• 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.
SameOldSpurs said:
If the Spurs deal collapses, now everyone apparently knows the release clause.. can nobody bid the release clause?

Is this fat Greek allowing players low release clauses because he knows he can fat cry his way out of ever honouring them?

If Chelsea decide they want him next week and bid 60m, then this confidential release clause has been leaked and fatty will take fat legal action against them?

His skins like leather. Like a crocodile. Fat crocodile, fat cunt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is why I think the deal has to happen. MGW needs it to happen. Otherwise his entire release clause becomes invalid as its lost that confidentiality. And by the looks of it the owner will not let him go unless he has a release clause so his only alternative will be to run down his contract. MGW needs this deal to happen more than anyone else concerned.
 
CityGround said:
The club are not obliged to sell if the other party has not acted in accordance to the correct procedure. It seems that in this case Forest claim that Spurs spoke to the player or his agent when they had not received the written permission that they needed before they were permitted to do so and that confidential information was obtained and use by Spurs which gave them a commercial advantage.
Depending on circumstances Forest could take action against Morgan-Gibbs, his agent or Spurs. They can also make a complaint to the Premier League, which they have done.
I don't know what the complaint is, you don't know what the complaint is, but both clubs and the Premier League have known about it since yesterday.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are 2 separate clauses. The first is the release clause.

That is the clause Spurs triggered with an offer

The other c ause(s) may or may not allow Notts Forest a right of action against player et al. But I doubt law will uphold them for reasons which lawyers can explain better to you than I can.

The fact you say Notts forestt can complain to PL - ie they have not done so just refused any Conversation with Spurs - simply shows how weak Notts Forest case is. If strong Notts Forest would hVe done so already.
 
FightingIllini said:
I wish it weren't so, but it is, and there is nothing Spurs can do about it.

There's something Gibbs-White could have done about it, but if he were willing to he absolutely would not have set foot at Forest's training ground ever again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Err no.

You don't resolve a legal situation by breaching that same contract, that would just be extraordinarily stupid.

The most plausible explanation here is that his agent has advised him to ensure he carries out his own duties, to the letter of his contract, until this all gets settled. If it were ever to go to a court of arbitration, it is imperative that you can demonstrate you have fulfilled your obligations.

Two wrongs do not make a right where contracts are concerned.
 
KingstonSpur said:
I can't see this happening now tbh

We've pissed them off too much and the release clause obviously don't mean jack because he would be having his medical by now
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even when deals are reported as 'done' it often takes several more days, sometimes longer, before the player is formally announced. Take woolwich and Nørgaard for example - it was at least a couple of weeks between those two events in his case!

FWIW, I'm the opposite of you on this - I can't see it NOT happening. I guess time will tell...
 
Trotter said:
While I agree with you about not many other suitors (although I wouldn’t rule out Man Utd), Forest could easily decide keeping the player for another season is well worth a 20m hit in valuation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wouldn’t worry about Utd, they're struggling for pennies trying to by Mbueno, that's deals been going on for 6 weeks.
 
whenstevewentup said:
There is precedent set in the premier league -


In 2002, Liverpool Football Club was fined £20,000 by the Premier League for an illegal approach for Christian Ziege, who was then at Middlesbrough. Ziege himself was also fined £10,000 for his part in the transfer. Middlesbrough had claimed Liverpool illegally approached Ziege, who had a release clause in his contract, and that they could have sold him for more than the £5.5 million Liverpool paid. Middlesbrough also sought further compensation.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
  • The Allegation: Middlesbrough alleged that Liverpool made an illegal approach to Christian Ziege, a player under contract, without their permission.

  • The Premier League's Finding: The Premier League found Liverpool guilty of making an illegal approach.

  • Fines: Liverpool was fined £20,000, and Ziege was fined £10,000.

  • Middlesbrough's Claim: Middlesbrough argued that Liverpool's actions deprived them of a higher transfer fee and potential revenue from Ziege's sale. They sought £2.5 million in compensation.

  • Legal Action: Middlesbrough considered taking legal action against Liverpool in the High Court to pursue further compensation.

  • Ziege's Perspective: Ziege himself admitted the situation was a "mess" and that he didn't like how it unfolded,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First, it's great that you used the AI summary of this, but more importantly, the transfer went through. So sure, there were $30k in fines, and that seems like a lot of money to us. In reality though, it's a pittance.
 
Shadydan said:
They're not negotiating with Palace for anything, they haven't even made an offer for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Strange the confidence that they're signing him then!
We're still scrabbling about with MGW and feel nowhere nearer signing him ..
they've not even made contact with Palace, yet seemingly Eze is already a Gooner in some people's eyes!
 
SameOldSpurs said:
If the Spurs deal collapses, now everyone apparently knows the release clause.. can nobody bid the release clause?

Is this fat Greek allowing players low release clauses because he knows he can fat cry his way out of ever honouring them?

If Chelsea decide they want him next week and bid 60m, then this confidential release clause has been leaked and fatty will take fat legal action against them?

His skins like leather. Like a crocodile. Fat crocodile, fat cunt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Technically if another club came in and bid 60m and hit release clause, Forest could still have a case against MGW, his agent and maybe Spurs for commercial losses for releasing the clause, if that’s what has happened here.
 
is it possible that there is non disclosure agreement that voids the release clause if it's breached by the player?

like mentioned earlier, it's a world cup year and bfg may be thinking mgw won't make a big stink that puts his season in any kind of jeopardy. seems increasingly like we need him to sue for breach of contract to make this happen and he may not be willing to do that
 
1882 said:
Strange the confidence that they're signing him then!
We're still scrabbling about with MGW and feel nowhere nearer signing him ..
they've not even made contact with Palace, yet seemingly Eze is already a Gooner in some people's eyes!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What confidence? I'm don't know why you've read...all I've seen are the usual tenuous links and reports saying what they're looking to do.
 
Harry Vaginola said:
is it possible that there is non disclosure agreement that voids the release clause if it's breached by the player?

like mentioned earlier, it's a world cup year and bfg may be thinking mgw won't make a big stink that puts his season in any kind of jeopardy. seems increasingly like we need him to sue for breach of contract to make this happen and he may not be willing to do that
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the NDA is breched by the player then what exactly is the point of having a clause in the first place?

"OK Morgan, we agree to put a release clause in your contract but you can't tell anyone about it otherwise it's void" :mourweird:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top