Barry a not-so-free agent

This seems truly bizarre unless a fee of some sort was waived / deferred when he joined us.

Otherwise we are effectively being punished for looking after the player's best interests by keeping him match fit and raising his profile / restoring his playing reputation.

How very Everton...

What a load of shit. If he is out of contract he can sign for whoever he wishes.

Can't for the life of me understand this one. Why exactly would City feel justified in asking for said clause? Why exactly would we sign up for it? Only Everton...

It sound very likely that the loan fee was either waived or paid in part when we initially got him on board. He's worth the money IMO along with being one of the top earners. Sign him up Roberto!

Even if it's true you won't get a replacement of his calibre for less than 20 million.

He WANTS to stay at Everton, apparently. So that gives us/him three months to sort things out....

Get him to sign for Bootle fc then in a few weeks buy him for a 100 grand. Everyones a winner.

Peter #052 - that is called "parking" and it's how Real Madrid used to operate when the Bosman ruling first took effect. The best example I can think of is when they signed Steve McManaman from RS on a free. Their plan was to sell him back to a Premier League team in 12 months for a huge profit. McManaman refused to move and decided to sit out his 4 years there (10% tax rate at that time for footballers under the Entertainers Tax rules).

I'm pretty sure in this case if we parked Barry at Bootle FC, we'd have no such problem!

Why pay the loan fee twice. I think the fee probably was waived or delayed. Then again, it could be the papers talking rubbish.

Once his contract is up at City then he is a free agent. If there is some sort of bizarre delayed loan fee then that will be due to City for the loan deal THIS season. Signing him next season when he's out of contract will have no bearing on that.

It sounds like some journo attempting to cause a stir. Very odd story.

Any employment lawyers around? This sounds ridiculous. Surely if he's out of contract Man City have no hold over him or us. Or did we sign something silly we shouldn't have signed?

Mike, if both parties agree to have it written into the contract, then it becomes legally binding

Peter

The only way we could owe Man City money is if we have to pay them a loan fee for the season just gone. Man City cannot be commanding fees for players not under contract at their club for future seasons.

The Bosman rule was brought in for this very reason. City cannot ask for a fee once a player is out of contract, it's against European law. I bet the 2.5 million number was the figure quoted to us if we signed him during the loan period. Just some journo trying to make up a story.

Sounds perfectly plausible to me and not totally unreasonably as part of the loan agreement if true.

Both clubs and Barry must have agreed the deal, all other clubs will get him free as they wouldn't have been part of that negotiation at that time - its unique to us because the loan was, and if it was the difference between us getting him on loan or not it's a clause worth agreeing to in my opinion.

Maybe the distinction is between what Barry chooses to do, on the one hand, and what Everton choose to do on the other.

So, on the one hand, Barry can choose to go where he wants; Citeh can't hold him. That's a matter for Barry.

On the other hand, if he does go to Everton, then Everton have presumably agreed with Citeh that they will pay x amount once the loan deal ends. That's a matter between Everton and Citeh.

...I'm guessing.

Mike (112) - are you are saying it is effectively a back-hander to ensure he came to us on loan (which surely can't be legal), but only payable if we then signed him when he was a free agent?

Or do you agree it is likely it is simply a deferred loan payment (to sweeten the deal) that would have applied to any club that City were happy to loan him to?

The difference is one is extortion, the other is an incentive.

When Club B acquires a player from Club A, they pay a fee because they are buying an asset of Club A; ie, the remainder of the player's contract with A. When the contract expires, Club A no longer has an asset to sell, so there can be no transfer fee, and any attempt to charge one would be an unlawful restraint of trade, both under English and EU law. Club A cannot get round this by signing a contract of vast length; EU law regards a contract of employment of 7 years or more, as slavery! This may well be why Moyes's contract at MUFC and Pardew's at NUFC were both 6 years.

What may have happened, is that City may have agreed that there would be no loan fee unless Barry played more than 'X' matches AND Everton finished higher than last season; both of which have happened. That would not be unlawful; any transfer fee, disguised or otherwise, would be.

This has got to be bollocks. Once 1st July comes and he hasn't signed for anyone then he's officially a free agent and Man City cannot legally ask for a fee if he signs for us or whoever else.

Just tell city we will snitch on them to platini if they start any funny business. Barry is a free agent this month and they hardly need the money do they? Unless they need to pay off that hefty fine.

Like others I can't see this clause having any legs but it probably exists so that if we had chosen to sign Barry in the January window we would have had to pay some compensation. But as as been stated after July 1st 2014 Barry is a free-agent and can choose his own destination - I also don't think that Barry will stay at Goodison so it doesn't really matter.

Utter horseshit, terms of employment with a former employer cease to have any bearing whatsoever the second you leave your former job, it's part of European Employment Law. Barry could quite simply sign for whoever he likes as the equivalent of a completely free man the day his contract runs out.

Sounds like we are paying to get first refusal. Blame the lawyers!

I'd be surprised if this is true, but would proceed anyway. He is worth at least a one year deal, and the experience and class he brings is a massive plus for our side. I'm also sure that he will sign for us.

Arsenal are not going for Barry, because his signing is the antithesis of the way they do business, whilst Flamini is a completely adequate DM for them, or Arteta (although I think both could be replaced by a better younger version this season).

Where else is Barry going to go? He enjoyed it here, can play football again, and we came 5th in the Premier League.

Possibly a case of Man City saying either buy him with one year left on his contract, or a loan which has a similar clause written into it.

It would make sense to be honest; why would you send a player out on loan, who has some saleable value, only for him to become free agent after 12 months and receive nothing? It's not like he was an unknown quantity.

Now we know he can do a job, it may have suited both parties. If Everton did not take up the option to sign him, or he had a career-ending injury, we had only lost the wages for that season.