• 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

SpurMeUp said:
Just shows that this supposedly confidential information was already in the public domain a year ago. There would be no grounds to claim THFC have misused confidential information (as some Spurs fans have suggested!). I get the Forest fans being sore and making accusations, but don't get our fans suggesting Spurs have abused confidential information illegally. These tweets from a year ago should put that notion to bed, as the information wasn't confidential, and looks like it was in the public domain for a year at least.

If Forest are not honouring the release clause in MGW's contract, that is more contentious isn't it? They would be in breach of contract, and surely open to be pursued legally, certainly by the player, and possibly by THFC as the bidder?
Click to expand...

Personally I’ve always said that I’d be stunned if Spurs had done anything actually wrong. Equally I do like to debate and discuss the other side of these things, just because it’s interesting to figure out how this situation has arisen when we have limited information. I’m not sure who the guy tweeting above is. Equally Levy has been known to press home advantages in negotiations so perhaps he did try and do something here? Not illegal, but just doing something where he saw an advantage?
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Personally I’ve always said that I’d be stunned if Spurs had done anything actually wrong. Equally I do like to debate and discuss the other side of these things, just because it’s interesting to figure out how this situation has arisen when we have limited information. I’m not sure who the guy tweeting above is. Equally Levy has been known to press home advantages in negotiations so perhaps he did try and do something here? Not illegal, but just doing something where he saw an advantage?
Click to expand...
I think we have "technically" done something wrong as we have probably contacted MGW's people prior to contacting Forest. This is technically illegal under FA rules. And a point Jordan makes. And if you are Forest you can rightly threaten legal action on that basis. The issue here though as per Jordan is that every club doing a transfer contacts the player's people prior to the club because you are not going to enter into the legal and financial effort of negotiating a multi-million dollar transaction and incurring legal, agent and financier fees only to find out weeks or months down the line that the player isnt interested in joining or that the terms they'd come on are unaffordable.

So if Forest want to pursue us they can do, but what they'd be doing is blowing the current "gentlemens agreement" workings of the transfer system out of the water as the current FA rules are practically unworkable (and illegal themselves under established principles of free movement of workers) and so Forest are effectively opening a can of worms with this that could (if it ends up in court) actually per my previous points lead to the whole gravy train making a lot of people very rich come crashing down and they'd make themselves very very unpopular with everyone (and MGW would still end up leaving in the wake of all the mess)....so I suspect in the end this will be resolved.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Just shows that this supposedly confidential information was already in the public domain a year ago. There would be no grounds to claim THFC have misused confidential information (as some Spurs fans have suggested!). I get the Forest fans being sore and making accusations, but don't get our fans suggesting Spurs have abused confidential information illegally. These tweets from a year ago should put that notion to bed, as the information wasn't confidential, and looks like it was in the public domain for a year at least.

If Forest are not honouring the release clause in MGW's contract, that is more contentious isn't it? They would be in breach of contract, and surely open to be pursued legally, certainly by the player, and possibly by THFC as the bidder?
Click to expand...
Where are our fans suggesting Spurs have abused confidential information illegally?
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Yeah, it’s entirely plausible that City decided to see if they could do a deal for better terms than the release clause, and decided that Forest wouldn’t budge before moving on.

I think also plausible that if the clause was indeed secret, it held at the point of the City enquiry. I guess we’ll find out more soon.
Click to expand...
Maybe city fancied someone else too
They did just buy a CM
 
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...
Nah. You are missing the key point - what is his release clause on Football Manager? We probably just saw that and went with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back