. He wasn't so keen to talk about it publicly before signing.
Maybe they did pick up on it, it was there & they had the records. If they chose to sign & play him with this knowledge then it's 100% down to the club with zero blame attached to the player. Why would he discuss it publicly? Do you walk around discussing your crabs?
Just a quick update. Snodgrass did not refuse to play or train. The club were fully intent on selling him and hence protected the asset by not playing him. He did train though. Second point is Robertson will not play tomorrow as again the club are looking to protect the asset (the reason he didn't play the other night). Further a bid has came in and it is expected to be followed by other bids. Finally the impression I have received is there is no interest in Harry at the moment and he will thankfully remain a city player.
He did discuss it publicly. After he'd signed a ****-off contract. And I've never said it was his fault and not the club's. I'm complaining about him turning and running as soon as he gets a chance after we've supported him during his recovery from an injury that he sustained prior to signing for us. I don't own any crustaceans.
It was the club's responsibility to support him under the terms of the big **** off contract they signed despite being in the knowledge that he had the injury. It was in the club's best interest to support him. He owes you nothing.
Well if that is the case, then Marco is giving us "counterfactual information." That would be much more disappointing to me than Snod refusing to train.
I think you over complicate things that are really fairly routine and straightforward. It is what it is.
Photo's can be taken and uploaded onto Twitter any time. I'd be more inclined to base it on what the manager has stated rather than some agency that deals with uploading info onto the Twitter account.
We don't use an agency for social media, those photos were of training ahead of the Man United game and Snodgrass was definitely involved.
I don't think anyone has said he REFUSED to train. Just that he hasn't trained. Because he's injured, I would presume.
