• 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.
Belgrano said:
I'm sure the precedents have been noted somehere in this thread, but the Christian Ziege Midds to Liverpool transfer was very similar.

Liverpool met the release clause. Middlesbrough argued illegal approach and breach of clause confidentiality, complained to PL. Deal went through with a small fine for Liverpool.

So if MGW wants to see this through I think he can, as these clauses are intended to be binding, and Forest haven't even disputed that. Instead they've tried to block the deal the only way they can. But the Midds precedent suggests this alone is unlikely to prevent the transfer.

The way the deal falls apart is if MGW backs down/changes his mind. Marinakis could offer a lot of cash.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ziege last week won a High Court action against Middlesbrough, who had been blocking his Ł5.5million move to Anfield.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Over the last two years Woolrich, Newcastle, and Aston Villa all were linked to bids for Morgan Gibbs-White. Depending on how far those discussions got, any of those teams (and lots of people working for them) might have come to find out what the release clause amount was.
 
VirginiaSpur said:
I can't believe that you're talking about this, instead of Luis Suarez's failed transfer to Woolwich.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That wasn't a release clause, it merely required Liverpool to inform Suarez of a bid at the qualifying amount, which they did.

Also in the Michael Olise situation with Chelsea, the clause in question was only valid for a Champions League club, which Chelsea was not.

FWIW on the Ziege thing:

www.theguardian.com

Secret deal ends Ziege dispute

Liverpool and Middlesbrough have reached an out-of-court agreement over Christian Ziege's acrimonious transfer to Anfield.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Dudski said:
Over the last two years Woolrich, Newcastle, and Aston Villa all were linked to bids for Morgan Gibbs-White. Depending on how far those discussions got, any of those teams (and lots of people working for them) might have come to find out what the release clause amount was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They all did and none of them decided to pay it.

And that’s the thing about release clauses, once everyone knows the amount, they all want to pay less.

The longer this goes on, the more the chances increase that MGW forces his hand and we offer them less than the 60m.

No doubt that’s why Levy is happy to sit tight and say nothing. He knows Forest are just fighting themselves out of money
 
FightingIllini said:
That wasn't a release clause, it merely required Liverpool to inform Suarez of a bid at the qualifying amount, which they did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope.
The Liverpool owner John Henry has reportedly admitted that Luis Suárez did have a £40m buyout clause but that the club simply refused to sell the player when Woolwich made their £40m plus one pound offer last summer.

At the time Liverpool were adamant that the Gunners' bid would not trigger the release of their striker, but Henry, speaking at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, appears to have suggested that the Reds simply took a hard line because "apparently these contracts don't seem to hold".

"Luis Suarez is the top scorer in the English Premier League, which is arguably the top soccer league in the world," Henry is reported to have said. "He had a buyout clause of £40m. Woolwich, one of our prime rivals, offered £40m plus £1. What we've found … is that contracts don't seem to mean a lot in England – actually, in world football.

"It doesn't matter how long a player's contract is, he can decide he's leaving. We sold a player, Fernando Torres, for £50m, that we did not want to sell, we were forced to.

"Since apparently these contracts don't seem to hold, we took the position that we're just not selling.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Chat-GPT-Image-Jul-15-2025-08-57-08-PM.png
 
VirginiaSpur said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
www.nytimes.com

Inspired by you: The story of Luis Suarez and the £40 million + £1 bid

Would Liverpool's Luis Suarez be tempted to play for Woolwich? Here's the story of just how close he came in 2013 after an infamous bid
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Woolwich ascertained that the supposed “clause” was in fact a sop to the player, one that would prove impossible to enforce. Ultimately it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Liverpool knew it, and so did the player’s agent, but Suarez was desperate to leave Anfield. It was hoped that triggering this “agreement” might at least bring all parties to the negotiating table.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
VirginiaSpur said:
Way to link to behind a paywall.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's very long.
What really gave Wenger pause for thought, however, was Guardiola’s assertion that Suarez’s contract contained a release clause — one that forced Liverpool to consider offers above £40 million.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
“Through the whole process, we were trying to figure out where the key to unlock the door was,” says Dick Law, who was then serving as Wenger and Gazidis’ transfer negotiator. “The agent was claiming that with an offer of £40 million, Liverpool were obligated to talk. We quickly realised that was not the case — there was no obligation.”
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Richard Arlison said:
They all did and none of them decided to pay it.

And that’s the thing about release clauses, once everyone knows the amount, they all want to pay less.

The longer this goes on, the more the chances increase that MGW forces his hand and we offer them less than the 60m.

No doubt that’s why Levy is happy to sit tight and say nothing. He knows Forest are just fighting themselves out of money
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the thing, the absolute most money Forest stand to gain now by selling MGW is to Spurs, whether they like it or not. We are fairly likely to pay anything up to an additional £7.5m to make the complaint go away and get the deal done in a more express manner, especially if we bid £60m in earnest as a starting point for negotiation. If they go all the way with the complaint and drag us into the CAS over it we will be very unlikely to put any kind of sweetener in the deal if we are cleared, and even worst case scenario we pull out, well then everyone knows what the clause is now. You can't accuse other clubs of being privy to private contract information when Tottenham have widely publicised his release clause now by triggering it.

I just don't believe we are brazen or stupid enough to have done what some suggested, bid £60,000,001 knowing the clause specifies "greater than", if we had somehow become privy to the exact terms of the clause, we would also surely be privy to the confidentiality agreement as part of the very same clause? Even if we have in fact been in contact with the player to become notified I just don't believe a professional operator at this level of the game such as Levy has left any obvious trail to prove such an accusation.
 
FightingIllini said:
"Attempt to sign for Spurs and we will sue you and your agency, deny the transfer of your registration, and you will sit at home during a World Cup year. Or, sign for Chelsea and you can have a medical tomorrow and we'll wish you a fond farewell on the club's Twitter"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And end up.llike Danny Drinkwater who after winning PL with Leicester and E International was persuaded to turn down several clubs and sign for Chelsea who had bid higher fees and wages- signed in his prime but only played a dozen times for Chelsea in 5 years before being n released. A Wasted career.
 
spids said:
I have no doubt this is what happened:

  1. We sound out the player via his agent after Frank flags him as a player he'd like.
  2. During those conversations the player's agent may or may not have disclosed the release clause to us.
  3. We submit a £60m bid to Forest (pretty close to player's market value IMO and a good starting bid)
  4. Forest (reluctantly) accept due to the release clause being met.
  5. Player given permission to talk to usnd medical scheduled.
  6. News breaks in the media (agent leak).
  7. Forest chairman (on holiday somewhere) finds out and goes mental.
  8. Tells his staff to retract any permission for the player to talk to us and to cease all communications with us.
  9. Limbo ensues.

Not sure how this gets resolved, but 4 possible outcomes:

1. MGW to forces Forest's hand and successfully seeks legal recourse to be released from his contract with Forest.
2. We complain to the PL and they force Forest's hand. Not sure they can do that though and will say it is a matter for the clubs/player to resolve via a legal contract case.
3. The Forest owner realises he is not in a strong position and backs down.
4. We decide we cannot wait for this to be resolved and move on to another target this window.

If the Forest owner is as big a cock as I have him down for, this will rumble on well past the end of the transfer window and option 4 is most likely outcome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I still stand by my original take. This will turn into a contract dispute between Gibbs-White and Notts Forest. If Gibbs-White is not prepared to take Forest to court over breach of contract he will not get away from them this window unless their owner backs down. And he won't. Gibbs-White needs to force a move. Or we need to move on to a new target.
 
Dudski said:
Over the last two years Woolrich, Newcastle, and Aston Villa all were linked to bids for Morgan Gibbs-White. Depending on how far those discussions got, any of those teams (and lots of people working for them) might have come to find out what the release clause amount was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
this is why i think ratfucking could've happened. it's pretty much impossible to prove who disclosed the trigger amount unless you have direct proof and forest is acting like they do. it could quite possibly be bluster from an erratic and unstable owner but not so sure at this point
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top