Come here to laugh at West Spam

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

It is not West Ham that would get done though, it is only West Brom that could face punishment for having a player that a third party has some form of control over.

Nothing will come of it though
 

SouthStand Billy

🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓
It is not West Ham that would get done though, it is only West Brom that could face punishment for having a player that a third party has some form of control over.

Nothing will come of it though

Not so, West Ham insisted that it was part of the deal if they were to release the player. They asked for it to happen, why would West Brom want that as part of any deal?
 
Not so, West Ham insisted that it was part of the deal if they were to release the player. They asked for it to happen, why would West Brom want that as part of any deal?

The selling party can ask for anything they want, they are within their rights to.

It only becomes a deal when there is a buyer willing to accept the terms of the selling party.
If the buying party agrees to buy a player subject to third party control (in this case tenuously and verbally only , with West Ham for one game) they could be found in breach for having that player registered, not a former employer.
It is West Brom agreeing a permanent contract with a player for which they did not "fully control" that is the offence, not that West Ham asked for the player not to be played in the game between the 2 teams.

League have already basically said, nothing to see here anyway.
 
Last edited:

SouthStand Billy

🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓🐓
The selling party can ask for anything they want, they are within their rights to.

It only becomes a deal when there is a buyer willing to accept the terms of the selling party.
If the buying party agrees to buy a player subject to third party control (in this case tenuously and verbally only , with West Ham for one game) they could be found in breach for having that player registered, not a former employer.
It is West Brom agreeing a permanent contract with a player for which they did not "fully control" that is the offence, not that West Ham asked for the player not to be played in the game between the 2 teams.

League have already basically said, nothing to see here anyway.
West Ham were part of a Gentleman's agreement as were West Brom.
That is where the problem lies, BOTH clubs made an agreement as explained by Sam Allardyce and broke rule 17 which states No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches,
The agreement which sees players not able to play against another club can only involve loan deals.

I doubt anything will be done but there never is as the Premier league/FA are spineless..
 
When we drew with this lot I said they looked a good outfit, even though we should have turned them over.

When I say good I mean hard to beat and in Antonio, Rice and Soucek, I think they have players who will give most teams problems.
 
0-F2-C23-F7-42-E4-4421-89-F1-DCC730-F5903-C.jpg
 
A new report from the London Assembly budget and performance committee has warned that the London Stadium, the home of West Ham United, is costing Londoners more than £8M per year to run. If West Ham are relegated to the Championship, this cost could increase by £1.5M.

London Olympic Park risks becoming a ‘derelict, costly disaster’ - New Civil Engineer

How has this not been reviewed and dealt with?
The report has only recently been commissioned and as is so typical moves at a snail's pace. But the report which has investigated LLDC should now provide solutions/decisions. Obviously, this is hugely political ever since Johnson got involved, so quite what those decisions and solutions actually look like are anyone guess and no doubt, in reality, will roll on and on for years yet to come, with no responsibility being taken with politicians simply kicking the can as far down the road as they possibly can.
 
Here we go!!!

:dembelelol:



Wow! Win 50% of your games and this crap gets dusted off from the cupboard under the stairs. When you steal a slogan from another football team, it's therefore not yours and why absolutely no one at the club has the slightest idea what it refers to other than trotting out "planing on the front foot" or "we played like it under Greenwood" (with his 35% win ratio!!! )

Here's another, "More than a Club" another piece of slogan theft that has no explanation.

Let the bigger Clubs keep their slogans that are rooted within their traditions having been rightfully earnt and usually bestowed upon them rather than nicked by a marketing dept.
 
Soucek out of the game against us for violent conduct sending off.
Blatant elbow today but I bet it gets over turned?
Don’t think it can be appealed after VAR. Ref saw it and made a call in line with the rules. Moan all they like. He should feel fortunate that it was not worse in terms of injuring the player. An appeal needs to show a clear and obvious error. That can’t be the case. The ref asked VAR to check the contact. They recommended he check the monitor and the ref then sent him off. What’s a clear error there ?


Watched the whole game. Fulham were much the better team. West Ham just a set piece team. Big, strong and that’s about it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom