I notice more and more, that this terminology is being used, most recently with Tommy Smith and Adam Johnson....not sure why. it reminds me of politics and the need to know concept. Are they ashamed to say how much they paid in case it all goes wrong, or is it to do with the selling on clause? Anyone?
I was talking to a friend who was a solicitor , he's had dealings with a number of big clubs . The way he say fees are worked out are a matter between the clubs and what They want to tell the media can include wages, vat , signing on fees, wages over term of contract , can't see why he would be yanking my chain so think he was being straight , not sued if that helps .
Which then goes back to the politics analogy. I think the important difference is when the terms 'deal' or 'fee' are used. A £10mil deal can include everything up to the agents taxi home whereas for example Man u paid a reported 24mil fee for rvp. Don't know why so many deals are becoming undisclosed, it's a spectator sport that exists on the level it does solely because of the fans. I, like most others, like to know the transfer fees involved (don't care about the wages as much tbh). I think the fee should have to be disclosed, even if other parts of the deal remain confidential.
Very complex area. Even when a fee is "disclosed", the headline figure often embellishes the actual cash changing hands. Chopra from Sunderland was a prime example. Their chairman was quoting a figure of £4m they'd got from us to appease their fans. Keane had paid us £5m for him the year before. Amongst other things, the figure he quoted when the deal was done in January included his wages we'd already payed him for the first half season loan, and also the second half season loan wages until he officially signed for us in the following July. There was also the small matter of the outstanding balance they still owed us included in the alleged £4m "fee" we were paying to get him back. Amost impossible for outsiders like us to get the real FACTS - unless you're a Forest supporter that is.....
what i'd like to see made public is the payment made to agents.. now that would make for interesting reading...
Agents fee , that would never happen ,but I'm sure they published what the prem clubs spent on agents last year , with man city topping the table ( If I remember right ) , transfer fees are so open to manipulation that they mean very little . The only reason i can see for the undisclosed is , not wanting your rivals knowing your budget , and not pissing your own supporters off , either what your paying for a player or letting a player go too cheap , again all speculation and I'm sure there are people on here with a better take on this then me . Who said the beautiful game was simple
