• 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

Andrews was talking utter sh1te

They can't demand 100m now, someone is going to get him for 60m unless he signs a new deal which he won't now
I don't think he said that.

He said you can trigger the 60m release clause and Forest can do nothing about it BUT they can demand the whole payment up front. Which judging by Palaces demands for the Eze fee last season could be problematic.

I'm assuming Forest could look at a longer payment plan if you were to offer them a bit more money?

If we are ok to proceed with the full payment...then that's the biggest clue yet to investment coming in, as we haven't got that much cash now and 'transfers owed' is already running at a high level.
 
Last edited:
I suspect Forest is hoping that another club comes in and so they can push the player there. Either way, MGW will not be a Forest player again.

Yeah, I think so too. If so, wouldn’t we be legally obliged to buy him seeing as we actually triggered the clause?

Who knows, but I’m feeling fairly confident we’ll get him in.
 
I don't think he said that.

He said you can trigger the 60m release clause and Forest can do nothing about it BUT they can demand the whole payment up front. Which judging by Palaces demands for the Eze fee last season could be problematic.

I'm assuming Forest could look at a longer payment plan if you were to offer them a bit more money?
So you think we were bringing Gibbs-White for his medical knowing that we still potentially had to negotiate with them the fee payment terms?

I can't see that tbh, It was either we had already agreed payment terms with Forest which we obviously hadn't or we were prepared to pay the full amount up front. Their chairman's tactics has worked in that there has been a little gap between this and the Elanga deal, but it will be as your were and it gets done at some point this week IMO....
 
Must admit, I would worry more about all of this contractual detail if I could see the actual "clauses" discussed. I know we all refer to these "release clauses" as if they are generic but we don't really know what's been written legally. My guess is these types of contracts always get customised.

We don't know whether they even refer to payment terms as an example. I mean, why would MGW's party have agreed to any part of that clause that required a one-off payment to trigger the release? Based on how the industry works, that would be a total non-standard term. They would have no incentive to accept that when it was originally signed.

Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't. Who really knows?
 
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.

I'd like to see that proven on a court of law.

The agent could have contacted Spurs, someone at Forest could have made knowledge of the clause, the player could have talked to a friend, another player. There is no way to prove where the knowledge of the release clause came from.

I think Liverpool were the last club to be found out approaching a player at Southampton, and they offered an apology, I don't believe they were even fined?

The blame lies firmly at Forest for not protecting one of their prized assets.

This is why Kebab Marinakis is so riled up, heads will be separated from bodies for this.
 
I don't like the lack of movement on this - hope it doesn't rumble on too much longer

Next week it will be sorted.

Once the reality sets in that there is nothing Forest can legally do.

The player wants out, the fans have turned on him and it's not just about the money something Forest can't match anyway. Champions League football is a huge draw for a player, something United are now finding out.
 
I'd like to see that proven on a court of law.

The agent could have contacted Spurs, someone at Forest could have made knowledge of the clause, the player could have talked to a friend, another player. There is no way to prove where the knowledge of the release clause came from.

I think Liverpool were the last club to be found out approaching a player at Southampton, and they offered an apology, I don't believe they were even fined?

The blame lies firmly at Forest for not protecting one of their prized assets.

This is why Kebab Marinakis is so riled up, heads will be separated from bodies for this.
Mate, none of use like him right now but is this necessary?
 
I'd like to see that proven on a court of law.

The agent could have contacted Spurs, someone at Forest could have made knowledge of the clause, the player could have talked to a friend, another player. There is no way to prove where the knowledge of the release clause came from.

I think Liverpool were the last club to be found out approaching a player at Southampton, and they offered an apology, I don't believe they were even fined?

The blame lies firmly at Forest for not protecting one of their prized assets.

This is why Kebab Marinakis is so riled up, heads will be separated from bodies for this.

Palace accused chelsea of tapping up olise.

 
I don't like the lack of movement on this - hope it doesn't rumble on too much longer

I can see this lumbering on into the middle of next week; feels to me like Forest want to make the player out to be the villain here, so it will likely take MGW saying 'not playing for you anymore' and then the dealer can say it was all on the player and not him or the club. But yes, we don't know...
 
Back