• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, chelboy said:

Why we still haven’t looked at playmakers is odd everything seems focused on just strikers. 

Who's to say that we haven't, or aren't? The media? Please, what would they know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chelboy said:

Assuming this is true, he's a top player and Raoila's obviously going to represent a lot of the top players in football. Its the club's negotiating team's job to get us the best deal possible. Side-stepping the process because Man Utd did so is plain lazy work IMO.

Secondly, you look at the potential of the player and 86 million Euros (IF true) is a decent deal as I'm sure that if he continues at this rate the kid will be worth 150-200m Euros in maybe 2 or 3 years. Not to mention the money they could earn from UCL revenue, the shirt sales, any extra prize money he could help earn them if he turns them into winners... I mean, this is a pretty straight forward investment tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelboy   
7 hours ago, Blue_In_Every_Way said:

Assuming this is true, he's a top player and Raoila's obviously going to represent a lot of the top players in football. Its the club's negotiating team's job to get us the best deal possible. Side-stepping the process because Man Utd did so is plain lazy work IMO.

Secondly, you look at the potential of the player and 86 million Euros (IF true) is a decent deal as I'm sure that if he continues at this rate the kid will be worth 150-200m Euros in maybe 2 or 3 years. Not to mention the money they could earn from UCL revenue, the shirt sales, any extra prize money he could help earn them if he turns them into winners... I mean, this is a pretty straight forward investment tbh. 

Raiola wanted a percentage in any future sale. That is pretty ridiculous. I don’t see why any clause like that should be included. Don’t forget its a 4 year contract. Raiola can easily come back after two years demanding crazy wages and putting Dortmund in a tricky position where they would have to sell for less money or accept his demands. The investment looks very straight forward but during those 4 years or so Raiola will give them hell. I don’t think it’s worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
4 hours ago, chelboy said:

Raiola wanted a percentage in any future sale. That is pretty ridiculous. I don’t see why any clause like that should be included. Don’t forget its a 4 year contract. Raiola can easily come back after two years demanding crazy wages and putting Dortmund in a tricky position where they would have to sell for less money or accept his demands. The investment looks very straight forward but during those 4 years or so Raiola will give them hell. I don’t think it’s worth it. 

I don't see how the role agents is not properly regulated. The whole thing stinks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

I don't see how the role agents is not properly regulated. The whole thing stinks. 

I wouldn't want to defend Raiola or the clubs that deal with him.  But there are some basic issues that need addressing, not just him, or agents generally.

Footballers are part-owned by themselves, part owned by the club they have an existing contract with.  That is the crux of the matter.  It is like a house being sold by a divorcing couple where you have to agree a separate fee to both, but both want more than half.

It is not surprising that agents are necessary, that some of them benefit their clients many millions and expect to get paid accordingly and that some of them get very aggressive on behalf of their clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

I think the agent's fees should come from the player, not the club. The agent is acting for the player and so remuneration should reflect that. The player does not usually have access to large sums so the agent has to be remunerated in the course of the contract. Insurance is used to settle injury claims. By having the player pay for the agent, players will look for more cost-effective agents and so agents are incentivised to charge lower amounts for their services. If I were a club I would negotiate staged payment for player remuneration that rises over the course of the contract. The longer a player stays in the contract, the more money they receive. In a perfect world, the fees an agent gets should be the same so that agent and player are both incentivised to see out their contract. I wish I knew how to make that work, though :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I think the agent's fees should come from the player, not the club. The agent is acting for the player and so remuneration should reflect that. The player does not usually have access to large sums so the agent has to be remunerated in the course of the contract. Insurance is used to settle injury claims. By having the player pay for the agent, players will look for more cost-effective agents and so agents are incentivised to charge lower amounts for their services. If I were a club I would negotiate staged payment for player remuneration that rises over the course of the contract.

. In a perfect world, the fees an agent gets should be the same so that agent and player are both incentivised to see out their contract. I wish I knew how to make that work, though :-)

The agent is generally working with the buying club and co-operating with the club that offers him personally most. 
If I as a club want to out bid a rival team for a player, I could offer the selling club £1m more, the player £1m more over the contract or the agent £1m more up front.  I'm pretty sure I know which will be most effective.

Indeed some deals start out with the agent representing the buying club and then contact the player.  If agents are working to bring down the selling club's share of the deal, then you can't blame clubs for being willing to reward that and doing the deal that best suits the agent.

So yes it would be good if the player alone paid the agent's fees.  But hard to bring about except with a sweeping new regulation which I suspect might be challenged in court (or sidestepped).  And unless the fees are set in stone as a fixed % of the player's income, agents will find it easy to take as much as they want.

15 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

The longer a player stays in the contract, the more money they receive

True, but lets face it, an agent is only going to be pushing for a transfer after 2 years if he thinks he will get much higher wages again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

I don't see how the role agents is not properly regulated. The whole thing stinks. 

Agreed but isn't that what caused the Super Agent conference at Barnet Copthall last week?

The footballing authorities suggested capping agents fees. 

The lecherous scum bottom feeders association are thoroughly against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Droy was my hero said:

True, but lets face it, an agent is only going to be pushing for a transfer after 2 years if he thinks he will get much higher wages again.

Having a buyout clause basically guarantees that, of course the agent will only get an extra bumper payout if the player moves clubs rather than renews at his current club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

Having a buyout clause basically guarantees that, of course the agent will only get an extra bumper payout if the player moves clubs rather than renews at his current club.

Well plenty of buy out clauses go unexpired.
My point is that if a player goes on to do very well, then an agent will want to get a new deal done whether his fees were linked to continuing wages or not.
And in the more common case where the buyout clause is never likely to be activated, agents aren't a problem anyway.

Generally from the players point of view, buyouts are a good thing - they make football contracts a little less like slavery and encourage clubs to pay the going rate for young talent (since buyout rates get renegotiated with new contracts).
And I would guess they limit the worst activities of agents which is getting players to rebel and refuse to play to force an exit.
 

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now