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...
He is not "100% wrong" at all - if he was, why do you think players don't do this more often? Why didn't Kane leave when he wanted to? There are lots of stipulations around that Webster case, including big financial implications (costs for the player I mean) and lengthy playing sanctions if you leave at a time not in the appropriate period. I think you need to read up a lot more about it...
Thankfully most of this team will fuck off if we're relegated.
They eventually left, but on our terms for a decent fee.And he left , no?
Please name a player who wanted to go and didn’t leave
On that we most certainly do agree mate.
The posting I made was in response to them saying there wasn’t any process when there clearly is.
Aha, I thought you were challenging his whole post, not just that point - apologies.
However there are still clearly lots of stipulations around this, so the idea that most of our players can jus decide to leave is nonsense (I know you've not said that, but others have, and is what I and Tomo have been trying to refute).There was a recent ruling following a case involving Diarra. That ruling in essence appears to have removed third party ( new club) being made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. If outside the protected period and notice is given in the appropriate window then it fits the criteria of sporting just cause meaning there isn’t any playing sanctions.
There isn’t a clearly defined table in terms of compensation indeed at CAS there hasn’t been any consistent approach however following that ruling it is thought that FIFA will have to respond but irrespective some have believed that there will be several applications at the end of the 25/26 season.
Finally the view of some, and I subscribe to that viewpoint, is that players have indeed used the threat of invoking Article 17 if the club don’t agree to accept offers for a player the likelihood is that any compensation will be significantly less than the fee they would receive.
Read this article re Isak
The FIFA rule that gives Isak leverage over Newcastle
You've probably seen coverage of the Alexander Isak transfer saga, but you are probably far less familiar with a little-known FIFA rule called Article 17. It could be the key to unlocking Isak's future.www.espn.co.uk
The thrust as much as anything in the article wasn’t that Isak would get his wishes if not in 25/26 by way of transfer or he would likely threaten it’s usage come the end of the season. Did he threaten to use the ruling if he didn’t get his own way ?Aha, I thought you were challenging his whole post, not just that point - apologies.
However there are still clearly lots of stipulations around this, so the idea that most of our players can jus decide to leave is nonsense (I know you've not said that, but others have, and is what I and Tomo have been trying to refute).
I will read the article later, but for I just Googled "Did Isak use Artical 17 to leave Newcastle, and the answer provided was:
***********
The short answer is no, Alexander Isak did not use the Webster Ruling to leave Newcastle. In fact, his transfer to Liverpool in September 2025 is a textbook example of why the Webster Ruling is almost never used by top-tier players.
Instead of "buying out" his contract for a small fee, Isak was sold for a British-record transfer fee of £125 million.
Why the Webster Ruling Wasn't Used
While there was media speculation during the "Isak saga" in the summer of 2025 that he could eventually use the ruling, he didn't for two main reasons:
*****
- Timing (The "Protected Period"): Isak joined Newcastle in August 2022. Because he was under 28 at the time, his 3-year "Protected Period" didn't expire until the end of the 2024/25 season. The earliest he could have legally invoked the Webster Ruling was June 2025.
- The "Nuclear Option" Stigma: If Liverpool had encouraged Isak to use the Webster Ruling, they would have only had to pay Newcastle a fraction of his value (likely his remaining wages, around £20M–£30M). However, doing so would have invited a massive legal war and destroyed Liverpool’s relationship with other clubs.
Now, I know internet isn't always reliable, but there's nothing there that sounds unlikely or unreasonable... So yes, it seems there definitely is a process, you're right about that, but also it seems that process is hardly ever used, so seems unlikely to be a conduit for lots our players to leave the club in 3 months' time without the club's approval - which is what the conversation of the last few pages has revolved around.
And if they refuse to play?
We sue them for breach of contract
How many times has this actually happened though? Sets a fucking awful precedent as a club. Players will see that, see players have been refused moves and they're stuck.
