Of course I see the difference. However it's not a nominal amount. Even if it was £1-2m (I think we're talking around £4-5m), in the context of a club which has turnover of £125m a year, 1-2% of turnover is hardly money any self-respecting business would write off as if it doesn't matter.
So my question again would be, what is the threshold for where it matters vs. doesn't matter if a player decides to prioritise their own career vs. ensuring the club gets paid?
And finally, if it's not your money and you couldn't care less, why hate on Barkley whatever the amount? (I'm not sure if you are one of the Barkley haters but you've taken up their mantle in this debate so I'll assume so).
Threshold, I don't know. If there was a guaranteed buyer for Robles, as was the case with Barkley, then people would probably have an issue with it. As there wasn't (to our knowledge) coupled with the fact that he's shit, people are generally not bothered.
I'm not a Barkley hater (I think he's vastly overrated by some, overly derided by others), but I'd imagine that there's a degree of people being sick of the on-going saga around the contract issue.