• 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

Bedfordspurs said:
What can they club say
He isn’t our player to talk about
I’ll guess that all the leaks are via his agency or Forrest
We haven’t realky had any leak issues around transfers under Lange
Click to expand...
What can the club say?
Well they could publicly refute Forest's claim of tapping up MGW and say see you in court.
Call their bluff.
 
Gazza said:
It’s a little silly on their behalf but i don’t blame them in the slightest and i would expect Levy and co to drag there heels as seen when have been on the back of it like modric, Bale, Kane, Berbatov
Click to expand...
I understand them protecting their interests but the whole thing is very small-time and not a good look for future signings.

And the Levy comparison is moot because he would never have accepted such a low release clause in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if the low-ish release clause is only reason MGW signed in the first place, Forest always seemed like a bit of a sideways step from Wolves.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
What can they club say
He isn’t our player to talk about
I’ll guess that all the leaks are via his agency or Forrest
We haven’t realky had any leak issues around transfers under Lange
Click to expand...
There's probably a lot the club COULD say. But Levy isn't going to play something like this out in public.

Hope it gets done, really like him.

I'm guessing it's mostly grandstanding from them, but that's very much just a guess. But if they manage to drag it out enough it causes issues for us for sure.

Can only hope we get through with the Premier League or whatever legal action can be taken.
 
Pandy said:
I understand them protecting their interests but the whole thing is very small-time and not a good look for future signings.

And the Levy comparison is moot because he would never have accepted such a low release clause in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if the low-ish release clause is only reason MGW signed in the first place, Forest always seemed like a bit of a sideways step from Wolves.
Click to expand...

Massively agreed in your last point. Toys out of the pram with a chicken coming home to roost, when it was that chicken that was probably key to him agreeing to sign in the first place.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
I really do hope that if we’re keen on this type of player, we have a back up plan in the case that this drags. That’s my always worrying Spurs fan take.

My confident Spurs fan take is…why are Forest doing this through the press while Spurs are saying nothing at all? This must be the 3rd or 4th update about how they’re considering legal action, they’ve written another letter, they’re using the same Forest journo to be their public mouthpiece…meanwhile the only noises from the Spurs side are that this probably still gets done, and the club itself has said absolutely nothing.

I feel like if you were confident in your legal position, you wouldn’t be trying to win the PR war?
Click to expand...

Well if there is a threat of legal action, even if a formal letter putting us on notice hadn't been received, the advice would most likely be to not say anything publicly.

The fact (if of course it it a fact and not just another rumour) that Forest are still "considering' legal action still makes it sound like they are stringing things out. The illegal approach would be dealt with via the PL disciplinary process if I understand correctly, whereas breach of confidentiality would probably be a civil court case, would take a lot longer and (and again, I think) Forest would have to prove they had suffered some damage from the breach. They could perhaps argue that they would have expected to receive more than the £60M if the release clause was unknown (I saw that City had bid more) - but then what is the point of the release clause? They could argue that due to the breach they are losing a valuable player - but there will be evidence that MGW has declined to sign a new contract, so they would risk losing him for a lot less were he to run his contract down.

Gut feeling is this will all go through. There won't be any legal action over the confidentiality breach, but Forest may go ahead with making a claim for an illegal approach but they'd need evidence of what we asked CAA about MGW. Up to the PL then to judge.
Or they want to force is to the table to come to a 'settlement ' to make it all go away - i.e. to pay a figure higher than the £60M release clause.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Well if there is a threat of legal action, even if a formal letter putting us on notice hadn't been received, the advice would most likely be to not say anything publicly.

The fact (if of course it it a fact and not just another rumour) that Forest are still "considering' legal action still makes it sound like they are stringing things out. The illegal approach would be dealt with via the PL disciplinary process if I understand correctly, whereas breach of confidentiality would probably be a civil court case, would take a lot longer and (and again, I think) Forest would have to prove they had suffered some damage from the breach. They could perhaps argue that they would have expected to receive more than the £60M if the release clause was unknown (I saw that City had bid more) - but then what is the point of the release clause? They could argue that due to the breach they are losing a valuable player - but there will be evidence that MGW has declined to sign a new contract, so they would risk losing him for a lot less were he to run his contract down.

Gut feeling is this will all go through. There won't be any legal action over the confidentiality breach, but Forest may go ahead with making a claim for an illegal approach but they'd need evidence of what we asked CAA about MGW. Up to the PL then to judge.
Or they want to force is to the table to come to a 'settlement ' to make it all go away - i.e. to pay a figure higher than the £60M release clause.
Click to expand...
If City had bid more than the release clause would have been met, so I don't see how they could have.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Yeah, that wouldn't make sense. Just did a quick google and it seems that when City enquired, Forest quoted them a price of £70M, so City walked away.
Click to expand...

This is what is so funny about the whole thing. 60m is absolutely the sort of starting bid that Levy would make for a player like this.

It’s also like…I know we have a good relationship with CAA. But City must do too right? Why would MGW’s agents keep the clause a secret from City (where the secrecy angle worked because NF quoted a fee higher than the clause?) but were then willing to share it with us?

Clearly if they knew it was secret enough to not tip City off, Spurs would know they would have to tread carefully too. So I can only assume we did everything above board, and just guessed right. Or got lucky with a proper low ball offer rather than an enquiry?

Maybe MGW’s agents were tinkled that City walked away after the enquiry and resolved to get their client a move this summer after that. I can see it. I just can’t see Spurs doing anything underhanded, or stupid enough that could blow back on us.
 
This is getting boring, good player but I'm sure there are others and if not then Bergvall can get valuable experience if the other two are out. Marinakis (not gonna give him the respect of searching for the correct spelling) is bricking the bed, might be best to just leave him to it.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
This is what is so funny about the whole thing. 60m is absolutely the sort of starting bid that Levy would make for a player like this.

It’s also like…I know we have a good relationship with CAA. But City must do too right? Why would MGW’s agents keep the clause a secret from City (where the secrecy angle worked because NF quoted a fee higher than the clause?) but were then willing to share it with us?

Clearly if they knew it was secret enough to not tip City off, Spurs would know they would have to tread carefully too. So I can only assume we did everything above board, and just guessed right. Or got lucky with a proper low ball offer rather than an enquiry?

Maybe MGW’s agents were tinkled that City walked away after the enquiry and resolved to get their client a move this summer after that. I can see it. I just can’t see Spurs doing anything underhanded, or stupid enough that could blow back on us.
Click to expand...
Surely if city bid over the release clause and NF haven't informed MGW or his agent NF are in breach, so I think it's unlikely city made a bid.
More likely city have enquired, been told MGW is not for sale and the agent has not been happy (rightly so) and he has possibly then hinted to us there's a release clause.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Rob Dorsett was also revealing how Forest tried for a year to get MGW to sign a new contract removing the release clause but he refused. It’s all clearly designed to paint MGW and his agents in a bad light for wanting out, and for clearly trying to leverage this clause which is supposedly confidential.

But again, it’s all PR. If they had a strong legal argument, the facts would speak for themselves. Would the PL seriously be influenced by all of this? Surely they would look at the facts of the case and judge.
Click to expand...
If you had a strong legal argument...you'd be cracking on with just that. What would you be waiting for?
 
glasgowspur said:
Surely if city bid over the release clause and NF haven't informed MGW or his agent NF are in breach, so I think it's unlikely city made a bid.
More likely city have enquired, been told MGW is not for sale and the agent has not been happy (rightly so) and he has possibly then hinted to us there's a release clause.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. If City ‘enquired’ rather than bid, they can get away with quoting whatever number they want. We made a low ball bid that had to be accepted.

It seems like the Forest argument is that his agents got tinkled that he didn’t get the move to City, so decided to engineer his way out of it. Because it sounds like everyone agrees that the clause was secret when City enquired.

But if this is the case, I can see his agents being frustrated. I just can’t see them doing something stupid, and I can’t see Spurs being willing to go along with it. Especially knowing they were dealing with a volatile owner who likes to sue.
 
Marinakis is doing untold damage to future signing prospects. Imagine being James McAtee; Forest would be a great stepping stone for him, however if he sees this sort of rubbish going on the moment a bigger club want to buy him, then he'll likely pass on the opportunity to progress his career via Forest...
 
thfcsteff said:
Marinakis is doing untold damage to future signing prospects. Imagine being James McAtee; Forest would be a great stepping stone for him, however if he sees this sort of rubbish going on the moment a bigger club want to buy him, then he'll likely pass on the opportunity to progress his career via Forest...
Click to expand...
Don’t be so fickle mate, he will go if they pay the money. And he will also get the move thereafter like most players do in this day and age. They may initially hesitate but they will go if Forest are paying way more than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back