• 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

K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
We often have situations where news outlets recieve confidential information on businesses/organisations and release it and I can't remember them being sued or prosecuted.
Click to expand...
If it's deemed that the information is in the public interest then the courts normally side on the freedom of the press.
 
DubSpur said:
For about the 10th time, the law protects against the use of confidential information to your benefit. It doesn't matter how you receive it, if you know it's confidential then you shouldn't be using it. You can't prosecute users on forums that aren't using it for their gain when the information is already out and public knowledge.
Click to expand...
If you were correct, how are journalists earning an income publishing this information?
DubSpur said:
The last sentence doesn't say that I don't think there are laws that can be used. Something being against the law and proving that something has been done are two different things. I take it you understand that murder is against the law? There have been plenty of murderers that have got away with it because it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they did it, but what they did was still against the law.
Click to expand...
The difference here is with a murderer not being convicted, there was simply a lack of evidence to do so. The law is 100% clear: murder is illegal. In this instance there isn’t a clear law you can cite that protects against people using formally confidential information. If there was, journalists could be prosecuted. Online forums could be too. It doesn’t stack up.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
We often have situations where news outlets recieve confidential information on businesses/organisations and release it and I can't remember them being sued or prosecuted.
Click to expand...
They would usually rely on a 'public interest' defence,, which can remove the obligation of confidentiality.

Bedfordspurs said:
You can’t be prosecuted for receiving it, but you can for sending it…
The key to course is what is and isn’t confidential
Click to expand...
You can be sued for receiving confidential information if you knew it was confidential (and presumably if you then made use of that info).
His release clause was not, afaik, public domain at the time THFC was allegedly informed of it. The question then is if we were not informed that it was confidential, could/should we have reasonably have expected it to be so? Consideration may be given to how these things normally work in the football industry - we could be reasonably expected to know if a release clause is normally confidential information.

SpurMeUp said:
It was your logic I was quoting back to you! If you are suggesting that Spurs utilising third-party confidential information is illegal, it is comparable to you publishing third party confidential information that has been shared. That was the point - it is illogical. And unenforceable. What is potentially enforceable is the employee confidentiality that is broken via an agent of the player. But you'd be taking MGW, your employee to court, not THFC.

You were suggesting there was a law which stopped Spurs acting on formally confidential information. But we've looked at the closest laws and it does not seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
First bolded sentence : I think it is fair to say that by the time anyone here was discussing the matter, the issue of the existence of the release clause, and its supposed amount, was clearly in the public domain, by no fault of anyone on this forum (well, unless anyone here posting about it works for THFC, NF, or CAA Stellar), so no obligation of confidentiality would apply to anyone here.
Second bolded sentence : that would be more likely as that would be the origin of the breach, although THFC could technically be a party in any case if it is believed we acted on known confidential information.

SpurMeUp said:
Yes essentially Forest could pursue their own player for breach of contract. His contract will have a confidentiality clause stating he or his agents can’t disclose club sensitive information. But even that is hard to prosecute because there are laws that ensure employees can disclose information if it relates to what they are paid. And the release clause would allow him to earn more. Normally employment confidentiality clauses cover things like business contacts etc not your own employment terms.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting one. I think most of my employment contracts have explicitly stated I was not allowed to disclose my salary. I don't know how that would stand up under the scrutiny of a court however.

SpurMeUp said:
It was your logic I was quoting back to you! If you are suggesting that Spurs utilising third-party confidential information is illegal, it is comparable to you publishing third party confidential information that has been shared. That was the point - it is illogical. And unenforceable. What is potentially enforceable is the employee confidentiality that is broken via an agent of the player. But you'd be taking MGW, your employee to court, not THFC.

You were suggesting there was a law which stopped Spurs acting on formally confidential information. But we've looked at the closest laws and it does not seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
There are specific regulations such as Data Protection and GDPR (not obviously applicable in this instance), but confidentiality also falls under common law in England.

I think a release clause being confidential info is a stretch, but it does offer some protection to the employer as well so there may be a case, I don't know.
 
Lilbaz said:
Then how can the prem prosecute city for the leaked emails regarding the sponsorship deals?
Click to expand...
They can’t use certain parts of the information but because it was actually brought up via another route (UEFA) it’s now classed as publicly available (if that makes sense)
They won’t refer to the documents they will refer to the case
And UEFA are time bound where as the prem aren’t
 
Glenda's Legs said:
They would usually rely on a 'public interest' defence,, which can remove the obligation of confidentiality.


You can be sued for receiving confidential information if you knew it was confidential (and presumably if you then made use of that info).
His release clause was not, afaik, public domain at the time THFC was allegedly informed of it. The question then is if we were not informed that it was confidential, could/should we have reasonably have expected it to be so? Consideration may be given to how these things normally work in the football industry - we could be reasonably expected to know if a release clause is normally confidential information.


First bolded sentence : I think it is fair to say that by the time anyone here was discussing the matter, the issue of the existence of the release clause, and its supposed amount, was clearly in the public domain, by no fault of anyone on this forum (well, unless anyone here posting about it works for THFC, NF, or CAA Stellar), so no obligation of confidentiality would apply to anyone here.
Second bolded sentence : that would be more likely as that would be the origin of the breach, although THFC could technically be a party in any case if it is believed we acted on known confidential information.


That's an interesting one. I think most of my employment contracts have explicitly stated I was not allowed to disclose my salary. I don't know how that would stand up under the scrutiny of a court however.


There are specific regulations such as Data Protection and GDPR (not obviously applicable in this instance), but confidentiality also falls under common law in England.

I think a release clause being confidential info is a stretch, but it does offer some protection to the employer as well so there may be a case, I don't know.
Click to expand...
It comes under GDPR and additional laws
If someone send you info that’s not your fault. What you choose to do with it, is
 
Bedfordspurs said:
They can’t use certain parts of the information but because it was actually brought up via another route (UEFA) it’s now classed as publicly available (if that makes sense)
They won’t refer to the documents they will refer to the case
And UEFA are time bound where as the prem aren’t
Click to expand...

Ok so how come uefa could use it? Or the press?
 
I'm loving this chat... but honestly if you aren't actively involved in this area its mind-blowing. Whilst we are talking about this in context of football, its comes across through M&A, conflict of interest discussions, and possible most often linked to insider trading.

The test, as I've been taught by our lawyers, is "Should I have this information?" If the answer is 'no' then it doesn't matter if you received that information deliberately or accidentally, you are not allowed to act upon it. Further, in all industries I'm involved in, it is incumbent upon you to also report that you received this information - that could be to internal teams or to external regulators. And then, once having reported, you have to recuse yourself from anything remotely liked to it.

So - in this case - if it was confidential (and can be proven) - then if someone in THFC received it, it does not matter how, they could not make use of the information for their personal or business benefit.
I assume FIFA/UEFA/PL have some ethics reporting approach where this should then be flagged.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
That's an interesting one. I think most of my employment contracts have explicitly stated I was not allowed to disclose my salary. I don't know how that would stand up under the scrutiny of a court however.
Click to expand...

I think it relates to the Equalities Act and discrimination. If you wanted to check that there isn't a gender pay gap for example, disclosure of pay would trump any confidentiality clauses.
 
Drew said:
I'm loving this chat... but honestly if you aren't actively involved in this area its mind-blowing. Whilst we are talking about this in context of football, its comes across through M&A, conflict of interest discussions, and possible most often linked to insider trading.

The test, as I've been taught by our lawyers, is "Should I have this information?" If the answer is 'no' then it doesn't matter if you received that information deliberately or accidentally, you are not allowed to act upon it. Further, in all industries I'm involved in, it is incumbent upon you to also report that you received this information - that could be to internal teams or to external regulators. And then, once having reported, you have to recuse yourself from anything remotely liked to it.

So - in this case - if it was confidential (and can be proven) - then if someone in THFC received it, it does not matter how, they could not make use of the information for their personal or business benefit.
I assume FIFA/UEFA/PL have some ethics reporting approach where this should then be flagged.
Click to expand...

What if they didn't know it was confidential?
 
SpurMeUp said:
If you were correct, how are journalists earning an income publishing this information?

The difference here is with a murderer not being convicted, there was simply a lack of evidence to do so. The law is 100% clear: murder is illegal. In this instance there isn’t a clear law you can cite that protects against people using formally confidential information. If there was, journalists could be prosecuted. Online forums could be too. It doesn’t stack up.
Click to expand...
You not knowing a clear law doesn't mean it isn't there. Like most English Law it will be covered under common law.

Again, Journalists won't be prosecuted if it is deemed to be in the public interest and courts almost always come down on the side of freedom of the press.
 
Robbo said:
Or what if Forest "accidentally" leaked the release clause to the entire leadership of every club who could have an interest in buying MGW.
Click to expand...
Well - if that could be proven that would be a public disclosure and then invalidate any confidentiality... there is also a general rule of thumb that even if information is shared broadly, under NDAs, once you have shared it to enough people it is not reasonable to assume it is confidential anymore.

This comes up a lot on patent disputes when you are trying to define if the invention was in the public domain before something was filed. If you came up with a great invention and shared it around your busy local, even if you've told everyone its secret, you could likely be deemed to have publicly shared at that point and not be entitled to any protection.
 
Lilbaz said:
What if they didn't know it was confidential?
Click to expand...
The point wouldn't be whether the person who shared it knew it was confidential, but whether or not you as the receiving party (and then deciding whether or not to use it) could be reasonably expected to know it was confidential. In the case of a player contract and release clause - if you were in a position to exercise that information, it would be more than reasonable that you would expect to be in receipt of confidential information.

As such you should act as though it is confidential, until you are able to prove it is not.
 
M&A involving a share price is a very distinct domain where information is hugely sensitive. I wouldn’t assume that confidentiality clauses from M&A is applicable to employment contracts.
 
Drew said:
The point wouldn't be whether the person who shared it knew it was confidential, but whether or not you as the receiving party (and then deciding whether or not to use it) could be reasonably expected to know it was confidential. In the case of a player contract and release clause - if you were in a position to exercise that information, it would be more than reasonable that you would expect to be in receipt of confidential information.

As such you should act as though it is confidential, until you are able to prove it is not.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the club might not have known there is an nda. If they have been told there is a release clause whatever the source.
Why would you automatically assume a release clause is confidential?
 
If we bid the release clause after various sources had reported on the release clause then is there any case against thfc at all? I don’t believe so.

There maybe a case against MGW, but how you’d prove the leak came from his side must be difficult. Accountants, club employees and former employees, lawyers, agents, potentially regulators, auditors all may have had sight of the contract.
 
SpurMeUp said:
If we bid the release clause after various sources had reported on the release clause then is there any case against thfc at all? I don’t believe so.

There maybe a case against MGW, but how you’d prove the leak came from his side must be difficult. Accountants, club employees and former employees, lawyers, agents, potentially regulators, auditors all may have had sight of the contract.
Click to expand...

Blame ally gold. Then he can just protect his source. (Is that still a thing).
 
They seem to be pushing for a new contact to stop him from moving to us.

Reports are he doesn't want to sign.
Could be fun if he did as I'm sure we would complain then as they didn't accept the offer for a RC.

Saying next week now for a possible update on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back