• 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

RigorMortis said:
I’m struggling to follow whatbhappened
I actually left the UK to fly back on the day they announced we had met the release clause and then landed to find out all these shenanigans.

I am of the same thinking that it will sort itself out but wasn’t there a similar instance where arsenal met Suarez’s release clause and Liverpool didn’t sell or was there more to that one.
Click to expand...

Seems that suarez didn't have a release clause. Just that if a certain price was met he could talk to other clubs. His agent didn't seem very good at negotiating.
 
I'm still struggling with this one.

We know something is amiss because a player has a release clause that is supposedly met BUT no move has materialised......YET.

So Forest appear to be calling foul play by us. It feels like their might be a modicum of truth in that but it also feels like what we did is normalised into most football transactions. Then we have the player who is clearly a top pro, but probably is the key to moving things on.

The most obvious thing here is that decision rights and governance in football is now so distributed that none of us really know who is making the calls. In my mind, bodies like PL and EFL should have no decision rights. They should be about admin, not governance. Then we have football's independent regulator (IFR) that gets involved in a lot nowadays. That body was built out of necessity using a bill of parliament. It is just a load of grey space.

Call me old school, but what is required is that the FA own all governance. If the FA was broken previously, it should have been fixed not circumvented on these matters. It should get the funding and people from the football money tree to run properly. That would have been a better use of a bill of parliament.

What we're seeing here feels like another RIP Football moment.
 
Yesterday, with Madders and Deki injured, was a big chance for Devine and Donley to show Frank how good they are at linking play, but they didn’t shine and thus made it clear that MGW will be vital in the heart/10
 
Bullet said:
Yesterday, with Madders and Deki injured, was a big chance for Devine and Donley to show Frank how good they are at linking play, but they didn’t shine and thus made it clear that MGW will be vital in the heart/10
Click to expand...

I think MGW could operate deeper for us playing in midfield.

We probably have other options though. And for 65m you want a big upgrade in quality. I’m not sure we would get that with MGW. We would get an upgrade in hard work and determination. I also like his speed of action. But technically he’s probably not as good as many other existing players. Would give Frank options and having hard working effective (if not brilliant) players is important, but is he worth 65-70m? Probably can get comparable players for less abroad. Or for the same money a top player from Italy for example.

I would like MGW, he’s clearly top notch, but maybe not worth paying anything over 60m. And chances are to get payment terms, or deal with whatever complexity we face, we’d need to pay more than 60.
 
DubSpur said:
MGW hasn't put in a transfer request, so nothing official that he wants to move. Ball is fully in MGWs court to start pushing if there isn't any movement on it. I'm sure there's plenty going on behind the scenes though.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has to request anything, the contract clause does that.

We might have to request to speak to him BUT even that's a formality as the clause prevents Forest from saying no.

They (or their Chairman) are blocking the legal playout of this situation, but the legal playout WILL happen.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I don't think he has to request anything, the contract clause does that.

We might have to request to speak to him BUT even that's a formality as the clause prevents Forest from saying no.

They (or their Chairman) are blocking the legal playout of this situation, but the legal playout WILL happen.
Click to expand...
He will have to state that he wants to talk to us. If he's refused permission and Forest are refusing to deal with us then he will have to force it, whether through a transfer request or legal action. Again we're speculating without knowing what's in the release clause.
 
DubSpur said:
He will have to state that he wants to talk to us. If he's refused permission and Forest are refusing to deal with us then he will have to force it, whether through a transfer request or legal action. Again we're speculating without knowing what's in the release clause.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to do any of that (except politeness) if the release clause works in the basic way it's tital suggests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back