Undisclosed Fee

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

Taken from the OS....

Following the departure of Michael Smith last week, the subject of the ‘undisclosed fee’ was raised. We spoke to Finance Director Toni Watola about some of the reasons clubs choose to keep transfer fees under wraps. He said:

“The undisclosed fee is common practice in football, and is usually instigated by the purchasing club. This was the case in the Michael Smith deal, where Peterborough had it written in as stipulation in the contract. This happens for a number of reasons, the principle one being that clubs don’t want to set a precedent for future deals. If other targets and their clubs are aware of the fees being paid by a certain club, it could result in the bar being raised, and more money being demanded for future transfers. For that reason, this is also something we do at Bristol Rovers, as we do not want to put ourselves in a position where we could suffer a financial disadvantage. We understand that fans are keen to know what players are bought and sold for, but I hope you can see the financial reasons behind keeping these figures confidential.”

 

[smhbcfc]

I hate undisclosed fees - personally I think the FA need to make it a rule that all fees are known

 

[The Great Gashead]

So much for transparency! Seems it's as and when it suits with 'undisclosed' fees. The more cynical of people would suggest that the money will not be put in to fund the core part of the business of a football club, the playing side, but end up in a wallet somewhere amongst the higher ups. Example the Lambert, Macey, Santos (tribunal), Smith money. By now with all that going on the coffers should have a fair chunk that can be invested into the playing squad.

 

[pirate49]

I think it's interesting that TW had this put on the OS at all. Before all the criticism
of the last couple of months I doubt if anything like this would have been posted at all
by the board.
I still don't agree with the idea of undisclosed fees though!