[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]i find this amazing for us - can't work out how and why when we've mainly brought free transfers
anybody got any idea?
Well with every free there's a signing on fee and where there's an agent there's a cut of that. Basically same way as they make money in cash transfers.
As Mclovin says free's make massive money for agents. If they provide a supposedly excellent player for nothing, their arguement on finder's fees can be much stronger. If he's excellent and free a club will be paying a premium to keep a 'good' agent in the pocket. Just look at Newcastle's Keegan cas recently, they signed a dog shit player with a massive fee to the agent as a 'favour' to the agent in order that they'd have a good working relationship with that agent; as if they don't work for both parties in a deal regardless of what the rules are.
Did Pardew find Semedo? Or did an agent tout him to him in the first place. Notwithstanding the extras a manager might get from an agent; not illegal but a top meal in a restaurant, maybe a free holiday to see a player??? Personally if Pardew signed Semedo as a central defender on what appears to be big wages, then his brains must have been shot away. Semedo can't dominate anyone defensively in the center, how the fuck was he ever going to get by a s center half in the English league? He's great at picking up pieces but that ain't much good against say Dean Windass or Alan Lee.
It's an astonishingly high amount when we have not even been active in the market. What the hell did we pay in 'good' years !!! In any event, this is still not that transparent as we do not know the breakdown.
Under Football League rules, all clubs must publish the amount they spent on agents from the last recorded period, which was from October 1st, 2008 to September 30th, 2009.
Charlton's total figure is £525,488.13.
The amount is the aggregate of all payments made to agents during the reporting period for agency activity, including payments made by the club on behalf of players. The sum includes fees for transfers before the 2008/09 financial year.
One would have thought Hudson's agent must have got a pretty good 6 figured fee. A possibly multimillion pound player, at least one when he was at us!, on very big wages. Surely was a very big bonus for that agent. Burton may have been offered around by his agent for Sheff Wed and probably is another player that costs a fair bit to sign in fees. What with all the loans, there's money in them.
Then we also have Dailly, Llera, Spring, McKenzie and Sodje No 1 who all earn very big wages for this div and no doubt get a decent fee for the hard work their agent does bringing these 'free' finds to us.
I dont understand why we pay agents anything.
They work for the player, not the club.
Any fees to an agent should come from the player who employs them.
I don't see where the problem is. Agents' fees are part of the on-going cost of doing business as a football club. Just like player salaries, cars, coaches (trainers and buses), the cost of lawnmowers, the electricity bill, the gas bill and the old bill. It's simple to highlight one single cost and throw up our collective hands in horror. But agents fees are incurred at a time when a club is acquiring new players (in order to improve their on-field chances) or to get rid of current players (in order to balance books). That's exactly thetime that a football club needs professional (and, yes, expensive) advice. ?no-one would baulk at the figures if, instead of "agents' fees"it said "legal representation" or "accounting costs".
Agents fulfil a necessary role in lubricating deals. Without agents, there would be fewer player movements, and, by extension, fewer chances for clubs to move up (and down) the greasy pole.
Agents also get a fee for player salary negotiations as well, so when a players contract up club has to negotiate a new one. Then agent becomes involved.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I don't see where the problem is. Agents' fees are part of the on-going cost of doing business as a football club. Just like player salaries, cars, coaches (trainers and buses), the cost of lawnmowers, the electricity bill, the gas bill and the old bill. It's simple to highlight one single cost and throw up our collective hands in horror. But agents fees are incurred at a time when a club is acquiring new players (in order to improve their on-field chances) or to get rid of current players (in order to balance books). That's exactly thetime that a football club needs professional (and, yes, expensive) advice. ?no-one would baulk at the figures if, instead of "agents' fees"it said "legal representation" or "accounting costs".
Agents fulfil a necessary role in lubricating deals. Without agents, there would be fewer player movements, and, by extension, fewer chances for clubs to move up (and down) the greasy pole.
I agree with Chizz here... I work for the parent company of a group of recruitment firms, and this is basically what the agents are doing. We generally charge 20-25% of starting salary for placing someone in a permanent role. Eg. if you were offered a job for £50k, we'd bill the employer £10-12.5k.
[cite]Posted By: Cordoban Addick[/cite]Interesting how little Man U paid out.
It's because Fergie thinks they are all c*nts and won't deal with them unless he has to.
I think you'll find that Pini Zohavi - one of the richest agents represents at least one Man U player (Rio Ferdinand) and maybe others.
That Man U didn't pay that much could be down to a number of factors - good negotiation, that players will willingly play for Man U or that it was one of those years where they didn't sign that many players.
i may have a simplified view on this but..........
If I employ an accountant to deal with my financial affairs he would expect a fee. As he is acting on my behalf I would expect to to be the person paying his fee.
If I were a player and use an agent to negotiate on my behalf I would expect the agent to charge a fee. Why, then, would it be the club not the player who pays the agent's fee?
I never could work out why all clubs seem to be paying someone to act on behalf of a player.
[cite]Posted By: Alex Wright[/cite]i may have a simplified view on this but..........
If I employ an accountant to deal with my financial affairs he would expect a fee. As he is acting on my behalf I would expect to to be the person paying his fee.
If I were a player and use an agent to negotiate on my behalf I would expect the agent to charge a fee. Why, then, would it be the club not the player who pays the agent's fee?
I never could work out why all clubs seem to be paying someone to act on behalf of a player.
But surely if I was a player and you wanted me to play for your club, I would suggest that of my agents fees would be paid by the club or at least included in any fee paid by the club for my services, after all you want me and I dont necceserily want to play for you and it would be up to you to make the deal look more attractive?
A bit like any service charges it gets passed to the customer, the club being the customer.
Maybe thats how it works, I dont know for sure I'm just guessing ;(
[cite]Posted By: Alex Wright[/cite]i may have a simplified view on this but..........
If I employ an accountant to deal with my financial affairs he would expect a fee. As he is acting on my behalf I would expect to to be the person paying his fee.
If I were a player and use an agent to negotiate on my behalf I would expect the agent to charge a fee. Why, then, would it be the club not the player who pays the agent's fee?
I never could work out why all clubs seem to be paying someone to act on behalf of a player.
But surely if I was a player and you wanted me to play for your club, I would suggest that of my agents fees would be paid by the club or at least included in any fee paid by the club for my services, after all you want me and I dont necceserily want to play for you and it would be up to you to make the deal look more attractive?
A bit like any service charges it gets passed to the customer, the club being the customer.
Maybe thats how it works, I dont know for sure I'm just guessing ;(
point taken T.C.E. but surely the player gets a signing on fee as well in this case, should his agent's fee come from that?
[cite]Posted By: Alex Wright[/cite]
point taken T.C.E. but surely the player gets a signing on fee as well in this case, should his agent's fee come from that?
Potentially (hopefully!) that's been taken account of in the actual size of the signing-on fee. The fact that it has to be accounted for separately by CAFC is why it shows up.
[cite]Posted By: Alex Wright[/cite]
point taken T.C.E. but surely the player gets a signing on fee as well in this case, should his agent's fee come from that?
Potentially (hopefully!) that's been taken account of in the actual size of the signing-on fee. The fact that it has to be accounted for separately by CAFC is why it shows up.
I see, total cost of the player!
That's how Hull sold Turner for £5m ;-)
As I said on another thread: We need more transparancy in transfer deals
[cite]Posted By: Alex Wright[/cite]i may have a simplified view on this but..........
If I employ an accountant to deal with my financial affairs he would expect a fee. As he is acting on my behalf I would expect to to be the person paying his fee.
If I were a player and use an agent to negotiate on my behalf I would expect the agent to charge a fee. Why, then, would it be the club not the player who pays the agent's fee?
I never could work out why all clubs seem to be paying someone to act on behalf of a player.
But surely if I was a player and you wanted me to play for your club, I would suggest that of my agents fees would be paid by the club or at least included in any fee paid by the club for my services, after all you want me and I dont necceserily want to play for you and it would be up to you to make the deal look more attractive?
A bit like any service charges it gets passed to the customer, the club being the customer.
Maybe thats how it works, I dont know for sure I'm just guessing ;(
point taken T.C.E. but surely the player gets a signing on fee as well in this case, should his agent's fee come from that?
From our point of view it should, but from the point of view of me (the Player) you (the Club) should pay. The more I can get the better I like the deal. If only it worked in everyday life.
Comments
How do you become a football agent?
anybody got any idea?
Still seems a hell of a lot of money.
Did Pardew find Semedo? Or did an agent tout him to him in the first place. Notwithstanding the extras a manager might get from an agent; not illegal but a top meal in a restaurant, maybe a free holiday to see a player??? Personally if Pardew signed Semedo as a central defender on what appears to be big wages, then his brains must have been shot away. Semedo can't dominate anyone defensively in the center, how the fuck was he ever going to get by a s center half in the English league? He's great at picking up pieces but that ain't much good against say Dean Windass or Alan Lee.
Under Football League rules, all clubs must publish the amount they spent on agents from the last recorded period, which was from October 1st, 2008 to September 30th, 2009.
Charlton's total figure is £525,488.13.
The amount is the aggregate of all payments made to agents during the reporting period for agency activity, including payments made by the club on behalf of players. The sum includes fees for transfers before the 2008/09 financial year.
I suggest that this might explain partially why it is so high. Andy Gray could well be in there for example.
Then we also have Dailly, Llera, Spring, McKenzie and Sodje No 1 who all earn very big wages for this div and no doubt get a decent fee for the hard work their agent does bringing these 'free' finds to us.
They work for the player, not the club.
Any fees to an agent should come from the player who employs them.
I don't recall too many comings and goings there.
that is a ridiculous amount.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/dec/01/mark-hughes-manchester-city-agents
what a stupid world
Prem League -
List of payments made by to agents:
1. Manchester City £12,874,283m
2. Chelsea £9,562,223m
3. Liverpool £6,657,305m
4. Tottenham £6,066,935m
5. Wigan £5,527,548m
6. Arsenal £4,760,241m
7. West Ham £3,576,972m
8. Portsmouth £3,184,725m
9. Bolton £3,166,611m
10. Everton £2,008,407m
11. Sunderland £2,007,040m
12. Aston Villa £1,708,374m
13. Blackburn £1,610,885m
14. Hull £1,599,188m
15. Manchester United £1,517,393m
16. Fulham £1,469,258m
17. Wolves £1,235,703m
18. Birmingham £974,982
19. Stoke £716,042
20. Burnley £468,398
Agents fulfil a necessary role in lubricating deals. Without agents, there would be fewer player movements, and, by extension, fewer chances for clubs to move up (and down) the greasy pole.
Lol, or the fact that they are so big that players are prepared to come whatever.
No I think I prefer your explanation.
Better still, and after 5 months of trying the quotes above are finally turning up in yellow.
I think you'll find that Pini Zohavi - one of the richest agents represents at least one Man U player (Rio Ferdinand) and maybe others.
That Man U didn't pay that much could be down to a number of factors - good negotiation, that players will willingly play for Man U or that it was one of those years where they didn't sign that many players.
If I employ an accountant to deal with my financial affairs he would expect a fee. As he is acting on my behalf I would expect to to be the person paying his fee.
If I were a player and use an agent to negotiate on my behalf I would expect the agent to charge a fee. Why, then, would it be the club not the player who pays the agent's fee?
I never could work out why all clubs seem to be paying someone to act on behalf of a player.
But surely if I was a player and you wanted me to play for your club, I would suggest that of my agents fees would be paid by the club or at least included in any fee paid by the club for my services, after all you want me and I dont necceserily want to play for you and it would be up to you to make the deal look more attractive?
A bit like any service charges it gets passed to the customer, the club being the customer.
Maybe thats how it works, I dont know for sure I'm just guessing ;(
That's how Hull sold Turner for £5m ;-)
As I said on another thread: We need more transparancy in transfer deals
From our point of view it should, but from the point of view of me (the Player) you (the Club) should pay. The more I can get the better I like the deal. If only it worked in everyday life.