Agents' fees

[Jeff]

We paid £407,300 to agents last season, which is a big drop compared to the previous year.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/75/be/0,,10794~179829,00.pdf

 

[pork pie fox]

Good.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Is football the only area where agents take 10-20% of a player's contract AND get a fee from the club as well, every time the player is moved?

 

[Durham Fox]

Is football the only area where agents take 10-20% of a player's contract AND get a fee from the club as well, every time the player is moved?

No. Estate Agents, for instance.

 

[Jeff]

Is football the only area where agents take 10-20% of a player's contract AND get a fee from the club as well, every time the player is moved?

It doesn't work like that. An agent will work for the club, or the player, but not both at the same time. It's against the rules.


The figures released today are where clubs have paid agents, and it doesn't include money paid by players to agents.

 

[pork pie fox]

For anyone who would like to compare it to the report from 2011/12:
http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/82/b7/0,,10794~178050,00.pdf

 

[Blaarev]

Interesting!

 

[TommyK]

For anyone that can't be arsed to click on the link - we paid £1,812,371 for 2011/2012.

Blackpool paid nothing to agents.

 

[M17TT C]

Sooner agents are banned then the better for the game.

Possibly not completely banned but much more stringent regulations or employed by clubs only and work on behalf of that teams players.

Not that football is a poor sport but these agents take a hell of a lot away from the game but actually add nothing to it.

EDIT - It is very nice though to see us reduce our expenditure on this though it is probably down to signing fewer players as opposed to being tougher negotiators.

 

[Blaarev]

For anyone that can't be arsed to click on the link - we paid £1,812,371 for 2011/2012.

Blackpool paid nothing to agents.

Blackburn paid £3.5M, while 'ull who can't afford to pay their manager properly spent more than double of what we did

 

[fitz]

EDIT - It is very nice though to see us reduce our expenditure on this though it is probably down to signing fewer players as opposed to being tougher negotiators.

Ture, that and the players we're signing will probably not be on quite as ridiculously high contracts as the previous buys.

 

[Matt_B]

Ture, that and the players we're signing will probably not be on quite as ridiculously high contracts as the previous buys.

Or as "big" names.

 

[FryattFox]

It doesn't work like that. An agent will work for the club, or the player, but not both at the same time. It's against the rules.

I don't think that that is true.

Agents can work for both parties. E.g. On a renegotiation, the agent is typically deemed to be half representing the club and half representing the player.

 

[Jeff]

I don't think that that is true.

Agents can work for both parties. E.g. On a renegotiation, the agent is typically deemed to be half representing the club and half representing the player.

I'm sure they changed the rules to stop agents working for both parties, but the latest version I can find says they can. There's a long list of conditions that have to be met first. It's from page 3 in this document: http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/...ions/agents-regulations-from-4-july-2009.ashx

 

[David Gwilliam]

My understanding was that Nigel would say "I need a big strong centre back". Steve Walsh would mention a number of names recommending say Wes Morgan. Nigel would agree or disagree. Andrew Neville would then negotiate for us with the other club and the players agent; I would guess that Terry Robinson has taken over the Andrew Neville role.

Clearly I am in error since in that system we do not need to pay any agents fees at all. I can understand paying a translator for someone like Futacs but their pay is derisory.

 

[FryattFox]

I'm sure they changed the rules to stop agents working for both parties, but the latest version I can find says they can. There's a long list of conditions that have to be met first. It's from page 3 in this document: http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/...ions/agents-regulations-from-4-july-2009.ashx

They definitely can work for both sides. Not sure if they didn't used to be able to, but HMRC ruled that the clubs must calculate the effective benefit received by the player, which is typically 50% if only one agent is involved (which is quite usual as you only need the player's agent to negotiate with the club, even if it's then determined that the agent worked on behalf of both parties).

 

[Jeff]

They definitely can work for both sides. Not sure if they didn't used to be able to, but HMRC ruled that the clubs must calculate the effective benefit received by the player, which is typically 50% if only one agent is involved (which is quite usual as you only need the player's agent to negotiate with the club, even if it's then determined that the agent worked on behalf of both parties).

It looks like the rules have changed since this http://talkingballs.co.uk/showthread.php?p=725464 was posted.

 

[FryattFox]

It looks like the rules have changed since this http://talkingballs.co.uk/showthread.php?p=725464 was posted.

Interesting - good find.

I was only aware that they had to be split from about 2010/11, so as you say looks like it changed in the intervening period.