• 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.
Don Pedro said:
I don't see it that way at all. The release clause has been met and Forest are clearly just holding up the final piece of paperwork. The longer this drags on the more likely they are to open themselves up for their own legal battle. Spurs, MGW and his agency could all potentially sue Forest for breaching his contract/clause by refusing to let him go in a timely manner.

My guess is that MGW has been advised to act as a complete professional and give the Forest owner nothing to use against him. In the meantime, Spurs and his agents will start to file their own legal complaint if they are so convinced they've done nothing wrong. The spurs position seems to be that they've done nothing wrong and there is no way they'd have any way of proving it anyway. I'm not sure if his own agent will be as confident.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Under what possible right do you think Spurs would have the ability to sue Nottingham Forest over a contract between Morgan Gibbs White and Nottingham Forest ?

I will answer that, none.
They could possibly support MGW in him filing a legal complaint, but Spurs do not have any rights here, as they are not party to the contract.

Note this is different to why Forest could potentially sue Spurs, if it is deemed Spurs coerced MGW (either directly or through his agency) to break his contract and then used that known breach for its own commercial benefit.

EDIT Shouldn't have asked, as you will now post another 50 things on this thread today, changing your mind 20 times after saying you will duck out of thread 3 or 4 times
 
Last edited:
Trotter said:
Under what possible right do you think Spurs would have the ability to sue Nottingham Forest over a contract between Morgan Gibbs White and Nottingham Forest ?

I will answer that, none.
They could possibly support MGW in him filing a legal complaint, but Spurs do not have any rights here, as they are not party to the contract.


EDIT Shouldn't have asked, as you will now post another 50 things on this thread today, changing your mind 20 times after saying you will duck out of thread 3 or 4 times
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I think the ball is in MGW's court now. If he really wants a move, he needs to force it through.
 
Trotter said:
Under what possible right do you think Spurs would have the ability to sue Nottingham Forest over a contract between Morgan Gibbs White and Nottingham Forest ?

I will answer that, none.
They could possibly support MGW in him filing a legal complaint, but Spurs do not have any rights here, as they are not party to the contract.

Note this is different to why Forest could potentially sue Spurs, if it is deemed Spurs coerced MGW to break his contract and then used that known breach for its own commercial benefit.

EDIT Shouldn't have asked, as you will now post another 50 things on this thread today, changing your mind 20 times after saying you will duck out of thread 3 or 4 times
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
oooo someone doesn't like me
 
Don Pedro said:
I'm so confused by this whole saga. It just feels like the Forest owner has gone completely rogue. How can they expect more money then the release clause? I just don't get it.

The confidentiality thing is such bullshit too. How naive can you be? This is the real world, not a fucking board game!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I do wonder if the stance of there’s a release clause but no one can know about it would potentially be classed as an unfair term within the contract.

Secondly, for me - with Spurs keeping quiet it’s potentially a good thing. Forest are spouting a load of spiel and until they submit both an official complaint and/or commence legal proceedings, it’s best to sit quietly, observe and wait patiently until the Premier League and/or the courts ask for your evidence. This way Forest can’t change their argument etc. Spurs, should they be confident they’ve done nothing wrong, can then refute the allegations and if they’re successful in doing so, the release clause would be enforced and the transfer successful. It then depends how far they want to take it in terms of burying Forest for their alleged defamation. Personally I would burn them to the ground.
 
Pedders81 said:
Personally I would burn them to the ground.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Burning Forest Fire GIF
 
Don Pedro said:
I don't see it that way at all. The release clause has been met and Forest are clearly just holding up the final piece of paperwork. The longer this drags on the more likely they are to open themselves up for their own legal battle. Spurs, MGW and his agency could all potentially sue Forest for breaching his contract/clause by refusing to let him go in a timely manner.

My guess is that MGW has been advised to act as a complete professional and give the Forest owner nothing to use against him. In the meantime, Spurs and his agents will start to file their own legal complaint if they are so convinced they've done nothing wrong. The spurs position seems to be that they've done nothing wrong and there is no way they'd have any way of proving it anyway. I'm not sure if his own agent will be as confident.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And MGW is losing out on tens of thousands lesser in wages for almost a week of held up. Forest could have paid a week less of his wages too. Minuscule in the grander scheme of things, but let's see how they are coping if this drags on weeks after weeks...

:levyeyes:
 
KingstonSpur said:
It is strange that none of the reliable sources (Ornstein, Romano, BBC) have gone really quite on reporting this one. Suggests nobody has a clue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's a case that they all invested in the transfer being done, and now have been proven to be a bit hasty (albeit no fault of their own)

I expect one of Ornstein, Percy, Mikobel or maybe Romano (he's a interaction merchant more than a journalist) to break it first when the move comes to a head.
 
Herclueless said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will never happen.

Aside from the fact that it would lead to a total nonsense situation where no club has stability of playing staff, there's too many interested parties that make money from transfer fees for them to just disappear.

Players just being regular employees with notice periods, rather than contracted assets with an associated value to be traded at, would then also be open to the flipside of being sacked with only a months notice.

I fail to see in who's best interest this evolution would be, when compared to the drawbacks it would bring them, and so who would be pushing for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've got 6 months notice and I'm nowhere near as big an asset to my company as players are to football teams.

Directors here are 12+ months.
1-3 months notice periods in the UK are minimum requirements rather than fixed across the board.

If fees were dropped, players would have at least 12 months notice and they'd have to accept it if they want to sign and earn the money.

The question if fees are dropped would be "where does the money go?"
Teams generate hundreds of millions. If it's not being spent on fees, what is it being spent on? Will wages go even more insane? Or will the outrageous costs passed onto us, the paying fans, be reduced?
If teams aren't pissing £100m away on shite players, can they afford to earn £100m less and ultimately reduce ticket, merch and subscription costs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top