Jump to content

Shamefull City


Recommended Posts

Just heard on the local BBC News in the Midlands that Man. City are refusing to pay Shrewsbury £500,000. When Joe Hart signed for them from Shrewsbury, part of the deal was that City would pay £500,000 if he played for England. He played against Trinidad and Tobago, but City say that they are only going to pay if he plays in a competitive game. Disgusting behaviour, the contract didn't mention friendlies. They will happily pay millions for overrated players, but won't pay a small amount to a club where £500,000 is a fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard on the local BBC News in the Midlands that Man. City are refusing to pay Shrewsbury £500,000. When Joe Hart signed for them from Shrewsbury, part of the deal was that City would pay £500,000 if he played for England. He played against Trinidad and Tobago, but City say that they are only going to pay if he plays in a competitive game. Disgusting behaviour, the contract didn't mention friendlies. They will happily pay millions for overrated players, but won't pay a small amount to a club where £500,000 is a fortune.

No surprise there - we are talking about the club who tried to buy out the Micah sell-on clause for something like £125,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not much of a surprise but to be honest I think Joe Hart will play in a competitive game for England so Shrewbury will still get their money. If they don't then I hope they take City to court and get their money plus their costs. But it is a warning for us about any sell-on clause we have with Micah as it indicates that City are willing to breech a contract as they know its almost not worth the other people suing them to get the money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not much of a surprise but to be honest I think Joe Hart will play in a competitive game for England so Shrewbury will still get their money. If they don't then I hope they take City to court and get their money plus their costs. But it is a warning for us about any sell-on clause we have with Micah as it indicates that City are willing to breech a contract as they know its almost not worth the other people suing them to get the money back.

It'll be worth pursuing £5million, all right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but i can see them saying the original fee was only so much so we only get 20% of that as opposed to the full fee after various installments are completed.

It would be a shame in that case that the former ringmasters at the Big Top thought it was worth trying to buy out of the deal, which isn't something you wouldn't tend to do if you didn't think it was potentially worth big dollars down the line... Anyway, whatever has been said about Hardy over the years, he is nobody's mug. I shook his hand a few months ago and I'm still counting my fingers :shock: Isn't it pretty remarkable that we have a rumoured 20% clause to worry about on a boy we had for a few months as a 14 year old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a shame in that case that the former ringmasters at the Big Top thought it was worth trying to buy out of the deal, which isn't something you wouldn't tend to do if you didn't think it was potentially worth big dollars down the line... Anyway, whatever has been said about Hardy over the years, he is nobody's mug. I shook his hand a few months ago and I'm still counting my fingers :shock: Isn't it pretty remarkable that we have a rumoured 20% clause to worry about on a boy we had for a few months as a 14 year old?

 

Chris Porter's agent may disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not paying Shrews because the Trinidad game might be wiped off the record because of Capello using 7 subs.

FIFA have already decided that it does stand (decision was announced on the day or two after the game), guess you missed that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not paying Shrews because the Trinidad game might be wiped off the record because of Capello using 7 subs.

 

It has been approved.

 

 

Chris Porter's agent may disagree.

 

Bollocks.

 

Loopholes such as the one exploited by Porter and his agent are the fault of the F.A/UEFA/FIFA/Europe (not sure tbh), but not Alan Hardy.

 

You may say we/he should have sold when he didnt sign a new deal in the January.....had he done many would have caused uproar. No win situation then.....unless Porter had fired us to promotion AND signed an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...