Can anyone Enlighten Me?

I'm just watching Sky news who are claiming the FA are refusing to speak to them with regards the sale of Carroll, a change of Agent was mentioned. Have I missed something?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/mar/16/liverpool-andy-carroll-newcastle-united-agent

 

Why would the FA refuse to speak about the sale of Carroll? Dark deeds afoot methinks.

I'm not the Agent in question though.

 

I'm still sleepy, it's confusing me somewhat.

Basically...what?

**** it, who cares, we've got the 35mil (somewhere). If Carroll/Dalglish/Anyone related to these two comes out as some sort of crook it'll be an added bonus.

 

Is their any possibility of a Liverpool points reduction?
this would be class!!

 

Thanks for the link Toonpents, just quickly whizzed through it as I'm off to work, seems like there is more to this than meets the eye.
I don't care much for agents, I once read they cost the FA millions, if they are employed by a player isn't it the old fashioned way they get a per centage of player earnings.

 

In the beginning God made man, then when man got lonely God made woman. When man and woman got together they made more men. After a while the men started to get bored so God made football. The men liked football and very soon everybody either played or watched football so God made Agents to look after the footballers interests.


And that's when all the trouble started!

 

Agent Bruce I'm mortified, How did I overlook You? I haven't forgotten I owe you a tip for the races!

 

How did I overlook You?

It seems it's quite an easy thing to do.

 

What Acid-Hippo said!!

Seems far too confusing for me to even try and follow.....

 

Taken from the comments on that article:

Carroll wasn't able to use an agent in the deal so Liverpool used one instead.

But that could be a 'boom' moment if Liverpool 'employed' an agent who was actually acting for the player.

(searches memory for details of tax case some years back)

A dozen or so deals (Birmingham City was one appellant, can't remember the others) got into hot water when agents acting for players were paid by the clubs - this came up because the clubs tried to get the VAT back on the agents' fees, and HMRC pointed out this was only possible if the agent was making supplies to (i.e. acting for) the club. So the clubs tried to argue that they were - and then go into even hotter water because a) under contract law there is a problem with acting for both sides in a deal and b) I think that's not allowed by the FA.

So, David Conn is being very very careful in what he writes, but to me the upshot of the article, closing thus:

To sum up, the 22-year-old recently capped England centre-forward did not use an agent to negotiate his terms in moving to Liverpool for a British record fee. Liverpool did employ an agent: David Bromley, a close associate of Mark Curtis, whom Carroll's former agent, Peter Harrison, has accused of acting for the player.


...is that the way in which the agent was involved in the deal could be rather problematic, regardless of all the struck off / dissolved companies, which is possibly something of a red herring (included to make the protagonist/s look a bit shady).

On

In English football, if a player leaves his agent part way through a contract he cannot be represented by another for two years.


to resolve the issue raised by pikeman, would appreciate some clarification - am presuming that means if the player breaks the contract, i.e. terminates the contract outwith the given termination clauses in the contract (so, if the contract says 6 month's notice, and the player gives six month's notice, that's fine - if the player just tells them to sod off with immediate effect, that's a breach, so not fine) - otherwise that does look very strange (restriction of freedom to trade?).

 

Basically its a bung paid by Liverpool to a third party (David Bromley) in order to keep an incoming player happy & to try and get around Carroll's contract with his former agent (Peter Harrison) so that who Carroll wanted to be represented by (Mark Curtis) could still get his agent's fee through his mate Bromley (Bromley and Curtis have ran a fair few different companies and agencies together).

Dodgy dealings indeed!

 

From what I can read into it, it's a complete non-story?

It's basically 2 agents bitching at each other because:
a) Carroll wanted Nolan's agent (Nolan clearly had a massive affect on the lad) and Carroll's old agent feels cheated out of his fee.
b) Carroll's old agent and Nolan's agent were both involved in this Panorama program about bungs.
c) A mysterious 3rd party ended up doing the deal, this 3rd party works along side Nolan's agent.

d) all 3 are dodgy as **** characters!

No laws have been broken by either club, so basically the best that will happen is Carroll will have dish out some of that 80k a week to his old agent!

 

Theres alot more into it then that I reckon
if that was just the case the FA would have dismissed it straight away rather than passing the buck because they no this deal is dodgey as **** and they are too spineless to discuss negativity in the face of adversity

 

Whatever the outcome of these dodgy dealings, it'd be hilarious if Kenneth/ L'pool/ Carroll each got a serious smacked botty as a result!

 

along with that **** up(fa) thats ruining football in this country.
Its about time something was done about Bungs, amazes me how they have been going on for so long and people just turn a blind eye to it.

 

Aye, theyre a joke. Rotten to the core.

But just look at Fifa! Possibly an even bigger bunch of clowns. I mean, they had a summit recently about the wearing of snoods. Incredible stuff...

 

Well Carroll and Liverpool may have broken FA rules & contract laws so should be the only ones punished, Newcastle come out of this clean as a whistle.

 

10 point reduction for Liverpool would be good!