Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vlad666

Gary monk

Recommended Posts

They do look like a couple of little, money grubbing weasels... Sh*t eating grins for sure...

image.png.06e01130febfe0089778569ef762ede0.png

Edited by BobLoz3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

So maybe Birmingham were well within their rights to dismiss him if he was up to those tricks again....

Yes, apparently they didn’t want anything to do with the agent as well which monk opposed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Birmingham really need to up their due diligence when it comes to appointing managers- first they get fleeced by Redknapp now Monk may be dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it doesn’t seem that unusual. There are so many managers that have run transfer strategies based on players that their agent represents. Mark Hughes in particular springs to mind. 

Another thing, of the already long list, to add to the benefits of having a Sporting Director. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

To be honest, it doesn’t seem that unusual. There are so many managers that have run transfer strategies based on players that their agent represents. Mark Hughes in particular springs to mind. 

Another thing, of the already long list, to add to the benefits of having a Sporting Director. 

I think the point they’re trying to make is monk was paying over the odds for transfers knowing his agent/friend would get more money out of the deal. One example is monk being quoted a 3 million pound fee for fletcher then paying 6.5 million for him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, vlad666 said:

I think the point they’re trying to make is monk was paying over the odds for transfers knowing his agent/friend would get more money out of the deal. One example is monk being quoted a 3 million pound fee for fletcher then paying 6.5 million for him. 

That is exactly the point they're trying to make, as far as I read it. Fletcher for 6.5 million??! Do me a favour!

It's a very crooked approach, however you want to dress it up.

Share this post


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

If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣

Apples

A LOT of people thought he would be a good appointment, yes. As for actually having conversations with him? Don't know that we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club...

 Usually agents are trying to push player fees down so they can push the signing on fee and wages higher. 

I’d also imagine West Ham would raise concerns, it is in all clubs interests that agents aren’t skimming money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mr Apples said:

If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣

Apples

To be fair, before this came to light why wouldn't we have been interested? He has generally had a very good record at this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club...

 Usually agents are trying to push player fees down so they can push the signing on fee and wages higher. 

I’d also imagine West Ham would raise concerns, it is in all clubs interests that agents aren’t skimming money.

The agent was going to the clubs and at one point also a family member of the players monk would then target. The agent offered his services for 10% of the transfer fee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vlad666 said:

The agent was going to the clubs and at one point also a family member of the players monk would then target. The agent offered his services for 10% of the transfer fee. 

This- although I believe it was 5%.

For example, he (Featherstone) was said to make £100,000 from the deal that saw Christie going to Boro. The player was valuated at £1.75 million, but he convinced Boro to pay more and they bought him for £2.25 million

Edited by BobLoz3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

Not sure how paying a larger fee would get a player’s agent more money. They’d only be paid more if they were acting as the agent for the selling club...

And he was.

The article says that the agent had an agreement with Derby that he'd get 5% of the transfer fee for Christie. The agent and Monk then persuaded Middlesbrough to pay a higher price for Christie, which means Derby and the agent got more money. It sounds like they then did a similar thing for other players, or signed players the club didn't need because the agent was getting a good cut.

Middlesbrough and Birmingham clearly didn't like this because there's a conflict of interest and Monk was favouring his agent over the club he was working for by getting them to overspend on players or sign players he didn't really want because it meant his agent made some good money out of the deal.

Edited by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mr Apples said:

If memory serves me correctly, weren't we supposed to be appointing Monk at one point? 🤔😉🤣

Apples

I believe when we appointed Farke, there was a two man shortlist and Monk was the other name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shows how almost seedy football has become since the advent of agents. I have never understood why the PFA doesn't act for the players in deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

I believe when we appointed Farke, there was a two man shortlist and Monk was the other name. 

That would surprise me. Given the kind of football management model we were setting up and the type of experience we wanted from whoever the head coach was going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

That would surprise me. Given the kind of football management model we were setting up and the type of experience we wanted from whoever the head coach was going to be.

I think whilst Farke was always the preferred candidate, Webber wanted to offer the board a UK option as well.

Apparently when Wagner was appointed Huddersfield boss, Webber's back up candidate was Dean Smith (now Villa boss)

All of this comes via the Pinkun, who seem to have got it from an off the record chat with Webber. So whilst they never cited him directly, they're usually very good at labeling unsubstantiated stories as such.  

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  

×
×
  • Create New...