Morgan Gibbs-White

[Daisuk]

And NOTTM not NOTTS please.

I'm going to start to use NOTTINGHAM FOREST. Wouldn't want to think Notts County are selling Morgan Gibbs White, a NOTTINGHAM FOREST player, and that Marinakis, the NOTTINGHAM FOREST owner is some Notts County hired goon.

This thread is about NOTTINGHAM FOREST.

Sorry.

 

[Robbo]

I'm going to start to use NOTTINGHAM FOREST. Wouldn't want to think Notts County are selling Morgan Gibbs White, a NOTTINGHAM FOREST player, and that Marinakis, the NOTTINGHAM FOREST owner is some Notts County hired goon.

This thread is about NOTTINGHAM FOREST.

Sorry.

Are you notts?

(I'll get my coat)

 

[SpurMeUp]

The main one in Europe is the EU Trade Secrets Directive, but all countries, including UK, will have their own versions. It seems like a really complicated legal area.

So you'd better be careful eh! You sharing this info now, woul then be illegal, according to this logic! You are doing exactly the same as Spurs, utilising and openly discussing confidential information from a third party.

It might be a trade secret, or there may be a duty of confidence, but once passed onto Spurs, it is 'out there'. It is highly tenuous to pin on Spurs. Just as it would be trying to pin in on you if you'd shared thrid party information. Far more likely you could look at the employee - MGW - and a breach of confidential employment contracts. However, there are laws to give workers freedom as well.

In short, there isn't much for Forst to pursue. Just the PL rules (not national laws) on approaching a player before their club.

----
For a Duty of Confidence claim, these criteria need to be met:

Key legal test (the “Coco test”)​

For a breach of confidence claim, three things must be shown:
1. The information must have the necessary quality of confidence (i.e. it must not be public or trivial).
2. It must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.
3. There must be unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the person who communicated

#3 isn't relavent. #1 I think agents and various people knew about the clause and this is sport, so a bit more trivial than Coco (who made a new type of engine which he showed someone in confidence, who then ripped it off). #2 It was likely imparted to Spurs so they could make a pubic bid. So the circumstances it was given to them was not in confidence.

--
Trade secrets are normally passed on with a contract, not to share information. Not sure they apply either.

 

[marxoulis]

What's the point of having a release clause if you have to keep it secret?
How is this clause supposed to work ideally?

 

[billyiddo]

Insert confidential release clause in to the contract > leak details of clause > reject any bid thereafter as confidentiality rules have been broken

 

[Kandi1977]

What's the point of having a release clause if you have to keep it secret?
How is this clause supposed to work ideally?

It's ridiculous. So is this "tapping up" thing. If that was strictly applied, no player, apart from those unwanted by their current club, would get a transfer, as their current club would just say no if anyone asked to speak with their player, and that would be the end of the conversation.

 

[RunTMC]

What's the point of having a release clause if you have to keep it secret?
How is this clause supposed to work ideally?

The idea is that if it’s a secret then bids can come in above the release clause. On the players side they certainly wouldn’t want it to be a secret as it’s a route out of the club

 

[SpurMeUp]

As we know from our history, the contractual detail is totally outweighed by having a player on your books whose head has been turned. Are you really going to keep a player against their will? Will the manager want to do that to a player? What kind of message does it send out to players? Would you pick a player whose head isn't in it anymore?

Maybe there is potential for Forest to give MGW a bumper new contract but they'd probably have to outspend our wage offer to sadate him, and even then would he be happy? He wants to play CL football, be in London, and take the step up. And they have profit and sustainability issues don't they? So that is why Spurs managment feel confident this will get done. But anything is possible. 60m is a lot of money. One of our most expensive signings ever. City spent far less on their alternative capture to MGW - around 34m was it.

We will put a deadline on this I suspect. Then share that with MGW and Forest.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

The main one in Europe is the EU Trade Secrets Directive, but all countries, including UK, will have their own versions. It seems like a really complicated legal area.

Complicated is the raison d'etre of the legal system.

 

[DubSpur]

So you'd better be careful eh! You sharing this info now, woul then be illegal, according to this logic! You are doing exactly the same as Spurs, utilising and openly discussing confidential information from a third party.

It might be a trade secret, or there may be a duty of confidence, but once passed onto Spurs, it is 'out there'. It is highly tenuous to pin on Spurs. Just as it would be trying to pin in on you if you'd shared thrid party information. Far more likely you could look at the employee - MGW - and a breach of confidential employment contracts. However, there are laws to give workers freedom as well.

In short, there isn't much for Forst to pursue. Just the PL rules (not national laws) on approaching a player before their club.

----
For a Duty of Confidence claim, these criteria need to be met:

Key legal test (the “Coco test”)​

For a breach of confidence claim, three things must be shown:
1. The information must have the necessary quality of confidence (i.e. it must not be public or trivial).
2. It must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.
3. There must be unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the person who communicated

#3 isn't relavent. #1 I think agents and various people knew about the clause and this is sport, so a bit more trivial than Coco (who made a new type of engine which he showed someone in confidence, who then ripped it off). #2 It was likely imparted to Spurs so they could make a pubic bid. So the circumstances it was given to them was not in confidence.

--
Trade secrets are normally passed on with a contract, not to share information. Not sure they apply either.

Going by the fact that you didn't know about the law I'll take it you're not a solicitor. I'm not either and only know about the law due to being forced to take a very basic course (30 mins) in the area in work. It's something that isn't really relevant to my role so just got through the course and forgot 99% of the material. As such I haven't (I'd guess like you) a clue what would need to be met and whether it has been met or not. Especially given that we have no idea what's in the contract. It's all just guess work.

And I'm not discussing confidential info that was passed onto me and using it for my benefit. So no, I'm not doing anything illegal and your logic is all wrong.

 

[DubSpur]

Complicated is the raison d'etre of the legal system.

That and to make money.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Insert confidential release clause in to the contract > leak details of clause > reject any bid thereafter as confidentiality rules have been broken

Except we weren't aware of any release clause, we just got lucky.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Going by the fact that you didn't know about the law I'll take it you're not a solicitor. I'm not either and only know about the law due to being forced to take a very basic course (30 mins) in the area in work. It's something that isn't really relevant to my role so just got through the course and forgot 99% of the material. As such I haven't (I'd guess like you) a clue what would need to be met and whether it has been met or not. Especially given that we have no idea what's in the contract. It's all just guess work.

And I'm not discussing confidential info that was passed onto me and using it for my benefit. So no, I'm not doing anything illegal and your logic is all wrong.

It was your logic I was quoting back to you! If you are suggesting that Spurs utilising third-party confidential information is illegal, it is comparable to you publishing third party confidential information that has been shared. That was the point - it is illogical. And unenforceable. What is potentially enforceable is the employee confidentiality that is broken via an agent of the player. But you'd be taking MGW, your employee to court, not THFC.

You were suggesting there was a law which stopped Spurs acting on formally confidential information. But we've looked at the closest laws and it does not seem to be the case.

 

[DubSpur]

It was your logic I was quoting back to you! If you are suggesting that Spurs utilising third-party confidential information is illegal, it is comparable to you publishing third party confidential information that has been shared. That was the point - it is illogical. And unenforceable. What is potentially enforceable is the employee confidentiality that is broken via an agent of the player. But you'd be taking MGW, your employee to court, not THFC.

You were suggesting there was a law which stopped Spurs acting on formally confidential information. But we've looked at the closest laws and it does not seem to be the case.

It wasn't my logic, you quoted nothing back to me. I suggest you go back and reread the post. Using something confidential to your advantage and discussing it on a forum are two totally different things. GHod help your logic if you can't see that.

There is a law that stops Spurs using confidential information. I named the EU version of the law. As I said, I'm no expert on it, and you obviously aren't, we don't have the full details here, so we have no idea how the law would apply here. If it does go to court even then there will be a lot of legal technicalities etc that solicitors will be arguing. Proving it will most likely be extremely hard even if we have done something that breaches the law.

 

[SpurMeUp]

It wasn't my logic, you quoted nothing back to me. I suggest you go back and reread the post. Using something confidential to your advantage and discussing it on a forum are two totally different things. GHod help your logic if you can't see that.

There is a law that stops Spurs using confidential information. I named the EU version of the law. As I said, I'm no expert on it, and you obviously aren't, we don't have the full details here, so we have no idea how the law would apply here. If it does go to court even then there will be a lot of legal technicalities etc that solicitors will be arguing. Proving it will most likely be extremely hard even if we have done something that breaches the law.

I think the law protects the act of disclosure of confidential information. But to prosecute those who receive information from a third party without stealing it, is a stretch. Otherwise you could prosecute journalists who’ve run the MGW story, posters on forums etc which would be illogical. Once the information is in the public domain it isn’t confidential anymore. It loses that status.

Your last sentence essentially says you don’t actually think there are laws that can be used to prosecute THFC (contrary to your initial claim).

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think the law protects the act of disclosure of confidential information. But to prosecute those who receive information from a third party without stealing it, is a stretch. Otherwise you could prosecute journalists who’ve run the MGW story, posters on forums etc which would be illogical. Once the information is in the public domain it isn’t confidential anymore. It loses that status.

Your last sentence essentially says you don’t actually think there are laws that can be used to prosecute THFC (contrary to your initial claim).

You can’t be prosecuted for receiving it, but you can for sending it…
The key to course is what is and isn’t confidential

 

[Lilbaz]

It wasn't my logic, you quoted nothing back to me. I suggest you go back and reread the post. Using something confidential to your advantage and discussing it on a forum are two totally different things. GHod help your logic if you can't see that.

There is a law that stops Spurs using confidential information. I named the EU version of the law. As I said, I'm no expert on it, and you obviously aren't, we don't have the full details here, so we have no idea how the law would apply here. If it does go to court even then there will be a lot of legal technicalities etc that solicitors will be arguing. Proving it will most likely be extremely hard even if we have done something that breaches the law.

Then how can the prem prosecute city for the leaked emails regarding the sponsorship deals?

 

[SpurMeUp]

You can’t be prosecuted for receiving it, but you can for sending it…
The key to course is what is and isn’t confidential

Yes essentially Forest could pursue their own player for breach of contract. His contract will have a confidentiality clause stating he or his agents can’t disclose club sensitive information. But even that is hard to prosecute because there are laws that ensure employees can disclose information if it relates to what they are paid. And the release clause would allow him to earn more. Normally employment confidentiality clauses cover things like business contacts etc not your own employment terms.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Then how can the prem prosecute city for the leaked emails regarding the sponsorship deals?

We often have situations where news outlets recieve confidential information on businesses/organisations and release it and I can't remember them being sued or prosecuted.

 

[DubSpur]

I think the law protects the act of disclosure of confidential information. But to prosecute those who receive information from a third party without stealing it, is a stretch. Otherwise you could prosecute journalists who’ve run the MGW story, posters on forums etc which would be illogical. Once the information is in the public domain it isn’t confidential anymore. It loses that status.

Your last sentence essentially says you don’t actually think there are laws that can be used to prosecute THFC (contrary to your initial claim).

For about the 10th time, the law protects against the use of confidential information to your benefit. It doesn't matter how you receive it, if you know it's confidential then you shouldn't be using it. You can't prosecute users on forums that aren't using it for their gain when the information is already out and public knowledge.

The last sentence doesn't say that I don't think there are laws that can be used. Something being against the law and proving that something has been done are two different things. I take it you understand that murder is against the law? There have been plenty of murderers that have got away with it because it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it, but what they did was still against the law.