Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Camuldonum

Norwich City second in the Championship Agent Payment League

Recommended Posts

Hasn''t this been an issue in previous seasons?  I''m sure we were near the top the agent''s league when Worthy was still around.  Poor management in any case, and certainly not all down to Glenn Roeder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the table it shows the results for 07 as well and we are a long way down the list.  I am pretty sure whenever I have seen these before they have reflected pretty well on us.

Think Grant and Roeder bringing in Prem hasbeens caused this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is interesting is that we are 16th(ish) in terms of total transactions! Qpr have completed more transactions than us and have spent under £50k!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at it in more detail being second only to Derby County the facts are .............. Derby 38 transactions totalling £717,000

                                                                                                                                           Norwich 21 transactions totalling £490,000 which by the way is three times what it was in the corresponding period for 2007!

Get your calculators out and do the maths per transaction to see who comes out on top.Please do not forget that Derby were cushioned with parachute payments either.

Frightening reading guys and girls.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Colonel"]what is interesting is that we are 16th(ish) in terms of total transactions! Qpr have completed more transactions than us and have spent under £50k![/quote]

An increase from £155.2K to £490K. Questions need to be asked, i.e. what is the breakdown of this sum, what players does it relate to and which agents have received this money? As has already been said, numerous clubs have more transactions but have spent considerably less. Does this demonstrate our ambition but without the prudence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure this is all footballers agents?

Gunnys for personal appearances, Scully because we are trying to find the new contract for Hucks,FBI to find the missing 4mil.

Then have you checked if NCFC also own an agency!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet another reason to condemn this short term policy of bringing in so many loan players. Presumably every time we bring in another loanee, that''s a big fat undeserved fee in some grubby little parasite''s (otherwise known as an agent) pocket. It wouldn''t be so bad wasting all this money on these wasters if the players were to stay for a few years and gain in value, instead of being returned to sender within a short time. Then yet another agent needs paying lots of money for doing next to nothing so that we can replace one loanee with another. Brilliant - half a million down the Swanee with very little to show for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Phil E Stein"]Yet another reason to condemn this short term policy of bringing in so many loan players. Presumably every time we bring in another loanee, that''s a big fat undeserved fee in some grubby little parasite''s (otherwise known as an agent) pocket. It wouldn''t be so bad wasting all this money on these wasters if the players were to stay for a few years and gain in value, instead of being returned to sender within a short time. Then yet another agent needs paying lots of money for doing next to nothing so that we can replace one loanee with another. Brilliant - half a million down the Swanee with very little to show for it![/quote]

But other clubs are doing more but paying far less. The question needs to be asked - exactly whose pockets are being lined? Presumably, as these figures are in the public domain, (albeit with no specific details yet), this isn''t the same thing that Mick Newell was talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it interesting that we have spent so much money bringing in players like Pattison who I bet has an agent.  Wonder if Roeder or anyone has friends who are agents....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="The Colonel"]what is interesting is that we are 16th(ish) in terms of total transactions! Qpr have completed more transactions than us and have spent under £50k![/quote]

An increase from £155.2K to £490K. Questions need to be asked, i.e. what is the breakdown of this sum, what players does it relate to and which agents have received this money? As has already been said, numerous clubs have more transactions but have spent considerably less. Does this demonstrate our ambition but without the prudence?

 

[/quote]OK, I''ll ask you a question. The difference is £335k - IF that amount in no small way brought Ched Evans and Tiny to us and us staying up.......was it worth it?I think so.It costs us more in agents fees when loaning players simply because they do more work and there are a lot more transactions overall in a season as well, especially with the Clubs philosophy of not owning players or indeed selling our player (Shackell) then loaning him back............now how much did Shackells agent make from NCFC in the past six months?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe its the only way people are going to join us??? lol

But it is far too excessive for only six months, why do agents need so much for the transfer of players??? and does the ''transfer fee'' include payments to the agents or is that a seperate fee on top????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Scottlarock"][quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="The Colonel"]what is interesting is that we are 16th(ish) in terms of total transactions! Qpr have completed more transactions than us and have spent under £50k![/quote]

An increase from £155.2K to £490K. Questions need to be asked, i.e. what is the breakdown of this sum, what players does it relate to and which agents have received this money? As has already been said, numerous clubs have more transactions but have spent considerably less. Does this demonstrate our ambition but without the prudence?

 

[/quote]OK, I''ll ask you a question. The difference is £335k - IF that amount in no small way brought Ched Evans and Tiny to us and us staying up.......was it worth it?I think so.It costs us more in agents fees when loaning players simply because they do more work and there are a lot more transactions overall in a season as well, especially with the Clubs philosophy of not owning players or indeed selling our player (Shackell) then loaning him back............now how much did Shackells agent make from NCFC in the past six months?.....

[/quote]Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?The publication referes to the period July 2008 to December 2008, a period when neither Ched nor Martin Taylor were at the club.For our money we got Leroy Lita, Arturo Lupoli and some others whose names quite escape me already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the famous canary call quote......."Too many loans Neil"

Most footballers have agents now, even some of the Kings Lynn players have agents. Mostly just to negotiate contracts I assume. Football has become a greedy industry and if there is easy money to be made then agents will make it.

Just think if you were Nicholas Anelka''s agent, your 1% (this is a guess) cut of his transfer fees would be a lovely little pay cheque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fabregas- Poor Mans Ian Crook"]It does come back to Roeder because SSN claim the 490k is an increase of over 300k from the same period last year. (When Grant was in charge)[/quote]

The Club needs to make public how this sum is made up, i.e. which players, how much for each and how much to each agent for each transaction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JJ"]

Hasn''t this been an issue in previous seasons?  I''m sure we were near the top the agent''s league when Worthy was still around.  Poor management in any case, and certainly not all down to Glenn Roeder.

 

[/quote]

Would be interesting to hear an explaination of this after Doncaster told us that what we paid in agents fees was relative to the quality of the players we brought in.

Apparently we paid agents a total of £138,850 for their "help" in the 12 months to June 30, 2007 but £506,500 for the previous season. When explaining this Doncaster said “We always try to minimise costs involved in bringing in players, whether that''s player costs or agents'' costs. The difference simply depends to the nature of the deals. The vast majority of the fees in the previous year relate to Robert Earnshaw and Dean Ashton. I think people accept that agents'' fees are one of the costs you incur when you bring players to a club and that the cost will be higher if you are bringing in players of that quality.”

So maybe rather than relating to the quality of the player they actually relate to the football manager of the day''s opinion[:^)]



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="JJ"]

Hasn''t this been an issue in previous seasons?  I''m sure we were near the top the agent''s league when Worthy was still around.  Poor management in any case, and certainly not all down to Glenn Roeder.

 

[/quote]

Would be interesting to hear an explaination of this after Doncaster told us that what we paid in agents fees was relative to the quality of the players we brought in.

Apparently we paid agents a total of £138,850 for their "help" in the 12 months to June 30, 2007 but £506,500 for the previous season. When explaining this Doncaster said “We always try to minimise costs involved in bringing in players, whether that''s player costs or agents'' costs. The difference simply depends to the nature of the deals. The vast majority of the fees in the previous year relate to Robert Earnshaw and Dean Ashton. I think people accept that agents'' fees are one of the costs you incur when you bring players to a club and that the cost will be higher if you are bringing in players of that quality.”

So maybe rather than relating to the quality of the player they actually relate to the football manager of the day''s opinion[:^)]

 

[/quote]

With permanent transfers the amount the agent gets is a % of the transfer fee, hence the high costs relating to Earnshaw and Ashton. 

But what the arrangement is regarding loans I have no idea.  I think we should be told.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More evidence of the utter folly that is multiple loan signings. Doncaster is obsessed because he regards every player bought on a permanent transfer as a possible loss (see his quotes today). This is largely because virtually every signing we have made in the last few years year has either had to be paid off, has walked away for nothing (or a nominal fee as they were sh*t) (or for what we paid due to us having to agree desperate release clauses) or we have paid over the odds for so have not made any money on them. Had we had a more coherent and sensible transfer strategy then this would not have been the case. owning players can be an asset because even if you go down or they want to leave you can get money for them. We are basically now renting our players which means we shell out huge agents fees and wages on players we have no prospect in keeping at the end of the loan and leaving us with no asset at the end of the process as well.

Profoundly depressing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

More evidence of the utter folly that is multiple loan signings. Doncaster is obsessed because he regards every player bought on a permanent transfer as a possible loss (see his quotes today). This is largely because virtually every signing we have made in the last few years year has either had to be paid off, has walked away for nothing (or a nominal fee as they were sh*t) (or for what we paid due to us having to agree desperate release clauses) or we have paid over the odds for so have not made any money on them. Had we had a more coherent and sensible transfer strategy then this would not have been the case. owning players can be an asset because even if you go down or they want to leave you can get money for them. We are basically now renting our players which means we shell out huge agents fees and wages on players we have no prospect in keeping at the end of the loan and leaving us with no asset at the end of the process as well.

Profoundly depressing!

[/quote]

I think you''ll find that it was Roeder who was obsessed with loan signings although even that was quite possibly fuelled by the knock on effect of the previous managers amazing contracts. It must have cost the club plenty to get shot of the likes of Brellier and Strihavka then you had a 32 year old striker given a 3 year contract, and an injury prone defender given a four year contract. That''s without mentioning Chadwick and Lappin. Everytime we change the manager the new guy finds a lot of his budget eaten away by the players he inherits. Without more investment I can only see more of the same next year I''m afraid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="rjwc22"]

If you look at the table it shows the results for 07 as well and we are a long way down the list.  I am pretty sure whenever I have seen these before they have reflected pretty well on us.

Think Grant and Roeder bringing in Prem hasbeens caused this.

[/quote]

 

Exactly what I was thinking and as well as hasbeens we have also got Premiership neverwills like Omorzusi, Bertrand, Gibbs, Pearce and Henry!

 

What a bad joke our club is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find its not just Roeder. Its a mindset throughought the club born out of not having to flog off/sell/cut the squad next season if we cannot find investment and/or be relegated. They used to say they budgeted to finish mid table in the champ. This season we budgeted to survive relegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I do given that we apparently have one of the larger player budget''s in the league. Trouble is we waste so much of it on loan fees, agents fees and prem wages for old has beens or young never will bes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

yes I do given that we apparently have one of the larger player budget''s in the league. Trouble is we waste so much of it on loan fees, agents fees and prem wages for old has beens or young never will bes!

[/quote]

No.. succesive managers have wasted it on poor deals not just loan deals. Don''t forget part of Roeders budget this season was taken up by contracts dished out by Grant. Some of those still eat into the next budget too and Adam Drury the one after that. It''s a problem all clubs have to face but it''s worse where managers are changed every season. I don''t know the details of what players earn at our club but I wouldn''t be surprised if some of the biggest earners aren''t injured, out of favour or on the bench week in week out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doomcaster could not manage the proverbial p*ss up in a brewery! Take the money out of his salary....he can work for free for 3 years!

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...