- Print Topic - Archive

If true good luck to them.

I do think that the world of football is pretty corrupt throughout, sometimes clubs win and hence some clubs lose. Tapping up players, managers, coaches goes on all through the game, i cannot imagine there is a single football club that has not breached the rules...its normally just whether or not you accept it happens and take the money/compensation.

It's really strange I was going post a thread asking if Morgan Ferrier is worth a gamble with is troubled background as a youth player.

I feel for Boreham Wood had a very good season lost best player to Lincoln I think, Ferrier as some blame just like the agent telling them he wants to stay and then sending a email out. Boreham Wood have done everything by the book and £35,000 is very cheap these days for a striker.

Fair play to BW for publicising this 'agent' the who clearly thinks he can hilly his way into getting what he wants.

What I don't understand though is if the contract states a buying club must pay at least 35k...how can they decline Wimbledons offer of 35k?

Have to laugh at Boreham Wood taking the moral high ground over something like this.

The same club who charge opposition media teams to record the match and won’t let them in otherwise. They don’t even let clubs show highlights without paying for it.

The same club who wrote THIS statement:
https://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/uncategorized/boreham-wood-fc-replies-to-laughable-accusation/

The chairman is known for being a petulant child in his statements, all sounds quite familiar.

Quoted from Mighty_Mariner

Fair play to BW for publicising this 'agent' the who clearly thinks he can hilly his way into getting what he wants.

What I don't understand though is if the contract states a buying club must pay at least 35k...how can they decline Wimbledons offer of 35k?

To trigger the clause, clubs have to go via the appropriate channels, offer over £35k and also agree with Boreham Wood an appropriate sell on clause. In theory Boreham Wood could hold out for a 100% sell on clause.

Quoted from Grantley

Have to laugh at Boreham Wood taking the moral high ground over something like this.

The same club who charge opposition media teams to record the match and won’t let them in otherwise. They don’t even let clubs show highlights without paying for it.

The same club who wrote THIS statement:
https://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/uncategorized/boreham-wood-fc-replies-to-laughable-accusation/

The chairman is known for being a petulant child in his statements, all sounds quite familiar.

Agree, I know several people in the media and they all think that Boreham Wood are a bunch of tossers.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

To trigger the clause, clubs have to go via the appropriate channels, offer over £35k and also agree with Boreham Wood an appropriate sell on clause. In theory Boreham Wood could hold out for a 100% sell on clause.

As you point out it's the sell on clause which is the stumbling block. It's alright Boreham Wood pleading the innocent party but the contract is stacked in their favour. If another club offered £1 million they couldn't be forced to sell. When I first read this report I was in complete agreement with B.Wood but reading it again I can feel some sympathy for the player. The present agent is completely out of order but the previous agent didn't do the player any favours in getting him to sign this contract.

Reading that the real "BENT" basturd sounds like the player's new agent.

Simple solution for Morgan................get rid of your agent and apologise to your current club/chairman and supporters.

The late Brian Clough would have told that agent a few things lol.

Players agents are creaming off the big money for years robbing twhats,

Quoted from Mrs Doyle

Players agents are creaming off the big money for years robbing twhats,

I doubt agents at that level are creaming off big money, but I agree with your sentiment.

That contract is shite though, I think going through courts, he will be able to leave. Because the terms are so vague and they would have been drawn up by the club, which usually means that it gets found in favour of the other party. Plus once it reaches that stage, they can hardly keep the player without disrupting the dressing room.

20% seems a reasonable sell-on percentage clause does it not?

Quoted from pen penfras

I doubt agents at that level are creaming off big money, but I agree with your sentiment.

That contract is shite though, I think going through courts, he will be able to leave. Because the terms are so vague and they would have been drawn up by the club, which usually means that it gets found in favour of the other party. Plus once it reaches that stage, they can hardly keep the player without disrupting the dressing room.

True. The statement repeatedly mentions the simple and clear terms of the transfer release clause but the reason this bid's been rejected is for the one aspect that is anything but clear.

But then the player did sign and agree to those terms in the first place (admittedly with different representation), so he can hardly complain.

Quoted from Tommy

True. The statement repeatedly mentions the simple and clear terms of the transfer release clause but the reason this bid's been rejected is for the one aspect that is anything but clear.

But then the player did sign and agree to those terms in the first place (admittedly with different representation), so he can hardly complain.

I doubt the sell on clause is so prohibitive given they agreed terms with TRFC?