• 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.
Sidford said:
None of us can know what is in his contract but can use the example here of Eze and the fact that palace were demanding the bulk, if not all, of his release clause up front. The devil is in the detail of the contract and if the contract doesn't stipulate how it has to be paid then the selling club can well use that ambiguity to get terms that they want.
There has already been transfers this summer where the buying club has paid more than the release clause as it allows them to including that lot down the road and Zubimendi. They paid higher than his clause so they could spread the payments out. Let's see how this plays out but unless the clause is very specific then just being willing to bid 60m doesn't end the negotiations, there are still steps after that to agree structure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We don’t know the details it’s true

But those details would be in the clause as we have seen with Eze and the 3 payments.

If we haven’t submitted a bid that meets the terms of the clause, including the payment terms, then we wouldn’t have triggered the clause.

We did trigger the clause though, so our bid must have met those terms
 
Richard Arlison said:
We don’t know the details it’s true

But those details would be in the clause as we have seen with Eze and the 3 payments.

If we haven’t submitted a bid that meets the terms of the clause, including the payment terms, then we wouldn’t have triggered the clause.

We did trigger the clause though, so our bid must have met those terms
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Have we seen that though? That situation seems to me as simple as Eze has £68m release clause, but Palace are willing to deal at with payments over 3 years, ie just a regular transfer with no clause activated. I've not seen a single thing suggesting that the clause dictates a specific payment schedule.
 
Aphex said:
Not being funny, but that is the face of a bloke that's like "fuck sake, thought I was signing for Spurs and now I'm in limbo and it's fucking embarassing"

The fact that he was like "I haven't heard anything" is basically code for, "I'm just waiting for this all to be sorted out so I can fuck off."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He turns around when the bloke says staying with the reds.

Judging by his body language,He's definitely not staying with the reds or atleast in his mind he's not.
 
It is worth noting that the reporting has shifted away from it being about tapping up, to more towards breach of confidentiality.

Which to me should be more between Forest and MGW's agents. But whatever.
 
Herclueless said:
Have we seen that though? That situation seems to me as simple as Eze has £68m release clause, but Palace are willing to deal at with payments over 3 years, ie just a regular transfer with no clause activated. I've not seen a single thing suggesting that the clause dictates a specific payment schedule.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Either way, the payment terms are surely as stipulated in the clause and would need to be met in order to trigger it.

We triggered the clause so our bid must’ve had the correct payment terms and fee to do so.

This is interesting too


View: https://x.com/allthings__thfc/status/1944726516488650759?s=46&t=fbqxNuG9CT4qTaiJx8mBjg


Basically, it’s easy to see why Spurs are briefing the media that they are confident this gets done.
 
Richard Arlison said:
Either way, the payment terms are surely as stipulated in the clause and would need to be met in order to trigger it.

We triggered the clause so our bid must’ve had the correct payment terms and fee to do so.

This is interesting too


View: https://x.com/allthings__thfc/status/1944726516488650759?s=46&t=fbqxNuG9CT4qTaiJx8mBjg


Basically, it’s easy to see why Spurs are briefing the media that they are confident this gets done.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's so little information about this right now that, despite it seeming that way at the end of last week, it's now difficult to even say that with confidence I reckon.

If we did, then why haven't we just pushed ahead with the deal? Forest having any say in the matter suggests that we didn't actually satisfy the terms of the clause then.
 
Relase clauses usually paid in one sum, especially when the owner club sees the player value more. The buyers should be prepared to pay it or you cannot go public and say we trigger the clause. One thing happens usually that the buyer borrows the money from the banks and pay it the owner, and pays installments to the banks with profits to the bank.
 
Herclueless said:
There's so little information about this right now that, despite it seeming that way at the end of last week, it's now difficult to even say that with confidence I reckon.

If we did, then why haven't we just pushed ahead with the deal? Forest having any say in the matter suggests that we didn't actually satisfy the terms of the clause then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You do know the selling club needs to sign the documentation as well as Spurs to get the player registered ?

No different to any contract for a valuable asset such as a house sale
 
KingstonSpur said:
I feel that Forest will drag this out for so long that either we move on to other targets, another club comes in for him, or he is somehow persuaded into signing a new contract.

I feel like Forest will do everythign they can to stop this tbh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The longer is drags on, the worse it gets for Forest though. They’ll look desperate, they want appeal to other players.

Their chairman loves a legal threat. He tried it against PGMOL with hiring Mark Clattenburg, they tried it with Gary Neville, they tried it with the injury to their striker. It stinks of the owner wanting to play Billy big bollocks when he usually gets left on his arse anyway.
 
Spursidol said:
You do know the selling club needs to sign the documentation as well as Spurs to get the player registered ?

No different to any contract for a valuable asset such as a house sale
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And? The narrative so far in the media hasn't painted the picture of it being as straight forward as everything being done but Forest not giving the final signature.

If we have met the release clause, they have no leg to stand on in terms of this transfer going through, that it hasn't as yet, and that Forest are the ones lodging a complaint, suggests that there is more to the story than just that.

You'd think there would be some kind of update today, but at the moment there's nothing concrete enough to really figure out what's going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top