The publication of the "Gosling's Tears" story in The People at the weekend has finally jolted the Everton hierarchy out off a period of insane silence into making an "unprecedented" and lengthy statement about the circumstances under which Dan Gosling left the club.
I really thought we had heard the last word on the Gosling saga, so I was quite taken aback this afternoon to see the Club finally come out of their ridiculous veil of silence and actually say something about this astounding story.
Regarding what remains to me the massive mystery about how this ridiculous situation came about, crucial are the words of David Moyes who confirmed that, "I was always fully aware of the handshake agreement which Dave Hodgson had with a senior Club official regarding Dan's fourth and fifth years ? and because of that agreement there wasn't, in my opinion, any necessity to put anything in writing. The first I knew of a problem was when Dave rang me to say that Dan's contract had lapsed and that he would be seeking to leave us on a free transfer."
So the club is still in denial that they somehow messed up by not providing a written contract. Did they truly not understand the provisions or requirements of players' contracts? I'm sorry but this "handshake agreement" stuff sounds lame in the extreme.
Here is the full "Club Statement" as posted on the Official Everton Website. I'm closing the previous thread and opening this one below for any further discussion.
In the wake of a report in a Sunday newspaper in which the agent of Dan Gosling made a series of allegations, Everton Football Club has decided to take the unprecedented step of setting straight a record of recent events which has, in its opinion, been deliberately distorted.
In the article, Mr David Hodgson suggested that not only did this Club not wish to extend Mr Gosling's stay at Goodison Park but that it had been deliberately tardy with regard to the formal offer of a new contract, presuming that an injury sustained by the player during the course of last season was of such a serious nature it would prevent him from signing for another club.
Both claims are ludicrous, totally without substance and grossly misleading.
The manager of Everton, David Moyes, and the Chairman, Bill Kenwright, contacted Mr Hodgson in November of last year to jointly offer Dan Gosling a new contract.
Several subsequent conversations took place during the course of which Mr Hodgson not only indicated that the deal offered would be "fine" but also reaffirmed that a "hand-shake agreement" was in place dating back to when Mr Gosling joined the Club as a 17 year-old in January 2008.
It was Everton's understanding that this Gentleman's agreement would guarantee that the player would extend, by at least two years, the three-year deal he signed upon his arrival from Plymouth Argyle.
"In the very long history of our Club, our executive team have never once forgotten or neglected to deal properly and professionally with contractual matters," said Mr Kenwright. "We place our trust in people; we always keep our side of any offered deal - and all we have ever asked is that others do the same."
Everton's CEO, Robert Elstone, confirmed that the Club had wished to extend Mr Gosling's stay on Merseyside.
"We wanted Dan Gosling to stay with us - and, after what we had been told, we expected him to stay with us. However, in the first week in June, Mr Hodgson rang David Moyes seemingly content that he had manoeuvred a situation where Dan was a free agent," he said.
Mr Moyes confirmed that he had spoken - on several occasions - to both player and agent in relation to Mr Gosling's progress and future.
"Dan came to see me and told me that he saw himself as a central midfield player rather than someone who operated in a wide position," he said. " I did not think at that point that he would get into the Everton team as a central midfield player.
"I was always fully aware of the handshake agreement which Dave Hodgson had with a senior Club official regarding Dan's fourth and fifth years - and because of that agreement there wasn't, in my opinion, any necessity to put anything in writing. The first I knew of a problem was when Dave rang me to say that Dan's contract had lapsed and that he would be seeking to leave us on a free transfer.
"I told Dave that he had an agreement with the Club which he was now reneging on. We scouted Dan Gosling and brought him in when several other Premier League clubs looked but did not purchase.
"We feel aggrieved that they have contrived a situation to get the player out of the Club when, if he had come and said that he wanted to leave, we could at least have done something about it - but at no point did Dan say he wished to leave.
"I read at the weekend that he cried when he didn't receive a formal, written offer. Well, trust me, the money Everton were offering was certainly not a crying matter," he added.
The Premier League tribunal found that as Everton had relied upon both a verbal and a Gentleman's agreement and had not put a contractual offer in written form before the acknowledged deadline, Mr Gosling was entitled to leave the Club on a free transfer.
Michael Kenrick Posted 27/07/2010 at
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:38:37
2 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:38:51
Just a filthy, underhand parasite. The absolute dictionary definition of a Kopite. Prick
3 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:37:11
It does seem incredible though that, having had our fingers burnt on a similar "handshake deal" with Fernandes not that long ago, we are still bending over for people like this.
4 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:41:15
This 'opinion' is the source of the problem, isn't it?
5 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:51:16
6 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:45:27
Wait. a conversation from November 2009, yet come MAY 2010
no contract had yet been made official. So you have a conversation and agree to give a new cointract, but it takes more than 7 months? You then harp back about a 'gentlemans agreement' from 2008?
WHY DIDN'T YOU OFFER A CONTRACT?
Fuck all this "gentleman's agreement" bullshit: "our executive team have never once forgotten or neglected to deal properly and professionally with contractual matters," said Mr Kenwright. "We place our trust in people; we always keep our side of any offered deal - and all we have ever asked is that others do the same" .
What absolute bollocks. Your side of the bargain BK was to give a contract to DG, which you didn't do.
How was there zero contact between club and DG about this? He was at the club recieving treatment for the last 5 months, surely he could take mins to sign a piece of paper.
This only reaffirms my beliefs.
Club fucked up.
Dan Gosling is not spawn of satan.
7 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:02:12
I cannot believe that in a game where player contracts are fundamental to everything any club does, that his will have been 'overlooked' or 'forgotten'.
Such an assumption is as fanciful as suggesting Gosling would have commanded a fee of £4 - £5m.
As always, we'll never know the full story, especially now that it is developing into a PR-led 'tit-for-tat' stand-off.
The only 'truth' we can all take for granted is that he wasn't very good and will be warming even Newcastle's bench (if not their treatment table), for sustained periods in the not-too-distant future.
8 Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:50:15
Surely it's no surprise to anyone that agents are money-grabbing devious little twats, who'll stop at nothing to manouvre a situation that gets them a cut of a payout! All Kenwright & Co had to do was put anything in writing as an offer to legally protect themselves. I mean, for fuck's sake, if Billy boy was a bit short on cash (as fucking usual), he could have offered him: theatre tickets & a packet of bloody toffees, anything in fact... Just make sure it's IN WRITING.
But no, not Everton... Let's do it the old-fashioned way with a handshake, that's not worth Jack Shit.
Now I don't know what fee we could have got for Gosling BUT I do know one thing... We'll have to sell an awful lot of replica shirts to come anywhere near even the lowest estimates of what his fee would have been.
For a club surviving on our miniscule budget, the actions of our board in this case are shambolic & surely amount to GROSS INCOMPETENCE!
9 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:28:59
10 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:24:36
Maybe they did believe that a gentlemans agreement was enough, but as soon as DM told the little goose that he wasn't going to play centre mid they should have been making sure he couldn't slip out the back door.
11 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:34:24
12 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:47:31
But they didn't... in fact they did the exact opposite, saying (apparently) that, because there was no written offer, then, as of 30 June 2010, Dan Gosling was no longer under contract and was a free agent.
Everton have not appealed this decision. If what you say is true, then surely they would have done... or they would have prevailed and Dan Gosling would be "theirs" (by Everton's ownership of his registration) to transfer out ? for a fee.
13 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:49:43
Even if this handshake agreement did happen, to not follow it up in writing when the player is injured and I guess looking for circa £15-£20k a week over 3-5 seasons. If that amount is compared to his true transfer value - I cannot believe a club would pay over £2m.
It all looks convenient and at least part-intentional by EFC to me, not that I blame them if he is going about saying he wants to play his preferred position etc.
14 Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:49:31
"Dan came to see me and told me that he saw himself as a central midfield player rather than someone who operated in a wide position," he said. " I did not think at that point that he would get into the Everton team as a central midfield player."
Now although the club have messed up big time with this, that sounds to me that DG was agitating for a move away. He probably was afraid to tell DM to his face, hence the underhand tactics.
Both parties to blame I'm afraid. But the club should never have waited this long to make a statement, and so give rise to the inevitable conspiracy theories.
15 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:01:26
16 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:06:00
17 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:28:05
Club cocked up but this "Dan was in tears" bullocks doesn't wash. Why not call the club and ask where the contract is instead of letting the date pass then demand to be released as a free agent? If he wanted to stay he would have asked for it in writing for him to sign, not rag Everton to the FA and get his path cleared for a move.
Everton should have put it in writing but why didn't Dan/Scumsucker... sorry, Agent contact Everton near the time and remind them? (Possibly they did but I doubt it as scumsucker... sorry, Agent had pound signs in his eyes.)
18 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:35:27
19 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:41:44
The club could either confirm that the People story was right (which they were never going to do) or offer a rebuttal.
The club DID NOT WANT TO KEEP GOSLING, he is not good enough but his injury complicated matters. This was the club's way of getting shut. The rebuttal is no more than a prepared response to the inevitable allegation from Gosling and his agent.
The club's behaviour could be construed as a bit on the dark side but it is NOT incompetent. Gosling leaving in the way he did was the cheapest and easiest option all round.
20 Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:46:12
I think the words `Yer what?!?!` followed by a phonecall to Kenwright "Let's fuck this daft twat off and get someone better in for less wages (Gueye)."
21 Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:17:33
22 Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:19:52
The bottom line for me is that the EFC purse has been well & truly kept closed on this one.
23 Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:29:22
Of course you do, you don't burst into tears and ring the job centre and and try to get a new job.
And do we really think that as an employee you do not have the mobile number of at least one member of the HR department or senior manager to ring when nothing is happening. In all this time DG never once thought of ringing BK, RE or even DM and saying what is happening.
Pretty lousy agent if he was prepared to let his client be unemployed when he was not fit for work. Sack him Dan, I would do a better job.
24 Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:32:16
It makes it simple for me. Ergo the club fucked up and litlle Danny boy, his crocodile tears and scumbag agent did a "Marcus Antonio" straight to the bank.
25 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:04:25
Even though we lose some, under Moyes we certainly win way more than we lose. I would cite, for instance: the fees paid for Arteta and Pienaar; the fact that Beckford cost nothing; and the sale of Lescott for two and a half times his value.
But lessons still need to be learned. What should happen now is that procedures should be tightened up at the club to avoid a repeat. I think that issues sometimes fall through the cracks at Everton. In future, someone needs to be made responsible overall for getting the paperwork right on all contracts. We?re not running a stall at a car boot sale.
26 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:07:53
I'm sorry but the kid is seriously deluded if he thinks he should be playing there ahead of the rest of our players.
He was absolute gash and i have always said so even prior to all of this shit. One of the worst players to play for us under Moyes. He will fit right in at Newcastle.
27 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:24:19
Hmmmm... Manual Fernandes? Tim Howards exclusion against united? The Banega Work permit application?
All very recent cock-ups in regard to contract negotiations.
This stinks to high heaven... Agents negotiate for players...since when can they agree a contract on their behalf.
This sounds like bollocks from start to finish.
But it's nice to know that the club actually considers informing fans as an 'unprecedented step'...
The mind boggles.
28 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:35:50
29 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:39:44
Flim flam about 'consideration' is a Contracts 101 sideshow.
30 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:44:10
He's not that good, just a scorer of a couple of lucky goals. The money we would have wasted on him can hopefully go on Pienaar / Arteta etc. He won't be fit for months anyway and who's to say he'd ever really get into the team after that? Woulda just been a bench warmer.
Crafty by Everton or crafty by agent... who knows? Either way, we've dodged a bullet there in my opinion.
31 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:36:41
? who thinks he is much better than he is when in fact he is not very good.
? who thinks he is worth +£30k a week.
- who has a scumbag agent.
? who could not contact Moyes/BK directly when the written contract was not offered in time.
Sometimes a mediocre player can look a better player in a good team. Let's see how Gosling is going to succeed in a mediocre team.
32 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:45:25
His job is to play football and he's done that for us even when he did his ligaments and was clearly in agony. I've read a lot of shite on forums but that's up there with the worst of them.
The club's actions made it clear he wasn't wanted and he made other plans, big fucking deal. Clearly black Bill doesn't want to look the bad guy, releasing a kid with an injury, so he went about it in his usual snidey way. And once again, the world's most gullible fans swallowed the lot. He did exactly the same with Lescott and AJ.
Also, why, when a good player leaves, all of a sudden they're shite? The other day it was Lescott, who incidentally was a very, very good goalscoring and defensively sound centre-back/full-back; now it's Dan Gosling. The kid scored some good goals for us and, when he did play centrally, he looked a hard worker who got himself in good goalscoring positions.
He won't be as good as Rodwell but neither will a whole generation of English footballers so it's hardly a stick to beat him with.
33 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:52:30
34 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:55:47
So, basically ? as far as the club statement is concerned ? David Moyes is telling lies, Robert Elstone is telling lies, and Bill Kenwright is.... OK I'll give you that one!
35 Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:57:15
He looked a good player in a mediocre team. That's why we bought him.
He didn't think he was worth £30k+ a week. He signed for Newcastle for £25k and agreed a deal with us for £15k.
He may have told Moyes he sees himself as a midfielder. So what? I seriously doubt he demanded to start every match and I doubt he thinks he's better than he is. He's represented his country at virtually every level, had trials at Chelsea and signed for one of England's biggest clubs. Vis-a-vis, he should rate himself.
36 Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:00:54
37 Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:11:42
I'd laugh if it wasn't so fuckin' tragic.
Memo to the Everton Board: if a player has an agent with affiliations to the RS, tell him to change his agent or fuck off.
38 Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:30:49
And why should anyone trust BK after all, he is only the chairman of a club that has for the first time since the eighties given us reason to be genuinely optimistic.
39 Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:44:52
I don't think they'll make this mistake again though!
40 Posted 28/07/2010 at 06:45:36
How hard is it to look after a small group of players. 25 people. Some people look after thousands of people's contracts, in business. Everton are struggling with simple business stuff. It seems to be very unprofessional, and everything that goes on is not that transparent.
41 Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:53:24
He's not known as Bungling Bill for nothing.
42 Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:27:18
The most logical explanation for me is that, following Gosling's injury, the club were stalling in an attempt to see how the recovery developed before putting pen to paper, and Gosling and his agent spotted an opportunity to get more money and more opportunities in a first team. Neither party looks good in this, which is why they're both lying about their intentions and actions.
Personally, I think the result pretty much suits everyone, even if the way we got there was a bit unpleasant. Gosling would have rarely played for us and certainly not in his preferred position, so we'd be paying his wages for nothing.
At worst we missed out on a small transfer fee (I don't believe we would have got anywhere near £4m and we're saving £1m on a year of his wages anyway). But there's a chance the recovery may not go well and he could be out for two years or worse (see Hargreaves), in which case we've done brilliantly getting shot now.
43 Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:38:33
Never mind 'trust me', just give us the fucking amount that was "not 'a crying matter" you shifty grinning twat.
(Tt least that way, if Gosling and/or his agent doesn't respond, we can assume they're full of shit.)
Typical Everton press release - actually says fuck-all.
44 Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:01:06
What that says to me is that EFC saw this as a massive change of circumstances: previously, Mr Gosling was an asset; he quickly became a liability.
They either offer him a contract @ possibly £2M, and risk him not playing again, or let the contract lapse, save the £2M and medical fees, plus probably money to the agent also.
They could not sell him in the next 6 months as he was injured, so let him go and every one wins.
45 Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:19:32
First, due to the rules regarding players under a certain age, the length of contract available is convened by FIFA rules and any extension can?t be signed until this has expired... but, to safeguard the clubs, is the rule regarding a written offer to be received no less than 40 days before the end date of original contract. This is the reason Everton couldn?t have him sign a new contract before the 1st July.
Secondly, regarding Ciarán's comment about Tim Howard's exclusion against United, he was on a season-long loan with the option to buy at the end. When this option is available, you can complete the transfer any time the two parties agree even outside of the transfer window, which is what happened in this case (we completed his transfer in February 2007). The only drawback with this is that the rules regarding players on loan still apply, which made him ineligible to play against United.
46 Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:53:26
Anyway, I think what people aren't thinking about what could have had A MAJOR impact on this issue, which is...
1) Moyes was in South Africa for the World Cup (so the contract dealing must have been in the hands of other people (Moyes obviously had faith in other staff)
2) Bill Kenwright was probably on holiday
3) There may have been a temporary hardware, software, networking error, data loss... which affected viewing expiring contracts etc
4) We don't know how Gosling asked Moyes, did he push Moyes to play in centre mid or was it just a hint to Moyes?
5) Gosling is young, he probably sees Newcastle as a better night out if he's a party animal.
6) The small print of the contract stated explicitly that he would not get a sniff in centre midfield, and may only get a few Carling Cup games on the wing as a sub.
7) The club was so bogged down tying Rodwell, sorting Pienaar's and Arteta's contracts out, that Gosling, being lower priority, slipped through the net.
8) If I had not had a contract renewed by my company, AND I WANTED TO BE/STAY THERE, I would ask the company....
ME (or agent if I had one!): "Sorry but the contract which we agreed in November hasn't arrived and my contract expires next week, I would have thought it would have arrived by now, I'd still love to sign it as per the gentlemen's agreement which is in place." (It would not be professional for the company to go back on a gentlemen's agreement, so that's why Gosling is to blame in this instance.)
Company: "Sorry, there has been an administrative error / fax problem / postage strike / dog ate the printer. We will get this contract out to you as soon as possible, if you can come in to Finch Farm now, we will get it signed and sealed.
ME: "Where is my fucking contract? If there has been a mistake, as we are all humans and can make them... I'll sign it today, I'd appreciate back-pay from the expiration date, I'm playing for a great team, a great manager and a team which gives youth a chance and has stuck by me through my knee injury. If you don't offer me a new contract, which we can date from the expiration of the previous one, I will look for a new club and am very surprised in such a well respected club, with well respected manager, chairman, players and fans, I may take up the gentleman's agreement which we made to court or at least leave the company and let the fans know the club went shit."
Instead, he did a runner for £££££££ and his agent orchestrated it ££££££
ps: Manuel Fernandes was never our player.
47 Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:53:52
Usually I would not bother but just wanted to post this to your reply of "he looked a good player in a mediocre team". You really can't compare Everton to Plymouth, can you. I mean he did not sign to us from an established Premier League team as he was playing in the lower leagues. He did not want to sign for us as he wanted more money and maybe to play in central midfield. Time will tell how good he is and the level he belongs. The club made a mess but I won't lose my sleep for him leaving.
48 Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:25:14
Unless I'm misreading the statement, that quote is from David Moyes (and a brilliant one).
Who is this "shifty grinning twat" you refer to Eugene? Surely not Mr Elstone?
49 Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:46:10
50 Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:56:55
If a man shakes your hand and says you have an agreement, can you not rest easy?
If he doesn't live up to his word and worms out, do we want a man of that character at our club?
I think handshake agreements should be more prevalent. If the player abides by his word then we clearly have in our ranks a man of integrity who will give his all for the Club.
If he doesn't, his word means nothing. He is a shallow pit of a human being, and not to be trusted. His moral compass points not north ? and off he should go.
I want players I can pull for. Not double-backing, put it in writing, self-absorbed do what's in my best interest no matter what I agreed to unless it's in writing jerks.
And if you want it in writing, then there's a way to go about it without leaving the club in the lurch.
The agent has no clue about business ethics. You shake my hand and we have an agreement, I expect you to live up to that. If you don't, then I don't have any place for you in my world.
Naive yes. But, if the world operated with trust, this sort of shit wouldn't leave proper people screwed.
Who looks someone in the eye, shakes their hand, and then doesn't abide by the handshake? Assholes. That's who.
It should be a litmus test. Those who pass by living up to their word, come on in. Those who connive and weasel out of a handshake ? go to Hell.
51 Posted 28/07/2010 at 05:57:25
There is nothing in the statement that could not have been said earlier so one must assume that the club saw no need to say anything. Says heaps about the way they think about the fans.
With respect to the gentlemen's agreement, if you're paying someone £20k a week on a handshake these days, you need your bumps felt. This is a mercenary game with money as the driver and agents provocatuer, someone sooner or later was bound to drive a coach and horses over your gentlemens agreement, laughing all the way to the bank.
A childish error, sadly not because of the intent of any such agreement but that we actually still do that in this day and age when we know there may be some who wouldn't understand the concept, let alone consider it binding, morally or contractually. Sadly it is an error by the club that has probably cost us a return on investment and for which DG, his agent and Newcastle have profited.
I think it shows the club has to be more professional in handling of players agreements, considering their asset value.
The same has to be said about communication because the PR has been woeful and much has been allowed to continue for the sake of a statement. At least we now have it. Thank you
52 Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:09:12
"I was always fully aware of the handshake agreement which Dave Hodgson had with a senior Club official regarding Dan's fourth and fifth years ? and because of that agreement there wasn't, in my opinion, any necessity to put anything in writing."
This sentence is the key to me... Moyes is actually saying here that there was no intention to put anything in writing at all, and not that it was just delayed. We will never know but surely the truth can be answered by one thing ? had EFC begun paying Dan his new salary already? If so then Moyes is telling the truth... if not then there was no agreement...
But then Moyes goes on to say what Everton were offering ? this hints at no agreement actually and that Dan still had to accept!! Am I reading this right or do we have a contradiction?
53 Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:18:53
If we really thought there was an agreement, he would be earning his new salary. I just don't believe in terms of corporate controls that can be done without a written document.
54 Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:22:05
55 Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:44:59
56 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:08:12
Just seen this item where the "team" who represented him are "celebrating" their handywork - most unpleasant.
57 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:03:19
No it's not. It's one of a number of things required for a contract.
In regard to this context - and the mysterious need for a written contract..it is irrelevant flim flam.
That requirement could only have come from FA rules or the previous contract.
58 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:13
"Flush the dunny and move on".
Hopefully the club has learned from this and it won't be repeated with a better player than Gosling.
59 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:56:48
60 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:18
61 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:58:50
62 Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:25
The club's statement is preposterous. So too is Hodgson's claims about floods of tears.
Seems the me someone at the club took the view that Gosling was unlikely to be fit for quite some time, certainly not ready to be in the squad of 25 (although I think he falls under that bar) and that they would play a wait & see game with his injury before formalising contracts.
The one thing that would smell unpleasant is the idea that, had Gosling been out for a long time or, heaven forbid, not made it back properly from a bad injury, then the club could/would possibly have reneged on that very same gentleman's agreement.
Final word though, the idea that an £80M business would ascribe important business decisions and contract negotiations to a handshake is fatuous beyond belief. It simply DOES NOT HAPPEN.
I think the club tried to have its cake & eat it. It miscalculated. It should now shut up and learn a lesson.
63 Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:10:49
64 Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:28:09
No doubt Everton made a mistake in trusting a player with a "gentleman's agreement" and (sadly) this will never happen again, but IF Gosling had wanted to stay so badly that he cried then he could have contacted, or instructed his agent to contact, the club and pointed out the possibility that he could leave rather than just go and talk to Newcastle. Surely it would have been just as easy for his agent to contact Everton as open negotiations with them?
Apart from the error EFC have made in trusting Gosling and his agents word, I cant see why so many on here are so determined to see Everton as the bad guys here?
To me, it's simple: Do I trust David Moyes's version of events or do I trust an ex gobshite agent of a player who wants to play first team football in centre midfield who has probably realised that isn't going to happen soon here? In Moyes I trust!
65 Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:19:01
I recall a few years back Arsene Wenger having a similar handshake agreeement to sign a contract extension with Arsenal. When the time came to talk contracts he signed what had been agreed long beforehand. It's called 'Character', and the boy Gosling has none! Good luck at Newcastle, battling for Premier League safety.
66 Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:00:07
I agree with everything you say in that post, but equally you could level all that at BK and whoever else has handled this situation as Dan had an agreement that a new contract would be offered and this offer never came.
Loyalty is a two-way street.
67 Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:37:55
Ste T @41, With the AVdMs experience to go by, time will tell whether 'Bungling Bill' saved the club a load.
68 Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:13:01
Just suppposing EFC had dumped a written offer of Gosling's lap in November, but Gosling doesn't sign it.
Surely an unsigned contract is the same as any verbals that may have taken place, as in the Peinaar situation??
Is it just me?
69 Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:24:50
An unsigned written contract would have resulted in a tribunal to determine compensation for Everton ? for a player of Goslings age...
70 Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:16:55
The statement that Gosling was in floods of tears is just spin but he must have been disappointed and not made to feel very important if everyone else's contract was a priority and his was left to expire. This one lies well and truly at the feet of the club. The club have made the mistake and Gosling took advantage of it.
71 Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:13:57
It is clear that the agent engineered this whole thing. Notice Moyes says Gosling never once suggested he wanted to leave. There was an agreement in place with a player who seemed contented, and there was no problem, everyone was happy. The agent has clearly put it in Gosling's head "if you don't receive an offer in writing it means they don't want you", hence the tears when the contract didn't arrive. The agent has deliberately not contacted Everton to tell them to put the offer in writing. People seem to be forgetting or not realising that agents' big pay days come when players move clubs. And that is all they care about. It's not in the agent's interest for Gosling to stay put.
We know agents are devious - it's basically their job. This kind of behaviour is fully expected from agents. We support Everton. Our club have come out and said that the agent "re-affirmed that a handshake agreement was in place". Yet this is completely ignored by (some) Everton fans who have decided that the "devious load of pricks", that are the Everton board, are to blame. Great support, chaps.
Dan Gosling: gullible idiot. Has been told that he should be playing centre-mid for Everton, and has been told that because there was no offer in writing he was not wanted by Everton. Moved on to a worse club where he may get first team football and a big signing on fee - understandable. Oh, and I might add - average to shit footballer.
Agent: devious. Fully to blame. But again, acted in his own best interests - understandable.
Everton - played by the agent, but I support them and take their side.
So as Mark Murphy said, it's up to you to choose who you trust/support. I support Everton.
72 Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:04:26
A written contract has more binding power than a verbal contract. It may not be easy to prove the latter occurred, but it's hard to disprove black and white.
The club should have understood this and acted professionally. Sadly, they failed to do so and now have to resort to limp, sorry excuses. Pathetic.
73 Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:04:26
For the older ones amongst us, how many times have we seen our sons or daughters make the wrong decisions in life and rebuff our advice along the way before realizing their mistake? The classic case of a young son determined to purchase a chav car which he believes is worth every penny of the exorbitant selling price and ignoring all advice from from his parents who see it for what it is ? a crock of shit. In the DG case, he (DG) is the young, naive son who believes the deal his scumbag agent has got for him will enhance his career when everyone else can see that this move to Newcastle is just a crock of shit. A promising career that will now just sadly slowly disappear down into the guts of the lower leagues via St James Park.
74 Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:49:25
75 Posted 28/07/2010 at 13:25:43
Patently, Gosling did not accept in order that he could leave on a free transfer. Sounds like his agent did a great job to me and that EFC cocked up yet again.
76 Posted 28/07/2010 at 13:43:48
The truth is probably somewhere between the points of view of the agent and the club, and the club appear to be trying to spin their way out of it as usual, but by so doing are shooting themselves in the foot. Although a fairly minor incident in the grand scheme of things, this is sadly symptomatic of the smoke and mirrors approach to public relations employed by our lovable chairman and his cronies.
77 Posted 28/07/2010 at 14:42:38
As an aside, I still think they should have made Manny Fernandes sign before the game ha ha...
78 Posted 28/07/2010 at 15:38:49
A verbal contract would be binding. However, in order for there to be a binding and enforceable 'contract' (whether verbal or written) under English law, there has to be an offer and an acceptance of an offer which is 'backed by consideration.'
Basically, this means that a promise/gentleman's agreement is not binding because nothing of value transfers between the two parties at the time of the handshake/verbal/written 'agreement'. It is nothing more than a promise. And, in broad terms, a promise alone is not binding under English law unless it is contained in a formal deed.
So, in other words, the club cannot have taken legal advice on this or they would have been told that such agreements-to-agree will not bind either party in law.
79 Posted 28/07/2010 at 15:11:14
80 Posted 28/07/2010 at 16:00:59
Seems to me there are two things here that are getting conflated (perhaps deliberately). When Everton signed Gosling in January 2008, it seems they said something like, "We'd love to give you five years but you're under age so three is the max (in fact 2½ as all contracts end in July...). But tell you what; we'll extend that contract for two more years when the time comes." Handshakes and smiles all round... Note that the actual written, signed, executed contract ended 30 June 2010.
Back in November 2009 (before his injury) Gosling reiterated something on the same lines, fully expecting those two years to be added to his contract. What's unclear is whether there were meaningful discussions about contract matters before or after his injury that included a verbal description of the terms of the extension, and whether it was this that David Moyes believed was agreed through a handshake.
It still seems really odd to me that the club would not have formalized such an offer, if that is indeed what the gentleman's agreement refers to. But I believe it actually refers to that earlier promise, "dating back to January 2008", that Gosling WOULD be given a two-year contract extension. For some inexplicable reason (well no we've had the explanation: TRUST...), the club thought that was sufficient.
I remember that somebody posted saying Gosling kept telling the club his contract was running out, and him getting no meaningful response. Perhaps that relates back to the earlier confusion about the length of his original contract ? "three years", as still repeated in the Club's statement. Yet that is clearly false: it was 2½ years.
A lot of nonsense talked about him being paid under his new offer or extension: he would have continued to be paid under his existing 2½-year contract through 30 June 2010, the date on which he left Everton.
The club fucked up the contract. We should not shy away from that just because we support Everton, or because agents are shit (especially gobshite ex-kopites), or because smart lawyers found a (fairly obvious) loophole. Yet the Club Statement does everything possible to deflect from that clear conclusion, which I find disappointing.
In fact, Kenwright goes further: he expressly claims that Everton did not and never have fucked up a contract. Yet it is clear that this was a fuck-up, an incredible oversight that one hopes they will never make again. The claim that they do business based on a handshake, however honourable some of us may believe that to be, does not absolve them from having made a huge business mistake in not making sure he was given an offer in writing before the required date.
The more honourable thing at this stage from Moyes and Kenwright would be a simple admission of that oversight.
81 Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:14:51
Christine got it bang on. In modern business you do not mess about or go on words which can, and are, misrepresented. The fundamental reason for contracts is to enshrine something in as unambiguous terms as possible, such as to confer an agreement between two parties.
This is 2010, not 1810 at The Reform Club.
82 Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:31:02
83 Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:48:40
Gosling ain't Pele, and the club were clearly happy to let him go despite the spin. There are reasons for that.
84 Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:08:34
85 Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:01:27
I had no idea how it actually worked. (Kind of makes you wonder why such a thing exists...)
Come to think of it, though, I suppose I'm entitled not to know, just being one (non-lawyer) individual who never has anything to do with contracts.
However, if I was the head of a business (a Premier League Football Club for instance) where there WAS great importance placed on 'the contract', I'd make sure I employed an expert who knew EVERYTHING.
Do we employ such a person?
(Too expensive, I'm guessing - no doubt Elstone's got a niece who's in her second year at Hull doing business law or we use a lawyer mate of Bill's who speciality is property law but "Well it's all law isn't it - top you up Roger?")
To me it was truly incredible how quickly many (following the party-line in The Echo) jumped all over Gosling (basically a young gormless lad - no better or worse thousands of others his age) and how outraged many seemed by the suggestion of anything untoward by a club run by....Bill Kenwright.
Facts: We STILL don't know what happened re Gosling but here's what we DO know.
Everton FC are a club run by man who told us (BEFORE the vote) that Kirkby would be free, state-of-the-art and with the best transport system for supporters in the country.
All total bollocks.
The same person, when he didn't like a question asked a a shareholders meeting, told the person who asked the question "the question was boring", he then did away with shareholders meetings.
The same person told us the money for KD was ring-fenced.
Again, total bollocks.
Yet people are jumping all over Gosling and his agent who (until someone at Everton says what the figure was) did what he was paid to do and got his client a better deal.
Talk about love is blind.
86 Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:42:09
It is extremey naive of Everton; however, I would suggest that while both Mr Gosling and his agent have undoubtedly benefitted from this, for young footballers it will simply mean that they will have less opportunities.
Why? Well Plymouth have missed out on their payment. In turn, they would have asked more money for Dan upfront, meaning a bigger gamble, especially if they can not lock a player into a long contract. Well done, enjoy the money, break a leg or a knee, etc. Glad the tears dried up quickly.
87 Posted 28/07/2010 at 19:05:00
88 Posted 28/07/2010 at 20:43:34
When he got seriously injured, his legal advisers will have warned that he had no legally binding contract with the club beyond 30 June and the "gentlemen's agreement" had no legal basis.
His advisers will also no doubt have been clear that the Club has a responsibility to its shareholders not to throw money away by extending the contract of a crocked player. So, they may well have thought that the injury would test the honourable intent of Messrs Moyes and Kenwright somewhat.
In those circumstances, they may well also have reasonably concluded that Dan would have to wait and see whether a contract arrived and any overtures on their part beforehand may be interpreted as weakness by the club.
They might also have concluded that a professional chief executive's team could not allow the deadline to pass without a written offer and at least a word of reassurance to Dan that the injury changed nothing... unless of course they didn't wish to offer an extension.
On the limited information we have been given, it therefore seems possible that neither of the parties have been guilty of deliberate skullduggery but both believe that of the other.
However, if this is the case, and Dan's advisers are behaving as if it is, the fault lies with the Chief Executive of Everton Football Club who should not have allowed the potential for such misunderstandings to occur when dealing with £1m+ contracts. As other correspondents have suggested, in other businesses of this scale, a failure of this magnitude would be 'heads rolling' time.
89 Posted 28/07/2010 at 21:54:17
The statement paints EFC at best naive, at worst gullible and stupid. Gosling and his agent are both clearly cash driven. No real surprise I suppose, but perhaps he got wind of something a little more sinister ? the Club thinking he was damaged goods and looking to drop him, felt unwanted and took his revenge?
Whatever the case you would hope lesons have been learnt.
90 Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:24:19
91 Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:25:40
However, the bottom line is that this mistake is only as big as a certain 'heart-broken' player is making it. If he was so heart-broken, why didn't he merely tell the club that if he didn't get anything in writing, then he was going to exercise his right to leave on a free? The reason is simple ? money. Newcastle are paying the rat £10k / week more than we offered over 5 years. Amazingly, this equates to approx £2.5M, probably the amount we would have got as a fee.
Gosling is a money grabbing little shit who showed no appreciation for the opportunities he was given by both EFC and Plymouth ? Gobshite, simple as that. (Oh and average player at that.)
92 Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:42:29
Why doesn't BK & the rest say it as it is, they messed up & a savvy agent and a want-away player took advantage. I bet Gosling couldn't believe his luck when the deadline passed ? tears of joy, no doubt!
93 Posted 29/07/2010 at 01:04:41
94 Posted 29/07/2010 at 04:42:27
If he was so heart-broken why didnt he merely tell the club that if he didnt get anything in writing then he was going to exercise his right to leave on a free.
Exactly! There's a way to go about things and a way not to.
The agent and Gosling saw an opening and they bolted for it.
95 Posted 29/07/2010 at 07:29:55
Firstly, EFC played a blinder on this one, player has shown he can lie & fucking moan & cry at the same time. DM wouldn't want a player of these natures in his camp.
Secondly, his injury just may have left him permanently effected. EFC get off lightly without committing to an expensive long-contract.
Lastly & third, what you are seeing is a damage limitation exercise being carried out by Gosling's agent, this just in case future relationships with other clubs are effected.
EFC have come out undamaged.
96 Posted 29/07/2010 at 08:38:17
97 Posted 29/07/2010 at 09:05:53
98 Posted 29/07/2010 at 08:54:17
There is no general requirement for a verbal agreement to be contained in a deed - as you suggest. Verbal agreements are only void if they relate to something like a transfer of land. In the vast majority of contractual agreements a verbal contract is binding.
There is also no requirement for anything to transfer between the parties at the time of the agreement - as you wrongly suggest...a contract is a simple promise regarding the quid pro quo....it does not require an actual transfer of that consideration at the time of the agreement.
One thing you are partially right about - is that 'an agreement to agree' is not binding (in a unilateral contract it is)..but there is absolutely no basis for concluding that this was indeed the scenario that actually happened with Gosling.
99 Posted 29/07/2010 at 10:03:05
100 Posted 29/07/2010 at 12:49:19
101 Posted 29/07/2010 at 13:10:14
As a shareholder you are a third party under the Companies Act, and would not have any actionable claim against individual directors ? but the company itself.
102 Posted 29/07/2010 at 13:34:08
and now... Gosling
103 Posted 29/07/2010 at 15:08:08
104 Posted 29/07/2010 at 15:03:29
105 Posted 29/07/2010 at 16:48:40
From my sources it is clear it was Bill who intervened and stopped the letter going out. Why shouldn't he be held to account in a public way??/ In any other company he would. Or should we just write it off and say "Oh Billy don't do it again" (it was £4M.... we need it.)
106 Posted 29/07/2010 at 16:47:38
The fact that he didn't, and never informed the club he would be seeking a free transfer on behalf of his client indicates to me that he was acting in his own interests and not that of the player. Another 20% for him and his company whilst the player now faces playing for an inferior team without the guidance of Moyes who undoubtedly has greatly enhanced his career.
Danny Gosling has to ask himself would he have gained England U21 status elsewhere... I think not.
107 Posted 29/07/2010 at 17:06:59
Why do your "sources" reckon Kenwright intervened and stopped the letter going out? This is a new twist on anything I've heard or read about the matter.
108 Posted 29/07/2010 at 17:27:51
109 Posted 29/07/2010 at 19:44:13
It's amazing how many people seem to have sources at Everton. It's no wonder situations like Gosling seem to occur, it seems the Everton employees are spending to much time speaking to the contributors on TW about what is goin on at the club rather than actually working...
Kevin Wynn, care to share your source? I presume for them to know Kenwright blocked the letter, your source must have been involved in the negotiations?
110 Posted 29/07/2010 at 21:16:20
What? The offer letter prior to the 21 May Deadline? But I don't understand... The Club have told us they didn't see any need for a formal written offer. A handshake on the gentleman's agreement was sufficient.
There could have been no letter... unless you are confirming exactly what the club has just strenuously denied in their Club Statement.
Please elaborate, clarify or withdraw, as appropriate!
111 Posted 29/07/2010 at 21:23:42
I know I'm going to be seen as a Bill hater, but this constant run of fuck-ups by the board isn't good enough. All have been well documented, but it seems that Bill's School of Some Mother's do 'ave 'em is something we should all be OK with as not to rock the boat. It's not good enough though. When dealing with multi-million pound deals, really it should be based on something more substanstial than a nod and a wink ? you may have thought Kenwright would have realised that after the Fortress fuck-up.
As to the suggestion that the club may have played a blinder on Dan Gosling as we've not had to pay a crocked player a final year's salary and rehab costs ? it's the same as DK... it may well be that through luck we have escaped a major issue, but it is not to Bill's credit that we have done so.
The handling of this whole thing has been awful... simply release a statement after the news broke about Gosling. Nothing inflamitory, but just to stop speculation until past the appeal date ? Primary School PR. Whilst it would not have changed the outcome in all likelihood they club could have realeased a less emotive "unprecedented" Press release when they did.
As ever, Everton are perceived to be a bit of a joke, with Blue Bill fecklessly bleating "Ooooo, Davey".
112 Posted 30/07/2010 at 08:29:05
As we know, it turned out differently. The letter should have been sent anyway. To me, this amounts to negligence and, as I said, there are remedies under the Companies Act.
I would take such a course only if there were enough shareholders who felt that giving Bill a shot accross his bows was needed and should be done. This is a huge amount of money for a club like us and it shouldn't be allowed to swept under the carpet.
113 Posted 30/07/2010 at 09:57:49
The rule from Foss v Harbottle restricts shareholder actions against directors to limited excpetions such as fraud. Negligence is not enough. Your action would be against the company ? I don't think any right-minded Evertonian would take the club to court.
114 Posted 30/07/2010 at 11:06:46
I agree with Chad that this is a screw up from the beginning but don't see what Kevin has a with regards to a tortious action. What damages has he suffered? Shares go up and down every day, do people sue the companies every day for negligence?
As I stated before, at the best he would get nominal/contemptuous damages, if he was lucky enough to prove there had been a breach of the duty of care owed to him.
115 Posted 30/07/2010 at 11:35:41
So your source is the club sec?
116 Posted 30/07/2010 at 12:39:45
So every year each player gets a letter reminding them of the length of their contract?
117 Posted 30/07/2010 at 13:01:44
And it is his "understanding," that Riquelme is definitely on his way to Goodison..!!
118 Posted 31/07/2010 at 10:03:47
119 Posted 31/07/2010 at 14:40:02
120 Posted 31/07/2010 at 16:24:30
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the Editors' Blog, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.