• 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

Gutter Boy said:
I just meant there are two main types of #10s. The old fashioned subtle playmaker types like Eriksen. Or the more aggressive dynamic goalscoring type like Alli. We used both by Eriksen playing narrow right, and them both interchanging.

MGW is very similar to Alli, while Maddison is much more like Eriksen. Whereas Kulu can do a bit of both styles
Click to expand...
MGW scores 5-6 goals on average - hardly a ‘goalscoring type’.
 
Lilbaz said:
Modric or olise to chelsea says otherwise.

The clubs agree to go through the clubs before talking to the player. That is their agreement to the premier league.

Spurs aren't chelsea though. The people doing these deals have years of experience. Caa also.

That said we have been known to fudge up. Doherty loan to atleti for one.
Click to expand...
Release clause is the key
 
Lilbaz said:
Modric or olise to chelsea says otherwise.

The clubs agree to go through the clubs before talking to the player. That is their agreement to the premier league.

Spurs aren't chelsea though. The people doing these deals have years of experience. Caa also.

That said we have been known to fudge up. Doherty loan to atleti for one.
Click to expand...
The modric and olise cases have not been tested in a proper court. Every time clubs refusing to release players unless they receive an arbitary transfer fee has been tested in court, its been found to be illegal. Changes to the transfer system were made by FIFA following the Bosman case and intervention by the European Commission but these changes have never been tested nor has this "tapping up" principle. Its the same as non-disclosure agreements, they're handed out willy nilly but most of them aren't legally enforceable and they often get ripped to shreds when brought up in actual court cases. You can't contractually prevent someone from speaking to who they like unless there is a very good reason for it (competition law or market sensitivities etc). Football clubs not wanting their players to play for other clubs isnt a good enough reason. Imagine if an employer put a clause in someone's employment contract saying they weren't allowed to speak to recruitment consultants or other companies or apply for other jobs without their permission- would that be enforceable? Absolutely not - and footballers would likely be deemed no different in a court test.

Ultimately this "get clubs permission first" stuff is a jolly old boys club gentlemen agreement of spiffing conduct rather than a rule that is legally enforceable in a court of law
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Suppose Forest refuses to acknowledge our 60m bid. Arguing that the release clause is not triggered because we tapped up their player. The player or Spurs could sue them, because there is a contract that states they have to sell if they get a 60m bid.

They would counter that we didn't approach the club first. We'd say, prove it, and it doesn't matter anyway!
Click to expand...

It would be whether they could prove that a secret release clause was leaked to Spurs. I don’t think this is how it went down because I can’t imagine CAA or Spurs would be so stupid. But apparently having a release clause that is secret is a thing. It’s not broadcast to the market, but if a club happened to bid then the club would have to accept. As opposed to it being known and clubs knowing they can swoop in quickly.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
The modric and olise cases have not been tested in a proper court. Every time clubs refusing to release players unless they receive an arbitary transfer fee has been tested in court, its been found to be illegal. Changes to the transfer system were made by FIFA following the Bosman case and intervention by the European Commission but these changes have never been tested nor has this "tapping up" principle. Its the same as non-disclosure agreements, they're handed out willy nilly but most of them aren't legally enforceable and they often get ripped to shreds when brought up in actual court cases. You can't contractually prevent someone from speaking to who they like unless there is a very good reason for it (competition law or market sensitivities etc). Football clubs not wanting their players to play for other clubs isnt a good enough reason. Imagine if an employer put a clause in someone's employment contract saying they weren't allowed to speak to recruitment consultants or other companies or apply for other jobs without their permission- would that be enforceable? Absolutely not - and footballers would likely be deemed no different in a court test.
Click to expand...

The player might have a case. A club?

- we want to buy player x. But didn't want to contact the club first.

- you agreed to those rules.

A club isn't going to challdnge the rules on transfer fees. Say they are deemed illegal. All your assets are worthless. There would be no reason to develop youth players. The game would suffer massively.
 
Very odd situation. Talking to him first isn't a reason to stop the transfer, the only punishment is for braking the rule. And if Forest wants to go down that route they are opening up a huge can of worms. Hope they are squeaky clean.
 
monkeybarry said:
Very odd situation. Talking to him first isn't a reason to stop the transfer, the only punishment is for braking the rule. And if Forest wants to go down that route they are opening up a huge can of worms. Hope they are squeaky clean.
Click to expand...

It's tapping up. It is a reason to stop. You can face transfer bans and fines.

CAA and spurs shouldn't be that stupid though. It would be through the agents. Hopefully.
 
Lilbaz said:
The player might have a case. A club?

- we want to buy player x. But didn't want to contact the club first.

- you agreed to those rules.

A club isn't going to challdnge the rules on transfer fees. Say they are deemed illegal. All your assets are worthless. There would be no reason to develop youth players. The game would suffer massively.
Click to expand...
Its more if Forest got lawyers involved to sue Spurs as they're threatening to do, if I was Spurs legal team in that situation I'd just be like "oh you want to open that whole can of worms do you?"
 
Having watched one YT video


...I think we must be buying him to play midfield. Good long range passing. Can chip in with a goal, and good combative tackling. He seems a perfect midfielder. Not so much a #10.

What I liked about him is the speed he does things. As soon as he gets the ball he's racing to act quickly. No pondering, no pause to assess. He's looking to move forward right away. No doubt that is part of Nunos acounter attacking style. But not everyone can do that. The likes of Hogjberg only worked with time on the ball. As soon as he tried to play quick he'd lose the ball. Watching White when he gets the ball its like you're watch on double speed.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Its more if Forest got lawyers involved to sue Spurs as they're threatening to do, if I was Spurs legal team in that situation I'd just be like "oh you want to open that whole can of worms do you?"
Click to expand...

Where did "sue spurs" come from? Thought it was just speaking yo lawyers regarding the rules and contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back