I thought a lot of joes contract stuff was looked after by his dad, I may be totally wrong but I know his dad was heavily involved in ensuring Joe stayed put at cafc for his youth career and in signing the extension last season,
I thought a lot of joes contract stuff was looked after by his dad, I may be totally wrong but I know his dad was heavily involved in ensuring Joe stayed put at cafc for his youth career and in signing the extension last season,
Could you check it out? Maybe we can name and shame the fucker, if we can confirm it.
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
As said previously I don't really give a damn about the money side, just gutted that we only got to see Gomez make 16 starts for us, most of those not even in his best position.
Was really looking forward to seeing a him grow as a CB next season with back line of Henderson, Solly, Gomez, Another, Wiggins.
The #madeincharlton stuff really don't mean anything to me to be honest anymore.
I thought a lot of joes contract stuff was looked after by his dad, I may be totally wrong but I know his dad was heavily involved in ensuring Joe stayed put at cafc for his youth career and in signing the extension last season,
Could you check it out? Maybe we can name and shame the fucker, if we can confirm it.
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
But Trusts can....
Erm... name and shame? On what basis? Big club buys good prospect from smaller club? How bastardly...
Lets wait and see whats spent over the next week as fee received is only relevant as far as what it provides us to spend. Should give us an idea of intent from RD as well.
Thanks feck I'm going on holiday on Friday. By the time I'm back 4th July I'm sure we'll have a decent looking squad...
I thought a lot of joes contract stuff was looked after by his dad, I may be totally wrong but I know his dad was heavily involved in ensuring Joe stayed put at cafc for his youth career and in signing the extension last season,
Could you check it out? Maybe we can name and shame the fucker, if we can confirm it.
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
But Trusts can....
I don't get what the agent has done wrong. From what I have read on here, he gave Liverpool details of Joes contract. That is nothing different to what happens usually when apply for a job, new employer says, what money are you on and what is your package etc. I would imagine it is standard in football for an agent to pretty much hand a copy of their clients contract to the new team in this sort of scenario. Surely not illegal and not really unethical either.
Not sure I've followed it properly Prague, what's the main reason for you unhappiness?
I heard from a good source (but that does not of course mean it is fact, yet) early last week that the deal with Liverpool was already done. It was done, because there was nothing else Charlton could do, as Gomez agent had helpfully provided Liverpool with chapter and verse on all important clauses of the contract.
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Or - the reason there were no other bids is that Liverpool decided to offer above any supposed clause to get it done quickly lest they compete with better teams and lose out.
Not sure I've followed it properly Prague, what's the main reason for you unhappiness?
I heard from a good source (but that does not of course mean it is fact, yet) early last week that the deal with Liverpool was already done. It was done, because there was nothing else Charlton could do, as Gomez agent had helpfully provided Liverpool with chapter and verse on all important clauses of the contract.
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Prague - I've highlighted in bold your description of what you believe may have happened. This is in fact what happens in the vast majority of transfers - the agents 'fee' is paid by the buying club, not the selling club or the player. It is also in the agent's interest to maximise the transfer fee as his or her fee is usually a percentage of the transfer fee - and always paid by the buying club.
I thought a lot of joes contract stuff was looked after by his dad, I may be totally wrong but I know his dad was heavily involved in ensuring Joe stayed put at cafc for his youth career and in signing the extension last season,
Could you check it out? Maybe we can name and shame the fucker, if we can confirm it.
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
But Trusts can....
I don't get what the agent has done wrong. From what I have read on here, he gave Liverpool details of Joes contract. That is nothing different to what happens usually when apply for a job, new employer says, what money are you on and what is your package etc. I would imagine it is standard in football for an agent to pretty much hand a copy of their clients contract to the new team in this sort of scenario. Surely not illegal and not really unethical either.
Well,of course in the normal world - and BTW executive search is my line nowadays - senior managers don't have agents. Nor do they have contracts which might contain clauses protecting the employer's negotiating position with the player, other than a gardening leave clause.
Take the idea of a release clause, which may or may not have existed here. As I understand it, the idea is that if a buyer says we are prepared to offer x, which is above the figure set in his contract, Charlton are obliged to talk and give that buyer exclusivity. But if that figure is not confidential, well what is the use of it? You might as well put the release clause figure up on bloody Transfermarkt.!
Not sure I've followed it properly Prague, what's the main reason for you unhappiness?
I heard from a good source (but that does not of course mean it is fact, yet) early last week that the deal with Liverpool was already done. It was done, because there was nothing else Charlton could do, as Gomez agent had helpfully provided Liverpool with chapter and verse on all important clauses of the contract.
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Prague - I've highlighted in bold your description of what may have happened. This is in fact what happens in the vast majority of transfers - the agents 'fee' is paid by the buying club, not the selling club or the player. It is also in the agent's interest to maximise the transfer fee as his or her fee is usually a percentage of the transfer fee - and always paid by the buying club.
I think what you are describing was the case 20'years ago, relatively straightforward, whereas nowadays there are many more ways in which agents make revenue.
If it was as simple as that, how do you explain that Liverpool have seemed to have a clear run at this? Why Liverpool?
Or - the reason there were no other bids is that Liverpool decided to offer above any supposed clause to get it done quickly lest they compete with better teams and lose out.
Y'know, if we're guessing at scenarios.
Possibly. Let's hope so. But I did have a decent source. Could be wrong. Would like to find out, one way or another.
Not sure I've followed it properly Prague, what's the main reason for you unhappiness?
I heard from a good source (but that does not of course mean it is fact, yet) early last week that the deal with Liverpool was already done. It was done, because there was nothing else Charlton could do, as Gomez agent had helpfully provided Liverpool with chapter and verse on all important clauses of the contract.
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Prague - I've highlighted in bold your description of what may have happened. This is in fact what happens in the vast majority of transfers - the agents 'fee' is paid by the buying club, not the selling club or the player. It is also in the agent's interest to maximise the transfer fee as his or her fee is usually a percentage of the transfer fee - and always paid by the buying club.
I think what you are describing was the case 20'years ago, relatively straightforward, whereas nowadays there are many more ways in which agents make revenue.
If it was as simple as that, how do you explain that Liverpool have seemed to have a clear run at this? Why Liverpool?
No, I'm describing how it happens now - and this is one of the few areas I can claim to be ITK as I'm the Group HR Director of an organisation that includes a wholly owned Premiership football club (and we're entering silly season right now!).
Yes agents also get revenue from things such as image rights and endorsements.
I don't know why Liverpool appear to have had a clear run - perhaps they didn't and the reports of other clubs being interested are correct. It's also entirely possible that once Liverpool expressed an interest Joe himself said that he was only interested in a move to Liverpool. All conjecture of course, as is most of this thread!
The scenario I suggested earlier in the thread is completely possible regarding the agent. For the hard of reading I shall repeat it - he may have wanted an "in" at Liverpool, and JG was his opportunity, so he was prepared to sacrifice a few bob to get that.
I'm confused now. The last time I saw a professional footballer's contract (which was a while ago) it was a thing of relative simplicity. There's a more recent one on the web if anyone wants to google it. There's generally nothing very exciting in a contract that would merit disclosure. The only thing of interest would be the trigger for any release clause. An offer of an amount above the trigger would give the player the right to talk to the offeror. But, surely, in that case, there would be nothing to prevent the selling club from starting a bidding war by letting other interested parties know of the availability of a player? But would that mean that a (higher?) percentage of the transfer would go to the player rather than the selling club thereby making the first offer harder to beat? So, wouldn't you have to assume that, at the price Liverpool were offering (or a little above), there were no other interested parties? And was the club's official mouthpiece misinformed about the lack of a release clause?
yes you are right, lets just roll over and renew our season tickets. Us peasant fans have no right to interfere in the way football is run.
But we don't have any rights do we, we don't own the bloody club. Why on earth do you think we have rights?
If you put your money into a football business, and some self important, interfering busybody came along and demanded to know the ins and outs of your business dealings, you would tell hem to piss off, if you didn't you wouldn't be in business long and the club would go to the wall.
There is a simple solution, don't go if you don't like it.
Not sure I've followed it properly Prague, what's the main reason for you unhappiness?
I heard from a good source (but that does not of course mean it is fact, yet) early last week that the deal with Liverpool was already done. It was done, because there was nothing else Charlton could do, as Gomez agent had helpfully provided Liverpool with chapter and verse on all important clauses of the contract.
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Prague - I've highlighted in bold your description of what may have happened. This is in fact what happens in the vast majority of transfers - the agents 'fee' is paid by the buying club, not the selling club or the player. It is also in the agent's interest to maximise the transfer fee as his or her fee is usually a percentage of the transfer fee - and always paid by the buying club.
I think what you are describing was the case 20'years ago, relatively straightforward, whereas nowadays there are many more ways in which agents make revenue.
If it was as simple as that, how do you explain that Liverpool have seemed to have a clear run at this? Why Liverpool?
No, I'm describing how it happens now - and this is one of the few areas I can claim to be ITK as I'm the Group HR Director of an organisation that includes a wholly owned Premiership football club (and we're entering silly season right now!).
Yes agents also get revenue from things such as image rights and endorsements.
I don't know why Liverpool appear to have had a clear run - perhaps they didn't and the reports of other clubs being interested are correct. It's also entirely possible that once Liverpool expressed an interest Joe himself said that he was only interested in a move to Liverpool. All conjecture of course, as is most of this thread!
Well if you have that insight it would be interesting to hear more about agents. But there are already plenty of stories in the public domain which muddy the clear picture you paint.
- clubs sometimes want to move on players. In some cases because they are surplus, or In other cases because they are a valuable young player at a small club that doesn't know how to deal with the big boys. They might use an agent to help get it done. agents don't work for free. - you have so called "super agents" like Zahavi, who as I understand it don't lower themselves to represent individual players. It's well documented that he was working for Abramovic in the earlier years at least. How exactly was he paid, and for what? - you remember the Panorama a few years back that fingered Allardyce son among others. Of course nobody did anything. just like nobody did anything when Andrew Jennings did TWO Panoramas on FIFA
As you know, in executive search, an "agent" works only for the "buyer" of talent. That's basically the way it should work in football. I understand that footballers are young kids who need advice. I' m not expecting Joe G to negotiate his own terms with Liverpool. But the PFA has been trying for years to say " hey, we can play that role best", without much progress.
When Roger Johnson started at CB, for the last home game against Bournemouth, and Joe was just on the bench, when he was the only CB we had the pace to stay with Calum Wilson, it was obvious that CAFC didn't want Joe to get injured. I felt that Guy Luzon sending Joe on in that game would not help Guy's own CAFC career. (look what happened to Riga, and he kept us up from 24th position)
Katrien said at Bromley that Joe's agent would bombard her with calls or text when Joe was not in the side. The agent needed the shop window to make himself rich as well as Gomez. I have no criticism of young Joe in any of this. You only need to look and listen to Sterling's and Yaya Toure's Agent to see who runs football today. Yes they really can have their cake and eat it !
Well if you have that insight it would be interesting to hear more about agents. But there are already plenty of stories in the public domain which muddy the clear picture you paint.
- clubs sometimes want to move on players. In some cases because they are surplus, or In other cases because they are a valuable young player at a small club that doesn't know how to deal with the big boys. They might use an agent to help get it done. agents don't work for free. - you have so called "super agents" like Zahavi, who as I understand it don't lower themselves to represent individual players. It's well documented that he was working for Abramovic in the earlier years at least. How exactly was he paid, and for what? - you remember the Panorama a few years back that fingered Allardyce son among others. Of course nobody did anything. just like nobody did anything when Andrew Jennings did TWO Panoramas on FIFA
As you know, in executive search, an "agent" works only for the "buyer" of talent. That's basically the way it should work in football. I understand that footballers are young kids who need advice. I' m not expecting Joe G to negotiate his own terms with Liverpool. But the PFA has been trying for years to say " hey, we can play that role best", without much progress.
I deal with executive search all the time and yes, if I'm looking for talent then the 'headhunter' works for me, at my cost.
This isn't executive search - the relationship between a footballer and their agent is far more akin to a 'performer' and their theatrical agent - the Mr. 10%.
Clubs generally would not use agents but have been known to employ full-time former agents - they have the network. The deal however is usually negotiated and concluded by the Chief Execs of the buying and selling clubs with the help of corporate lawyers (at a cost!!).
Edit: Picking up on your point about the PFA. Their role is to represent the players welfare and to be the players advocate when conflict arises between club and player - I've had many dealings with senior PFA officials and by and large they do that job well, as any union official worth their salt would. They are not however the players 'wealth managers' and unless and until (it will never happen) a collective bargaining agreement exists between the PFA and either all or individual clubs, agents will continue to represent the financial interests of players.
Not really sure i'm getting the crux of your argument Prague.
- Gomez agent would have been instrumental in the creation of his Charlton contract. - Interested party want to know what the impact of his Charlton contract would be on them so they ask Gomez agent. - If there are release causes in contract then that is what he goes for and what the selling club would have to be happy with when offering the contract - if there are no clauses then if the club want to sell him they take into account what is on offer and try and drive that as high as they can, but ultimately it has to be with where the player wants to go. They can't make him sign elsewhere, and they have the ability to reject the offer.
Agents, 3.5 million, 10 million, , family, club wanting to cash in, player wanting to cash in, release clause, money to Staprix, money to Charlton, money for losses, money to invest, footballing reasons, disclosed, undisclosed. Couple of things seem to be facts. Joe was under contract. Joe has signed for Liverpool. From a simplistic fans perspective it's being upset by the loss of a great player, and therefore to get cheered up we need to get loads and loads of good results next season. No pressure Roland, Katrien, and Guy, but we see what's occouring, and if it leads to mediocrity and failure the fans will vote with their voices first, their feet second. Next season must yield a return of 76 points minimum, less than that is failure of this regime in my eyes.
Historically, if a club sold a player without a transfer request being made, the player got 10% of the transfer fee. If a player wanted a transfer and put in an official written transfer request, he did not get any of the fee.
Nowadays, signing on fees are common, and if a player (or his agent) negotiates a transfer without a written request having been made, then the signing club would often pay a fee. A proportion of this goes to the agent (between 10% and 30% I have heard).
As for the release clause, I have no problem with agents or clubs (because it can protect them too!) asking for inclusion, but the release (as I understand it) only allows a player to talk to a team that have made such an offer (as per Suarez with Arsenal). We also regularly get to hear of alleged release clause amounts because the press are all over it, especially with Johnny Foreigner who Man City/Chelski/Man Utd apparently want to sign. If a players agent wants to push through a move, of course he has a right (IMO) to make a potential target club aware of the level. If he doesn't, then the press will!
With Gomez, once an offer had been made for Joe, he is going to want to go; we would all move to a new job if they offered us a five-fold increase on salary (just my guess by the way). KM said it was difficult to stand in his way, and we can understand and accept that. I do think and hope that bearing in mind that we knew he was going early in the week, and he eventually signed on Saturday, that the fee was not simply the release clause amount; there was a lot of negotiation I think. Hopefully we have maximised our potential earnings from Joe to cover appearances for Liverpool and England. Any loan-back will be an unexpected bonus.
Due to the timing, we are likely to find out some of the details of the transfer when the official accounts are released later this summer.
Not really sure i'm getting the crux of your argument Prague.
- Gomez agent would have been instrumental in the creation of his Charlton contract. - Interested party want to know what the impact of his Charlton contract would be on them so they ask Gomez agent. - If there are release causes in contract then that is what he goes for and what the selling club would have to be happy with when offering the contract - if there are no clauses then if the club want to sell him they take into account what is on offe and try and dry that as high as they can, but ultimately it has to be with where the player wants to go. They can't make him sign elsewhere, and they have the ability to reject the offer.
And that's it really
Release clauses are not generally what the player must be sold for - they are a trigger point to enable a player to be released to talk to prospective employers. If no release clause then the current club can just refuse to allow their contracted player to discuss anything with another club.
The final transfer fee is subject to negotiation between the two clubs - and if agreement cannot be reached then the player stays put - release clause or otherwise.
It is possible that a release clause 'trigger value' could end up being more than the final fee. I believe Messi has a release clause of £1billion - but even he isn't worth that!!
The agent works on behalf of Joe Gomez, not CAFC. If I was Joe Gomez and wanted to join Liverpool and my agent was telling Liverpool he would not disclose the buy out clause/salary details etc in my CAFC contract I think I would sack him and get another.
Agents getting money in brown bags is bad, agents negotiating the best deal for their client is normal and acceptable IMO.
Maybe there is something more here but I don't see it I am afraid.
Joe Gomez is class, both as a player and a young man. T o believe that he jumped at the first offer of big bucks is wrong. If we were a well run club with an owner showing ambition he would have stayed another year. If he was only interested in the short-term pay-out he would have left a year ago. In the end he did what was best for himself.
Comments
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
But Trusts can....
Quote" rel="PragueAddick"> Could you check it out? Maybe we can name and shame the fucker, if we can confirm it.
as with the Olympic Stadium situation, clubs can't easily come out and attack people they have to do business with.
But Trusts can....
Erm... name and shame? On what basis? Big club buys good prospect from smaller club? How bastardly...
Thanks feck I'm going on holiday on Friday. By the time I'm back 4th July I'm sure we'll have a decent looking squad...
I tend to believe this might be true because of the complete lack of any other bidders for a player who had apparently been watched by all the other top clubs for up to 5 years.
Now, while I am sure that this sort of shite goes on with a lot of agents, it is still shite, and something should be done about it. Consider this. He is described as " Gomez agent" . how does he get paid by Gomez? Probably some retainer, relatively modest by the absurd standards of English football. So if indeed he has helped Liverpool in the way suggested, there is only one reason for that, isn't there? Liverpool would reward him. And I imagine that the reward would be based on minimizing the fee they pay Charlton. ( e.g. "We split the difference of anything below an upfront 5m we agree with Charlton") .
I am not claiming that is what has happened. However if the story of his collaboration with Liverpool can be verified then who here wants to tell me that my assumption of how he has been rewarded is a fantasy? And we can then see that Charlton were royally shafted at the negotiation table. I don't know about you, but if that is the case, I think it stinks. I guess it is not illegal, and that is the trouble. But it stinks. And there is currently no redress.
Y'know, if we're guessing at scenarios.
Well,of course in the normal world - and BTW executive search is my line nowadays - senior managers don't have agents. Nor do they have contracts which might contain clauses protecting the employer's negotiating position with the player, other than a gardening leave clause.
Take the idea of a release clause, which may or may not have existed here. As I understand it, the idea is that if a buyer says we are prepared to offer x, which is above the figure set in his contract, Charlton are obliged to talk and give that buyer exclusivity. But if that figure is not confidential, well what is the use of it? You might as well put the release clause figure up on bloody Transfermarkt.!
Some sites were suggesting he turned other clubs down.
I think what you are describing was the case 20'years ago, relatively straightforward, whereas nowadays there are many more ways in which agents make revenue.
If it was as simple as that, how do you explain that Liverpool have seemed to have a clear run at this? Why Liverpool?
Yes agents also get revenue from things such as image rights and endorsements.
I don't know why Liverpool appear to have had a clear run - perhaps they didn't and the reports of other clubs being interested are correct. It's also entirely possible that once Liverpool expressed an interest Joe himself said that he was only interested in a move to Liverpool. All conjecture of course, as is most of this thread!
The only thing of interest would be the trigger for any release clause. An offer of an amount above the trigger would give the player the right to talk to the offeror.
But, surely, in that case, there would be nothing to prevent the selling club from starting a bidding war by letting other interested parties know of the availability of a player? But would that mean that a (higher?) percentage of the transfer would go to the player rather than the selling club thereby making the first offer harder to beat? So, wouldn't you have to assume that, at the price Liverpool were offering (or a little above), there were no other interested parties? And was the club's official mouthpiece misinformed about the lack of a release clause?
If you put your money into a football business, and some self important, interfering busybody came along and demanded to know the ins and outs of your business dealings, you would tell hem to piss off, if you didn't you wouldn't be in business long and the club would go to the wall.
There is a simple solution, don't go if you don't like it.
- clubs sometimes want to move on players. In some cases because they are surplus, or In other cases because they are a valuable young player at a small club that doesn't know how to deal with the big boys. They might use an agent to help get it done. agents don't work for free.
- you have so called "super agents" like Zahavi, who as I understand it don't lower themselves to represent individual players. It's well documented that he was working for Abramovic in the earlier years at least. How exactly was he paid, and for what?
- you remember the Panorama a few years back that fingered Allardyce son among others. Of course nobody did anything. just like nobody did anything when Andrew Jennings did TWO Panoramas on FIFA
As you know, in executive search, an "agent" works only for the "buyer" of talent. That's basically the way it should work in football. I understand that footballers are young kids who need advice. I' m not expecting Joe G to negotiate his own terms with Liverpool. But the PFA has been trying for years to say " hey, we can play that role best", without much progress.
and Joe was just on the bench, when he was the only CB we had the pace to stay with Calum Wilson, it was obvious that CAFC didn't want Joe to get injured.
I felt that Guy Luzon sending Joe on in that game would not help Guy's own CAFC career. (look what happened to Riga, and he kept us up from 24th position)
Katrien said at Bromley that Joe's agent would bombard her with calls or text when Joe was not in the side. The agent needed the shop window to make himself rich as well as Gomez. I have no criticism of young Joe in any of this.
You only need to look and listen to Sterling's and Yaya Toure's Agent to see who runs football today.
Yes they really can have their cake and eat it !
This isn't executive search - the relationship between a footballer and their agent is far more akin to a 'performer' and their theatrical agent - the Mr. 10%.
Clubs generally would not use agents but have been known to employ full-time former agents - they have the network. The deal however is usually negotiated and concluded by the Chief Execs of the buying and selling clubs with the help of corporate lawyers (at a cost!!).
Edit: Picking up on your point about the PFA. Their role is to represent the players welfare and to be the players advocate when conflict arises between club and player - I've had many dealings with senior PFA officials and by and large they do that job well, as any union official worth their salt would. They are not however the players 'wealth managers' and unless and until (it will never happen) a collective bargaining agreement exists between the PFA and either all or individual clubs, agents will continue to represent the financial interests of players.
- Gomez agent would have been instrumental in the creation of his Charlton contract.
- Interested party want to know what the impact of his Charlton contract would be on them so they ask Gomez agent.
- If there are release causes in contract then that is what he goes for and what the selling club would have to be happy with when offering the contract
- if there are no clauses then if the club want to sell him they take into account what is on offer and try and drive that as high as they can, but ultimately it has to be with where the player wants to go. They can't make him sign elsewhere, and they have the ability to reject the offer.
And that's it really
Couple of things seem to be facts.
Joe was under contract.
Joe has signed for Liverpool.
From a simplistic fans perspective it's being upset by the loss of a great player, and therefore to get cheered up we need to get loads and loads of good results next season.
No pressure Roland, Katrien, and Guy, but we see what's occouring, and if it leads to mediocrity and failure the fans will vote with their voices first, their feet second.
Next season must yield a return of 76 points minimum, less than that is failure of this regime in my eyes.
Nowadays, signing on fees are common, and if a player (or his agent) negotiates a transfer without a written request having been made, then the signing club would often pay a fee. A proportion of this goes to the agent (between 10% and 30% I have heard).
As for the release clause, I have no problem with agents or clubs (because it can protect them too!) asking for inclusion, but the release (as I understand it) only allows a player to talk to a team that have made such an offer (as per Suarez with Arsenal). We also regularly get to hear of alleged release clause amounts because the press are all over it, especially with Johnny Foreigner who Man City/Chelski/Man Utd apparently want to sign. If a players agent wants to push through a move, of course he has a right (IMO) to make a potential target club aware of the level. If he doesn't, then the press will!
With Gomez, once an offer had been made for Joe, he is going to want to go; we would all move to a new job if they offered us a five-fold increase on salary (just my guess by the way). KM said it was difficult to stand in his way, and we can understand and accept that. I do think and hope that bearing in mind that we knew he was going early in the week, and he eventually signed on Saturday, that the fee was not simply the release clause amount; there was a lot of negotiation I think. Hopefully we have maximised our potential earnings from Joe to cover appearances for Liverpool and England. Any loan-back will be an unexpected bonus.
Due to the timing, we are likely to find out some of the details of the transfer when the official accounts are released later this summer.
By the way, Good luck Joe!
The final transfer fee is subject to negotiation between the two clubs - and if agreement cannot be reached then the player stays put - release clause or otherwise.
It is possible that a release clause 'trigger value' could end up being more than the final fee. I believe Messi has a release clause of £1billion - but even he isn't worth that!!
Agents getting money in brown bags is bad, agents negotiating the best deal for their client is normal and acceptable IMO.
Maybe there is something more here but I don't see it I am afraid.