• 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

Also, Notts signed him for 25 mill in 2022. To then offer 55-60 mill for him in 2025 isn’t exactly rocket science. Why would we bid say 70 mill straight away? That would be nuts. You’d assume a bidding club will always test the waters with a bit of a speculative low ball offer first. It only makes sense. We should have bid 40. Maybe we even did.

I don’t understand how they can prove this breach of confidentiality thing unless they have something very concrete on their hands, and it sure as hell doesn’t look like they have. They’re just dragging it out to save face.
 
Daisuk said:
Also, Notts signed him for 25 mill in 2022. To then offer 55-60 mill for him in 2025 isn’t exactly rocket science. Why would we bid say 70 mill straight away? That would be nuts. You’d assume a bidding club will always test the waters with a bit of a speculative low ball offer first. It only makes sense. We should have bid 40. Maybe we even did.

I don’t understand how they can prove this breach of confidentiality thing unless they have something very concrete on their hands, and it sure as hell doesn’t look like they have. They’re just dragging it out to save face.
Click to expand...
I thought they paid like £50m for hm
 
DubSpur said:
Anyone that has access to the confidential info shouldn't be involved in the deal. Say company A makes a bid for a contract and an employee for company B gets the details of that bid, they shouldn't share that info or be involved in any bid made by company B.

They can still sign the player just not have anyone that has info on the contract working on it. I'm sure it would be difficult in this scenario. Proving that a bid has been made with the confidential info is another matter.

I agree it doesn't sound like something that Levy would let us be exposed to, but I don't belive for one second that he's squeaky clean and wouldn't use something to his advantage.
Click to expand...

He's not squeaky clean. Remember the olympic stadium bid. Hired private investigators. Went to court.
We were found to not have done anything wrong as although the info was illegally obtained we did it through a 3rd party.
We didn't ein the bid in the end but we didn't have to pay for our s106's and athletics got a 50 year lease so west ham can't demolish the stadium in that time.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Ok…so Spurs hear about it and because they’ve heard about it, they can never now bid for MGW? How can it be proven? How can it actually be enforced? Through no fault of their own they’re potentially not now able to sign a player they like, and the player has to chalk one of the rare clubs that could afford him off of his list?

I feel like if there was something controversial here, Levy would not allow us to be exposed in this way? Or maybe he was just feeling uber confident and thought that there’s no way it would blow back on us? I just don’t believe he operates that way.
Click to expand...
Apparently a buying club can’t talk to a player or their representatives without the selling club’s permission. Based this purely off someone talking on talkSPORT today I saw a clip of.

What I find surprising about that is surely agents with a lot of clients can speak to clubs freely? Or if an agent represents both a player already at a club as well as another player that club are trying to buy, there must be license to have contact?

I’d be surprised if any of these talks are over email so there’s most likely no audit trail. If there is then it’s pretty stupid
 
clownfoot said:
Apparently a buying club can’t talk to a player or their representatives without the selling club’s permission. Based this purely off someone talking on talkSPORT today I saw a clip of.

What I find surprising about that is surely agents with a lot of clients can speak to clubs freely? Or if an agent represents both a player already at a club as well as another player that club are trying to buy, there must be license to have contact?

I’d be surprised if any of these talks are over email so there’s most likely no audit trail. If there is then it’s pretty stupid
Click to expand...
That’s always been the rule but never been enforced
Hence why clubs agree wage etc before agreeing a fee
If this was any normal club I’d be concerned but because it’s run by an nutter with a wrap sheet that’s pretty long I’m much less worried
I still think they just wan5 him to waive his cut of the fee
 
JerusalemMan said:
They're writing to warn us that they are considering legal action...
This sounds like the scarily written debt collector letters I have to deal with on behalf of clients where it's all bluster designed to intimidate and browbeat.
Click to expand...
A pre action letter is standard. Courts generally look unfavorably on parties that haven't attempted to resolve the matter themselves
 
Daisuk said:
Also, Notts signed him for 25 mill in 2022. To then offer 55-60 mill for him in 2025 isn’t exactly rocket science. Why would we bid say 70 mill straight away? That would be nuts. You’d assume a bidding club will always test the waters with a bit of a speculative low ball offer first. It only makes sense. We should have bid 40. Maybe we even did.

I don’t understand how they can prove this breach of confidentiality thing unless they have something very concrete on their hands, and it sure as hell doesn’t look like they have. They’re just dragging it out to save face.
Click to expand...
As someone posted before, it would be funny if £60m was actually our opening bid and we were none the wiser about the clause, and due to that contract clause Forest had to tell CAA and MGW.
 
clownfoot said:
Apparently a buying club can’t talk to a player or their representatives without the selling club’s permission. Based this purely off someone talking on talkSPORT today I saw a clip of.

What I find surprising about that is surely agents with a lot of clients can speak to clubs freely? Or if an agent represents both a player already at a club as well as another player that club are trying to buy, there must be license to have contact?

I’d be surprised if any of these talks are over email so there’s most likely no audit trail. If there is then it’s pretty stupid
Click to expand...

If a medical was lined up for last Friday, a totally wild guess would suggest that the two clubs had spoken.
 
Gazza said:
Well you are now going down that route on a moot point. Overall if a chairman is doing wrong, or does wrong … footballers are blind to the money and that all happened along time ago scenario.

If I was a football player I’d never sign for spurs knowing what the history of levy is … until he flashes the money at me … throw in some unattainable bonuses … and I’m signing on the dotted line.

Football players don’t care about the chairman or his antics. They just care about the money but dress it up in various different ways to get people fawning over them a bit more.
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree on this specific point; release clauses. If you put one in your contract and then an owner decides to essentially ignore it and bugger around with the player, I suspect plenty of agents would say 'no thanks if there are better options.'

I am not naive enough to claim that footballers would be affected 'morally' or otherwise by 'poor behaviour' of a chairman. That was not my point TBF.
 
Lilbaz said:
Isn't he? Did with bostok. Did with the olympic stadium. Levy hasn't got eyelids. Love him or hate him he doesn't blink.
Click to expand...
What I meant is that he's unlikely to play this out in public before it's more settled. He's imo very unlikely to get into a back and forth in public when it's still up to the PL/legal stuff/whatever to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back