Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

Money We Paid To Agents Since October Last Year.

Recommended Posts

Timm Klose was one of Norwich City''s January window signings. Picture by Paul Chesterton/Focus Images Ltd

Norwich City paid £1,183,890

in agents’ fees for the period covering a club-record January transfer

window, according to new official figures published by the FA.

That figure must cover the incomings of Klose, Naismith, Bamford and Pinto. At the risk of being accused of beating the Club with a stick i suggest we have been tucked up for 3 of those signings. I am sure the Apologists will be along to justify that figure which placed us 13th on the PL table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"]BINGO !!!!! Now who will be along next i wonder ?[/quote]Its good that you admit you''re trolling for attention....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agents fees work on a percentage of how much you are spending, we spent a lot, we paid a lot in agents fees.There is literally nothing to see here.Still if we hadn''t spent the money, that would have been worth a whinge too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t be ridiculous. I think that amount spent on agents who represent players one of whom you have admitted yourself on at least one other thread has failed to deliver and two who cannot even get a game seems an awful amount of money. Hey that is my opinion so really you will have to deal with that Morty. My Bingo !!! post just made me smile as i knew that as sure as night follows day you would be straight on the case as you are with every thread not fitting your take on all things Norwich City. Indulge me by outlining how and why i am wrong in my view.Naismith''s agent provided value for money ? Pinto or Bamford''s ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"]Don''t be ridiculous. I think that amount spent on agents who represent players one of whom you have admitted yourself on at least one other thread has failed to deliver and two who cannot even get a game seems an awful amount of money. Hey that is my opinion so really you will have to deal with that Morty. My Bingo !!! post just made me smile as i knew that as sure as night follows day you would be straight on the case as you are with every thread not fitting your take on all things Norwich City. Indulge me by outlining how and why i am wrong in my view.Naismith''s agent provided value for money ? Pinto or Bamford''s ? [/quote]So who are you whingeing about. The agents or someone else?Now let me guess, is there someone at the club that you have a dislike for, that you could be using this as a stick to beat him perhaps?I''ll just give Scooby Doo a ring, be right back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]Agents fees work on a percentage of how much you are spending, we spent a lot, we paid a lot in agents fees.There is literally nothing to see here.Still if we hadn''t spent the money, that would have been worth a whinge too...[/quote]Well that is enlightening to learn agents are on percentages and there was silly me thinking that in the modern game it was all about how much these chalatans can screw out of a club depending how much they have to throw around at a problem or how desperate they are to get players to sign on the dotted line. So you are suggesting there is a set structure of fees based on the transfer amount ? Really ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Don''t be ridiculous. I think that amount spent on agents who represent players one of whom you have admitted yourself on at least one other thread has failed to deliver and two who cannot even get a game seems an awful amount of money. Hey that is my opinion so really you will have to deal with that Morty. My Bingo !!! post just made me smile as i knew that as sure as night follows day you would be straight on the case as you are with every thread not fitting your take on all things Norwich City. Indulge me by outlining how and why i am wrong in my view.Naismith''s agent provided value for money ? Pinto or Bamford''s ? [/quote]So who are you whingeing about. The agents or someone else?Now let me guess, is there someone at the club that you have a dislike for, that you could be using this as a stick to beat him perhaps?

[/quote]It shouldn''t be too long before an insult is thrown into the works here as quite clearly you think everybody who does not agree with you has an agenda or a dislike for someone or something. Any thoughts on Archant publishing the article and payment table that i read and gave my opinion on or is it just individual posters you like to snipe away at ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"]No i doubt it as i find people steer clear of most threads with your footprints all over it. [:|][/quote]Like I said, I''ll leave you to your whingeing.[:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see the names of the agent(s) and a whether or not more than one agent was involved in any one transfer, however I suspect this will not be made public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy come, easy go.

The television money seems to have turned the whole Premier League business into one big gravy train.

Bit like the EU really, except that the "In" vote will be virtually 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The agents cannot be blamed for the fact the club spent heavily and the fact the players purchased haven''t delivered on the pitch as yet, Naismith’s debut excepted.

However, the OP appears to be using the benefit of hindsight to criticise the club, as if the players HAD performed to expectations then this would be a non-story.

Had we signed nobody, that would certainly have been a story.

Most of all, this thread looks like someone bored and fishing for an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s a lot if you look at it as a straight percentage of estimated spend compared to say Newcastle who paid around £24m for Townsend and Shelvey, but paid a lot less in agents fees than us.

We bought more players so that may account for the difference, it''s not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things if the signings pay off, it they are duds then it just adds insult to injury.

How do you get a job as an agent btw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we paid, say, £8.5M for Naismith, are the agents fees in addition to that? If not, does it really matter how many people that £8.5M people went to, in what percentage terms?

We were ''happy'' to pay the money, so let''s get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray, what you said re the agents being named instead. I believe that is going to change to something like that soon. Something to do with fifa and transparency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Katie Borkins"]The agents cannot be blamed for the fact the club spent heavily and the fact the players purchased haven''t delivered on the pitch as yet, Naismith’s debut excepted.

However, the OP appears to be using the benefit of hindsight to criticise the club, as if the players HAD performed to expectations then this would be a non-story.

Had we signed nobody, that would certainly have been a story.

Most of all, this thread looks like someone bored and fishing for an argument.[/quote]Pretty much spot on[Y]Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thickee me, but I just don''t get this.

I thought the agents acted for the player.

Therefore the player pays him.

Am I missing something?

Anyway, it is big money, too big money and money for old rope, IMO.

Apparently sixty is the new fifty in age matters. One million pounds seems to be the new one thousand pounds in business matters.

Heads of this that and the other get paid millions in bonuses. Agents for sports stars rival that.

I hope they all pay their correct taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the amount of money agents get from deals, they might not get ''paid'' in the way you expect - but get a cut of any fee for any deals they negotiate. Rather like an estate agent I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I realise all that. Perhaps the % is too high then. Just like estate agents (+ VAT.)

Can it all be done online.?

The Purple Bricks of football clubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Katie Borkins"]The agents cannot be blamed for the fact the club spent heavily and the fact the players purchased haven''t delivered on the pitch as yet, Naismith’s debut excepted.

However, the OP appears to be using the benefit of hindsight to criticise the club, as if the players HAD performed to expectations then this would be a non-story.

Had we signed nobody, that would certainly have been a story.

Most of all, this thread looks like someone bored and fishing for an argument.[/quote]The thread title refers to agents and agents only,no mention of the club. My observation with regard to the amount of money paid to those agents is not a criticism of the club or anybody within it but it appears both you and Morty see it as that. I suggested that we had not seen value for money spent on agents in relation to money spent during the January transfer window. If you think it is good money spent fair play to you but i think whoever acted for Pinto and Bamford to name but two players is robbery. You two have read between the lines looking for something that is not there then have the cheek to claim i am looking for an argument which is something you of course never indulge in.Please accept my humble apology for having an opinion and posting it on a public football forum on a matter concerning my Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The thread title refers to agents and agents only, no mention of the club."

Agreed.

Pop culture money.

Big money for peanuts.

Banker''s bonuses money.

It''s the system and you cannot blame NCFC, even though our expenditure on signings (inc. agents) has not been remotely rewarded on the field of play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"The thread title refers to agents and agents only, no mention of the club."

Agreed.

Pop culture money.

Big money for peanuts.

Banker''s bonuses money.

It''s the system and you cannot blame NCFC, even though our expenditure on signings (inc. agents) has not been remotely rewarded on the field of play[/quote]Thank you Broadstairs just thank you. Obscene money leaving the game and lining the pockets of these grubby individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your original post stated:

That figure must cover the incomings of Klose, Naismith, Bamford and Pinto. At the risk of being accused of beating the Club with a stick i suggest we have been tucked up for 3 of those signings. I am sure the Apologists will be along to justify that figure which placed us 13th on the PL table.

You are only posting this because the signings have so far failed to deliver, and if this was not about NCFC then why use the inflammatory term "apologists?:

John, there is no point trying to debate with some who is dishonest about their intentions.

Next time, post before drinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Move Klose,

I very much doubt there will be full transparency but if there is then watch the **** hit the fan.

It is a very murky world and players aren''t the only ones to have agents, clubs use them, managers use them and anyone else connected to football could use them.

Let''s say a club (or someone in a position of authority) appointed an agent to act for them in a deal, then that agent would be paid a fee, now if that agent wants to be appointed again then he may be required to line the pocket of the appointee and so it goes on, and on and on.

There are many fingers in the pie all sucking the life blood from the game and the fans, because ultimately the fan (consumer) pays.

There''s loads to read on the topic, the following gives an insight as to some of the goings on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2040773/Andy-Carrolls-agent-reveals-footballs-dirty-secrets.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Katie Borkins"]Your original post stated:

That figure must cover the incomings of Klose, Naismith, Bamford and Pinto. At the risk of being accused of beating the Club with a stick i suggest we have been tucked up for 3 of those signings. I am sure the Apologists will be along to justify that figure which placed us 13th on the PL table.

You are only posting this because the signings have so far failed to deliver, and if this was not about NCFC then why use the inflammatory term "apologists?:

John, there is no point trying to debate with some who is dishonest about their intentions.

Next time, post before drinking.[/quote]I used the expression Apologists because i knew who would be along and think i was using a stick to beat the club and of course i was not disappointed.For the avoidance of doubt please note that i have not consumed alcohol since about 10pm last Saturday night or was that a remark just to provoke an argument seeing as your statement had no factual base to it. Now remind me who just used the word inflammatory ?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×