Jump to content
IGNORED

Simon Jordan and Mino Raiolo


Davefevs

Recommended Posts

Going at it on TS today.

I’m more aligned to SJ here.  For MR to try to say a player is no different to an employee is crap.  A footballer, or at least his contract / fee for that contract sits on the books of the company as an asset.  It’s very different.

Ultimately, in the Pogba situation, Man Utd are getting a taste of their own medicine, they did exactly the same to Juventus when they bought him.

Until there is regulation and all 3 parts of a transfer (buying, selling club and player) agree to caps, or even better still start refusing to use agents (not sure that we’ll ever go back to that), you will see clubs on either side of the fence and players exploiting the use of agents to get what they want.  All whilst conveniently forgetting that money is draining out of football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

The player and his agent as a package are toxic for Man Utd. Don’t know whether it’s 50/50 or one driving the other but the sooner they get them as far away from Manchester as humanly possible the better. 

No doubt it's in Raiola's interest to have the player move or sign a new deal as often as possible, but if Pogba didn't want him to say the stuff he does then he wouldn't be saying it.

I reckon United would happily get rid but they're probably asking for a lot more than clubs are willing to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

No doubt it's in Raiola's interest to have the player move or sign a new deal as often as possible, but if Pogba didn't want him to say the stuff he does then he wouldn't be saying it.

I reckon United would happily get rid but they're probably asking for a lot more than clubs are willing to pay.

Absolutely. Both as bad as one another, and the whole situation neatly summarises everything wrong with modern football at the top level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not listening to it. But United shouldn't have been so stupid to get Pogba in the first place. And after they did, they should have sold him as soon as possible.

I'm sure they would have known he doesn't work hard off the ball when buying him. If they were planning to return to the old United identity then Pogba was never the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Going at it on TS today.

I’m more aligned to SJ here.  For MR to try to say a player is no different to an employee is crap.  A footballer, or at least his contract / fee for that contract sits on the books of the company as an asset.  It’s very different.

Ultimately, in the Pogba situation, Man Utd are getting a taste of their own medicine, they did exactly the same to Juventus when they bought him.

Until there is regulation and all 3 parts of a transfer (buying, selling club and player) agree to caps, or even better still start refusing to use agents (not sure that we’ll ever go back to that), you will see clubs on either side of the fence and players exploiting the use of agents to get what they want.  All whilst conveniently forgetting that money is draining out of football.

Have to disagree with the bold bit there. Raiola is correct about the "transfer fee" not really being a fee but instead an "indemnity" as he calls it. This is, legally speaking, a correct point. When club A pays a "transfer fee" of 10million to club B what they are actually doing is paying compensation to club B for inducing the player to break their contract. This is why a player at the end of their contract has no value - there's nothing to compensate. The fact that this is an event anticipated within the player's contract doesn't change that. The fact that because of that you can book it as an asset also doesn't change that fact, it's (so far as I understand) basically a bit of creative accounting to amortise that compensation fee across the terms of the contract. Jordan is wrong when he argues that Man Utd "own" Pogba. Also, in other industries companies do in effect pay transfer fees - normally to recruiters rather than directly to other companies - but sums of money are paid in order to poach employees from competitors.

The whole argument between Raiola and Jordan is a case of Raiola arguing the technical definitions and Jordan saying "To hell with the technicality, focus on the reality". Raiola is correct that technically agents don't move players...but in reality Jordan is correct that agents, through their advice to the players, create division and that create the opportunity to move players. Agents then set the market price for such players - influenced by the funding of the clubs - and profit from it.

Agreed that Jordan should not butt in so much. Let the man answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Going at it on TS today.

I’m more aligned to SJ here.  For MR to try to say a player is no different to an employee is crap.  A footballer, or at least his contract / fee for that contract sits on the books of the company as an asset.  It’s very different.

Ultimately, in the Pogba situation, Man Utd are getting a taste of their own medicine, they did exactly the same to Juventus when they bought him.

Until there is regulation and all 3 parts of a transfer (buying, selling club and player) agree to caps, or even better still start refusing to use agents (not sure that we’ll ever go back to that), you will see clubs on either side of the fence and players exploiting the use of agents to get what they want.  All whilst conveniently forgetting that money is draining out of football.

Disagree a lot of the time with Simon Jordan however he is absolutely bang on here. Don’t like how agents give some players a poor attitude, remember the agent of Gerrards cousin having an argument with Carragher on Twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have to disagree with the bold bit there. Raiola is correct about the "transfer fee" not really being a fee but instead an "indemnity" as he calls it. This is, legally speaking, a correct point. When club A pays a "transfer fee" of 10million to club B what they are actually doing is paying compensation to club B for inducing the player to break their contract. This is why a player at the end of their contract has no value - there's nothing to compensate. The fact that this is an event anticipated within the player's contract doesn't change that. The fact that because of that you can book it as an asset also doesn't change that fact, it's (so far as I understand) basically a bit of creative accounting to amortise that compensation fee across the terms of the contract. Jordan is wrong when he argues that Man Utd "own" Pogba. Also, in other industries companies do in effect pay transfer fees - normally to recruiters rather than directly to other companies - but sums of money are paid in order to poach employees from competitors.

The whole argument between Raiola and Jordan is a case of Raiola arguing the technical definitions and Jordan saying "To hell with the technicality, focus on the reality". Raiola is correct that technically agents don't move players...but in reality Jordan is correct that agents, through their advice to the players, create division and that create the opportunity to move players. Agents then set the market price for such players - influenced by the funding of the clubs - and profit from it.

Agreed that Jordan should not butt in so much. Let the man answer.

Oh, I agree, technically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality and Technically are totally different matters.

Football has transfer windows ... does anyone think it's reality to plan transfers in a month, and no 'tapping' up occurs?

Yes transfers happen quickly without planning...but many Agents spend their time hawking their players to clubs outside of the windows 

The hypocrisy in football is ridiculous. It's still not transparent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have to disagree with the bold bit there. Raiola is correct about the "transfer fee" not really being a fee but instead an "indemnity" as he calls it. This is, legally speaking, a correct point. When club A pays a "transfer fee" of 10million to club B what they are actually doing is paying compensation to club B for inducing the player to break their contract. This is why a player at the end of their contract has no value - there's nothing to compensate. The fact that this is an event anticipated within the player's contract doesn't change that. The fact that because of that you can book it as an asset also doesn't change that fact, it's (so far as I understand) basically a bit of creative accounting to amortise that compensation fee across the terms of the contract. Jordan is wrong when he argues that Man Utd "own" Pogba. Also, in other industries companies do in effect pay transfer fees - normally to recruiters rather than directly to other companies - but sums of money are paid in order to poach employees from competitors.

The whole argument between Raiola and Jordan is a case of Raiola arguing the technical definitions and Jordan saying "To hell with the technicality, focus on the reality". Raiola is correct that technically agents don't move players...but in reality Jordan is correct that agents, through their advice to the players, create division and that create the opportunity to move players. Agents then set the market price for such players - influenced by the funding of the clubs - and profit from it.

Agreed that Jordan should not butt in so much. Let the man answer.

All technically correct, but also the club do ‘own’ the players registration. The document that says that the player may ONLY play for the club who hold the registration. 
However, I think this was one big misunderstanding over semantics. 
Solskjaer when he said he’s “our player” didn’t technically mean they ‘own’ him. So Raiola has misconstrued this and come out with a load of nonsense about ‘owning’ humans - implying slavery. 
Of course no one ‘owns’ him. But Man Utd do hold his player registration and he’s therefore an employee of that club and should act in the clubs best interests. 
 

As for Jordan, I generally agree with a lot of what he says and I think he’s a very insightful guest on Talksport, but he did talk a bit too much on this one, ha ha. One thinks he may have an issue with agents! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Davefevs @spudski @Harry

Without quoting all of your posts I agree it's a question of technicality v reality - and unfortunately both are correct in their own way.

How do you change it? IMO regulations aren't enough. With the amounts of money involved the best lawyers and accounts would simply find work arounds. As @spudski says we all know the transfer window isn't really a month long exercise that happens twice a year. Clubs are even open about how long they negotiate. Our own CEO is on record as saying that we've "pursued" players for months outside of the official window (paraphrasing so apologies if he's been more subtle than that).

In terms of making it transparent unless you make the market an open one run by an independent market maker - something akin to a stock exchange - then I can't see how you can do it. FIFA/UEFA/the FA could force clubs to publish details of transfers maybe...but I suspect they'd just re-categorise fees and wages, create nominee companies to actually sign the contracts, and hide their bank accounts even more than they already do. Perhaps you could create a market system within which players had to be traded. Electronic contracts exchanged through a controlled system, publically available for inspection and subject to rules about announcements when certain things happen. Couple that with an agent's regulator and licensing authority, plus an ombudsman to handle complaints and maybe you're getting there. Trouble is you need all parties to buy into a system like that, you need someone to pay for it, and (having seen first hand how the City, LSE and FCA operate) you need a lot of people to ensure it actual fulfills its purpose. Plus it does start to have the connotations of a slave market where people, possibly with unique identification numbers, are traded. God, I feel like I've written the blurb for a dystopian sci-fi novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a tough one.  Transparency is already there....just not in public domain....and I don’t see how putting it in the public domain solves any problem.

Making the player pay all Agent fees?  Is that fair when it’s the selling club who’ve made it happen?

Buying club pays....same as above.  Reverse true for selling club.

If you fix fees, as a percentage of transfer fee, what do you do with free transfers?  Perhaps in that case, player pays.

Split fees?

There is no real answer other than clubs and players realising that money is flowing out the game and decide to do something about it.  Bit sad really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said in posts before, transfer windows don't correspond with FFP.

They want Clubs to run efficiently and plan accordingly. Yet expect them to do it in a few months of the transfer window. How can any business with restrictions do that properly? It can't.

Transfer windows encourage panic spending...not planned spending.

The two don't sit well together..add agents hawking, and it's still as bad as ever imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s an easy fix to all this nonsense. Clubs pay a nominal base salary to a player with all other remuneration being performance based. This performance based remuneration would / could also include statistical analysis from training to avoid the “manager doesn’t pick me” scenario. 

Then every player has an incentive to play and perform whether trying to simultaneously engineer a transfer or not. 

Pogba is a parasite and I hope he leaves the PL ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, reformed_red said:

There’s an easy fix to all this nonsense. Clubs pay a nominal base salary to a player with all other remuneration being performance based. This performance based remuneration would / could also include statistical analysis from training to avoid the “manager doesn’t pick me” scenario. 

Then every player has an incentive to play and perform whether trying to simultaneously engineer a transfer or not. 

Pogba is a parasite and I hope he leaves the PL ASAP.

Sounds anything but easy!! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agents are a necessary evil and let their clients get on with the important bit , actually playing the game.
 

Not only the players but clubs as well deal with agents when recruiting , who is liable then for the fees ? What if a deal doesn’t get done ? 

 Not all footballers earn eye watering incomes and lower down the food chain thé agents are going to be earning much less for looking after their client’s interests. 
 

I would like to see a platform to agent’s commissions established by the football governing bodies. 
 

I would also like to see a portion of every transaction fed into the grass roots of the sport, I don’t know if this happens actually but if it does it is not significant enough to be noticed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Its a tough one.  Transparency is already there....just not in public domain....and I don’t see how putting it in the public domain solves any problem.

Making the player pay all Agent fees?  Is that fair when it’s the selling club who’ve made it happen?

Buying club pays....same as above.  Reverse true for selling club.

If you fix fees, as a percentage of transfer fee, what do you do with free transfers?  Perhaps in that case, player pays.

Split fees?

There is no real answer other than clubs and players realising that money is flowing out the game and decide to do something about it.  Bit sad really.

Spot on Dave - the player should pay his agent not the buying club. An agreed fee or percentage of a fee goes to the agent once the deal is completed - out of the players pocket of course.

Its farcical that clubs should have to pay agents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe Jim white gets a free ride, the bloke is a complete bell end with little or next to no knowledge about football and it's workings. The agent in this case was responding to a question along the lines of "does Pogba like Italy"! He responded saying it's like a second home to him which it probably is. Once again our press go headstrong into manouvering the direction of the questionning to satisfy their headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Not listening to it. But United shouldn't have been so stupid to get Pogba in the first place. And after they did, they should have sold him as soon as possible.

I'm sure they would have known he doesn't work hard off the ball when buying him. If they were planning to return to the old United identity then Pogba was never the answer.

Fergie knew what he was doing all those years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, frenchred said:

Can't believe Jim white gets a free ride, the bloke is a complete bell end with little or next to no knowledge about football and it's workings. The agent in this case was responding to a question along the lines of "does Pogba like Italy"! He responded saying it's like a second home to him which it probably is. Once again our press go headstrong into manouvering the direction of the questionning to satisfy their headlines.

Jim White is a ***. That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BCFC Grim said:

Jim White is a ***. That is all.

Thinks he’s a schmoozer with all the owners and won’t bring himself to criticise any of them. His support for Mel Morris and his wrongdoings at Derby is ridiculous. White ‘categorically insisted’ that he was an owner doing it by the book. 
White has absolutely zero spine. He won’t say a bad word against the owners who he ‘thinks’ are his mates. 
I’ve quit listening to his show now. Flip over to Talkradio instead for a bit of Iron Mike, then back to Talksport at 1 for H&J. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...