Admin phantom Posted April 12 Admin Report Share Posted April 12 Some crazy amounts spent by clubs Chelsea stand out for recruiting such rubbish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 Wonder what the agents did for Darlington? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 Forest Green’s spending is ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 A quick scan, but it would seem everyone except Blackburn, Millwall, Plymouth and Rotherham spent more on agents than us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 27 minutes ago, Malago said: A quick scan, but it would seem everyone except Blackburn, Millwall, Plymouth and Rotherham spent more on agents than us. Yep, that’s partly down to us not doing many transfers, but not succumbing eith, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted April 12 Admin Report Share Posted April 12 25 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Yep, that’s partly down to us not doing many transfers, but not succumbing eith, I guess. But seems a little strange for a club with a "top 10 budget". 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 25 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Yep, that’s partly down to us not doing many transfers, but not succumbing eith, I guess. No agent involved in Knight's transfer as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said: No agent involved in Knight's transfer as well. I guess this just means that City paid all the agent fees, ie City wanted Knight, therefore they paid Tamas Byrne? No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 1 hour ago, Davefevs said: I guess this just means that City paid all the agent fees, ie City wanted Knight, therefore they paid Tamas Byrne? No? Agent only represented the club. Knight didn't use an agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 Didn’t know Tanner had signed a new contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Harry said: Didn’t know Tanner had signed a new contract March 2023 (this report is 1st Feb 23 - 1st Feb 24) 36 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Agent only represented the club. Knight didn't use an agent. Tamas Byrne is Knight’s agent, guessing Knight didn’t need representing, nor to share the costs? edit: Byrne might not be Knight’s agent….so you could well be right. Apologies Edited April 12 by Davefevs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 16 hours ago, GrahamC said: Forest Green’s spending is ridiculous. I presume partly because they appointed a new manager once a fortnight up to very recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paignton red Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 I'm probably being a bit thick here, but they are agents for the players, so why arn't the bloody players paying the fees ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 20 minutes ago, paignton red said: I'm probably being a bit thick here, but they are agents for the players, so why arn't the bloody players paying the fees ? Because often it’s the clubs that instigate the transfer, on either side. There are some tax implications / benefit in kind where in most cases player and club split. @ExiledAjax will probably know more. This episode of Price of Football is good (24th March 2022): https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-price-of-football/id1482886394?i=1000555057183 30 mins onwards for whole interview. 42 mins re payment. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 43 minutes ago, paignton red said: I'm probably being a bit thick here, but they are agents for the players, so why arn't the bloody players paying the fees ? So basically it's because the industry has developed so that the players have the power...and historically they've told clubs that the club has to pay. Agents haven't protested that as they want to be paid. Agents hold the keys to the door that gets the club talking to the players. It's "market practice". As Fevs says there are tax reasons, beneficial to the players, for this set up as well. Then if you look at the chart that @Davefevs posted you'll see that often the agent represents both the club and the player. Seems odd, and it is really, but it's allowed. New regulations were supposed to come into force at the start of this season to change some of this, but the agents took the FA to court and won, so those reforms were delayed. They finally came into force in 1 Jan this year, but were watered down. Agents can continue representing multiple parties provided all parties provide prior written consent and have the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. Clubs can also pay more than 50% of the total service fee in dual representation arrangements. Edit. You're not being thick at all. It's tricky, messy, and plenty of very clever people don't understand it fully either. Edited April 13 by ExiledAjax 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.