The contract settlement thing

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

My guess is that it all comes down to the existing contract. Yes we agreed a fee with Man City. Yes we agreed a wage with DH. But, if you think back, there were statements from both sides:

KK: "The existing contract is a matter for the new club to sort out with the player"

NW: "The existing contract is between DH and Man City".

I got the impression that it had never been resolved. I can imagine that with the fee and wages agreed, they turned their attention to this and couldn''t resolve it. DH won''t walk away from £1.5m, KK won''t pay his contract up, Norwich can''t/won''t pay it up. A) why should they and B) how can they find that sort of money, taking the total transfer to well over £2m, even with the share issue.

All of the statements made so far fit with this, and it seems a reasonable if not likely scenario to me.

So, we need to find a player who is good, but not on the inflated wages that were agreed at the height of the wage boom for a player who is good, but not *that* good.

Ama

[John Boubepo 0]

One thing I''ve never been completely sure about, is why does his existing contract have to be paid up? when it has always been DH''s own choice to leave Man City, surely when you make the decision that you want away, you relinquish all claims on your existing contract.

Obviously this is not the case with DH but for the life of me I don''t understand why.

After all, if this is the case and all existing contracts have to be paid up, what''s stopping players signing 3 yr contracts and then moving on after 6 months, moving to a new club signing another 3 yr contract and moving again in 6 months and so on?

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

No, you''re right. But DH hasn''t put in a transfer request. Although he may be happy, it is Man City who are selling him, so they would be obliged to pay up his contract.

If he was that keen to move, he''d ask for a transfer, forego his existing contract and walk away from the £1.5m. Tough call.

Ama

[KeelansGlove 0]

I think the issue is who wants to move and why.

Huckerby is surplus to requirement at Man City so they don''t want to pay his wages.

Actually nobody wants to pay him what Man Citys contact value is.

So as they want him to go they may offer to pay some of his contract to make it easier for him to sign for another club, and therefore not pay the full 18 months outstanding.

If he was being poached by another club wanting to pay him more it wouldnt be an issue.