12 May 2014 18:17:22
Apparently when we loaned Barry, we agreed to a clause that means that we'd have to pay them £2m if we sign him permanently. Not sure how that works, considering he's a free agent, but I'm just relaying what I've read. I, personally, would still snap him up for that, but with his wages and that additional fee, he may end up going elsewhere (as long as it's not Liverpool, as has been touted).

1.) 12 May 2014
Perhaps it was a loan option if we wanted to sign him permanently in the January transfer window, which I hear nearly happened.

2.) 12 May 2014
Possibly. Perhaps the source I read it on had just misunderstood. He technically has no connection to City now, so I don't know how we could have to pay them anything.

3.) 12 May 2014
Can't see barry himself agreeing to that he'd be doing himself out of a big signing on fee .