Agent’s Demands Mean City Say “no deal” In Quest For New Striker

[downendcity]

If it weren’t for the agent’s demands, he might have been the one for us!  

If anything confirms what many feel about too many agents, then this takes the biscuit. It also confirms the widely held belief, that many agents seem as/more concerned about looking after themselves as/than their client. I use the word client advisedly, because my understanding of as client is that he/she is the one that pays their agent for his/her professional services. Surely a player with a whopping great signing on fee and £3.5m PER MONTH salary can afford to pay his agent handsomely for securing him such a deal, so why the hell does the agent ask Chelsea to pay him? 

 

REVEALED: Mino Raiola 'demanded Erling Haaland was paid £820,000 PER WEEK to join Chelsea, with a £34m agent's fee AND a salary for himself in £257m package' before Blues moved for Romelu Lukaku

·       Mino Raiola reportedly wanted Erling Haaland to get a £820,000-a-week salary

·       That was in the super-agent's demands to Chelsea if they wanted to bring him in

·       The Blues were heavily linked with Haaland but signed Romelu Lukaku for £98m

 

Erling Haaland's agent Mino Raiola wanted the Borussia Dortmund striker to be given a £820,000-a-week salary by Chelsea, according to reports.

The Blues were heavily linked with a move for the highly sought after forward this summer but ended up signing Romelu Lukaku from Inter Milan for £98million instead.

Haaland's representative's demands could have acted as a deterrent with agent Raiola asking for wages of £820,000 per week for his client to join Chelsea, according to Bild.

 

The report also claims that Raiola wanted a £34m agent's fee plus a salary for himself in an overall five-year package worth £275m.

 

It increasingly seems that, at the top end of the game the protagonists no longer live anywhere close to the real world, but well done Chelsea for  saying no. Luck is looking better and better value all the time, if this is anything to go by. 

[1960maaan]

I've long held the opinion that players should pay agents. As the agents sole interest is to the player, in theory at least, then the player should pay for the work (  ) that's been done. 

The ridiculous wages paid is bad enough (at least they get paid for talent) , but the amount of money that these agents gouge from the game is obscene . There are agents further down the scale that , no doubt, do a good and very important job. But I'd love to hear why a bloke deserves such a massive fee for doing very little. 

[maxjak]

17 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I've long held the opinion that players should pay agents. As the agents sole interest is to the player, in theory at least, then the player should pay for the work (  ) that's been done. 

The ridiculous wages paid is bad enough (at least they get paid for talent) , but the amount of money that these agents gouge from the game is obscene . There are agents further down the scale that , no doubt, do a good and very important job. But I'd love to hear why a bloke deserves such a massive fee for doing very little. 

Because he is a Citizen Under No Threat..........through and through and a parasite to boot!

[downendcity]

12 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Because he is a Citizen Under No Threat..........through and through and a parasite to boot!

IIRC Raiola was/is Pogba’s agent. 

When Pogba was transferred to Man U, Raiola received a fee ( for being Pogba’s agent in the transfer)  that exceeded the fee we received for Webster’s transfer to Brighton!

Absolute madness.

I’ve heard him on Talksport being questioned ( more like interrogated) by Simon Jordan, from which you quickly pick up that SJ has little or no time for agents of his ilk.

[Simon bristol]

16 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Because he is a Citizen Under No Threat..........through and through and a parasite to boot!

He is indeed, id quite like to see an agreement where clubs refuse to deal with that ####er.

[SecretSam]

51 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If it weren’t for the agent’s demands, he might have been the one for us!  

If anything confirms what many feel about too many agents, then this takes the biscuit. It also confirms the widely held belief, that many agents seem as/more concerned about looking after themselves as/than their client. I use the word client advisedly, because my understanding of as client is that he/she is the one that pays their agent for his/her professional services. Surely a player with a whopping great signing on fee and £3.5m PER MONTH salary can afford to pay his agent handsomely for securing him such a deal, so why the hell does the agent ask Chelsea to pay him? 

 

REVEALED: Mino Raiola 'demanded Erling Haaland was paid £820,000 PER WEEK to join Chelsea, with a £34m agent's fee AND a salary for himself in £257m package' before Blues moved for Romelu Lukaku

·       Mino Raiola reportedly wanted Erling Haaland to get a £820,000-a-week salary

·       That was in the super-agent's demands to Chelsea if they wanted to bring him in

·       The Blues were heavily linked with Haaland but signed Romelu Lukaku for £98m

 

Erling Haaland's agent Mino Raiola wanted the Borussia Dortmund striker to be given a £820,000-a-week salary by Chelsea, according to reports.

The Blues were heavily linked with a move for the highly sought after forward this summer but ended up signing Romelu Lukaku from Inter Milan for £98million instead.

Haaland's representative's demands could have acted as a deterrent with agent Raiola asking for wages of £820,000 per week for his client to join Chelsea, according to Bild.

 

The report also claims that Raiola wanted a £34m agent's fee plus a salary for himself in an overall five-year package worth £275m.

 

It increasingly seems that, at the top end of the game the protagonists no longer live anywhere close to the real world, but well done Chelsea for  saying no. Luck is looking better and better value all the time, if this is anything to go by. 

So, he won't be coming to City, then? 

[1960maaan]

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

IIRC Raiola was/is Pogba’s agent. 

When Pogba was transferred to Man U, Raiola received a fee ( for being Pogba’s agent in the transfer)  that exceeded the fee we received for Webster’s transfer to Brighton!

Absolute madness.

If I remember correctly. Poga's fee was around £90m and the agents fee was £40m . That is truly madness.

[Northern Red]

Regarding Haaland, the player's Dad is heavily involved also and, along with Raiola, likes to take a healthy cut of any transfer fee. When he moved to Dortmund, everyone got their cut with the understanding that they'll be quids in again when he moved on to one of the big boys a couple of years later.

Several English clubs looked at the deal when he signed for Dortmund and baulked at it, the figures going to various parties were almost as much as the headline transfer fee.

[sephjnr]

Raiola is the biggest parasite in the sport. No idea why agents have had so much love over the years.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

I've long held the opinion that players should pay agents. As the agents sole interest is to the player, in theory at least, then the player should pay for the work (  ) that's been done. 

The ridiculous wages paid is bad enough (at least they get paid for talent) , but the amount of money that these agents gouge from the game is obscene . There are agents further down the scale that , no doubt, do a good and very important job. But I'd love to hear why a bloke deserves such a massive fee for doing very little. 

57 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

He is indeed, id quite like to see an agreement where clubs refuse to deal with that ####er.

There has to be a better solution to what is going on today.

We have to be mindful that it’s not always the player initiating the move, nor is always the buying club, can be the selling club too.

I think that starts to create the ability to build a framework for who pays any agent fees, e,g.

• player initiates move - player pays agent fees
• Buying club initiates move - buying club pays agent fees
• selling club initiates move - selling club pays agent fees

Then we have the question of how much the fees should be, but they should be capped at either a monetary amount or percentage of total cost of transfer (transfer fee, wages over contract length etc) whichever is lower.

If either club or player want to split they can do.

We also need to also be aware that it’s not always one agent involved, but all fees to be covered in the rule about.

If a player initiates transfer and moves for £50m and cap rule is £3m or 10%, then maximum agent fee is £3m, paid by player to his agent.  If the buying or selling club use agents, then players agent responsible for negotiating how much each gets of his £3m cut.

Its probably a bit too simplified, but it’s a starting point

[1960maaan]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

There has to be a better solution to what is going on today.

We have to be mindful that it’s not always the player initiating the move, nor is always the buying club, can be the selling club too.

I think that starts to create the ability to build a framework for who pays any agent fees, e,g.

• player initiates move - player pays agent fees
• Buying club initiates move - buying club pays agent fees
• selling club initiates move - selling club pays agent fees

Then we have the question of how much the fees should be, but they should be capped at either a monetary amount or percentage of total cost of transfer (transfer fee, wages over contract length etc) whichever is lower.

If either club or player want to split they can do.

We also need to also be aware that it’s not always one agent involved, but all fees to be covered in the rule about.

If a player initiates transfer and moves for £50m and cap rule is £3m or 10%, then maximum agent fee is £3m, paid by player to his agent.  If the buying or selling club use agents, then players agent responsible for negotiating how much each gets of his £3m cut.

Its probably a bit too simplified, but it’s a starting point

The annoying thing is, every right thinking person could probably come up with a simple, sensible, workable plan. At least as an initial framework. 
They managed to change the rules so only sanctioned agents could work within football, surely they could come up with something better than the Dick Turpin type scenario we have now. 
I'm amazed the big clubs haven't got together to do something.

Quick Google and Haarland's move to Dortmund. 
Fee.        ........ €20m
Agents Fee ... €15m
Dads Fee. ..... €10m

Not sure what Alfie did for his part in the deal, and I'm not sure that the agent deserves almost as much as a player who scored almost a goal a game, but there it is.

The odd owner makes a stand, usually at a lower level. But with all this money going straight out of the game, I can't understand why Club's and/or the relevant authorities don't try and clamp down.

[22A]

As agents receive more dosh with each transfer, it's in their interest to have players move to a new club as often as poss.

Traditionally a player received 10% of the transfer fee if he didn't ask for a move and 5% if he did. It was up to the player to pay his agent.

Now as has been shown, agents demand a fee for themselves from clubs. P'boro' missed out on one player they wanted when Barry Fry informed the player's agent; "I'm signing him, not you"!

[Gazred]

Raiola is nothing more than a pimp riding on top players coattails.

The sums of money going the way of his like is obscene. I like Fevs idea, put the cost on the instigator and cap the amount.

[JoeAman08]

Agent fees need to be reigned in asap. Absolute scandal what Raiola gets away with. I understand fees to agents as there is a lot of legal paperwork but as someone else said, there should be a cap and even the cap should be a max 50/50 split between player and club. I don’t mind players making the money they do but the agents are the ones driving it up and up. 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

There has to be a better solution to what is going on today.

We have to be mindful that it’s not always the player initiating the move, nor is always the buying club, can be the selling club too.

I think that starts to create the ability to build a framework for who pays any agent fees, e,g.

• player initiates move - player pays agent fees
• Buying club initiates move - buying club pays agent fees
• selling club initiates move - selling club pays agent fees

Then we have the question of how much the fees should be, but they should be capped at either a monetary amount or percentage of total cost of transfer (transfer fee, wages over contract length etc) whichever is lower.

If either club or player want to split they can do.

We also need to also be aware that it’s not always one agent involved, but all fees to be covered in the rule about.

If a player initiates transfer and moves for £50m and cap rule is £3m or 10%, then maximum agent fee is £3m, paid by player to his agent.  If the buying or selling club use agents, then players agent responsible for negotiating how much each gets of his £3m cut.

Its probably a bit too simplified, but it’s a starting point

In my ( albeit probably naive and overoptimistic) opinion, the solution is simpler than that. 

If a player retains the services of an agent, then the player, and only the player, is responsible for the agents remuneration, whether that be in new contract negotiations or transfer to a new club. 

If either club in a transfer retain the services of an agent, then yes, that club is responsible ( on pre-agreed terms) for the agents remuneration. Crucially, an agent cannot be allowed to act for more than one party in a transfer e.g. if acting for the player, the agent cannot act for either the buying or selling club and, if acting for either buying or selling club, the agent cannot act for player or the other club.

P.S. The harsh reality is that while their clients might be millionaires, agents know where the real big pot of money resides in football, and that’s with the clubs. They could ask their clients for substantial fees, but far better to use those clients, and the demand for those clients’ services, as the means to extract substantial amounts from the clubs.

If Man U offered Dortmund , say, £150m they would probably accept, or at least negotiate a figure on which both clubs agreed. If they sat down with Haaland and offered , say, £300,000 per week over 5 years, he might agree, but they would arrive at a figure on which both parties could agree. Neither of these transactions require a payment of £40m, or whatever, to an agent. The agent would be involved in dealing with the finer details of the new contract , such as bonus structure, none of which would justify payments totalling 25% of the transfer fee. 

Therefore, the only conclusion is that the agent will direct his player to whichever club is willing to pay him ( the agent) what he wants to make it happen.

In essence it's extortion - you want my client badly enough then you will pay me what I want to make it happen for you, otherwise the player will not be coming to you.  Everyone readily agrees that it is corruption when FIFA top bods have  awarded numerous World Cups to countries that were prepared to “pay” enough for Blatter et al to “make it happen” - how different is this?

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In my ( albeit probably naive and overoptimistic) opinion, the solution is simpler than that. 

If a player retains the services of an agent, then the player, and only the player, is responsible for the agents remuneration, whether that be in new contract negotiations or transfer to a new club. 

If either club in a transfer retain the services of an agent, then yes, that club is responsible ( on pre-agreed terms) for the agents remuneration. Crucially, an agent cannot be allowed to act for more than one party in a transfer e.g. if acting for the player, the agent cannot act for either the buying or selling club and, if acting for either buying or selling club, the agent cannot act for player or the other club.

P.S. The harsh reality is that while their clients might be millionaires, agents know where the real big pot of money resides in football, and that’s with the clubs. They could ask their clients for substantial fees, but far better to use those clients, and the demand for those clients’ services, as the means to extract substantial amounts from the clubs.

If Man U offered Dortmund , say, £150m they would probably accept, or at least negotiate a figure on which both clubs agreed. If they sat down with Haaland and offered , say, £300,000 per week over 5 years, he might agree, but they would arrive at a figure on which both parties could agree. Neither of these transactions require a payment of £40m, or whatever, to an agent. The agent would be involved in dealing with the finer details of the new contract , such as bonus structure, none of which would justify payments totalling 25% of the transfer fee. 

Therefore, the only conclusion is that the agent will direct his player to whichever club is willing to pay him ( the agent) what he wants to make it happen.

In essence it's extortion - you want my client badly enough then you will pay me what I want to make it happen for you, otherwise the player will not be coming to you.  Everyone readily agrees that it is corruption when FIFA top bods have  awarded numerous World Cups to countries that were prepared to “pay” enough for Blatter et al to “make it happen” - how different is this?

 

 

 

I bloody like that….simple, but brilliant.

[Red_Alligator]

That's obscene. 

[The Original OTIB]

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I've long held the opinion that players should pay agents. As the agents sole interest is to the player, in theory at least, then the player should pay for the work (  ) that's been done. 

The ridiculous wages paid is bad enough (at least they get paid for talent) , but the amount of money that these agents gouge from the game is obscene . There are agents further down the scale that , no doubt, do a good and very important job. But I'd love to hear why a bloke deserves such a massive fee for doing very little. 

I've long held the opinion that agents are a waste of time and players are morons for giving them money.

[1960maaan]

34 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

I've long held the opinion that agents are a waste of time and players are morons for giving them money.

At the Mino Raiola end of the scale, I might agree. But they can do good work with lower League and younger players. At the higher end, I'm not even sure the ones that employ relations get the best from them. Nicolas Anelka had his brother (I think) represent him, he never seemed to have his best interest at heart, Always angling a move instead of seeing what was best for his career. Money changes people, not all, but a good percentage.

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

At the Mino Raiola end of the scale, I might agree. But they can do good work with lower League and younger players. At the higher end, I'm not even sure the ones that employ relations get the best from them. Nicolas Anelka had his brother (I think) represent him, he never seemed to have his best interest at heart, Always angling a move instead of seeing what was best for his career. Money changes people, not all, but a good percentage.

When we signed Nicky Maynard his mum was his agent.

[1960maaan]

Just now, Lanterne Rouge said:

When we signed Nicky Maynard his mum was his agent.

I think employing relatives is more common than we think. Even Marcus Rashford has family members as his agent I believe . 

[Simon bristol]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

There has to be a better solution to what is going on today.

We have to be mindful that it’s not always the player initiating the move, nor is always the buying club, can be the selling club too.

I think that starts to create the ability to build a framework for who pays any agent fees, e,g.

• player initiates move - player pays agent fees
• Buying club initiates move - buying club pays agent fees
• selling club initiates move - selling club pays agent fees

Then we have the question of how much the fees should be, but they should be capped at either a monetary amount or percentage of total cost of transfer (transfer fee, wages over contract length etc) whichever is lower.

If either club or player want to split they can do.

We also need to also be aware that it’s not always one agent involved, but all fees to be covered in the rule about.

If a player initiates transfer and moves for £50m and cap rule is £3m or 10%, then maximum agent fee is £3m, paid by player to his agent.  If the buying or selling club use agents, then players agent responsible for negotiating how much each gets of his £3m cut.

Its probably a bit too simplified, but it’s a starting point

Cant help but think that the player would just ask for a higher signing on fee to cover the cost of agents fees if they were responsible for paying them. Ideally clubs would all agree a maximum agent fee structure, but then if someone wanted to buy a certain player, that gentlemans agreement on fees wouldnt last 10 seconds!

[maxjak]

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

IIRC Raiola was/is Pogba’s agent. 

When Pogba was transferred to Man U, Raiola received a fee ( for being Pogba’s agent in the transfer)  that exceeded the fee we received for Webster’s transfer to Brighton!

Absolute madness.

I’ve heard him on Talksport being questioned ( more like interrogated) by Simon Jordan, from which you quickly pick up that SJ has little or no time for agents of his ilk.

I do not understand how they acquire such power?..........The players don't give a pheck as long as they get their fat wage packet and cut.  It's  a  disgrace, but the clubs know that if they don't pay up, another club will?  It's a vile greedy world, that will continue to be so.......... unfortunately.

[maxjak]

I only just saw a photo of the corpulent Mo-fo...........he looks like he would spend most of the money on burgers?

[Major Isewater]

Calling Manchester City , ‘ City’ , annoys me à great deal more than people who call us ‘ Bristol’. 
 

Perhaps it’s OK in Manchester but otherwise it is Man City , some may argue Manchester City or even the Citizens.

Like there are no other ‘ City’s’ of consequence.