It’s definitely beginning to look like MGW blindsided the club in which case, he has to go. Whist he’s been our best player since SVC, he’s been a bit of a cunt about this. As a result, if we can make it a bit difficult, I don't have a problem with that.
4 months ago
1K
You are correct, we should just let all players sort out their deals and tell us when they are sorted.
Hilarious, if true, about the legal action. I guess establishing a player's interest through their representative ahead of a call to the club is not something Forest have ever done before...
Like we sort out players deals, and tell them when they are sorted? ("pack a bag and get on a plane to olympiakos/Rio Ave/Lyon sunbeam")
Two wrongs don't make a right.
With (at present) less than a year on his contract & (reputedly) Chelsea having a substantial percentage of any profit - which is how we got him so insanely cheap - we would realise virtually no profit at all if we sold him now; certainly not enough to make the buy-cheap-develop-sell-dear model work.
He’s currently in negotiations regarding a new contract. If he sign it, then the maths would change, but at present he is worth far more to us playing than he would be being sold to generate money.
Is it that effectively a contract is 2 years shorter than its actual term?
A 5 year deal needs renegotiating at end of year 3 or a sale happens, otherwise you risk running it to 1 year left when player vakue plummets?
If that’s all they did, sure. Illegal approach is Shirley more than that, though
Pretty much, yes. That’s why most clubs do their best to get successful imports to sign an improved deal well before the end of the contract. We achieved it with Murillo, but clearly not with MGW.
If Williams hadn’t signed his new deal we’d have sold him, too, I’d have thought.
Jair Cunha confirmed.
Maybe. My initial reading of 'illegal approach' was that Spurs had spoken to the player without Forest's permission, i.e. that was how they knew about the release clause figure and the subsequent bid was for precisely that amount.
Assume the legal stuff is in part because we weren't aware and might not have let Elanga go if we'd known MGW was hours from leaving
This is superficially correct....unless it's a player that you don't want (like Harry Arter) and has done rubbish....then it's (at least) two years too long. The factors involved might include - investment cost, age, development profile, value to the club playing (down the contract) versus realising retained asset value, current level, commitment, injury profile. All will have an impact on how long you want them under contract for, and how much you want to be paying them while they are (both up and down).
If you've got a gem with all of the numbers on the good side (like Elanga and MGW) you qwant them pinned down as long as possible...but when it flips and they get the power you might have invested in your own downfall at that time. Let's not forget that a contract needs three parties to agree....selling club, buying club, player.....and each party will have a different objective view and aspiration for the deal. Although in MGW's case it would appear that the selling club are contractually obliged to give consent in certain circumstances. That doesn't appear to be under dispute....we only possibly get away with our argument if we have evidence of a direct approach from an employee of totteningham to MGW unsolicited...which it's most likely hasn't happened.
...and for those tempted to get holier than thou about this sort of things, lets not forget that our past involved illegally tapping up players...in a particularly notable case by sending on our trainer to treat an opposition player in a match, to ask if they wanted to play for our manager.
Don't come the raw prawn over this one, and make yourself look like idiot boomers. Every transfer occurs after an indirect approach, and has for a very long time.
Probably the worst timing for a new signing announcement ever!
Didn't Liverpool do a very similar thing when Arsenal bid £1 over the release clause for Suarez?
