Wednesday, June 13, 2007

City hit back in Barton contract row

"At no time have we divulged the details of Joey's contract,
or would we ever do so with any player.
"Sadly this is now in the public
domain through no fault of Manchester City.
"It is disappointing that Sam
Allardyce has chosen to make these claims public. We will continue to have a
good relationship with Newcastle."
- Paul Tyrrell.

I'm pleased that the club appear to be digging in over this issue, and hope it is not just being done for good PR. It is a difficult one as technically both parties can make a strong claim to be in the right (contractually not morally), but I believe City to hold the upper hand as his release-fee clause is effectively Barton's transfer request, something confirmed by the Mick McGuire of The PFA:

"But this is not an easy situation because City believe Joey
is not entitled to the money, because it was the player who triggered to move by
activating the part of his contract that says he can talk to other clubs who bid
£5.5m. City believe that by doing that, he effectively asked for a
transfer."


With all instances such as this, there is likely to be a degree of mediation involved from various bodies but I suspect it may well come down to who wants it more - us to get rid of Barton, or Newcastle to bring him in.

vote it up!

1 comment:

Wigan Blue said...

The one positive, universally agreed thing that the board have done in the last couple of years.

What is this 5.5 million 'allowed to talk' clause ? Allowed to talk doesn't mean that they have to sell - they should have asked for 10 million.

Changing the subject - seems Mr Mcintosh is looking at Mark Hughes as our next manager. A dirty, disgusting diver for the scum - seems like we have no honour or probity left. Why would the board do that to the City supporters?