The Snodgrass thread...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PattyNchips2 said:
think he was actually injured.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea. Thats kinda what I was asking really.
People seem to be gunning for him under the assumption that he refused to train, but I can't find any quotes stating this was the case.
If he was genuinely injured, and unable to train, then maybe we should call off the witch hunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PattyNchips2
Putney Tiger said:
Did we 'stand by him'? He was our player (asset) so of course we are going to give him the best medical attention and try to get him back playing as soon as possible.
I don't see what alternative there was.
I think you're confusing this for 'loyalty' maybe?

Like I say, I don't care that players want to leave, thats just football. My main point was trying to clarify whether or not he refused to train, or was simply unable to due to injury.
Click to expand...
Think you're playing with words.
Snodgrass is on record saying how much he appreciated Steve Bruce supporting him and making him feel a part of it when injured.
Shankly and cloughy used to treat injured players like ****. Wouldn't have them around the place.
As I say I'm out of touch with the game.
The great Redondo refused to be paid when he was injured in one of his first games for Milan I think and was put a year.
I know who I respect more.
 
Putney Tiger said:
I honestly have no idea. Thats kinda what I was asking really.
People seem to be gunning for him under the assumption that he refused to train, but I can't find any quotes stating this was the case.
If he was genuinely injured, and unable to train, then maybe we should call off the witch hunt.
Click to expand...

He was training this week, there's photos of him training on here, so it's obviously not true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Putney Tiger
Refusing to play whilst waiting for a move is c'ntism of the highest order.

Gone,but not forgotten..


Allam's OUT
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howden Tigress and Putney Tiger
Lets face it, football to them is a job. Snodgrass is not a Hull City supporter, so doesn't have any loyalty to us. As a professional footballer it's his responsibility to his family to get the best deal for them. West Ham offered him a better deal than we could, so he's off and I don't blame him. I've done the same myself and moved jobs when a better deal was offered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onceatiger and Putney Tiger
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Think you're playing with words.
Snodgrass is on record saying how much he appreciated Steve Bruce supporting him and making him feel a part of it when injured.
Shankly and cloughy used to treat injured players like ****. Wouldn't have them around the place.
As I say I'm out of touch with the game.
The great Redondo refused to be paid when he was injured in one of his first games for Milan I think and was put a year.
I know who I respect more.
Click to expand...

haha Im not playing with anything. No manager in the modern era would ostracise a player for being injured! Granted, they may not be able to train with the rest of the team (depending on the injury), but they certainly wouldn't treat them like lepers.

You seem to be suggesting that, simply because we looked after him (our asset) when injured that he should blindly disregard all the other **** that is going on with our club, the fact that he was dealt with badly by EA, and felt like he needed to find a better, more long term deal.

Putting my self in his situation, I would possibly do the same thing. What I wouldn't do, though, is refuse to train in order to force a move.
 
Putney Tiger said:
Wow everyone turning on Snograss is so disappointing! Just wondering though, where does it state that Snodgrass actually 'refused' to train?

I have seen MS saying "he hasn't trained with us for 12 days" - but was this down to his injury and so being unable to train rather than unwilling?

I see quotes saying he wanted to leave, and for me that's totally fine given our owners and his lack of a (good enough) contract offer.

Just think it's important to get the facts before we turn on a guy that has basically kept us within reach of staying in the prem.
Click to expand...
 
Putney Tiger said:
I honestly have no idea. Thats kinda what I was asking really.
People seem to be gunning for him under the assumption that he refused to train, but I can't find any quotes stating this was the case.
If he was genuinely injured, and unable to train, then maybe we should call off the witch hunt.
Click to expand...

If he was injured he made a bloody quick recovery, just refused to train imo. Good ****ing riddance!!!
 
Putney Tiger said:
haha Im not playing with anything. No manager in the modern era would ostracise a player for being injured! Granted, they may not be able to train with the rest of the team (depending on the injury), but they certainly wouldn't treat them like lepers.

You seem to be suggesting that, simply because we looked after him (our asset) when injured that he should blindly disregard all the other **** that is going on with our club, the fact that he was dealt with badly by EA, and felt like he needed to find a better, more long term deal.

Putting my self in his situation, I would possibly do the same thing. What I wouldn't do, though, is refuse to train in order to force a move.
Click to expand...
Snodgrass or any other player isn't interested in "the ****" going on at our club. It's money that's all he's interested in.
Do you think Man U players downed tools when all the glazers **** was going on? No they get paid to play and focus on playing. Nothing more.
Sc holes was appalled when he was told some players went to the chairman pre season . It's **** all to do with them.
Do you think Snodgrass should get involved, hold a fans forum, about some fans standing at west ham and the cock up of the seating plan. The lack of police. God it's a tough job been a footballler isn't it.

He wanted more money than we could give him. So he's left.
I think he should have stayed. You don't. Fair enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Putney Tiger
If he wanted more money or a lot longer contract then I've no problem with him going! I've no problem with city not giving a long contract to a player who MAY have a dodgy knee? My only issue if it's true snoddy refused to play while being paid? Then in my mind he's a ****!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Qatartiger Cambridgetiger
Do we need a separate thread for Snodgrass, or is it part of the general transfer discussion?
 
look_back_in_amber said:
Is it too early to say that I always thought that his head was far too big for his body? It's that ****ing big that it looks like it's been photo shopped onto Bullard's scrawny body on this photo. He's out of proportion, he'd never win owt at Crufts.

The **** him.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that, I have it on good authority that since he left us, but ONLY since he left, he's acquired a taste for sniffing dogs ar**'s!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazz Rheinhold
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Snodgrass or any other player isn't interested in "the ****" going on at our club. It's money that's all he's interested in.
Do you think Man U players downed tools when all the glazers **** was going on? No they get paid to play and focus on playing. Nothing more.
Sc holes was appalled when he was told some players went to the chairman pre season . It's **** all to do with them.
Do you think Snodgrass should get involved, hold a fans forum, about some fans standing at west ham and the cock up of the seating plan. The lack of police. God it's a tough job been a footballler isn't it.

He wanted more money than we could give him. So he's left.
I think he should have stayed. You don't. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you and think he should have stayed too. All I'm saying is, I can understand why he didn't, and I don't think we should demonise him for wanting to secure a longer term, higher value contract somewhere else.
 
Fez said:
I'm really not sure what you mean here: engineered by Snodgrass or the Club? To make it easier, I have always said it was Snodgrass who engineered the move and I thought it piss-poor, I still do. Silvas most recent interview seems to totally back up what I have been saying.

I have always said I would have preferred to keep Snodgrass, as he gives Silva options and I have not slated the ability of Snodgrass (although overrated in some aspects), just because he is leaving. I have also been very clear that if it was down to keeping Snodgrass or selling him to fund the rebuilding of a very lopsided squad (undoing the damage of Steve Bruce), then I would sell him - I don't get involved in finances as that always comes out in the wash much later.
Click to expand...

Marco Silva said Snodgrass wanted to leave. Its not really a secret because he refused a contract with us. Did Marco Silva say he wanted a transfer in this window?

Marco Silva said Snodgrass was injured. He trained with Greg Luer who is also injured. Did he train with Greg Luer because he refused to train with the first team or because he had an injury?

Marco Silva said he has a small transfer budget that has now got larger by selling one of our most popular players. Luckily Snodgrass is now one our least popular ex-players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back