R whites lemonade
Gibbs toothpaste
What is happening to this thread
Summer time and the living is easy! 
-
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...
Player Morgan Gibbs-White
- Thread starter JDefoe
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
- Status
Summer time and the living is easy! 
What? Well WTF do you expect us to do here? :/
R whites lemonade
Gibbs toothpaste
What is happening to this thread
Better than
Bazali
and
Bill Madrid
being intimate with dogs!
The agreement is with the player and club, they can refuse to let him speak to us and other than go to the PL not sure Tottenham can do anything.
Its the player who will need to take action.
Honestly past caring mate
It’s a release clause, they signed it. Now they are refusing toto honour it because the owner is gangster scum who sees humans as possessions
Or the Monty Pythons cheese sketch featuring Greek dancers!
View: https://youtu.be/Hz1JWzyvv8A?si=SNuhC-fwO8RG7_go
Neither of us know that.
All we know is there is a release clause. The fact it exists opens the doors. We know no more than that, but the fact it exists means there's more to go on this.
Reckon he's like me and prefers his bed to be as cold as my heart.The reality
Live from Daniel's bedroom
Pity the lawyers did not check earlker
Why would they pay more than his release clause?
Not really.
Working on the premise that we were unaware of the release clause, hypothetically of course, we could see MGW as being worth around the £70M mark in today's market. We've then sent in a bid £10M below our valuation to test the waters then, lo and behold, it has then triggered the release clause.
That is precisely the line I would stick to in this situation. If the PL got involved and asked how did we know that was the sum, I'd be denying any knowledge to the hilt, telling them that was our bid to open up negotiations.
I would then expect the PL to go back to Forest with a "there you go then. Unless you have proof otherwise, there's nothing to see here and you are required, under the terms of the contract, to release the player."
Another thing being missed here is that the PL will have that contract on their records, as Forest would have been required to submit that, and all other documentation, when they registered MGW as their player, so the PL will know exactly what is written into the contract. Note that they haven't piped up yet on this either.
The long and the short here is that Forest are claiming we've illegally tapped him up, not that we haven't met the terms of the release clause. That's their entire basis for stalling the transfer. Without concrete proof of this, and if they are unable to demonstrate we haven't met the clause requirements, it is THEM that are more at risk of breach, and therefore open to legal action.
This is why I think MGW has carried on as normal, so that he and his agent can show they've abided by their contractual obligations whilst Forest haven't.
It's true.
Bazali
was particularly keen to be the first to establish his dog-rimming credentials.
Bazali
was particularly keen to be the first to establish his dog-rimming credentials.
So, obviously with these contracts, either party can request all kinds of clauses, and if the other party agrees then it'll go in there, so this is possible in theory.
But who would request that clause? Why would the club? With no clause they are free to consider, accept, or reject whatever bid they see fit, from their PoV this would be unnecessarily restrictive, if the player was a flop and they wanted to get rid then they are hamstrung by this clause and unable to sell for less surely? The player, there is no good reason for him to push for or sign up for this clause either.
I think due to the chaos of this deal people are vastly overthinking what a release clause entails, some have caveats like expiration dates, only being valid for a specified period, only applicable to CL clubs, etc. But the bottom line is, they specify a fee which essentially takes the selling club out of the decision making process.
This delay with MGW is down to the Forest owner playing silly buggers, not some wild stipulation in the contract. Another club coming in would be stupid to go over that specified amount, the only reason to do so is to spread the payment over multiple years (which requires Forests agreement), but apparently MGWs clause includes paying it over 2 years, so the appeal of paying a higher fee but spread out is diminished a little.
It's true.
You bastar*s!
The clause is not a minimum price if the club actively want to sell the player. They can always accept less. It's more to benefit the player by setting a reasonable minimum price should the club not want to sell him.
Maybe we're all barking up the wrong tree*
*The worlds first ever combined dog and Forest pun.
- Status