It's because some clubs are willing to pay that amount of money to get what they want. As I mentioned earlier, before the psychic Mrblueman decided he knew me, money paid to agents doesn't go back into football. Six million is a fee that the likes of Crewe could make in selling their players. Shame some utter twat doesn't remember how close they came to going to the wall and stopped acting like loadsamoney and mocking those not willing or able to.
If there are two clubs who have offered the same for a player, the club is happy to accept either offer.. They don't care they have their fee. The two clubs then I assume make their offers on wages to the player, they offer image rights which I assume is a percentage of merchandise sold in that players name.. All of which I assume the agent will get a chunk of.. It's how the signing on fee works. As this can't be set by the club selling.. But I'd bet the agent gets a chunk of that too, so it would be right then To assume clubs also negotiate with the player on the signing on fee.. None of the above cam be set by the agent merely negotiating the best deal for their clients .. Yes they will earn more the better deal they negotiate but surely that's where the skill arises in negotiation.. Everyone has this opinion that the agents are destroying clubs. If that is how it works it's the players destroying the game and the owners of the clubs gambling with their clubs future by over stretching themselves.
Pretty sure the agent handles all the negotiations between the club and the player, and part of any contract includes a fee that the club pays to the agent in exchange for sorting out all the paperwork of getting the club released by their old club and handling all the contracts. As with the player's wages, the fee is determined by negotiation, but as all the communication goes through the agent then the agent can make up whatever BS they like to get the player to sign for the club that meets their terms. Re the contractual obligation, I reckon the situation will be quite similar to estate agents - as soon as the agent has marketed the player they will have some term in the contract that the player has to cut that agent into any deal. So it would be like viewing a house with an agent, then trying to make an offer directly to the vendor, which I'm pretty sure is illegal? And of course if you tried to approach the vendor directly you'd have to get contact details for them, for which you have to go through the agent and so they hold all the cards. You could argue that both systems are equally broken, and the money paid to the agent is unnecessary in both cases, but then the player trying to sell themselves without an agent is like the bloke trying to sell his house without an estate agent. Both run into the same problem of trying to reach loads of people without knowing how, not knowing their own market value, and ultimately not having time to call up every manager in the world trying to get them to make an offer whilst also trying to train, play and focus on the game. SAF is actually quoted in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-united-manager-sir-alex-1153260 “In the Hazard deal, *Chelsea paid the agent £6million. And the *situation last year with Nasri was the same." Whilst the Mirror is of course a **** red top, I think making up a quotation (and indeed and entire interview) would be a bit far for them. So at least we know that Hazard's agent was demanding £6 million, and that Chelsea came closest to meeting Hazard and Lille's overall demands. The £9 million for Moura seems a bit steep, but then we paid £3 million to Rio's agent in 2002, and the transfer record has gone up almost three times since then. What with agents even more willing to whore young players around as many clubs as possible, it's not infeasible that the agents fees could have tripled in the same period.
exactly, just because it might get results doesnt mean its right. Somethings need to be stopped and I for one am happy United are taking a stand, even if it costs us our man.
Ha, you really have a great way of articulating your non point. Love it. How about you go back, read what I was perfectly reasonably saying about agents, then come back with something a little better. If 'you didn't give a **** when you weren't skint' remains your best effort, go to bed.
Swarbs your reply was too long for me to requote it.. If what you say is correct that the buying club pay the agent a fee for sorting out the contacts etc that again makes no sense.. All he will do is negotiate on behalf of the player.. If there was a player who was desperate to play for Madrid but Madrid refused to pay 6m to the agent I don't believe that the player would accept that.. The buying club makes an offer re price for the player. I accepted then they offer on wages image rights which is then negotiated then the length of contract would be decided offered and negotiated.. Everything points to the players being the mercenary and the agent merely taking advantage of players and clubs greed.
Up to you. You ignored what I was saying with some random bollocks and it got the reaction it deserved. Putting words in capitals doesn't make them any closer to being accurate.
No you're right, the agent doesn't always have the power to force the player to sign for a club they want. But the agent can wield a lot of power, particularly when it comes to a young player who is very impressionable, has little experience, and doesn't dream of playing for a particular club. Given that the agents handle all the negotiations, it wouldn't be too hard for Hazard's agent, for example, to talk to Utd, Chelsea and City, work out which one has the best offer, and then tell Hazard that club has promised him the best wages, to play in the position he wants, and to play him every game, and that the others will have him in a rotation system with lower wages, or that they have broken off negotiations completely. Ultimately how's Hazard going to know what's true? Heck, if you listed to Hazard's comments to the media then he hardly seemed to know which club he'd be playing for until the contract was signed! We already know that in 2009, when City made Tevez a higher offer than Utd, Tevez' agent told him Utd hadn't offered any contract at all. Same way an estate agent can invent low bids to try and convince a buyer to sell at a lower price if the agent can't shift it. All the communication goes through the agent, and the player or club are in breach of the agent's agreement if they try to talk to each other direct. I remember one transfer move, Bebe I think, being delayed cos he was changing agent because apparently he couldn't move with his current agent cos the new agent was the one who initiated the deal or something. Also remember that for most of the players the agent manages their assets, money, everything. There have been stories of players who get their agents to pay their taxes, their bills, even do their laundry. They practically end up being parents for these kids, and so the players believe absolutely everything the agent tells them. The main problem, imo, is not the fees but the fact that agents get paid upfront. That way, like with estate agents, there is a massive incentive to lie and cheat cos once you have the money you are sorted. Hazard could arrive at Chelsea, find it's completely different from what his agent promised, get pissed off and be gone in a year, but his agent would still keep the fee. If agents were paid over a longer term, ideally the course of the contract they negotiate, there would be less moral hazard and they might be less likely to whore players around so much. Good read here if you are interested in all the nitty gritty details: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/documents/study_on_sports_agents_in_the.pdf
Happy to. From my point of view I have always thought agents leeched money out of football and now they do even more. When I say they're stealing money from football I mean it, although I realise they aren't entirely responsible for the death of money filtering down to the minnows, big club academies do that. Hand on heart, I would have been annoyed if we'd have signed Moura or Hazard and had to give such a fee to an agent. I genuinely have no beef with what Chelsea do either.
Can't make my mind up as to whether to have another Blandford Fly. You watching the Tiger Woods show? Bloody **** coverage.
