• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Morgan Gibbs-White

Wonder if this goes on for a few weeks if MGW can then claim off Forest for loss of earnings as they have not held up their part of his release clause and his new salary is higher.
 
Seems like the complaint is over us tapping him up rather than the release clause.
So seems the RC has been triggered successfully and the fuss is over us approaching the player to early.
Should not hold it up much longer then
 
Glenda's Legs said:
The PL standard Player contract has a pretty simple confidentiality clause which prevents the club, player or their respective agents revealing the terms of the agreement (other than to their professional advisors).
If a release clause is inserted into thee contract then the confidentiality clause would govern that clause as well. If the intention is that the release clause is not intended to be confidential then I would expect the confidentiality clause to have been amended accordingly. There shouldn’t be any need for a separate NDA, it’s something a confidentiality clause should be able to cover.
Of course we don’t know what additions were made to MGW’s contract so it’s all guesswork but it’s certainly something whomever was negotiating on behalf of MGW should have picked up on if that was the understanding between the parties.

But all that is still separate from charges of illegally approaching the player.
Click to expand...
Standard confidentiality clauses are not designed to hold people to secrecy though. They're designed to protect a person's right to privacy and a club's market sensitive information for competitive reasons. Just as the proximate wages most players are on is effectively in the public domain (and gets discussed), so pretty much every player that has a release clause is invariably public knowledge. They tend to be higher than £60m and certainly this clause seems to have not been generally public knowledge and seems to have caught some within Forest by surprise (they clearly were not intending to let GW go this summer). Hence why they seem intent on holding GW and Spurs to a far higher level of conduct re: confidentiality than is generally observed within and across the PL
 
In a broader sense, this "tapping up" issue has to be an infringement of someones basic rights. ( lawyers on here please advise 😄)
But the idea that another employer cant enquire directly to an employee of a different employer? Happens in every other occupation i can think of.
The idea that a footballer needs permission to even speak to some other club or entity is just farcical if you ask me.
 
Welshspur60 said:
In a broader sense, this "tapping up" issue has to be an infringement of someones basic rights. ( lawyers on here please advise 😄)
But the idea that another employer cant enquire directly to an employee of a different employer? Happens in every other occupation i can think of.
The idea that a footballer needs permission to even speak to some other club or entity is just farcical if you ask me.
Click to expand...

There's a good reason for it. Match fixing for one. We'll sign you in the summer but don't score against us and we'll chuck in another mil. Or if you beat us we won't get cl footy next season.
Football isn't most other occupations.
 
Welshspur60 said:
In a broader sense, this "tapping up" issue has to be an infringement of someones basic rights. ( lawyers on here please advise 😄)
But the idea that another employer cant enquire directly to an employee of a different employer? Happens in every other occupation i can think of.
The idea that a footballer needs permission to even speak to some other club or entity is just farcical if you ask me.
Click to expand...
As I've said every time the football transfer system including these rules have been tested in court, the court has declared these rules illegal. In the most recent case, Andy Webster effectively resigned his position at Hearts citing a breakdown in relationship with the club (I.e. tore up his contract). Hearts sought to block the move losing out on a transfer fee. FIFA imposed a significant fine on Webster, close to £1 million representing compensation for the lost transfer fee Webster took FIFA and Hearts to court and won, the court ruled Webster could tear up his contract paying Hearts just £150K representing the remaining amortisation value- it was re-emphasised (established in Bosman case) that an arbitary transfer fee is a restraint of freedom of employment and humans being traded as commodities with extortionate market value will not be upheld in court.

The transfer "gravy train" that keeps clubs and agents and associations rich !6and journos wi707 016 2294707 016 2294th stories to write is based on a house of cards that relies on people with enough clout not rocking the boat (these court cases relate to low profile players). As I've said even strict application of the "tapping up" rules would leave these transfers unworkable as clubs are not going to shell out a tonne in legal and professional fees and put tonnes of man hours getting to the point where both clubs agree a deal is likely without first establishing if a player wants to come on terms the club is willing to meet.

If Forest want to blow this grace train apart then they're going to find themselves extremely unpopular
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back