• 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

I also hope that if we really wanted MGW, and we really wanted a player like him, we know who we’re moving to if we can’t do this deal, and we do it fairly quickly. I don’t want this to drag, to not get him if we decided we really needed someone like him, and then not start off well as a consequence.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I must admit it’s a bit annoying he’s turned up to their training, because it just shows this isn’t close to being resolved. I like his professionalism, but it’s not often you see players back in the original club’s training after a deal was said to be done.

If they have now made their complaint…how does this get resolved? Do the PL have to look at this and confirm nothing untoward has happened? How long does that take?
Click to expand...
It's probably the case that the legals involved, on his and our side, are saying that there are no reasons this won't be happening but in the meantime (as you are still a Forest player, plus their owner is volatile) just to tow the line and act as sensibly as possible.....no point adding to the drama.
 
Grays_1890 said:
It can only go on for so long though as the clause has been met, the PL will make a swift decision on that, so given its less than a week since the interest and bid, I would imagine it will happen fast than say Mbuemo to United is taking
Click to expand...
I'd hope the FA convene quickly and address it. I imagine it will be a couple of weeksish before we see him in our short, but that's dependent on the FA acting speedily. 😩
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I think this is the most likely scenario. We submitted a formal offer, Forest have initially accepted that the clause has been met and as such medical was booked and we got likes of Romano saying "here we go, deal done". Then Forest owner has got wind of what's going on and how his squad is getting ripped to shreds and hes basically thrown his toys out the pram and told his side to try and block this in any way possible. I can imagine he didn't even know about the release clause and is absolutely fuming about it.
Click to expand...
Supposedly he didn't as it was out in by the previous recruitment team he had hired. Oh well too bad for him.
 
Someone on Reddit posted this:

What fudging footballer is going to want to join Forest in the future if they can just break contract obligations on a whim? This brickshow could deal insane amount of damage for their relationships with players and agents.

Also, MGW is represented by CAA Base — one of the largest agencies in the world that also has good relationship with Tottenham.

Marinakis can tinkle off so many people and NF's reputation would be completely fudged

---

Too true.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Depends what "evidence" there is..........if there is non and its "they must have spoken" then I suspect there will be a "get on with it ya mugs"
Click to expand...
Well, you would hope so.

I was just looking at the PL Rules handbook to see what it says about 'tapping up' (which seems to be the basis of the complaint to the PL) and it is actually quite broad. Leaving aside the release clause for the moment, if we were to have a conversation with MGW's agent, ask whether MGW would be interested in joining us if we were to make a bid, and the agent checks with his client, without NF's written consent, that constitutes an indirect illegal approach by us. Also in reverse, I think if the agent approached us and we gave the go ahead to check with his client, that's an indirect illegal approach. So there could be a case to answer there if that is what happened. I struggle to see how that rule could be enforced in practice without bringing the whole transfer window to a halt, but I guess most clubs don't report that kind of communication as everyone does it (I bet NF do as well).

I guess it is compounded by the release clause issue : how could we know the release clause (not sure if it has been public before now?) without having a conversation about it. I suspect that is part of NF's case/evidence.

In any case unless NF withdraw their complaint, the PL will have to investigate. Hopefully due to the time sensitive nature of the transfer window they will be able to expedite things.
There's nothing to stop NF agreeing to the transfer but still make a claim against us, but then the chairman wouldn't have much leverage to get more out of us, if that is his intention.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Well, you would hope so.

I was just looking at the PL Rules handbook to see what it says about 'tapping up' (which seems to be the basis of the complaint to the PL) and it is actually quite broad. Leaving aside the release clause for the moment, if we were to have a conversation with MGW's agent, ask whether MGW would be interested in joining us if we were to make a bid, and the agent checks with his client, without NF's written consent, that constitutes an indirect illegal approach by us. Also in reverse, I think if the agent approached us and we gave the go ahead to check with his client, that's an indirect illegal approach. So there could be a case to answer there if that is what happened. I struggle to see how that rule could be enforced in practice without bringing the whole transfer window to a halt, but I guess most clubs don't report that kind of communication as everyone does it (I bet NF do as well).

I guess it is compounded by the release clause issue : how could we know the release clause (not sure if it has been public before now?) without having a conversation about it. I suspect that is part of NF's case/evidence.

In any case unless NF withdraw their complaint, the PL will have to investigate. Hopefully due to the time sensitive nature of the transfer window they will be able to expedite things.
There's nothing to stop NF agreeing to the transfer but still make a claim against us, but then the chairman wouldn't have much leverage to get more out of us, if that is his intention.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have leverage to get more out of us. And you're right, nobody plays by the technical rules because it would be practically impossible to manage transfers viably if for example clubs had to spend weeks in negotiations with a club, agreeing to commit millions of £s cleared and agreed by lawyers and their financiers only for the selling club to say "you can speak to him now" and he turns around and says "nah, not interested mate".

Similarly as I've said on a wider front whenever a footballer has gone to a proper court (not CAS) to complain that his club won't release him to be employed by another club without them receiving a huge sum of money, the transfer system has essentially been ruled illegal as employees have a legal right to seek employment elsewhere and to not have unreasonable barriers placed by their employers in doing so.

So if NF are looking to rely on these technical rules again they're opening a can of worms that could blow the entire PL transfer gravy chain out of the water just because their mad owner has a rage on.
 
Lilbaz said:
The whole secret release clause is lunacy.

- we interested in buying mgw.
- he's not for sale for any price.
- ok.
Click to expand...
As someone stated based on analysis from SPN: you only put a release clause in a contract if its intended to be exercised. Both parties have agreed to that release clause being in existence and unless there is a specific NDA agreement relating to that clause then the player and his agent are entitled to make that clause known.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
As someone stated based on analysis from SPN: you only put a release clause in a contract if its intended to be exercised. Both parties have agreed to that release clause being in existence and unless there is a specific NDA agreement relating to that clause then the player and his agent are entitled to make that clause known.
Click to expand...
The PL standard Player contract has a pretty simple confidentiality clause which prevents the club, player or their respective agents revealing the terms of the agreement (other than to their professional advisors).
If a release clause is inserted into thee contract then the confidentiality clause would govern that clause as well. If the intention is that the release clause is not intended to be confidential then I would expect the confidentiality clause to have been amended accordingly. There shouldn’t be any need for a separate NDA, it’s something a confidentiality clause should be able to cover.
Of course we don’t know what additions were made to MGW’s contract so it’s all guesswork but it’s certainly something whomever was negotiating on behalf of MGW should have picked up on if that was the understanding between the parties.

But all that is still separate from charges of illegally approaching the player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back