• 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.
Ionman34 said:
I don't understand how you can not understand his contractual obligation if all of the requirements have been met. He's legally bound.

The fact that the terms were agreed with the Forest board, to the point where they initially allowed him to have a medical undertaken, is pretty strong evidence that the terms were met.

Their owner is not above that, no matter what posturing he comes out with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Totally agree.

The clause or caveat was met.

If Forest had done their due diligence on his contract (you can bet that every players contract at Forest has now been reviewed) then they would have come across this issue.

The media are stating that Forest had tried to re-negotiate the players contract therefore they simply must have been aware of the cost in the release clause, this I bet is why they must have been shitting themselves.

Fuck he fat prick.
 
latman said:
Funny how people are complaining about this rumbling on.

It's only been going a few days ffs. And some want us to walk away because they're bored of it lol.

If it takes a few weeks to get done so be it, he'll be worth it. Hopefully gets done sooner but in no way should we just give up on the deal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Absolutely, definitely, one hundred percent spot on.

The bottom line is no CL no MGW

Him and Kudus are not stupid.
 
spids said:
The legal stuff is a smokescreen and they know it. What is happening is their owner, who is a childish megalomaniac, is refusing to sell him despite the clause. It is up to Gibbs-White to initiate a legal process for breach of contract. That process will not complete in this window. Their owner is banking on Gibbs-White folding, or us moving on to another target. We can do nothing, it has to be Gibbs-White. He needs to refuse to train and start legal proceedings and stay away from Forest. Every day he turns up and trains or pulls on their shirt, the Forest owner's position strengthens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MGW can refuse his services to Forest as they have broken the terms of his contract already.
 
spids said:
The legal stuff is a smokescreen and they know it. What is happening is their owner, who is a childish megalomaniac, is refusing to sell him despite the clause. It is up to Gibbs-White to initiate a legal process for breach of contract. That process will not complete in this window. Their owner is banking on Gibbs-White folding, or us moving on to another target. We can do nothing, it has to be Gibbs-White. He needs to refuse to train and start legal proceedings and stay away from Forest. Every day he turns up and trains or pulls on their shirt, the Forest owner's position strengthens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MGW can refuse his services to Forest as they have broken the terms of his contract already.
 
The Big E Train said:
If Spurs 'knew' about the release clause, couldn't they be more strategic with their interest.

Bid 55m pounds, get rejected. Come back a week later with a 60m pound bid.

OR

Just bid 65m.

Both cases you could easily argue that they 'weren't previously aware' of 60m release.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How would that have helped ?
They would still have had to reveal the release clause or they could just refuse the offers.
Then MGW or his agent would have to reveal that there was such a clause, and then break the confidentiality !!
 
Surely the point of release clauses is to protect a club unless another club bids the figure agreed. In this case surely ALL release clauses should be public if the intent is to scare other teams off your player.
What has happened here is that Forest should have updated his contract and upped the amount. NEWS - MGW wants to leave because he refused all new offers.
 
Paul Gascoigne said:
Surely the point of release clauses is to protect a club unless another club bids the figure agreed. In this case surely ALL release clauses should be public if the intent is to scare other teams off your player.
What has happened here is that Forest should have updated his contract and upped the amount. NEWS - MGW wants to leave because he refused all new offers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it’s to protect the player and give them some more power
 
The claim from Marinakis seems insane. If they have to keep the clause a secret, then the clause will essentially be ineffective. What if someone bids 60 m without knowing about the clause? Marinakis will reject it and ask for more. If the player or their agent say that actually, 60 m is the clause, then they've broken the non disclosure agreement. If they play like that, what's the actual point of having the clause in the first place?
 
Paul Gascoigne said:
Surely the point of release clauses is to protect a club unless another club bids the figure agreed. In this case surely ALL release clauses should be public if the intent is to scare other teams off your player.
What has happened here is that Forest should have updated his contract and upped the amount. NEWS - MGW wants to leave because he refused all new offers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That seems backwards to me, I always viewed it as a stipulation insisted on by the player, to reassure them that the club cannot just hold them "hostage" when they want to move in future.

I'm sure clubs would prefer to never have a release clause, it offers no benefit to them.
 
Herclueless said:
That seems backwards to me, I always viewed it as a stipulation insisted on by the player, to reassure them that the club cannot just hold them "hostage" when they want to move in future.

I'm sure clubs would prefer to never have a release clause, it offers no benefit to them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah - it's there because players want to use clubs like Forest as a stepping stone, and not be tied down.

Also see Dean Huijsen.....he would never have signed for Bournemouth without the prior agreement that when a big club came calling at an agreed price he would be immediately offski
 
Blanchflower said:
Yeah - it's there because players want to use clubs like Forest as a stepping stone, and not be tied down.

Also see Dean Huijsen.....he would never have signed for Bournemouth without the prior agreement that when a big club came calling at an agreed price he would be immediately offski
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, Kudus joined West Ham over Brighton because the latter wouldn’t put in a release clause for CL sides, for instance.
 
The good news is that the Premier League have received the fat plate smasher's complaint and are now on the case.

So if the City FFP investigation is anything to go by, we should get the all clear for this transfer by the end of 2033.
 
ThePreacher said:
Totally agree.

The clause or caveat was met.

If Forest had done their due diligence on his contract (you can bet that every players contract at Forest has now been reviewed) then they would have come across this issue.

The media are stating that Forest had tried to re-negotiate the players contract therefore they simply must have been aware of the cost in the release clause, this I bet is why they must have been shitting themselves.

Fuck he fat prick.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All this is is Marinakis not having things his way. He let Elanga go because it was a fee he decided was enough. MGW is because the fee is out of his control, he doesn't like that it's not in his power to control the fee.

'Tapping up' is nonsense, it happens in every transfer. You always get an idea as to whether the player wants to join before approaching the club.

I don't see how the Premier League can look at this and prove without any doubt that Spurs came across the release clause information illegally. The agent offering it up isn't on Spurs. Forest can sue the agent, but they are then entering a legal battle with one of the biggest agencies in football. It'll tarnish them and any future signings through them.
 
yes said:
The good news is that the Premier League have received the fat plate smasher's complaint and are now on the case.

So if the City FFP investigation is anything to go by, we should get the all clear for this transfer by the end of 2033.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They probably received it 6 days ago, but they've only just read the email.
 
Ionman34 said:
I don't understand how you can not understand his contractual obligation if all of the requirements have been met. He's legally bound.

The fact that the terms were agreed with the Forest board, to the point where they initially allowed him to have a medical undertaken, is pretty strong evidence that the terms were met.

Their owner is not above that, no matter what posturing he comes out with.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If all you say is true, then I agree 100%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top