I'm not bothered at all with players that leave. It's not small time bollocks or any other such nonsense. They've gone, the end. They are handsomely paid to play a sport, they have no affiliation or affection for the club we support. He doesn't play for us now and therefore I couldn't give a ****. I won't be clapping like a seal when he runs onto the pitch, he's an opponent and I'll treat him the same way I'd treat any opponent. The 11 players in City shirts will be the only players that have my utmost support.
I don't think anyone should slate him based on rumour. If proven true and you feel strongly enough about it then fair enough... otherwise I'm probably in the same camp as GLP.
It wasn't rumour , Silva said it in a press conference , or was it just me who read this ? http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/hull...-united-move/story-30092414-detail/story.html
Why is Snodgrass even playing against us on Saturday if he's fit.??? I thought it was standard practice to not contractually allow players sold or loaned in any season to play for the acquiring club...most recently Niasse in our case. Its probably been discussed on here before but I can't see anything. Where he undoubtedly has been missed, in addition to his goals/assists record, are his lethal set pieces. Just hope he doesnt destroy us on Saturday with these.
Sale is not the same as a loan, Niasse is on loan and therefore not allowed to play against his parent club , Snodgrass ran away to another club so can do whatever the ****er wants
I know what you're on about Canadatiger, I am sure there have been a few transfers ratified with the stipulation that the player could not play against their previous club. I definitely remember this happening, although struggling to remember who and when. I think it was a while back and the rules have possibly changed since.
The only examples I could think of would be players signed by a club playing the selling club the following day/weekend. There tends to be a mutual agreement that the sale not go through until after the game with the player left out. That's the only precedent I can think of.
Ok thanks for the inputs. I was a bit confused because I do seem to remember contract clauses in sales which barred a sold player turning out against his former club the same season. Guess our management was too thick to insert one in Snodgrass case. Just hope he doesnt make the difference on Saturday. But I can certainly appreciate the difference with loan players e.g Niasse.
I just don't think it's very common when the meeting takes place more than 7 days later. Maybe it used to be.
There's no such clause, if the selling club happens to be playing the buying club the weekend after the deal, there's a chance that there's a gentlemen agreement that he won't be played, but you can't insert contract clauses to say who a player can or can't play against. Just as you can't with loan players, they can't play against their parent clubs, even if both clubs were happy for them to do so.
Is this a new thing? I recall several seasons back a weird situation v Cardiff. We had Anthony Gerrard on loan from then, and they had Olofinjana (I think) on loan from us. And both played that match.
"There will be mixed emotions for the fans, I think," Snodgrass said of his return. "They will understand that, when you're in the situation I was in with three kids and a family and trying to get security for them, I had to assess what was offered on that front. "I think people realise, from an individual point of view, I had to look elsewhere and then offers came in and I had the chance not only to get that security, but to play for a club the size of West Ham. I think most people would have jumped at that chance." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/west...0236557-detail/story.html#8JfMWzp3xH0uY3vV.99
