• 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!

Player Morgan Gibbs-White

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
kingdawson said:
i don't understand this.

Didn't we bid 60m up front initially? so they will 'settle' for.......60m upfront? what?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We bid the 60m but I seriously doubt we plan on paying it all in one installment. That would cause big cashflow issues for any future targets in this window.

I'd imagine we'd like to do it in a few installments. However Forest could insist on wanting the full amount in one payment just to make the deal very difficult for us, or else we pay 5/10m more and get to do it in installments which is his option 2.
 
These release clauses can be very complicated. I know with Eze most of it has to be paid upfront for it to be activated. I've no idea what Forest have in their "confidential" release clause but if we did activate it then you'd imagine we offered to pay what was required upfront to trigger it. But that Forest itk is suggesting Forest can look for the full payment in one lump sum.
 
FOK said:
Supposed Forest itk.. seems realistic


View: https://x.com/totalspursuk/status/1944692881735713056?s=46&t=LZlJuZ1uaIN4QMovCQVkvQ
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

THERE ARE NO ITK's!!!!

Angry Alan Rickman GIF
 
Optimistic_Spur said:
If that forest ITK is correct this ain't happening.
We won't pay 60m upfront.
We won't agree a higher price that's more realistic for that player (70m ish)

Abit buggered I feel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I doubt we are that stupid.

The agent would know the clause, we would know the clause. If the clause was £60m to be paid within 3 years or something then I don’t see legally what they can do. If on the other hand it is an open release clause we would also know that if we trigger we have to pay up front.
 
Tomo said:
I doubt we are that stupid.

The agent would know the clause, we would know the clause. If the clause was £60m to be paid within 3 years or something then I don’t see legally what they can do. If on the other hand it is an open release clause we would also know that if we trigger we have to pay up front.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah thats the bit that is contradicting this forest itk. Forest are fuming that we knew all the conditions to his release clause so I'm guessing our payment terms have activated it. If thats the case then I'm not sure Forest have any grounds to demand the full amount upfront. They would be the ones breaking their own release clause!
 
Don Pedro said:
We bid the 60m but I seriously doubt we plan on paying it all in one installment. That would cause big cashflow issues for any future targets in this window.

I'd imagine we'd like to do it in a few installments. However Forest could insist on wanting the full amount in one payment just to make the deal very difficult for us, or else we pay 5/10m more and get to do it in installments which is his option 2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
oh well then we are fucked tbh.

If his contract states it all has to be paid in one installment and we haven't bid that then we haven't got a leg to stand on. We've not agreed to the terms of the contract.

The hope is that we either have done that or his contract doesn't state it has to be paid in one installment. Maybe it states it has to be paid in at least 2 instalments and we have bid the 60m and the exact amount of installments which has made Forest question how we know that?

None of this actually makes sense because he was apparently travelling down for a medical the next day meaning they've reluctantly agreed to the bid, which means we have activated something.
 
Sidford said:
As much as their owner is acting like a twat they do need this sorted out quickly so they know how much they have to spend and can move onto their targets.
The two options were always the ones available and will depend on how the clause is worded. Palace with Eze insisted on pretty much full 68m up front, forest could do the same. If we did the 60m up front then it's pretty much guaranteed we have had investment as we don't have the cash in bank to do that. If we chose to pay over longer term Forest will likely try and play hardball there given what's happened on it.
Hopefully all sorted in next few days so both clubs can move on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Surely, the terms of our offer that triggered the release clause already stipulated the payment terms?

I don’t think we need to give them any different terms to the ones in the offer that triggered the clause.

All of this from Forest seems an attempt to save face on the clause and bully Spurs into giving up more in terms of transfer fee or better payment terms. Their idea is that the longer this goes on, the more we will want the deal done and eventually cave in to give them more.

If Levy is the one running the negotiations, that’s a very bad idea. He will happily wait it out, even if it means missing out on the player. We saw long drawn out deals for Spence and Porro. If he feels that the small print is on his side, he doesn’t give a fuck what you want.
 
kingdawson said:
oh well then we are fucked tbh.

If his contract states it all has to be paid in one installment and we haven't bid that then we haven't got a leg to stand on. We've not agreed to the terms of the contract.

The hope is that we either have done that or his contract doesn't state it has to be paid in one installment. Maybe it states it has to be paid in at least 2 instalments and we have bid the 60m and the exact amount of installments which has made Forest question how we know that?

None of this actually makes sense because he was apparently travelling down for a medical the next day meaning they've reluctantly agreed to the bid, which means we have activated something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The fact we activated his release clause and they are so angry that we knew the conditions makes me think that whatever payment terms we offered are fine. But who knows really! Just seems like a contradiction if we triggered the release clause with our offer but forest can now demand different payment terms.
 
Tomo said:
I doubt we are that stupid.

The agent would know the clause, we would know the clause. If the clause was £60m to be paid within 3 years or something then I don’t see legally what they can do. If on the other hand it is an open release clause we would also know that if we trigger we have to pay up front.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree... there's surely no way we'd go ahead and book a medical without knowing what the payment amount and terms were.
 
Richard Arlison said:
Surely, the terms of our offer that triggered the release clause already stipulated the payment terms?

I don’t think we need to give them any different terms to the ones in the offer that triggered the clause.

All of this from Forest seems an attempt to save face on the clause and bully Spurs into giving up more in terms of transfer fee or better payment terms. Their idea is that the longer this goes on, the more we will want the deal done and eventually cave in to give them more.

If Levy is the one running the negotiations, that’s a very bad idea. He will happily wait it out, even if it means missing out on the player. We saw long drawn out deals for Spence and Porro. If he feels that the small print is on his side, he doesn’t give a fuck what you want.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Levy won't give them an inch if he smells blood and knows we are clean. He'll counter sue them for waisting his time lol
 
kingdawson said:
oh well then we are fucked tbh.

If his contract states it all has to be paid in one installment and we haven't bid that then we haven't got a leg to stand on. We've not agreed to the terms of the contract.

The hope is that we either have done that or his contract doesn't state it has to be paid in one installment. Maybe it states it has to be paid in at least 2 instalments and we have bid the 60m and the exact amount of installments which has made Forest question how we know that?

None of this actually makes sense because he was apparently travelling down for a medical the next day meaning they've reluctantly agreed to the bid, which means we have activated something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we had to pay it all in one installment i doubt this would have gone as far as it has.

All the reports said that we were speaking to Forest. We would've known the terms of his contract.
 
i think hes quite similar to bergvall, the pair of them would be a horrible midfield to play against, both good size, quick, aggressive, good on the ball, get stuck in and work hard...nightmare!

frank has lovely options to attack games with if we can get this over the line. what a great position for frank to be in, he must be licking his lips.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top