Player agents' fees

[LoughboroBlade]

At a time when we're clearly trying to cut costs, the latest report from the Football League on agents' fees makes encouraging reading - we spent far less than our promotion rivals last season. The top spenders last year were:

W**nesday - £333k
Charlton - £265k
MK Dons - £249k
Huddersfield - £213k
Bournemouth - £188k
Brentford - £147k
SUFC - £133k

Swindon spent a staggering £449k - more than any League 1 or League 2 club, and more than 9 in the Championship.

Full report here - http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/82/b7/0,,10794~178050,00.pdf

 

[Bradford Blade]

That's intriguing stuff LB, but I'd love to know just what they do to earn such 'fees' Any 'Jerry Maguires' amongst them?

 

[LoughboroBlade]

That's intriguing stuff LB, but I'd love to know just what they do to earn such 'fees' Any 'Jerry Maguires' amongst them?

Well, quite. Plenty of clubs lower down haven't paid any fees at all.

Would be could if the Football League could provide an average fee per transfer total - Swindon are ridiculously high, but alongside Leicester did have the largest number of transactions out of all the clubs (78).

 

[Bradford Blade]

...Swindon are ridiculously high, but alongside Leicester did have the largest number of transactions out of all the clubs (78).

Too true mate, but wherever Swindon are to getting their wonga from, can we have some please?

 

[Gareth]

I've often thought that agent fees should be not be allowed to be paid for by the clubs. The players "employ" the agents so therefore all agent fees should be the responsibility of the players and not the perspective club/s.

The agent is needed within the game and I think all players should have some form of representation but I can't think of a single reason as to why the clubs should pay them a fee. I understand the obvious argument will be that the money will be bundled up into something else for the player BUT I think this will make the players shop far more carefully for agents when they see money going from their pockets into the agents rather than the clubs.

 

[VespaBlade]

Too true mate, but wherever Swindon are to getting their wonga from, can we have some please?

It would be interesting to see what Di Canio's agent got out of all that.

 

[metalblade]

phuckin parasites

 

[Zlatan]

West Ham - £4.3m

 

[secretchief]

W**nesday - £333k
Charlton - £265k
MK Dons - £249k
Huddersfield - £213k
Bournemouth - £188k
Brentford - £147k
SUFC - £133k

Nearly a perfect correlation between spending and success.

I know everyone hates agents, but this appears to be a decent argument for spending comparatively small amounts in this area (£200k between us and the pigs, for instance) if it gives you the edge in attracting better players.

But this is controversial and I know that statistics rarely tell the full story - although I understand that the league table of player wages in the premiership pretty much exactly replicates the actual table, with a couple of anomalies.

 

[thevoot]

I've often thought that agent fees should be not be allowed to be paid for by the clubs. The players "employ" the agents so therefore all agent fees should be the responsibility of the players and not the perspective club/s.

The agent is needed within the game and I think all players should have some form of representation but I can't think of a single reason as to why the clubs should pay them a fee. .

I would go even further and ask why agents are even necessary at all. Paul Scholes is the best example of this. He has never had an agent - any contract or endorsement negotiations he just passes to a lawyer (and not even the same one each time), who gives them the once-over and approves them for signing. And the lawyer doesn't charge Paul 10%, or Man Ure. Paul just pays a one-off legal fee each time. Simples.

If somebody as high profile as Scholes can manage, why the hell do a club like Swindon need to be paying 400K+ on agents fees. It's about time clubs just told these agents to sod off. As Metalblade says above, parasites the lot of 'em.

Our 133k could be spent much better elsewhere.


However, West Ham can keep paying 4m+ each year though, hopefully it will accelerate their downfall. Cheating cunts.

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Is this just on agents fees that we pay for players coming in or would something like Slew's parasite agent also be part of this figure?

 

[SwissBlade]

Perhaps we just agree a deal with the player - an "all in rate"which includes the 10-25% agent fee. Slightly arse about face way of doing it, but it hides it from the pesky supporters....

Evil McCabe

Oooooooffff Micalijo metalblade and Princess Annes Dog will be all over this conspiracy theory

 

[metalblade]

Perhaps we just agree a deal with the player - an "all in rate"which includes the 10-25% agent fee. Slightly arse about face way of doing it, but it hides it from the pesky supporters....

Evil McCabe

Oooooooffff Micalijo metalblade and Princess Annes Dog will be all over this conspiracy theory

Naaah our signings don't usually merit a fee

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Isn't giving agents only £133k treading dangerously close to McCabe doing something right?

 

[SwissBlade]

Isn't giving agents only £133k treading dangerously close to McCabe doing something right?

Neeeeeevvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrr.... Must...... Resist.....

 

[StarBlade]

At a time when we're clearly trying to cut costs, the latest report from the Football League on agents' fees makes encouraging reading - we spent far less than our promotion rivals last season. The top spenders last year were:

W**nesday - £333k
Charlton - £265k
MK Dons - £249k
Huddersfield - £213k
Bournemouth - £188k
Brentford - £147k
SUFC - £133k

Swindon spent a staggering £449k - more than any League 1 or League 2 club, and more than 9 in the Championship.

Full report here - http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/82/b7/0,,10794~178050,00.pdf

It's a little odd to somehow be happy about this, preferably we'd be paying £0. However, our "promotion rivals" got promoted and we didn't. I don't think it was the difference between success and failure, but as pointed out already, there appears to be a correlation between spending and success. We retained a good squad and therefore didn't need to bring in as many, we failed in the biggest respect and the only league table that I was looking at.

We're in League 1 and Wednesday/Charlton are not. I'm not encouraged by that at all.