• 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

markysimmo said:
What do people make of our continued silence on the matter ??
Click to expand...
I think we’ve acted in the same way we always do and every club does in transfers and we’d have probably had prior contact with MGW, Which means we’re in dodgy land law wise. A bit like going 32mph in a 30mph speed zone, everyone does it but if you get pulled over you can’t argue.

It’s the can of worms this might open up that’s the issue for football.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’m a buyer for a living … well director now with a large team in a multi multi $B company
I would never ever let someone get away with a deal if we had done everything right and met the terms. I’d be after blood
The issue here is clearly that they don’t want to lake their best player big fudged up with his contract (been there many times). The key is they haven’t been able to get new terms and that’s a message itself to them
I think there is an arrogance on both sides and it really needs (if we did meet the clauses) MGW to issue a transfer request under protest and he can then pursue Forrest independently for his cut
Sorry if I sound like a dingdong
Click to expand...
Well no to last part, not at all.

I worked in acquisition for over 25 years for multi national and multi $b companies (although not at your level of seniority) but often dealing with regulated and monopolistic entities where price was non-negotiable, so you had to find other creative ways to make a deal work and to extract value.
So yes we could just dig our heels in and wait for MGW to force the issue, or we find a way to make it work now but still to our benefit (knowing that at some future point it’s possible Forest will want a player from us and we have credit in the bank to draw on).
Ultimately it depends on how quickly we want to get him
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Well no to last part, not at all.

I worked in acquisition for over 25 years for multi national and multi $b companies (although not at your level of seniority) but often dealing with regulated and monopolistic entities where price was non-negotiable, so you had to find other creative ways to make a deal work and to extract value.
So yes we could just dig our heels in and wait for MGW to force the issue, or we find a way to make it work now but still to our benefit (knowing that at some future point it’s possible Forest will want a player from us and we have credit in the bank to draw on).
Ultimately it depends on how quickly we want to get him
Click to expand...
I think we have time
If we really want him
We can let it play out legally
But my worry bead is have we done it all right. We don’t as fans
The weird thing with buying footballers is its human assets. That’s fudging bizarre in reality. Your buying people
Now it comes down to MGW desire to leverage his position
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
I think we’ve acted in the same way we always do and every club does in transfers and we’d have probably had prior contact with MGW, Which means we’re in dodgy land law wise. A bit like going 32mph in a 30mph speed zone, everyone does it but if you get pulled over you can’t argue.

It’s the can of worms this might open up that’s the issue for football.
Click to expand...
Certainly agree we would have already spoken to him, no doubt about it.

But I don't think they have any evidence

a) Because of how we and the players agency conduct themselves

b) if there was any actual evidence of us doing so it would have been leaked by now, and the PL would have dealt with it by now if there was something clear cut
 
camspur said:
I disagree, the ball is well and truly in Levy's court. If we've met the release clause and didn't tap him up/ do anything wrong a simple letter requesting the release of MGW as per his contract to both Forest and the EPL should be sufficient.
Otherwise take Forest to court for breach of contract
Click to expand...
It's not up to us to take Forest to court, they haven't breached any contract with us. It's entirely up to MGW to do that if he wants to go down that road.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
I think we’ve acted in the same way we always do and every club does in transfers and we’d have probably had prior contact with MGW, Which means we’re in dodgy land law wise. A bit like going 32mph in a 30mph speed zone, everyone does it but if you get pulled over you can’t argue.

It’s the can of worms this might open up that’s the issue for football.
Click to expand...
All clubs do it
It’s the norm
It’s like the stutter penalty
Like you say, maybe we have been called out without an answer
 
60m is possibly fair value for MGW. 90% of clubs have never signed a 60m player. So we have other options especially if we’re looking abroad plus can spread the payments.

There’s also the dynamic of selling players which must have some bearing on our business.
 
Last edited:
I don’t fully understand why silence is the correct strategy if we’ve met the release clause. But I do assume there is a method to the Spurs play here,

I’m not convinced the issue is that we spoke without permission because there will be ample evidence that Forest have done the same thing hundreds of times if they wanted to go down that route.

I am trying to understand, if we think we’ve done nothing wrong and met the clause, why does silence work? Is it because so far there is only the ‘threat’ of legal action and there’s a certain time period before you need to make a claim or let it go, and we’re waiting for that period to be up? (I have no idea, just spit balling). Genuinely curious on the rationale behind the Spurs silence, IF we still think we will get him and IF we indeed did nothing wrong.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I don’t fully understand why silence is the correct strategy if we’ve met the release clause. But I do assume there is a method to the Spurs play here,

I’m not convinced the issue is that we spoke without permission because there will be ample evidence that Forest have done the same thing hundreds of times if they wanted to go down that route.

I am trying to understand, if we think we’ve done nothing wrong and met the clause, why does silence work? Is it because so far there is only the ‘threat’ of legal action and there’s a certain time period before you need to make a claim or let it go, and we’re waiting for that period to be up? (I have no idea, just spit balling). Genuinely curious on the rationale behind the Spurs silence, IF we still think we will get him and IF we indeed did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

What would the alternative be?
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I don’t fully understand why silence is the correct strategy if we’ve met the release clause. But I do assume there is a method to the Spurs play here,

I’m not convinced the issue is that we spoke without permission because there will be ample evidence that Forest have done the same thing hundreds of times if they wanted to go down that route.

I am trying to understand, if we think we’ve done nothing wrong and met the clause, why does silence work? Is it because so far there is only the ‘threat’ of legal action and there’s a certain time period before you need to make a claim or let it go, and we’re waiting for that period to be up? (I have no idea, just spit balling). Genuinely curious on the rationale behind the Spurs silence, IF we still think we will get him and IF we indeed did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
Silence in the public isn't silence with Forest. The thing is, we need Forest to confirm that our offer is officially accepted and so if we can agree terms with MGW they will release his registration to us. We cannot register him without this so if there IS a release clause and its been met, but Forest are refusing to confirm that his registration will be released there is nothing we can do and it will boil down to MGW. He will need to push the issue of his contract being broken. While we may have been told that there is a release clause triggered if we bid a certain figure, until we actually have sight of the contract we don't know for certain and so if Forest are refusing to confirm or deny and telling us to f**k off or face legal action im sure we will have put the ball in MGW and CCA's court - i.e. "you've said MGW wants to come here, you said Forest would release him if we did this, that's not happened- you know the terms of release not us - if you really want to come here you need to force the issue or we will move on"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back