Joey Barton completes move for £5.8m - Man City

[madras]

radio 5 reports allardyce having a go at citeh for dragging things on.

 

 

 

i personally don't think barton should receieve any monies off them.

[lovejoy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6744017.stm

 

big sam is non to happy!

[Dokko]

Citeh are total cunts playing games like this.

 

They are simply breaking the law by not allowing him to sign and not giving them his money.

 

So what if he's been naughty and doesn't deserve the pay off, fact is he is entitled to it, and its rightfully his.

 

He did not hand in a transfer request, the clause was activated by a club, not by him, and permission to speak to the club follows, this is not asking for a transfer request, this is what happens when a fee is agreed and with the clause it means its agreed.

 

Utter bulllshit for a spastic club who can't find a manager, cant find an owner and can't keep a hold of their best players. Micky fuking mouse wouldn't touch this outfit.

 

 

[Guest teepee]

is there actually a real risk that he'll face jailtime - and if yes, then how much?

[Guest Texasmag]

The Guardian has a bit more on this.

 

 

Police tell City players to point the finger over Barton incident

 

Daniel Taylor

Tuesday June 12, 2007

The Guardian

 

Detectives investigating Joey Barton's alleged training-ground confrontation with Ousmane Dabo have asked Manchester City's players to name who they believe was guilty. Officers from Greater Manchester Police have sent a questionnaire to every member of the first-team squad asking if they witnessed the altercation during a practice match at the club's training ground on May 1.

Stuart Pearce, the manager at the time, is also understood to have received a written request to submit a detailed report about what led to the incident and which player he believes was to blame. Dabo needed hospital treatment for facial injuries after the altercation and the former France international midfielder has alleged to the police that he was knocked unconscious after being struck several times from behind.

 

Barton, who has since agreed a £5.5m move to Newcastle United, was subsequently arrested but has submitted a counter-allegation of assault against his former team-mate. The 24-year-old Liverpudlian has employed the specialist sports lawyer Mel Stein, who has stated that his client "strenuously denies" any allegations of wrongdoing.

The police officers in charge of the case are waiting for the City players to submit their own evidence after providing a list of questions that could be used in the event of a court case. The questionnaire is described as mandatory and, if there is not a satisfactory response, the police are prepared to visit the club's Carrington practice ground when the players report for pre-season training on July 4. Several players may be asked to submit more detailed statements with a view to being witnesses at a trial. Paul Dickov, who is understood to be the closest player to the incident, might be one.

 

Barton has been bailed until July 11 when the police hope to be in a position to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. There is then the possibility of a court hearing that will be of intense embarrassment, not only to City but also Barton's new employers at St James' Park.

 

Dabo, meanwhile, is planning to remain at City next season, a possibility that has been made significantly easier by the departure of a player he could meet in the courtroom later this year. The 30-year-old suffered a damaged retina and has needed specialist treatment, but it is thought he will be able to resume training with the rest of the squad.

 

 

[Dr Spectrum]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1008/1008915_joeys_greed.html

 

Joey's greed

Peter Spencer

12/ 6/2007

 

THE greed of Premiership footballers has reached new heights with Joey Barton holding out for a £300,000 pay-off before he agrees to move from City to treble his wages at Newcastle.

 

The midfielder with a bad-boy reputation who has just one England cap is on holiday in Dubai mulling over whether the question of a so-called compensation payment will scupper the high-profile £5.5m transfer.

 

It is in his contract signed last year that he would receive the £300,000 if he did not ask for a transfer and was sold.

 

But City's board and particularly chairman John Wardle and chief executive Alistair Mackintosh are adamant that the payment will not be made - because Barton readily agreed to speak to both Sam Allardyce's Newcastle and West Ham about a move and therefore was not being forced out against his will.

 

The issue has been referred by Barton's agent Willie McKay to the Professional Footballers' Association in an effort to breach a settlement but could end up being the subject of legal action.

 

Deal

 

Barton, who earned £20,000 a week at City, will top £60,000 a week at Newcastle with a five-year deal that will gross him more than £15m by the end of his contract.

 

Allardyce, the ex-Bolton manager has naturally sided with the midfielder, and is anxious to push the deal through.

 

Big Sam acknowledged the "hitch" and criticised City.

 

He told MEN Sport: "They are out of order. This is a private matter, a confidential issue that should not have been made public. I'm flabbergasted and want the situation resolved. I'm just trying as Newcastle manager to secure a player of this kind and quality and the deal has been held up.

 

"I can't understand it because City didn't pay anything for this player as he came through the youth system and are selling him for over £5m. It's not really for me to comment. All I know is that this is a matter for Joey to sort out and I hope it is resolved as it has stopped him putting pen to paper.

 

"I found Joey a very bright person who wants to develop his game. He's very positive, well-spoken and focused and wants to win silverware with Newcastle and develop his international career."

 

The legally binding clause in Barton's four-year City contract states that if a club should make an offer of £5.5m his agent or the player himself be informed, giving them the opportunity to speak to the bidding club.

 

Trouble

 

Barton, who has a long history of trouble, including stubbing a cigar in a team-mate's eye and brawling in a Bangkok bar while on a club tour, remains under police investigation after a training ground incident that left Ousmane Dabo in hospital. That was the last straw for the Blues board and led to Newcastle and West Ham both making "trigger" £5.5m offers.

 

City say that it was then entirely up to Barton whether he "chose" to speak to Allardyce or Hammers' boss Alan Curbishley.

 

Club sources told M.E.N Sport that he "enthusiastically embraced" the opportunity to negotiate his move and therefore there is no suggestion he should be paid the £300,000 compensation.

 

What has particularly annoyed chairman Wardle is that he and the rest of the board remained supportive of Barton despite all the unfavourable headlines.

 

As well as the cigar incident and Bangkok brawl, Barton was fined by the FA for dropping his shorts after last season's game at Everton. After the fight in Bangkok the club paid £10,000 for Barton to undertake therapy to control his anger.

 

His agent McKay, who would miss out on a cut of the transfer fee if Barton's move to Newcastle breaks down, said last night: "Joey is due the money because there is a clause to that effect in his contract. It is now with the PFA and I think it will be sorted out."

 

It is not the first time Barton and his agent have been involved in a public row with City over a contract clause.

 

Last July, City refused to pay a £100,000 fee to Barton's agent for "renegotiating" his last City contract.

 

Barton's holiday means he won't be at Old Trafford tomorrow along with Allardyce to play in the PFA charity cricket match that starts at 5.30pm.

[Dave]

This situation is embarrassing.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don't think City have a leg to stand on here, he didn't request a transfer so under the terms of his contract he's legally entitled to this payment.

 

He doesn't deserve it, obviously, but that's not the point.

[Guest DavB93]

I don't think City have a leg to stand on here, he didn't request a transfer so under the terms of his contract he's legally entitled to this payment.

 

He doesn't deserve it, obviously, but that's not the point.

 

Got to agree with you there mate, he doesn't deserve it but that's not the point. It is starting to get embarrassing.

[Guest Guinness]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

Too right, I can't believe something so minor in the context of the money associated with football is holding up this transfer. He should just drop it IMO, he's put Man City through enough without this dragging on.

[Dave]

Going by Barton's comments in the past about money-grabbing players i'd be inclined to think this is Willy the Wanker's perogative.

[Kasper]

Can't he just forget it for now, sign for us and sue them later

[Cronky]

I can't see that City have got a case here. They seem to be saying that agreeing to a transfer is the same thing as requesting one, but patently it isn't.

 

I mean, in what circumstances would they pay out the £300 grand? A player can't be sold to another club without their agreement no matter what the other circumstances, so if they say that agreeing to the transfer invalidates the bonus payment, then they'd never be paying out.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[Dokko]

I can't see that City have got a case here. They seem to be saying that agreeing to a transfer is the same thing as requesting one, but patently it isn't.

 

I mean, in what circumstances would they pay out the £300 grand? A player can't be sold to another club without their agreement no matter what the other circumstances, so if they say that agreeing to the transfer invalidates the bonus payment, then they'd never be paying out.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Its making them look incredibly petty, and very naive.

 

Its best for everyone's sake the transfer goes through, they are beyond idiotic to try and hold it up.

 

If it goes to court Barton will win all day long, and it will be more expense for Man City to pay up.

 

 

[Guest johnson293]

It a technicality really - While Barton didn't request a transfer, City are claiming he requested permission to speak to both Newcastle and West Ham, but this was presumabely after Man City had accepted the £5.5m release clause bid.

 

Bottom line is, Barton was already suspended by City, and very unlikely to ever play for them again - The begrudge paying this 'loyalty bonus', and are arguing the details.

 

To reach a resolution, I feel Barton shoud be the bigger man, and just leave it - after all, its not like he's gonna be out of pocket with his move here - soem reports claim he has trebled his wage.

[Zero]

I hope we don't sign him tbh. It is clear that he will fall out with the managers and the fans in the end and cost us huge problems and affecting our team morale---if there is.

[Dr Spectrum]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

For Barton, certainly. Could sign for Newcastle to tomorrow but apparently he cares more about money.

 

For Newcastle, not for me to say.

 

For City, not for me. Not embarrased over this one bit. I'd be embarrased if were willing to pay the odious little spacker.

 

In fact I'll go as far to say that if City agree to pay him this, without being forced into it by a court of law, they'll never see another penny of my money again.

[Guest Bramble OG]

To many pages to read through so sorry if its been mentioned, but surely City should just pay up and wash there hands of him, as the longer this takes the more they lose...surely Bartons still being paid what,30k a week as well as giving him the 300k that he will no doubt get in the end?....seems crazy.

[Raconteur]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

For Barton, certainly. Could sign for Newcastle to tomorrow but apparently he cares more about money.

 

For Newcastle, not for me to say.

 

For City, not for me. Not embarrased over this one bit. I'd be embarrased if were willing to pay the odious little spacker.

 

In fact I'll go as far to say that if City agree to pay him this, without being forced into it by a court of law, they'll never see another penny of my money again.

 

I don't want you to think you're alone on this forum who think City have every reason to stick to their guns on this one... The actual clause itself implies a transfer request should a bid of 5.5m be lodged. It's like a transfer request written into the contract

 

A contract law specialist would make a better case than me, but I would imagine a decent barrister would make it not so cut and dried as some posters here think.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only Toon fan with a bad taste in his mouth after these "loyalty payments" revalations...

 

[Wullie]

I fucking hate Willie McKay and I don't even know what he looks like.

 

Odious greedy slimeball, I'd love us to stop dealing with him but he seems to control every fucking footballer from here to Africa.

[garth]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

For Barton, certainly. Could sign for Newcastle to tomorrow but apparently he cares more about money.

 

For Newcastle, not for me to say.

 

For City, not for me. Not embarrased over this one bit. I'd be embarrased if were willing to pay the odious little spacker.

 

In fact I'll go as far to say that if City agree to pay him this, without being forced into it by a court of law, they'll never see another penny of my money again.

 

I don't want you to think you're alone on this forum who think City have every reason to stick to their guns on this one... The actual clause itself implies a transfer request should a bid of 5.5m be lodged. It's like a transfer request written into the contract

 

A contract law specialist would make a better case than me, but I would imagine a decent barrister would make it not so cut and dried as some posters here think.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only Toon fan with a bad taste in his mouth after these "loyalty payments" revalations...

 

 

 

Yes I agree with this also, the greedy little cunt doesn't deserve a penny, considering what he'll get from Newcastle, worst thing was to sign this piece of garbage we could much better IMO.

[Martin Lol]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

For Barton, certainly. Could sign for Newcastle to tomorrow but apparently he cares more about money.

 

For Newcastle, not for me to say.

 

For City, not for me. Not embarrased over this one bit. I'd be embarrased if were willing to pay the odious little spacker.

 

In fact I'll go as far to say that if City agree to pay him this, without being forced into it by a court of law, they'll never see another penny of my money again.

 

I don't want you to think you're alone on this forum who think City have every reason to stick to their guns on this one... The actual clause itself implies a transfer request should a bid of 5.5m be lodged. It's like a transfer request written into the contract

 

A contract law specialist would make a better case than me, but I would imagine a decent barrister would make it not so cut and dried as some posters here think.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only Toon fan with a bad taste in his mouth after these "loyalty payments" revalations...

 

 

There was discussion on this topic on a Spurs forum and the general consensus amongst the legally minded was that City may well have the stronger argument.

 

Also, a high percentage of posters were with City and their standpoint.  Maybe Spurs fans have seen it a bit more with agents wanting to break the salary structure and in the end, we've just let the player go, not quite the same scenario, but agents wanting the best of both worlds is nothing new.  Hope it goes to court, City win and Barton cops a huge legal bill.  Greed is poisoning football.

[Leazes1986]

This situation is embarrassing.

 

For Barton, certainly. Could sign for Newcastle to tomorrow but apparently he cares more about money.

 

For Newcastle, not for me to say.

 

For City, not for me. Not embarrased over this one bit. I'd be embarrased if were willing to pay the odious little spacker.

 

In fact I'll go as far to say that if City agree to pay him this, without being forced into it by a court of law, they'll never see another penny of my money again.

 

I don't want you to think you're alone on this forum who think City have every reason to stick to their guns on this one... The actual clause itself implies a transfer request should a bid of 5.5m be lodged. It's like a transfer request written into the contract

 

A contract law specialist would make a better case than me, but I would imagine a decent barrister would make it not so cut and dried as some posters here think.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only Toon fan with a bad taste in his mouth after these "loyalty payments" revalations...

 

 

 

Yes I agree with this also, the greedy little c*** doesn't deserve a penny, considering what he'll get from Newcastle, worst thing was to sign this piece of garbage we could much better IMO.

 

No we couldn't.

[Baggio]

We've been through all this before with Ferguson and Jenas, both players wanted to leave but because they didn't put it in writing they were entitled to a pay off.

 

 

[Dr Spectrum]

PFA search for Barton resolution

 

12/ 6/2007

 

THE Professional Footballers' Association are desperately trying to mediate in the increasingly difficult transfer of Joey Barton to Newcastle.

 

And the fear is that the deal could turn out to be the most difficult of the summer so far as Manchester City dig their heels in and refuse to pay the midfielder £300,000 he believes he should get from a 'signing on fee' clause in his contract at Eastlands.

 

PFA official Mick McGuire is handling the mediation after Barton and his agent Willie McKay asked for the assistance of the players' union.

 

McGuire said: "We are looking for an amicable conclusion to this.

 

"I have spoken to Joey, his agent and Alistair Mackintosh (City's chief executive) and I also intend talking to Sam Allardyce at Newcastle.

 

"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 £5.5million.

 

"City believe that by doing that, he effectively asked for a transfer."

 

Barton agreed to the move to St James' Park last week, but so far the deal has not been concluded because City are refusing to budge on the £300,000 Barton believes he is entitled to.

 

McGuire said: "This is a signing-on fee, not a loyalty bonus. This does not seem to be black and white, certainly as far as City are concerned.

 

"At the moment we (PFA) are looking for a way forward that will be acceptable to everyone."

 

However, City do not seem to be in any hurry to sanction the deal - with Barton now on holiday in Dubai - and could hold out until the player gives up his claim on the cash.

 

And they are particularly annoyed with the player taking this stance having stood by him on several occasions in recent years after off-field problems.

 

To me it seems pretty obvious who's in the right over this - the PFA will normally argue black is white for one of their members. Mick Maguire arguing City's case rather than Barton's says a lot IMO.