Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up

Gosling: The Club finally speaks!

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

back Return to the Editors Blog

Reader Comments

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

Liam Reilly
1   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:38:37

Report abuse

Looks like another dastardly agent manoeuvring his asset into a move so he can receive a nice slice of pie.
Gary Hegarty
2   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:38:51

Report abuse

It's taken some time but this makes total sense. Looks like Moyes is far from pleased at the boy and his scrote of an Agent.

Just a filthy, underhand parasite. The absolute dictionary definition of a Kopite. Prick
Brendan McLaughlin
3   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:37:11

Report abuse

Pretty strong stuff from the club particularly Elstone's claim that Hodgson had "manouvered a situation where Dan was a free agent". Obviously if this isn't true Hodgsons legal people will have a field day but somehow I don't think he'll be pursuing this through the courts.

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.

Alex Kociuba
4   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:41:15

Report abuse

"I was always fully aware of the handshake agreement [...] and because of that agreement there wasn't, in my opinion, any necessity to put anything in writing."

This 'opinion' is the source of the problem, isn't it?
David Chait
5   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:51:16

Report abuse

To be fair the club showed a lot of naivety and ignorance of the position they put themselves... on the other hand they also displayed to what extent we show trust and demand loyalty in our players ... We should have signed him up... I may not have bought BK saying the agent is lying.. but Moyes I have always found truthful. He is a gentleman and a scholar.. and his word is his bond.. There is so much about this that is annoying about Everton... but wrapped up in it is the reason I love the club so much....
Fran Mitchell
6   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:45:27

Report abuse

"November of last year to jointly offer Dan Gosling a new contract...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."

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?


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.
David Booth
7   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:02:12

Report abuse

The truth of what happened probably lies somewhere between the two differening versions from the club and Gosling's agent.

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.
Marc Williams
8   Posted 27/07/2010 at 17:50:15

Report abuse

It's all well & good the club blaming the odious agent BUT... This cannot be allowed to disguise their amateur handling of this situation.

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!
Dan Parker
9   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:28:59

Report abuse

I think someone already mentioned a gentleman's agreement is binding in English law. If I were Everton, I'd sue the agent for lost income.
Steve Pugh
10   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:24:36

Report abuse

I think the best way you can describe Everton's actions is "incredibly naive".

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.
David Hallwood
11   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:34:24

Report abuse

Was it Sam Goldwyn or Louis B Meyer that said, "this verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on". Handshake? Gentleman's Agreement! In modern day football!! GTF! The club cocked up and would get a lot more respect if they held their collective hands up and admitted it.
Michael Kenrick
12   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:47:31

Report abuse

Dan Parker @ #9, we keep hearing this that a verbal agreement is binding in English Law... but if that were true, surely the Premier League would have upheld it at the tribunal, would they not?

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.
Al Passmore
13   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:49:43

Report abuse

Love Everton as I do, I am not buying this.

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.
Brendan O'Doherty
14   Posted 27/07/2010 at 18:49:31

Report abuse

About fucking time.

"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.
Richard Dodd
15   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:01:26

Report abuse

Hurts me to say, cos I love `em all to bits... BUT the Club fucked up... big time!
Brendan McLaughlin
16   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:06:00

Report abuse

Michael K. As I understand it a verbal agreement can be binding but where an existing contract exists a court will rely on that. A written contract did exist between the two parties and clearly stipulated on what basis it could be extended (ie in writing by a certain date). Everton failed to put the contract extension in writing by the agreed date and consequently the verbal agreement was, as the old saying goes, only worth the paper it was written on.
Tony J Williams
17   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:28:05

Report abuse

Yes Alex (4), it's Moyes's job to get the contract written out and present it to Dan... isn't it?

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.)
Tony J Williams
18   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:35:27

Report abuse

Most importantly, so what the date passed? ... redate it and sign it, simple really. I imagine Everton were still paying his wages after the initial contract expired, again this is contract law so the taking of a wage should have been the consideration from Everton and the acceptance from Gosling, his consideration would be his time/employment.
Dave Roberts
19   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:41:44

Report abuse


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.
Paul Gladwell
20   Posted 27/07/2010 at 19:46:12

Report abuse

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when he told Moyes he wanted centre midfield football when we have Arteta, Fellaini, Rodwell, Cahill, Osman, Heitinga, Neville and even Pienaar and Bily to play there.

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)."

Brian Williams
21   Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:17:33

Report abuse

Club has confirmed exactly what I was told by a club employee, and posted at the time on here... Agents... I tell you, scum of the earth!!!
Garry Martin
22   Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:19:52

Report abuse

The bulk of any club's assets nowadays are its players; however, they can also be a financial burden if they're injured or don't pan out as originally planned. I think EFC have behaved in a cautious manner on this issue, and, have only spoken up on the official site due to a continued fan concern.

The bottom line for me is that the EFC purse has been well & truly kept closed on this one.

Phil Roberts
23   Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:29:22

Report abuse

So how many of you waiting for an extension to your fixed-term contract with your employer get a week from a deadline and don't ring them and ask what is happening? Then, with 3 days to go, you ring again and then the day before the promised day you ring again and then on the day it expires and nothing has come through the post, do you not ring and say where is it?

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.
Jay Harris
24   Posted 27/07/2010 at 20:32:16

Report abuse

I totally believe DM... but, if Kenwright had made that statement, I would have gone "Wow?"

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.
Tony McNulty
25   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:04:25

Report abuse

So finally we get a response from the OS, albeit unnecessarily late. Well ladies and gentlemen, we are where we are, and Gosling has flown the nest.

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.

James Stewart
26   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:07:53

Report abuse

What strikes me is the arrogance of Gosling to go to Moyes and say he see's himself as a central midfielder.

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.
Ciarán McGlone
27   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:24:19

Report abuse

"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.

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.
Steve Guy
28   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:35:50

Report abuse

"Hey Dan, its me Dave calling, sorry about the mix up....can't believe it myself.....we want you at Everton so come in Monday and we'll sort it out". ....." What do you mean that's it ?!!!" I thought we had all agreed and this was just an admin cock up of admittedly gigantic proportions ??"........."Well if that's what your agent says and that's what you want, see you later and good luck with the knee"
Ciarán McGlone
29   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:39:44

Report abuse

ps: Brendan McLaughlin is most likely right about the requirement for a written renewal of the contract by a certain date. This requirement could only be in the previous contract or the FA rules.

Flim flam about 'consideration' is a Contracts 101 sideshow.
Paul Traill
30   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:44:10

Report abuse

All very strange... I'm with Dave Roberts (post No 19). I really don't think even Everton could balls this up that badly that they accidently failed to offer him something in writing... I mean surely they could have drafted something up quickly in Word or something.

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.
Ant Sorvoja
31   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:36:41

Report abuse

Good riddance. Maybe we lost a million or two with no transfer fee but ultimately we got rid of a player:

? 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.
Stephen Kenny
32   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:45:25

Report abuse

Why the fuck should Dan Gosling go ringing round HR, Moyes, Kenwright the gobshite etc. asking if the contract is in the post?

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.
Kevin Gillen
33   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:52:30

Report abuse

I can't believe half of these posts. Everton fucked up etc. If I give my word, I intend to honour it. These two are opportunistic in the extreme and have no honour. |Not welcome at Goodison in the future.
Brendan McLaughlin
34   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:55:47

Report abuse

@ Paul Trail
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!
Stephen Kenny
35   Posted 27/07/2010 at 21:57:15

Report abuse

Ant 29:

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.
Roy Coyne
36   Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:00:54

Report abuse

As it's Everton, I am inclined to believe the club as, Moyes apart, I would not let the rest run a piss-up in a brewery.
Charles King
37   Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:11:42

Report abuse

"A gentleman's agreement"... in this day and age, it could only be Everton.

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.
Dick Fearon
38   Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:30:49

Report abuse

Gosling has let his agent speak on his behalf so it comes down to which side is the most believable. It is your choice whether to stick the boot into the club or the agent. Should BK be your favourite whipping boy, there is nothing he can say or do that would convince you otherwise.

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.

Mick Pedley
39   Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:44:52

Report abuse

Ok, the club may have fucked up but the "Gentleman's Agreement" worked fine with Rodwell and Rooney and possibly dozens and dozens of other contract extensions, new deals etc etc. If the club were in a position that they trusted the other parties involved, you're always likely to take their word for it.

I don't think they'll make this mistake again though!
Simon Watts
40   Posted 28/07/2010 at 06:45:36

Report abuse

Everton are supposed to be a professional club. Why are they trying to do deals like they are in a local pub? They know they have been stung, and this will probably happen again. It's happened before.

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.

Ste Traverse
41   Posted 27/07/2010 at 22:53:24

Report abuse

Dick. Yes why should anyone trust Kenwright, particularly with his catalogue of cock-ups? This Gosling one being the latest.

He's not known as Bungling Bill for nothing.
Matthew Tait
42   Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:27:18

Report abuse

I don't believe for a second that either Gosling or the club are telling the whole truth on this.

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.
Eugene Ruane
43   Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:38:33

Report abuse

Elstone - "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"

'Trust me'?

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.
Larry Boner
44   Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:01:06

Report abuse

What the club is conveniently forgetting to mention is that, although they say they made a contract offer to Mr Gosling and Mr Hodgson in November 2009, Mr Gosling did not get his serious injury until March 2010 against Wolves.

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.
Stewart Oakes
45   Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:19:32

Report abuse

Two points to make on this:

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.

Charlie Percival
46   Posted 28/07/2010 at 00:53:26

Report abuse

Simon Watts (42).... 25 contracts? More like thousands Everton have to deal with. You think we have only a 25-man first team (no reserves etc) and no other employees at the club? Who makes your meat & potato pie at half-time? Who cleans Arteta's Boots? Who stops fans running on the pitch? Who tells you the half-time scores?

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.

Ant Sorvoja
47   Posted 27/07/2010 at 23:53:52

Report abuse

Hey Stephen #35 or #36

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.
Brendan O'Doherty
48   Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:25:14

Report abuse

"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."

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?
Eric Myles
49   Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:46:10

Report abuse

Ciaran (#29) 'consideration' is what makes a contract binding, without it an offer and acceptance is worthless. So it's certainly not a flim flam sideshow.
Jamie Crowley
50   Posted 28/07/2010 at 02:56:55

Report abuse

Litmus test, anyone?

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.
Christine Foster
51   Posted 28/07/2010 at 05:57:25

Report abuse

I wonder if the continual bad press that put Everton in such a bad light could have been avoided if they have circumvented such crap by putting it on the record. Unprecedented disclosure indeed, more's the pity.

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

David Chait
52   Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:09:12

Report abuse

I thought about this again and it dawned that the following is key to the truth:

"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?
David Chait
53   Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:18:53

Report abuse

Oh yes, and another thing... what are the chances Payroll will just adjust his salary without written proof? That's just bad controls. So I believe we never started paying him his new salary... in fact I'm going back on my much earlier post and I don't think we're being completely honest...

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.
Colin Potter
54   Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:22:05

Report abuse

Offensive post removed by mediators
Mark James
55   Posted 28/07/2010 at 08:44:59

Report abuse

#50 James, Spot on!!

Michael Evans
56   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:08:12

Report abuse

Jamie@50 - Spot on too !

Just seen this item where the "team" who represented him are "celebrating" their handywork - most unpleasant.

Ciarán McGlone
57   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:03:19

Report abuse

"Ciaran (#29) 'consideration' is what makes a contract binding, without it an offer and acceptance is worthless. So it's certainly not a flim flam sideshow. "


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 is irrelevant flim flam.

That requirement could only have come from FA rules or the previous contract.
Spragg Johnson
58   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:13

Report abuse

A great Kiwi expression is ...

"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.

End of.
Spragg Johnson
59   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:56:48

Report abuse

By the way ... a dunny is a toilet ... and this whole affair does stink of shit.
Peter Webster
60   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:18

Report abuse

You'd have thought that David, Bill and Robert would have learnt their lesson after the Fernandes fiasco regarding the veracity of a handshake. So please, pretty please with bells on, LEARN THE FUCKING LESSON!
Peter Webster
61   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:58:50

Report abuse

Ah, ya beat me to it Spragg.
Alan Kirwin
62   Posted 28/07/2010 at 09:55:25

Report abuse

Saying this stinks to high heaven is to over egg the abuse. It's just a cock up, albeit a very bizarre one and one that's cost the club perhaps £4m.

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.
Robert Lam
63   Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:10:49

Report abuse

#50 James. 100% spot on. I support a down to earth club which thrives on hard work and trust. Take care of the loyal warriors. Expel the pest.
Mark Murphy
64   Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:28:09

Report abuse

The club stayed quiet on this until Gosling's agent, a gobshite and an agent to boot, tried to make out that they were deliberately manouevering him out the door and then they issue a statement to put their side of the story. What's wrong with that?

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!

Adam Carey
65   Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:19:01

Report abuse

I agree with Jamie in #50. If this is a player who happily lets his agent work a loophole to join another team then fuck him.

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.

Stephen Kenny
66   Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:00:07

Report abuse

Jamie #50

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.
Dick Fearon
67   Posted 28/07/2010 at 10:37:55

Report abuse

Maybe it has dawned on the club that, in football, a signed contract, unless for the sole benefit of the player, means bugger all. How many of you honestly believe that where a player wants to renege on his written contract there is little a club can do about. Lescott was a classic example of that. At the same time there is nothing the club can do if a player demands his contract be fully adhered to. Van der Drunk was another classic example.

Ste T @41, With the AVdMs experience to go by, time will tell whether 'Bungling Bill' saved the club a load.

Brian Baker
68   Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:13:01

Report abuse

I think I am missing something here.

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?
Ciarán McGlone
69   Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:24:50

Report abuse


An unsigned written contract would have resulted in a tribunal to determine compensation for Everton ? for a player of Goslings age...
Richard Reeves
70   Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:16:55

Report abuse

Well, the club have made a statement and so has the gobshite, and my opinion hasn't changed. The club have pointed out before that the gentleman's agreement has been used in the past with other players. Who are these players? I'm guessing that they were fringe players somewhere down the pecking order. I mean,can you imagine the club letting the contracts for Arteta, Rodwell, Cahill or Jags to run out before offering a new one? No way!

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.

Max Main
71   Posted 28/07/2010 at 11:13:57

Report abuse

Mark Murphy - yes.

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.

In conclusion:

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.
Liu Weixian
72   Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:04:26

Report abuse

FInally, the turtle has come out of its shell.

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.
Matthew Mackey
73   Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:04:26

Report abuse

Dan Golsing shows potential to be a very good player, but he isn't that at this particular time. A nice lad, but unfortunately a bit naive and a bit immature thinking that an agent will have his best interests at heart. This is a classic case of a young man with ambition but not knowing how to conduct himself in fulfilling that ambition. He has relied upon a scumbag agent who has done his job well for his own point of view in prizing a contractual gap open and allowing DG to "escape".

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.
Ciarán McGlone
74   Posted 28/07/2010 at 12:49:25

Report abuse

I would suggest that rumours of Gosling's demise as a player may just be a little premature. If he gets his wish to progress as a central player, I think he'll do just fine... perhaps even better than fine.
Peter Warren
75   Posted 28/07/2010 at 13:25:43

Report abuse

Dan #9 and Michael #12, my understanding is that the club made a verbal offer. That is obviously different than an agreement which needs acceptance also.

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.
Roger Trenwith
76   Posted 28/07/2010 at 13:43:48

Report abuse

If the allegation that the injury was the reason no written contract was offered was "ludicrous" and the player did not ask to leave, then by implication the club are saying that they did indeed forget to offer a written contract in time, otherwise a minimal fee set by a tribunal could have been obtained if the player or club wanted out ? surely better than nothing?

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.

Shaun Brennan
77   Posted 28/07/2010 at 14:42:38

Report abuse

Well surely the club wouldn't be so naive and rely on gentlemen's agreements in future.

As an aside, I still think they should have made Manny Fernandes sign before the game ha ha...
Paddy Francis
78   Posted 28/07/2010 at 15:38:49

Report abuse

Unfortunately, for my sins, I am a lawyer so I can clear up the "verbal contract" issue:

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.
Alan Tyndall
79   Posted 28/07/2010 at 15:11:14

Report abuse

Gosling has gone. He"s given his reasons for not wanting to stay, or more likely his rat of an agent has in order to feather his own nest. The Club is bigger than any player and will survive, even if the administrative workings didn"t function properly. I hope the young player finds what he wants from football, but I can"t see him being more than a bench warmer at Newcsatle.
Michael Kenrick
80   Posted 28/07/2010 at 16:00:59

Report abuse

Re Paddy's clarification of verbal agreements and promises, I was wondering about the phrase "dating back to 2008" and relating to the "fourth and fifth years" of his contract.

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.
Alan Kirwin
81   Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:14:51

Report abuse

Agreed Michael. Sometimes the hardest thing to do, but by a long way the most noble thing to do, is simply front up and take the flak. History is riddled with evidence of the cover up becoming the story, when the story itself was barely newsworthy.

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.
Ron Atkinson
82   Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:31:02

Report abuse

The Newspapers are today quoting Dan Gosling congratulating his fabulous Legal Team, achieving his release from Everton without a fee.
Nuff said!
Kevin Hudson
83   Posted 28/07/2010 at 17:48:40

Report abuse

Too many experts employing too much guesswork here. Let it go!

Gosling ain't Pele, and the club were clearly happy to let him go despite the spin. There are reasons for that.
David Thomas
84   Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:08:34

Report abuse

Ron 81

Agree 100%
Eugene Ruane
85   Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:01:27

Report abuse

First of all, thanks Paddy for explaining the subtleties of verbal contract thing.

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.

Chad Schofield
86   Posted 28/07/2010 at 18:42:09

Report abuse

Well what an utter cunt he and his agent have made themsleves look in the article linked in post 56 from Michael Evans.

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.

Chris Jones
87   Posted 28/07/2010 at 19:05:00

Report abuse

The article we've been referred to speaks of the tribunal in this case making a "landmark decision". That being the case, perhaps those people lambasting the club should temper their anger somewhat? Or is it oh so simple to be wise after an unprecedented event!
Pete North
88   Posted 28/07/2010 at 20:43:34

Report abuse

Let's try and put ourselves in Dan's position and see what we would have done.

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.
Karl Masters
89   Posted 28/07/2010 at 21:54:17

Report abuse

A right royal fuck up ? no other conclusion is possible.

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.
Gavin Ramejkis
90   Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:24:19

Report abuse

Chris Jones, Manuel Fernandes leaving Goodison Park having made a gentlemen's agreement then flying off to sign elsewehere means this isn't unprecedented, piss-poor reporting but does infer an engineered move from BHP Sports and their QC.
Mike Elbey
91   Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:25:40

Report abuse

We can wrap the whole thing up however we like. The facts are the club thought they had an agreement but made the mistake of not putting the agreement in writing.

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.)
Ray Griffin
92   Posted 29/07/2010 at 00:42:29

Report abuse

The lowest paid employees of Everton FC will be among those who will have been offfered and signed a contract in order to be part of the organisation. It's a normal occurrence in every company in any business anywhere.

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!
Ste Traverse
93   Posted 29/07/2010 at 01:04:41

Report abuse

Ray. You'll have a long wait before Kenwright EVER admits to making a mistake, despite him making shitloads during his tenure.
Jamie Crowley
94   Posted 29/07/2010 at 04:42:27

Report abuse

Mike (91)

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.
Garry Martin
95   Posted 29/07/2010 at 07:29:55

Report abuse

These are my absolute last comments on this issue.

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.

Rant over!

Alan Clarke
96   Posted 29/07/2010 at 08:38:17

Report abuse

All those who are justifying this fuck up by Everton by saying Gosling is shit and we just wanted rid of him need to appreciate Everton's financial situation. Whether Moyes rated him or not, Everton are not in a financial position to just wave goodbye to upwards of £2 million. Gosling's ability might not be something we'll miss but £2 million towards another player or towards Pienaar's or Arteta's contracts will be sorely missed. That's why this is purely a fuck up by the club ? we've lost a player for nothing.
Tony J Williams
97   Posted 29/07/2010 at 09:05:53

Report abuse

The one issue that really sticks in my throat is the lad saying he still wanted to stay at Eerton... ermmmm... you did, did you? Why then just ask for the contract to be written up and sign the new one? It's an extremely simple concept, "I want to stay so give me a contract", it's not "I want to stay so I will get an FA ruling to let me leave on a free and get a bumper signing on fee."
Ciarán McGlone
98   Posted 29/07/2010 at 08:54:17

Report abuse

"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. "


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 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.

Kevin Wynn
99   Posted 29/07/2010 at 10:03:05

Report abuse

As I have said on other posts, this is a disgrace from the club for not covering the position properly. I have spoken to a corporate lawyer and it is clear, as a shareholder I have grounds for a shareholder suit for negligence as they have lost the club a sizeable amount. I am not looking for cash (I wouldn't get any) but the Companies Act is there to punish executives that are negligent. I think Bill deserves a wake-up call.
Tony J Williams
100   Posted 29/07/2010 at 12:49:19

Report abuse

Go for it then Kevin, tell us when you win 1p contemptuous damages. Nice one, just what the club needs ? more money going elsewhere, other than the club itself (sols costs).
Ciarán McGlone
101   Posted 29/07/2010 at 13:10:14

Report abuse

Tony's right Kevin,

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.
Jimmy Hacking
102   Posted 29/07/2010 at 13:34:08

Report abuse





and now... Gosling
Mark Murphy
103   Posted 29/07/2010 at 15:08:08

Report abuse

Just looking for a kit for my son's birthday and I see they have reduced the Away Europa Cup shirt with Gosling on the back from £59.99 to £37 on the online shop! Big of 'em... but they might need to reduce it a bit more. Especially as they've reduced the Rodwell one by the same rate!
Matthew Mackey
104   Posted 29/07/2010 at 15:03:29

Report abuse

Ciaran #74;- I agree to an extent. Gosling could be a great central midfielder as he has the technical ability to be so. But what lets him down is his "me, me, me" attitude which has been thoroughly exposed here for all to see. Eventually it will be his downfall.
Kevin Wynn
105   Posted 29/07/2010 at 16:48:40

Report abuse

Tony, Ciaran. Please understand this is not about money but to show that such dreadful incompetence has consequences. The sanction, if any, would be on them. It is not about trying to gain money. As for "this is just what the club needs" means we should just roll over every time Bill loses us £4m????

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.)

Art Jones
106   Posted 29/07/2010 at 16:47:38

Report abuse

If Danny Gosling was that desperate to stay at Everton that the thought of leaving brought him to tears then surely it was his agent's responsibility to contact the club and insist that they honour the "Gentleman's Agreement" before the deadline.

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.

Brendan McLaughlin
107   Posted 29/07/2010 at 17:06:59

Report abuse

@ Kevin Wynn
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.
Tony J Williams
108   Posted 29/07/2010 at 17:27:51

Report abuse

Kevin, I never said it was about money for you. I said it was about money being spent on legal fees for someone trying to make a point that has hopefully already been made in duplicate by the press.
David Thomas
109   Posted 29/07/2010 at 19:44:13

Report abuse

"From my sources it is clear it was Bill who intervened and stopped the letter going out"

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?

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
110   Posted 29/07/2010 at 21:16:20

Report abuse

Kevin, just as this thread was quietly going to sleep, you jolt us upright with this stuff about Kenwright being the one "who intervened and stopped the letter going out"?!?!

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!
Chad Schofield
111   Posted 29/07/2010 at 21:23:42

Report abuse

Before Kevin's inital point about holding people accountable gets completely lost in a "did he/didn't he" about BK on this letter to either Dan or the Press, I think he should use his right to hold those accountable for his investent.

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".
Kevin Wynn
112   Posted 30/07/2010 at 08:29:05

Report abuse

My understanding is that the letters were all done for each player and were ready to be sent out by the club sec as usual. It is done every year. Bill was negotiating with the agent and asked to keep the letter back as "he was handling it". The letter therefore was not sent as Bill thought he had an agreement and that in his opinion a letter would not be necessary.

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.

Ciarán McGlone
113   Posted 30/07/2010 at 09:57:49

Report abuse

Again... I'll repeat, Kevin: Your company lawyer has got it wrong if he has told you that you have an action against individual directors. I'd be surprised if that's what he's actually told you though.

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.
Tony J Williams
114   Posted 30/07/2010 at 11:06:46

Report abuse

It's your understanding? What happened to your source then? It wouldn't be your "understanding", it would be "this is what happened according to my source".

Absolute rubbish.

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.
David Thomas
115   Posted 30/07/2010 at 11:35:41

Report abuse


So your source is the club sec?
Brendan O'Doherty
116   Posted 30/07/2010 at 12:39:45

Report abuse

"The letters were all done for each player and were ready to be sent out by the club sec as usual. It is done every year."

So every year each player gets a letter reminding them of the length of their contract?
Kevin Hudson
117   Posted 30/07/2010 at 13:01:44

Report abuse

I have a "source," at the club.

And it is his "understanding," that Riquelme is definitely on his way to Goodison..!!
Kevin Wynn
118   Posted 31/07/2010 at 10:03:47

Report abuse

sorry that a thought about a practical way to shake the board up is met with such a response. They deserve everything that they get. The absurd thought that we should let it wash over us is hard for me to comprehend. I am angry that Moyes has lost 4/5m to spend which would have bought cahill and arteta combined!!
Tony J Williams
119   Posted 31/07/2010 at 14:40:02

Report abuse

How has Moyes lost the money? More likely the blame should be with the person who actually draws up and presents the contracts. And can be stop quoting this mythical £4/5 million......dream on!
Brendan McLaughlin
120   Posted 31/07/2010 at 16:24:30

Report abuse

Kevin you posted a ridiculous idea along with the infamous "red rag to a bull" claim of "sources"...its was always gonna get shot down in flames. Actually I thought the guys were quite muted in their responses probably exhausted from these never ending Gosling threads.

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.

Log in now

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.

© ToffeeWeb

Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at

Recent Articles

Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links


We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.