-
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...
Player Morgan Gibbs-White
- Thread starter JDefoe
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
- Status
You are probably right and what a bizarre strategy. Every Forest player will be checking the fine print in their contracts now if they know the owner is capable of this.
Because not one of is or can be exactly sure of what the clause stipulates.
If it were black and white, this would be done.
There is very definitely something that has been seen to make the clause worthy of complaint or scrutiny.
And I will say again, if we had a player in the same circumstance, having just sold another prized asset, to a man, woman and hybrid, we would be in a rage.
The fault is Firest's because a clause,once triggered in accordance with its terms, infers an obligation to let the bidder and the player talk. It does not confer a sale.
There's plenty of people on here who talk it...
They've told MGW that the breach of confidentiality with respect to the release clause renders it null and void and they no longer have any such obligation.
Can Forest do that? That's what courts of law exist to decide.
But the Anglo-American legal paradigm is an adversarial system, an injured party must bring a lawsuit in order for there to be a resolution.
MGW, the injured party, is clearly not willing to do that, for whatever reason. Could that change? I suppose, but a world in which we're talking about bids above the release clause is one in which all parties have accepted Forest's position.
WHY things have happened this way is absolutely mystifying to me, EVEN IF Forest's accusations are 100% true. But WHAT has happened and where things stand is crystal clear.
And every agent will be very wary indeed of dealing with Stavros
Me personally, before 06.30am yes.
After, no.
Like clockwork
We're arguing with a billionaire who wears primark t-shirts and has wired earphones.
You know it's all about the "loyalty" bonus, right?
Apparently Kudus forwent his to get the move going.
"Rules are for the little people"
A man attempting to do things that aren't illegal, accusing people of doing things that haven't, all to try and control the narrative to suit himself, whilst owning a club of that name...
Feels appropriate to call Marinakis "Forest Trump"
Don’t start him off!
Ruh roh...
Bill Madrid
still up for it?MGW is a Spurs player at the end of the window for 60M, you win.
MGW is NOT a Spurs player, or we pay >60M, I win.
Loser must use an avatar of the winner's choice for the entire 25/26 season
If they had already gone to the league and instantly reported us then I'd agree with your assessment. But its 7 days on and all they are doing is threatening to go legal on us. Feels like they've nothing concrete and are just creating this big smokescreen to stall the deal.
Thank you. That makes sense and certainly explains some of my confusion. MGW might have to lawyer up!
Yeah I'm aware of that, it's the totally see through lying that gets me, we all know you want to leave, popping that down in an email to the club is hardly going to be ruinous to the relationship!Me personally, before 06.30am yes.
After, no.
Like clockwork
We're arguing with a billionaire who wears primark t-shirts and has wired earphones.
You know it's all about the "loyalty" bonus, right?
Apparently Kudus forwent his to get the move going.
The way the Forest Greek cunt is treating MGW and trying to stall the deal, I would say MGW doesn't need to maintain any good terms with them. Throw in the transfer request bro. We're running out of time.
- Status