Interesting insight into yesterday

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Sheffsteel said:
True but Sinclair and Quinna are BOTH on fantastic salaries and set up for life due to their glorified used car salesman of an agent.

The issue I have is if you give youngsters the 2 options

Option A: Be in David Brooks position in the perfect position for developement playing a few games on £7,000 a week (4 year contract) or Option B; Be Sinclair or Quinna on £21,000 a week (4 year contract) never playing a league match and permenently banished to the reserves.

I reckon the bottom line for many youngsters is option A offers a gauranteed £1.5 million gross where's as option B offers a gauranteed £4.5 million gross.

So many youngsters would much rather be in Sinclair shoes than Brook's shoes.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly why all this money in the game has ruined it.
 



Pedro Verde said:
With regard to agents and in particular the 2 loanees Quina and Sinclair I am very surprised at how much influence their agent has had over where they play on loan, surely its up to the parent club where they go how much the loan fee will be and if the parent club pays a percentage of their wages
Im sure Wilder wouldnt be dictated to by an agent if we were sending a player out on loan
Click to expand...

Agree but the player has to agree the loan.

Sinclair and Quinna both verbally agreed the loan arrangement but neither got the nod from the agent to sign the contracts.
 
Ricky said:
Fascinating to read.

Well done to Wilder and the club for allowing such access to give us the sort of insight we wouldn't usually get.

Why on earth would Cole have been available for free?
Click to expand...

Brayford was given away, in theory a much more valuable asset than Cole.
 
Be interesting to find out what Watford and Wet Spam have to say. Unless they've said try and squeeze some further money out at the last minute, the agent is surely acting beyond his brief.

What has he said to Watford about why the player didn't leave Midland Station to go to Shirecliffe and what have they to say about both loans being linked?

No chance of the EPL bothering but what has the FA to say about these shenanigans?
 
derekacorah said:
Brayford was given away, in theory a much more valuable asset than Cole.
Click to expand...

Very different situations. The only way I could see Cole being available for free is due to some clause in his contract.

It sounds like Fleetwood wanted to do the deal in the end but we just ran out of time. Was that deal for 200k plus another 200k after 50 appearances? If so that would've been a very good deal. As Mitchell correctly says, if Cole played 50 times for us, he'd be doing very well.
 
[QUOPeteBlade, post: 1439152, member: 1090"]This can't be right.

I have it on good authority, from football experts, who are the only ones who tell it like it is, that we didn't sign our targets because we didn't offer enough to the selling clubs as we lack ambition and weren't committed to spending in the first place.[/QUOTE]
And we're stuck in 1989 with player values :rolleyes:
 
Ricky said:
Very different situations. The only way I could see Cole being available for free is due to some clause in his contract.

It sounds like Fleetwood wanted to do the deal in the end but we just ran out of time. Was that deal for 200k plus another 200k after 50 appearances? If so that would've been a very good deal. As Mitchell correctly says, if Cole played 50 times for us, he'd be doing very well.
Click to expand...

Personally I've never been impressed with Cole when I've seen him but agree that £200k is hardly a gamble for him. I'd have expected less procrastination and the fee being paid.
 
Interestingly (for me at least) was the fact that the club was baulking at paying £200,000.00 and £500,000.00. We simply don't have the cash available as people expect. The supposed sell on clause fees have been used or accounted for. Brought in for fees or free with signing on and loan fees and with wages to pay, Evans, Stearman, Stevens, Baldock, Thomas, Lundstram. Paid off Done, Brayford and probably still paying off others by instalments. (therefore no fees in and a settlement of what we owe on their contracts. Wages increase by 25% for squad on promotion, better contracts for Knill Wilder and Mitchell. Increase to Brooks. Still got a liability on the Hanson contract for wages. It all adds up and I am pretty sure that our owners might have liked to have stemmed their losses for the last couple of years before priming the pump again. Much as I am really disappointed in failing with Leonard and Cole, realistically, we ain't got much spending power and no one wants to buy us.
 
A very good read that article just shows if proof was needed that agents are cunts and are ruining the game, as Wilder says two players will be playing in a meaningless game in front of 400 when they could have been playing in front of 40,000 at Sunderland next week.
 
Sheffsteel said:
Sinclair might have words with his agent

But his agent will reply 'You've played 2 (TWO) matches for Liverpool and it was ME that's set you up for life getting you £20,000 a week at Watford". 9 times out of 10 the dirty tactics used by the agent would work because when clubs are desperate they'll pay whatever.

The agent knew we were desparate for a striker but he didn't figure coming up against Chris Wilder who is doing the game as great service by refusing to play games.

The shame is that Sinclair and Quinna probably aren't that bothered. They've achieved nothing in football, hardly even played a game but in their eyes both are set up for life so both probably feel that they've already made it.

This is a lesson for David Brooks. If Man City offered him £25K a week to sit in the reserves and not play first team football for years, would he accept the contract if it meant not playing any meaningful football.
Click to expand...
Yeah but can he sack his agent? Thanks for the £20K a week, now fuck off, my employer wants to loan me to them so I'm going.

Must be plenty more agents he can get when the end of the contract comes around
 
PeteBlade said:
This can't be right.

I have it on good authority, from football experts, who are the only ones who tell it like it is, that we didn't sign our targets because we didn't offer enough to the selling clubs as we lack ambition and weren't committed to spending in the first place.
Click to expand...
It sort of says that in the article
 
Snowman said:
Interestingly (for me at least) was the fact that the club was baulking at paying £200,000.00 and £500,000.00. We simply don't have the cash available as people expect. The supposed sell on clause fees have been used or accounted for. Brought in for fees or free with signing on and loan fees and with wages to pay, Evans, Stearman, Stevens, Baldock, Thomas, Lundstram. Paid off Done, Brayford and probably still paying off others by instalments. (therefore no fees in and a settlement of what we owe on their contracts. Wages increase by 25% for squad on promotion, better contracts for Knill Wilder and Mitchell. Increase to Brooks. Still got a liability on the Hanson contract for wages. It all adds up and I am pretty sure that our owners might have liked to have stemmed their losses for the last couple of years before priming the pump again. Much as I am really disappointed in failing with Leonard and Cole, realistically, we ain't got much spending power and no one wants to buy us.
Click to expand...

So why did we bid for The players from Blackburn, Wolves and Southend?
 



Pedro Verde said:
With regard to agents and in particular the 2 loanees Quina and Sinclair I am very surprised at how much influence their agent has had over where they play on loan, surely its up to the parent club where they go how much the loan fee will be and if the parent club pays a percentage of their wages
Im sure Wilder wouldnt be dictated to by an agent if we were sending a player out on loan
Click to expand...
I don't think it was about where they play on loan I think it was more that said players weren't guaranteed places (rightly so) in the starting 11 which he didn't like
 
Stunning read and insight. How can these leaches called agents get away with what appears to be blackmail slave trading, what about the players rights and the treaty of Rome? Would love it Cole and Quiba sued said agent for loss of earnings.
 
Rereading it, which Championship manager do we think he's on the phone to at 5:40pm discussing how to handle the agent upping the price at the last minute?
 
loyalblade95 said:
I don't think it was about where they play on loan I think it was more that said players weren't guaranteed places (rightly so) in the starting 11 which he didn't like
Click to expand...

Why is that down to the agent surely its about what the parent club wants not the agent.They both wanted to come to us. Wilder has said no loan player will be guaranteed 1st team football at SUFC . The deals were agreed financially with the parent clubs last week . The agent from what I understand wanted 50 k more than what was agreed with the parent club
 
Turns out Sinclair and Quina's agent, Aidy Ward, is also agent for Sterling, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Berahino among others.

So he'll be fucking loaded.

Which makes his extra 50% demand even more despicable - he cares more about relative pennies for himself than one (and subsequently two) of his young client's careers. Sinclair needed to be playing games and the pure greed of his agent has fucked him over.

I hope Sinclair's thinking about his agent when he's fucking around in the U23s every week. He should sack the cunt.
 
I am quite surprised United weren't prepared to make a money bid for Cole at an earlier stage in the day. It seems like that might have got the deal over the line. Oh well.

Fascinating piece and good on United for allowing access.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
Rereading it, which Championship manager do we think he's on the phone to at 5:40pm discussing how to handle the agent upping the price at the last minute?
Click to expand...
Rowett?

He said last weekend that they're friends.
 
[
Snowman said:
Interestingly (for me at least) was the fact that the club was baulking at paying £200,000.00 and £500,000.00. We simply don't have the cash available as people expect. The supposed sell on clause fees have been used or accounted for. Brought in for fees or free with signing on and loan fees and with wages to pay, Evans, Stearman, Stevens, Baldock, Thomas, Lundstram. Paid off Done, Brayford and probably still paying off others by instalments. (therefore no fees in and a settlement of what we owe on their contracts. Wages increase by 25% for squad on promotion, better contracts for Knill Wilder and Mitchell. Increase to Brooks. Still got a liability on the Hanson contract for wages. It all adds up and I am pretty sure that our owners might have liked to have stemmed their losses for the last couple of years before priming the pump again. Much as I am really disappointed in failing with Leonard and Cole, realistically, we ain't got much spending power and no one wants to buy us.
Click to expand...

I believe we do have money available but I think it was simply down to Wilder / the team around him refusing to pay that figure if he doesn't think it was value for money. If it was worth the money then he would have spent it.
 
Sheffsteel said:
That's an excellent insight and explains a lot.

Thought it didn't make sense to have Quinna (when he's almost identical to Brooks) but it seems he came as a pair with Sinclair. It was the highly rated Sinclair that we really wanted but we weren't prepared to pay an agent who was trying to pressurise us into paying last minute additional fees. Sinclair and Quinna have now both lost out due to having the same greedy agent.

Regards Cole, looks like Fleetwood were being greedy and kept raising the asking price, we refused then they broke and came back to us accepting the earlier bid BUT they missed out handing the paper work in by a few minutes. So the Cole deal was agreed by all parties but just missed the deadline.

Basically it's like a game of poker.
Agents are used to clubs breaking and paying what ever is requested.

Wilder seems to have principles and is a man of his word.
With that attitude it might have lost out in the short term but will be a winner with respect in the long term.
Click to expand...

What was pleasing was the apparent lack of having to fight to keep someone.
 
TonyAgana said:
What I don't understand is that there was at least one player who was obviously pissed off to the highest degree that it fell through while he was sat on his bags at midland station. If players are let down so badly by their agents, why not get another one or are they in golden handcuffs?
Click to expand...

Dealing with a specialist in contracts the contract he writes tying you to him will be a really good one (for the agent) so no chance of tearing up and walking away.

Dellas Cowboys said:
What surprised me is that 6 clubs were angling to take Thomas on loan so soon after we've signed him - that's a bit odd.
Click to expand...
One would definitely be Hartlepool and I'll wager Chesterfield, Rotherham, Doncaster, maybe Mansfield all the clubs we've dealt with locally will know he's not starting and any he tore up last season.
 



Sheffsteel said:
True but Sinclair and Quinna are BOTH on fantastic salaries and set up for life due to their glorified used car salesman of an agent.

The issue I have is if you give youngsters the 2 options

Option A: Be in David Brooks position in the perfect position for developement playing a few games on £7,000 a week (4 year contract) or Option B; Be Sinclair or Quinna on £21,000 a week (4 year contract) never playing a league match and permenently banished to the reserves.

I reckon the bottom line for many youngsters is option A offers a gauranteed £1.5 million gross where's as option B offers a gauranteed £4.5 million gross.

So many youngsters would much rather be in Sinclair shoes than Brook's shoes.
Click to expand...
Although I agree it really sounds like Sinclair wants to play football but is controlled by his agent. I'm sure the original reaction is take the money because it is a) a lot of money b) they have a belief in themselves that they will make it.
Reality once players move out of age ranges and into senior football is somewhat different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5
The good old days
Replies
7
Views
1K
I should coco
I should coco
P
18 April 1903. The Day United and Wednesday battled it out for the league title
Replies
0
Views
316
programmechap
P
Tony Currie
Full Summer Transfer Summary
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Servigliano
S
Silky Sabella
Better than winning the lottery!
2 3
Replies
61
Views
6K
Maidenhead
M
Jimmy23
14 wins
Replies
17
Views
1K
LBA_Blade
LBA_Blade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom