£438k was this money well spent

[0peteddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

£438k paid to agents in last year was this vfm?

Given the abilities of what we got for that money seems pretty crummy business.

I can''t help wondering whether we bought sub standard players because of the kickbacks received by some clubs indicated by Mike Newell''s latest suggestion.  Did someone benefit for buying Hughes for what seems to be an over inflated figure?

Do you agree or do you think the Canaries are whiter than white?

[Fat Barman 0]

you''re labouring under a misapprehension, Pete.The money stated refers to transfers last year, not more recent ones.

[a1canary 0]

i don''t think there''s an doubt that it''s money poorly spent!

but with the agents holding the cards when it comes to transfers, do the clubs have any other option?

unless they all take a stand together, led by mr newell!

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="a1canary"]i don''t think there''s an doubt that it''s money poorly spent!

but with the agents holding the cards when it comes to transfers, do the clubs have any other option?
unless they all take a stand together, led by mr newell!

[/quote]

considering the quality of players brought in..  No its money down the drain...

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

true but at least our club are (I believe) are honest and open about it...bet you cant say that for a lot of other teams, it will be interesting to see what names Mike Newell names... 

[Rossi 0]

FB, are you sure about "The money stated refers to transfers last year, not more recent ones." I thought it was from July - December 05, thus includes Hughes. Reading should have paid the agent for that clown - just to get rid.

[Fat Barman 0]

You''re right Rossi. I disagree about Hughes, but I appear to be in a minority on that!£438,000 is only beaten by Leeds with over £500,000, the next below us is Leicester with £300,000 - both these clubs had double the number of new player registrations in the accounting period. I wonder if there were any deferred fees from the Prem which fell due during the past 6 months? Also, how much was negotiated by the 4 players agents who had their contracts renegotiated during the same period?Without further clarification, this figure is very difficult to justify - other clubs bought more players without incurring the same costs. The nearest comparison seems to be Millwall, yet they only spent £15,000 to agents! I suppose it reflects the value of the players transferred. The other imponderable is the cost of cancelling contracts (we cancelled 2) where the Prem wages may have inflated what we paid to get players off the books.Sorry for the earlier post Pete, I hadn''t checked my facts properly!

[Huddy 0]

If we hadnt of of spent on agents worthy would have been able too but us another dixon etuhu, so its probably a good thing that the moneys gone although from the clubs opoint of view it seems alot of money just on agents.