‘Not how basic UK contract law works’ – John Wenham reacts to ‘bizarre’ Tottenham transfer saga
Tottenham Hotspur fans find themselves in suspense as the saga surrounding Morgan Gibbs-White’s potential move from Nottingham Forest continues to unfold with unexpected drama.
The North London club had reportedly reached an advanced stage in negotiations, with the player seemingly set for a medical ahead of a transfer.
But Nottingham Forest abruptly blocked the deal, claiming they had not given Spurs permission to engage in talks with their player and are now reportedly considering legal action.
Despite the roadblock, the move is still widely expected to go through. Many close to the situation believe it’s only a matter of time before Gibbs-White is unveiled in a Tottenham shirt.
The heart of Forest’s dispute lies in the belief that Tottenham were only able to learn about Gibbs-White’s £60 million release clause through direct or indirect contact with the player.
That, Forest argues, constitutes an illegal approach. But legal experts and club insiders have suggested otherwise, stating that Spurs’ actions fall within the boundaries of proper procedure, especially if the release clause was publicly accessible or disclosed through legitimate channels.
Morgan Gibbs-White had an impressive 2024/25 campaign for Nottingham Forest, registering 38 appearances, 7 goals, and 10 assists.
Losing such a key asset is naturally difficult for Forest to accept. Yet, as with any contract featuring a release clause, the club’s control over the player’s future is somewhat limited once that clause is met.
Spurs reportedly triggered the £60 million fee and made their intentions clear. If the clause exists in writing and the offer meets its terms, legal precedent favors the buying club, provided they’ve followed appropriate steps.
John Wenham, owner of Lilywhite Rose and a prominent voice among Tottenham supporters, offered a strong opinion on the controversy.
Speaking exclusively to Tottenham News, he asserted that Tottenham have acted completely within their rights. According to Wenham, the issue Forest have raised is one they should be taking up with the player’s representative, not Spurs.
In his view, once the release clause is triggered, the selling club must comply, and Forest’s refusal to proceed is not just unfair, but likely unenforceable under UK contract law.
He emphasized that a contract clause cannot exist for appearance’s sake. If it’s active and legally binding, it should be honored without obstruction. For Tottenham to face resistance after making a formal offer only complicates what should be a straightforward process.
Wenham also labeled Forest’s resistance as a delay tactic rather than a legal stand with any significant footing. If the clause was valid and Tottenham met it, then blocking the medical and stalling the transfer only disrupts what appears to be an inevitable departure for Gibbs-White.
Should the transfer be completed as expected, Tottenham may decide to halt their search for further attacking reinforcements.
With the recent acquisition of Mohammed Kudus, and the presence of James Maddison, Dejan Kulusevski, and an array of talented wide options, the squad looks well-stocked in advanced areas.
Gibbs-White’s addition would add even more versatility and depth, possibly allowing the club to shift their attention to strengthening the defensive midfield position—an area that might require more balance given the attacking options already at Ange Postecoglou’s disposal.
In the ever-fluid world of modern football, contract clauses and legal threats can cloud what should be simple transactions. But in the case of Gibbs-White, the combination of player desire, contractual obligation, and Tottenham’s firm interest makes the move feel more a matter of timing than uncertainty.
Forest’s resistance may be strong for now, but the momentum behind this transfer suggests the outcome is only temporarily paused, not permanently blocked.