• 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

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...

These are really employment contracts they are asset ownership agreements
 
So many permutations and combinations here.

The governing bodies could allow the transfer to go through AND punish us with a monetary fine, obviously payable to them, not Forest.

Another bad scenario is where other clubs can now bid the same amount as the release clause as it is public knowledge. Forest theoretically have to accept and MGW then ends up somewhere like City.

I don't think the PL will want to open up the can of worms in the grey area of tapping up. They know it is commonplace and they probably feel that they may not even have decision rights on stopping it based on how CAS would look at legal employment practices. Normally a CAS process takes a long time.

My own feeling is it is all down to the actual words in the MGW contract. Nobody apart from the club and the player + agents really know what is written. MGW always had a plan to pass through Forest in my mind. He wouldn't have weakened his position too much contactually would be my guess. He's given them 3 seasons in a 5 year contract. It's not unnatural to think now is the time for him to seek pastures new. Forest should have been planning for this.
 
Muttley said:
So many permutations and combinations here.

The governing bodies could allow the transfer to go through AND punish us with a monetary fine, obviously payable to them, not Forest.

Another bad scenario is where other clubs can now bid the same amount as the release clause as it is public knowledge. Forest theoretically have to accept and MGW then ends up somewhere like City.

I don't think the PL will want to open up the can of worms in the grey area of tapping up. They know it is commonplace and they probably feel that they may not even have decision rights on stopping it based on how CAS would look at legal employment practices. Normally a CAS process takes a long time.

My own feeling is it is all down to the actual words in the MGW contract. Nobody apart from the club and the player + agents really know what is written. MGW always had a plan to pass through Forest in my mind. He wouldn't have weakened his position too much contactually would be my guess. He's given them 3 seasons in a 5 year contract. It's not unnatural to think now is the time for him to seek pastures new. Forest should have been planning for this.
Click to expand...
Your over complicating it imo
This is all on their owner trying to save face
He is a poor man’s roman Abramovich with an ego of Donald trump… a rare combo which is why he is loaded but also why he think he can dictate things here like he does in Greece
This is the man the have Arsenal Covid so has some good traits of course but he has a lot of toys to chuck
 
This is a just wait and see. I'm hoping Spurs are ruthless and move on if they need to. But obviously he'd be a brilliant addition to the squad and probs first XI. Hope it gets sorted soon rather than some protracted public saga that old Levy loved.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Nottingham Forest complaint to the PL: "sir sir they spoke to him without our permission"
PL: "do you speak to players without their club's permission?"
Nottingham Forest: "yeah all the time.....oh"
Click to expand...

Hope it goes something like this.

Forest: “ they spoke to our player”
PL: “ Did you?”
Spurs: “No”
Forest: “they spoke to his agent”
Spurs: “we have spoken to his agency as we have a number of players represented by them”
Forest: “ They knew he had a £60m release clause”
Spurs: “we put a bid in based on what we thought the player was worth”
PL: “Do you have any other prove?”
Forest “No”
Spurs “As you said he had a £60m release clause I assume we can speak to him as we triggered that”
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
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
Click to expand...
I thought as much. Thanks for that information though.
 
Being at training/not being at training doesn't really mean anything either way. People do the same thing about players being picked for a match, it means next to nothing in terms of being an indicator to how close a transfer is, it's been proven so many times. Just adds some imaginary excitement to people's day on Twitter and whatever....
 
Legohamster said:
So in the past 24 hours Forest have put in a complaint, but also haven't

Forest Have tried to get more money out of us, but have also stopped communications over it

MGW also didnt show up for training today, but also did

Almost like it's guess work 😂
Click to expand...

You forgot this absolute banger as well:

IMG_8849.jpeg

If you agree to a release clause in a player's contract, then surely you must be prepared for that clause to be triggered at some point. "Confidential" and all that jazz. Well, then:

We bid 1 mill - rejected.
We bid 2 mill - rejected.
Etc.
We bid 55 mill - accept. Damn it! We never thought you were going to guess it! fudge. Its tantrum time.
 
Daisuk said:
You forgot this absolute banger as well:

View attachment 20058

If you agree to a release clause in a player's contract, then surely you must be prepared for that clause to be triggered at some point. "Confidential" and all that jazz. Well, then:

We bid 1 mill - rejected.
We bid 2 mill - rejected.
Etc.
We bid 55 mill - accept. Damn it! We never thought you were going to guess it! fudge. Its tantrum time.
Click to expand...
Yeah Sky Sports news "Nottingham Forest adamant he isnt going anywhere this window but have yet to make formal complaint re: spurs" this is just the angry Greek saying stuff and Forests lawyers sat there wondering how to square making a complaint about Spurs whilst simultaneously breaching the terms of their players contract.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back