Money We Paid To Agents Since October Last Year.

[Katie Borkins 1]

So you used the word Apologists to pick a fight and you got a fight, then complained because you got what you wanted.

Carry on.

[Molly Windley 76]

I have only had a quick look at the figures for PL teams agent fees for Oct 15 to Feb 16 but there does not appear to be any correlation between transfers of players into clubs and the fees paid out to agents.e.g. Man U - fees £10 million - players signed 0       Liverpool - fees £6.5 million - players signed 1 - Marko Grujic (undisclosed fee)      Man City - fees £5.8 million - players signed 0Not my field, perhaps someone else can shed some light?

[SwindonCanary 455]

Another thing wrong with Football. Agents work on behalf of the player, so that''s who should be paying them, not the clubs.

[morty 0]

And anyway, who are these "apologists" and what exactly are they apologising for?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I thought the agent acted for the player but a fraction of the fee goes from the buying club to the agent. Like an estate agent.

So if you buy a dud house the estate agent probably won''t care and ditto with football agents.

I think there was a VAT case involving Nrwcastle and a fee paid to an agent which would probably come up on google & would probably be revealing if anyone wants to look.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"]So you used the word Apologists to pick a fight and you got a fight, then complained because you got what you wanted.

Carry on.[/quote]Oh so knowing full well who would leap to the defence of agents fees is picking a fight ?......whatever you say. Anyway glad you swerved responding to your drinking and posting nonsense as you cannot defend what is wrong now can you ?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="morty"]And anyway, who are these "apologists" .[/quote]Only certain posters know and The Inner Circle naturally. Apologists i suppose could also be classified as the usual suspects. [;)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]And anyway, who are these "apologists" .[/quote]Only certain posters know and The Inner Circle naturally. Apologists i suppose could also be classified as the usual suspects. [;)][/quote]I''m going to form a new classification of folks, and call them "The whingeing old biddies".I won''t tell you who is in the group though.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Can we have a splinter group of "hypocritical old farts"?

That would help with my filing system.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"]Can we have a splinter group of "hypocritical old farts"?

That would help with my filing system.[/quote]This is going to need a Venn diagram.

[Katie Borkins 1]

I still want to know who the Apologists are and what they are apologising for.

"Sorry our club spent lots of money in January on players, and sorry that this incurred agent''s fees. Sorry the players haven''t performed as we all hoped. Next time we will stick with what we''ve got."

Not really the outcome we want, is it?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]And anyway, who are these "apologists" .[/quote]Only certain posters know and The Inner Circle naturally. Apologists i suppose could also be classified as the usual suspects. [;)][/quote]I''m going to form a new classification of folks, and call them "The whingeing old biddies". I won''t tell you who is in the group though.[/quote]I think you should withdraw that comment as we already have a group of "Old Biddy''s" on here. I think they would deem it very hurtful to add the word "whingeing" to their title. As I am familiar with some of them, I strongly urge you to withdraw the remark - for your own safety. [:S] [st] [li] [um]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"]I still want to know who the Apologists are and what they are apologising for.

"Sorry our club spent lots of money in January on players, and sorry that this incurred agent''s fees. Sorry the players haven''t performed as we all hoped. Next time we will stick with what we''ve got."

Not really the outcome we want, is it?[/quote]Make your own judgement which is what you usually do if you don''t get the outcome you want. Still nothing to say on your drinking and posting tosh i notice.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Katie Borkins"]I still want to know who the Apologists are and what they are apologising for.

"Sorry our club spent lots of money in January on players, and sorry that this incurred agent''s fees. Sorry the players haven''t performed as we all hoped. Next time we will stick with what we''ve got."

Not really the outcome we want, is it?[/quote]Make your own judgement which is what you usually do if you don''t get the outcome you want. Still nothing to say on your drinking and posting tosh i notice.[/quote]

Mr. Tilson  

Based on the antagonistic tripe you originally posted to start this thread, I assumed you must have been drunk at the time.

Sincere apologies for any hurt feelings, you delicate flower.

Katherine

x

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Apology accepted my dear Katherine as as one man''s tripe. is another man''s opinion let us move on now.Much loveTilly.xx

[Katie Borkins 1]

Just out of interest, did we ever get to the bottom of what this thread was actually about?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Here''s an article about that case if anyone''s interested. Makes it clear the agent acts for the player but gets paid by the signing club,

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/jan/24/newsstory.sport1

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

Being a ''middle-man'' seems to be the way to go now.

Talent takes second place.

The awful, untalented, impresario and big head Simon Cowell even outstrips the exceptionally great, original, creative and influential talent that is Elton John by quite a few millions on the Sunday Times Rich List.

I, personally, have had a lot of pleasure listening to EJ''s music over the years. I cringe every time the nonentity that is Cowell opens his mouth.

I wonder how much Elton''s agent has creamed off so far as well.

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

Further to that rich list, and this thread is basically about monied middle-men.

Every Canary should be angry at the fact that the secretive and dubious Marcus Evans aka owner of ITFC features @ £65m whilst our beloved, original, book-writing, television star and National Treasure Delia Smith is not to be seen.

There doesn''t even seem to be a suitable "night manager" in Ipswich to redress the issue (at least from my brief stay at that hotel near the ground recently.)

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

At a tangent to what agents receive, Michael Bailey has a piece on how hard it is for Norwich City to survive in the Premier League, and says this:"I suspect it’s more than 20 years since City’s wage bill was not in the bottom three of the Premier League. Maybe much longer."Actually not so (although the argument makes general sense). In the 2012-13 season we were sort of out of the bottom three, being level on £47m with Southampton in 17th place. and the season after (Hughton''s second) we were alone in 17th,.with Cardiff City, Crystal Palace and Hull City below us.

[ZLF 271]

Football attracts leechs like agents simply due to the extraordinary amount of money involved (Guardiola/Rooney work for just over 2 days a week to cover the prime ministers annual wage for example). I understand the totals reflect contract renewals, the gross misnomer of "loyalty payments as well as new signings fees.

However we simply would not succeed if we tried to cut them out. From memory only one chairman in recent years proactively took them on (bizarrely given his other reported foibles) and it has cost Blackpool dearly.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]At a tangent to what agents receive, Michael Bailey has a piece on how hard it is for Norwich City to survive in the Premier League, and says this:

"I suspect it’s more than 20 years since City’s wage bill was not in the bottom three of the Premier League. Maybe much longer."

Actually not so (although the argument makes general sense). In the 2012-13 season we were sort of out of the bottom three, being level on £47m with Southampton in 17th place. and the season after (Hughton''s second) we were alone in 17th,.with Cardiff City, Crystal Palace and Hull City below us.
[/quote]

Aaaaaaaaargh, thanks for reminding me.  I still find it annoying that we messed up so spectacularly with our strike force that season by having 3 main strikers (RVW, Elmander and Hooper) none of whom suited our style of play, nor were any of them really suited to the Premier League.  At least this season Mbokani and Jerome can both put in a decent shift up front on their own and give us some decent options going forward, so they fit in with our style of play, even if they could be better as finishers.  I think the 13/14 relegation must go down as the one that''s hardest to forgive, as a fan, since the ''95 relegation when we didn''t have a decent backup goalkeeper when Gunn was injured.  Mind you there''s also the Worthy Prem season when about 10 games in we were starting the Doc as a striker [:(]

 

According to one of those football stats books, success in football is approx. 80% correlated to the team''s wage bill (obviously we all know that simply chucking money at wages is no guarantee of success - see QPR).  But not correlated with spend on transfer fees (presumably also not correlated with agents'' fees).

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]At a tangent to what agents receive, Michael Bailey has a piece on how hard it is for Norwich City to survive in the Premier League, and says this:"I suspect it’s more than 20 years since City’s wage bill was not in the bottom three of the Premier League. Maybe much longer."Actually not so (although the argument makes general sense). In the 2012-13 season we were sort of out of the bottom three, being level on £47m with Southampton in 17th place. and the season after (Hughton''s second) we were alone in 17th,.with Cardiff City, Crystal Palace and Hull City below us.[/quote]

Aaaaaaaaargh, thanks for reminding me.  I still find it annoying that we messed up so spectacularly with our strike force that season by having 3 main strikers (RVW, Elmander and Hooper) none of whom suited our style of play, nor were any of them really suited to the Premier League.  At least this season Mbokani and Jerome can both put in a decent shift up front on their own and give us some decent options going forward, so they fit in with our style of play, even if they could be better as finishers.  I think the 13/14 relegation must go down as the one that''s hardest to forgive, as a fan, since the ''95 relegation when we didn''t have a decent backup goalkeeper when Gunn was injured.  Mind you there''s also the Worthy Prem season when about 10 games in we were starting the Doc as a striker [:(]

 

According to one of those football stats books, success in football is approx. 80% correlated to the team''s wage bill (obviously we all know that simply chucking money at wages is no guarantee of success - see QPR).  But not correlated with spend on transfer fees (presumably also not correlated with agents'' fees).

[/quote]Sorry for the reminder! An important distinction needs to be drawn between the wage bill-league correlation over several seasons (which tends to be put at around 80 per cent) and for individual seasons, where research (including my own amateur efforts) comes up with a much lower figure. As for this season, I  would be very surprised if we are not in the bottom three for wages.