Didn't Liverpool do a very similar thing when Arsenal bid £1 over the release clause for Suarez?
4 months ago
1K
Things that confuse me are:
(1) the presence of a release fee, especially one that is not that far above the full fee we paid Wolves plus any sell-on %?
(2) if there is a release fee, why would that be subject to confidentiality (as the BBC are reporting)? Ie what’s the point of having a fee that no-one knows about?Spurs are clearly wrong’uns and we should now make this as difficult as possible for them.
On the first one, I think at the time it was said that the add ons were very hard to achieve so maybe it was twice the expected realistic fee?
Even if the add-ons were difficult to achieve, they were included so had a semblance of possibility. It seems very strange that this wasn’t taken into account. I’m no contract lawyer but I think it could have been written with:
1. A relegation clause (which I could understand) with maybe a lower amount.
2. A sliding scale depending on the level of add-ons achieved (or expressed as a % of the total fee due to WWFC)Maybe it was a confidential release fee but meant we had to take any offers over that? Unlikely a team would come in on the exact figure unless it’s been leaked to them.
I cannot believe no-one is excited about the Jair Cunha signing. We are going to be impossible to score against. Who cares if we can't score.
You lot seem obsessed with losing about 50% of all goal contributions in one go. Again, The Elanga thing confuses me. Deep down we all knew MGW was going to leave this summer.
And Shady was right. We fucked it. Could have been rich enough to keep the band together one more season with Champions league money. Oh well, let's raid the population of Brazil and get mental.
Chicago: 1-0 to the Forest.
If we’re suing anyone for a breach of confidentiality, it’ll be Morgan (or his representatives) surely? Spurs can’t be held to confidentiality on a contract they aren’t party to.
The thought did occur to me...but we wont actually be holding anyone to account for anything. We are just man babying.
Or delaying the deal to give other clubs the chance to decide if they want in on the action, and potentially drive the price up.
How does that work if there's a release clause? Surely it just gives MGW more choice, and less time for us to line up other ducks? MGW wont be signing for a club that's not in the champions league, nor will he be signing for one that has to pay us more, and thus him less. Nor will he be signing for shitty (or he would have done) nor one with Cole Palmer in.
That leaves Arsenal, Liverpool, or Spurts.
I just can’t see how we expect suing anyone to help us. He wants out and we know the maximum price we’re going to get for him, so,
let’s bank that and get on with replacing him. We’re hardly likely to get £40m from him or anyone else for the loss of value (on a contract we must have fucking agreed to anyway).Of which Spurs are, by a very long way, the worst choice. I’m surprised Slot didn’t sniff around as MGW could be a very good addition to that side.
But Slot hates us
I bet he doesn't. I bet he just likes to compete against everyone not his club.
Arsenal are about to sell a great potential number 10 because they can't get him game time, as are liverpool.
Spurts are the smart choice, because he only really needs to get in ahead of Madisson. Which he will.
I think Anderson is the better fit for Liverpool
Apparently the same thing happened with Arsenal and Suarez, and Chelsea and Olise. In both cases the deal collapsed and the player stayed.
If we end up suing MGW and also not selling him that would be impressive work even for Forest when they were peak crazy.
We do like to put on a show though.
