• 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

HarryBreadbap said:
The deal will go through for legal reasons.

Even the most optimistic employment lawyer would see that his contract clearly stated that they was a release caveat of sixty million pounds.

Ignorance by the club regarding that clause in his contract is no excuse irrespective of the amount of the release clause.

The fact that no one reviewed the players contract (or all players contracts which i bet is happening at Forest now) is down to the clubs secretary who must have signed off on the contract when the player, and agent signed the contract.

The waffle about what the player is worth is irrelevant, the crux of the matter is what is written on the contract, legal and agreed by all parties, which is was.

Forest and their fat taco of an owner will now possibly ask for the money up front, and this then will be down to Levy who i think somehow will overcome this.

Bottom line is the secretary at Forest witnessed and agreed to the terms in the contract at the time, and when the player developed beyond their wildest dreams did nothing to change the contract.

Their incompetence is galling and no doubt someone will get for for that.
Click to expand...

What they are saying is the clause was secret. So the only way spurs could know about it is if they talked to the player before getting permission. Which is tapping up.

Think it's bs. CAA and Spurs are not new to this.
 
Lilbaz said:
What they are saying is the clause was secret. So the only way spurs could know about it is if they talked to the player before getting permission. Which is tapping up.

Think it's bs. CAA and Spurs are not new to this.
Click to expand...

So, who would know about the clause according to the contract, and in what case would who be contacted once the clause was activated? If say Forest received a bid above or on the clause, would the player and his agent automatically get to know? If so, how? And, if a player's agent blabbers, isnt he responsible? Why would we be for listening?

That was a chaos of questions. I just don't understand this case.
 
Daisuk said:
So, who would know about the clause according to the contract, and in what case would who be contacted once the clause was activated? If say Forest received a bid above or on the clause, would the player and his agent automatically get to know? If so, how? And, if a player's agent blabbers, isnt he responsible? Why would we be for listening?

That was a chaos of questions. I just don't understand this case.
Click to expand...

If there was an nda the only people that should know about it are player, agent and club rep.
For the rest no idea.

No idea how it works. If a bid came in over the release is the clhb allowed to say a release has been met? Or they still under an nda?

fudge knows. Lawyers and sgents over complicating things to get more money probably.
 
Lilbaz said:
What they are saying is the clause was secret. So the only way spurs could know about it is if they talked to the player before getting permission. Which is tapping up.

Think it's bs. CAA and Spurs are not new to this.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine anyone at Spurs being told the release clause is £60,152,750 (or whatever random figure it was) and then offering Forest the exact amount of the release clause.
I'm guessing the bid was close to and just enough over the amount to trigger it and that is why Marianakis is kicking off about it.
 
Grays_1890 said:
But we would have known that before, its universal to trigger a clause its a one off payment.........and we would rather pay 60m in one than 100m over 4 IMO.

If anyones getting more off the back end of this is MGW to forgo his loyalty payments which we might absorb to get it done
Click to expand...
Ok to clear something up. There's a bit of confusion beacuse of the Spanish release clause rules. Yes in spain if you trigger a release clause you have to pay the entire amount up front as this is a portion of the Spanish legal employment law if you engage someone on a limited term exclusivity contract, this only applies to Spain. In Spain you don't even pay the release clause to the club and it's not paid by purchasing club. It's officially paid by the player and it's paid to the RFEF who redistribute it to the club in question.

A release signed in any other country has no set designated rules beyond what is agreed upon in that contract. So it may well be the case that Gobbs-White's release clause states that it must be paid in full but it's just as likely not to. It may have payment dates or it might not. Anything claiming knowledge is just speculation.
 
Bishop said:
Ok to clear something up. There's a bit of confusion beacuse of the Spanish release clause rules. Yes in spain if you trigger a release clause you have to pay the entire amount up front as this is a portion of the Spanish legal employment law if you engage someone on a limited term exclusivity contract, this only applies to Spain. In Spain you don't even pay the release clause to the club and it's not paid by purchasing club. It's officially paid by the player and it's paid to the RFEF who redistribute it to the club in question.

A release signed in any other country has no set designated rules beyond what is agreed upon in that contract. So it may well be the case that Gobbs-White's release clause states that it must be paid in full but it's just as likely not to. It may have payment dates or it might not. Anything claiming knowledge is just speculation.
Click to expand...

But Forest have the right and likely will ask for it all upfront because although the release is an obligation how they are paid for it is up to them, we would have known that.

Point being we would have been prepared regardless to pay it all up front
 
Grays_1890 said:
But Forest have the right and likely will ask for it all upfront because although the release is an obligation how they are paid for it is up to them, we would have known that.

Point being we would have been prepared regardless to pay it all up front
Click to expand...
You would imagine we would be ready for such an eventuality unless we knew the terms of the release clause said otherwise or we are just naive enough to think a front loaded payment wouldn't be required. Who knows honestly, but I would expect at the spurs to be ready to pay a big chunk if they trigger a release clause.
 
I’m really hopeful that Spurs didn’t do anything silly here. The extreme likelihood is that they haven’t. The idea of the clause being secret and us just steaming in with the exact bid doesn’t seem smart, and I don’t think Spurs would do that.

I just read a comment on Reddit that is absolutely hilarious in that its plausibility makes sense. What if Levy was fully intending to go to say 75m and 60m was his opening bid? He thought he was low balling, got lucky, and walked head first into a tapping up controversy 😂😂
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I’m really hopeful that Spurs didn’t do anything silly here. The extreme likelihood is that they haven’t. The idea of the clause being secret and us just steaming in with the exact bid doesn’t seem smart, and I don’t think Spurs would do that.

I just read a comment on Reddit that is absolutely hilarious in that its plausibility makes sense. What if Levy was fully intending to go to say 75m and 60m was his opening bid? He thought he was low balling, got lucky, and walked head first into a tapping up controversy 😂😂
Click to expand...
The way it was reported was that we had triggered his release clause. Which either means we went in and more less said we are triggering it or we did just bid 60m and Forrest initially accepted it because it was his release clause and announced to everybody that we had triggered it before the owner then threw his strop.
 
billyiddo said:
I don't like the lack of movement on this - hope it doesn't rumble on too much longer
Click to expand...
I think Forest are just stonewalling and not communicating with us anymore. Eventually they will have to assuming the clause has been activated correctly as reported.

How long it will go on for who knows, but it doesn't appear that they can legally stop the transfer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back