Morgan Ferrier fun and games | Vital Football

Morgan Ferrier fun and games

Rasenimp

Rasenimp

Vital Football Legend
I think it's kind of interesting to see a club detail an agent's shenanigans over a transfer deal in this much detail: https://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/uncategorized/football-must-win-this-one/

To summarise, Tranmere met the release clauses in Ferrier's contract last month. Ferrier did not want to go there. AFC Wimbledon met the release clause fee, but didn't initially agree a sell on (if they met what Tranmere had agreed, he could go). Ferrier had a new representative, who subsequently threatened the club and said that they had to agree the lower sell-on and were in breach of contract. It also seems he had the player e-mail the club saying he was giving the club 14 days notice!

More generally I'd say it shows decent players are available for relatively low fees. Ferrier's quite highly rated albeit unproven at League level. A £35k release clause doesn't seem big at all to me.
 
It's not shenanigans really though - it's ensuring the client is dealt with according to their contractual rights.
 
Skip155 said:
It's not shenanigans really though - it's ensuring the client is dealt with according to their contractual rights.
Click to expand...

There are two sides to it but surely that's debateable. They need to agree a sell on as per terms of the contract? That does seem icky (as B/Wood could in theory say whatever). But if they agreed 30% with Tranmere I'd say well within their rights to ask for that, not have the other party come in lower and immediately accept it.

I'd say getting the player to send an e-mail outlining his 14 days notice was definitely shenanigans.
 
If the contract has a release clause then those terms will presumably be definitive. There aren't that many grey areas when it comes to something that's spelled out in black and white. Obviously what it actually says none of us know.
 
Skip155 said:
If the contract has a release clause then those terms will presumably be definitive. There aren't that many grey areas when it comes to something that's spelled out in black and white. Obviously what it actually says none of us know.
Click to expand...

We do know as Boreham Wood have put it on the website. Both clubs have to agree to a sell on and additional clauses and although AFC Wimbledon matched the fee, they couldn't agree a sell on and additional clauses.

If AFC Wimbledon match Tranmere's offer (which they know according to the website as it has been shared) then they can speak to the player.
 
Skip155 said:
If the contract has a release clause then those terms will presumably be definitive. There aren't that many grey areas when it comes to something that's spelled out in black and white. Obviously what it actually says none of us know.
Click to expand...

“A release clause applies whereby Boreham Wood FC agrees to allow the player to speak to another club with a view to discussing a transfer. This would be subject to the following conditions:

– Boreham Wood receive a formal written offer from the buying club

– A transfer fee of no less than £35,000 (thirty-five thousand) will be payable

– Both clubs will agree a sell-on fee and/or additional terms

“In the event that the above conditions in this release clause are satisfied, Boreham Wood shall immediately notify the player, and, if he wishes to transfer to such other club, Boreham Wood shall be required to (and shall) agree to the transfer of the player’s registration without delay and shall do everything necessary to effect such transfer of the player.”
 
Skip155 said:
There aren't that many grey areas when it comes to something that's spelled out in black and white.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, my contract law professor used to preface every lecture with "contracts are not worth the paper they are written on."
 
by sending that email, has ferrier burned his bridges with borehamwood?

and if wimbledon are interested, that is a good gauge of his potential level.
 
'Both clubs will agree...' doesn't get any more grey than that does it to be fair.

"100% sell on and nothing less or we don't agree."
 
Skip155 said:
'Both clubs will agree...' doesn't get any more grey than that does it to be fair.

"100% sell on and nothing less or we don't agree."
Click to expand...

Then surely the player should have agreed a 20% sell on in his contract when he signed? While it's grey on 'agreement', it's explicitly clear that they have to agree a sell on. They also agreed one with Tranmere, so it's not 100% (although I take the point).
 
Skip155 said:
'Both clubs will agree...' doesn't get any more grey than that does it to be fair.

"100% sell on and nothing less or we don't agree."
Click to expand...
they also have the grey area of 'add ons'
these would be different for wimbledon and tranmere. so each negotiation is different.
 
Rasenimp said:
Then surely the player should have agreed a 20% sell on in his contract when he signed? While it's grey on 'agreement', it's explicitly clear that they have to agree a sell on. They also agreed one with Tranmere, so it's not 100% (although I take the point).
Click to expand...

I'm saying that may be a standard release clause (I don't know) but to me it gives them every right to refuse any offer.

I would have thought the agent arranging the original contract would have wanted to be definitive.

Maybe the fact this is all out in the open is because it's not definitive and is actually a bit of a mess.
 
Skip155 said:
I'm saying that may be a standard release clause (I don't know) but to me it gives them every right to refuse any offer.

I would have thought the agent arranging the original contract would have wanted to be definitive.

Maybe the fact this is all out in the open is because it's not definitive and is actually a bit of a mess.
Click to expand...

I guess it does give them the right (if no one offers 100%), but fact is they haven't refused all offers. They accepted a reasonable offer from Tranmere.

I'd be pretty annoyed (hypothetically) if we agreed a 250k fee and 35% sell on with Sunderland for Woodyard, and then Peterborough offered 250k and 15% and the agent bullied us into selling.

I think it's out in the open because Boreham Wood think legally they're within their rights not to agree a low sell on fee.
 
The Tranmere deal is dead though so that doesn't mean any other offer has to meet that benchmark. I take your point about bullying but the question is whether BW are reasonable in failing to agree sell on and other fees with the offer now on the table. And actually what is 'reasonable' and does it matter given what seems to me to be a pretty undefinitive clause.
 
I'd say the Tranmere deal gave you an unarguable 'reasonable' amount though. It's messy, but I don't think you can argue the agent is ensuring their client gets their contractual rights when there's no such right in the contract.
 
It would have been sensible to have a minimum percentage of sell on in the contract as well as the £35,000 minimum transfer fee. But the main story is the despicable behaviour of the player's new agent. It practically amounts to blackmail and full marks to Boreham Wood for making it public.
We'd all like to have an agent working to get us the best deal but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.
 
As there is no minimum sell on percentage in the contract it seems both parties are still in their rights to negotiate this if the 35k has been met. And that neither has to agree. What is unfathomable is the 14 days notice to leave the club for breach of contract. What breach? Player here seems to have been sold down the river by a young naive agent. Unfortunately a player I would now no longer want at the club.
 
The player has a way out though and if he took some sensible external advice he would probably take it.

"It's not my fault, its all the agents doing, I didn't even really want to leave, he bullied me too and now I have dismissed him. Can I come back please while I try and talk Wimbledon into upping the sell-on fee in the background, so that I can cover all the bases and don't come out of this looking any more like a numpty than I already do."
 
The 'clause' looks very weakly drafted, i'm not surprised the player changed representation, however the new rep seems ever worse, in a much grubbier way.
 
It looks to me as if the new (twenty-five-year-old wide boy of an) agent believes that the deal originally agreed with Tranmere somehow alters the terms of the contract of Ferrier's employment with Boreham Wood. Someone needs to give that jumped-up little plonker some lessons in contract law and - perhaps more importantly - some lessons in how to behave towards other human beings.

If anything at all emphasises everything that is wrong with football today, it is this.

I look forward to his name being revealed in due course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.