Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rjwc22

Doncaster's Defence...

Recommended Posts

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

Share this post


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

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

[/quote]

Did you renew your ST?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not going to for next year as work commitments look like it will not be worth my while.

Maybe I will become an armchair fan for a season!

Share this post


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

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

[/quote]

Blackpool 24 transactions £72K,  Cardiff 24 transactions £152K, Crystal Palace 33 transactions £248K, Watford 24 transactions £85K, Norwich 21 transactions £490K. I suggest our CEO gets himself booked on to a training course with a view to developing his negotiating skills. He''s obviously already attended the one on spin and waffle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="rjwc22"]

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

[/quote]

Blackpool 24 transactions £72K,  Cardiff 24 transactions £152K, Crystal Palace 33 transactions £248K, Watford 24 transactions £85K, Norwich 21 transactions £490K. I suggest our CEO gets himself booked on to a training course with a view to developing his negotiating skills. He''s obviously already attended the one on spin and waffle.

 

[/quote]

I don''t really think you can blame Mr Doncaster for this.  Sometimes a player wanted by a Manager will only negotiate through his Agent (not direct talks) in which case the interested club has to agree to pay the players agent a lump sum fee which has to be agreed in advance for the negotiations to even begin. 

So, if a Manager says: "I really want him" the club have either to pay up or tell the Manager he can''t have him.

Some clubs, particular in lower leagues, frequently miss out on a transfer target because they either can''t or won''t pay the Agent fee involved.  Sad fact of life - FIFA draw up the rules governing Agents so are obviously happy to let this situation go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="rjwc22"]

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

[/quote]

Blackpool 24 transactions £72K,  Cardiff 24 transactions £152K, Crystal Palace 33 transactions £248K, Watford 24 transactions £85K, Norwich 21 transactions £490K. I suggest our CEO gets himself booked on to a training course with a view to developing his negotiating skills. He''s obviously already attended the one on spin and waffle.

 

[/quote]

I don''t really think you can blame Mr Doncaster for this.  Sometimes a player wanted by a Manager will only negotiate through his Agent (not direct talks) in which case the interested club has to agree to pay the players agent a lump sum fee which has to be agreed in advance for the negotiations to even begin. 

So, if a Manager says: "I really want him" the club have either to pay up or tell the Manager he can''t have him.

Some clubs, particular in lower leagues, frequently miss out on a transfer target because they either can''t or won''t pay the Agent fee involved.  Sad fact of life - FIFA draw up the rules governing Agents so are obviously happy to let this situation go on.

[/quote]Thanks Cam, saved me having to write it all out.You should be directing your fire at loan-seeking managers not The Doomcaster for THIS one… please note this is not a Doomcaster love in from me as I am looking to make him work very hard this evening at the NCISA get-together.But in the interests of fairness and objectivity (I know, I know… it''s a strange concept around these parts), Doomie didn''t select the players we loaned in (unless he''s turned into Abramovich all of a sudden - where''s an ironic icon when you need one? [^o)]) anymore than he decided when Lupoli should be sat on the bench.If you''re gonna have a dig, at least think it through first… cos if you put that to him in an open forum, as you have done here, he would make you look a mug!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let''s get rid of Neil Doncaster and replace him with Sir Fred Goodwin, now there is a man who can negotiate the best terms. Seriously though, the clubs present plight can only be blamed on the succession of awful managers that the board insist on appointing.Delia and Michael know next to nothing about Football and so they pay People to run the club for them that are believed to know something about it but who obviously know nowt. We have lost a few players through the recent past that have gone on to better things, but with the exception of Martin O''Neill in the Chase era how many ex City bosses have gone on to better things? How many would you want back? Are there any who even have a job in Football, apart from Nigel Worthington and we didn''t want him  back did we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it is true that the manager selects the transfer targets and sometimes this necessitates dealing with an agent, this does not mean we need to spend more on them than other comparable clubs.  Think this does indicate an issue with the power balance that agents trade under but also indicates that our board have not done their part to limit this.

Just as I am sure they would have told Roeder we are not prepared to pay £10m to get Ameobi they should have said we are not prepared to pay more than x in agents fees.  If this means we miss out on players like Hoolahan, but protect the club''s long term interests then I am sure the fans would understand.

And another thing!  How can the board on one hand say how bad it is that we have a salary budget twice as large as it should be, but then suggest that paying a lot of agent''s fees is not necessarily a bad thing as a lot of them are free agents...

Free contract/long term loan = high wage commitments = high agent fees.

Honestly it almost makes me miss Chase. Doubt he would have stood for this man''s incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="rjwc22"]

Whilst it is true that the manager selects the transfer targets and sometimes this necessitates dealing with an agent, this does not mean we need to spend more on them than other comparable clubs.  Think this does indicate an issue with the power balance that agents trade under but also indicates that our board have not done their part to limit this.

Just as I am sure they would have told Roeder we are not prepared to pay £10m to get Ameobi they should have said we are not prepared to pay more than x in agents fees.  If this means we miss out on players like Hoolahan, but protect the club''s long term interests then I am sure the fans would understand.

And another thing!  How can the board on one hand say how bad it is that we have a salary budget twice as large as it should be, but then suggest that paying a lot of agent''s fees is not necessarily a bad thing as a lot of them are free agents...

Free contract/long term loan = high wage commitments = high agent fees.

Honestly it almost makes me miss Chase. Doubt he would have stood for this man''s incompetence.

[/quote]

Sorry but I think that''s a bit naive... if we''d missed out on say Clingan on a free because we wouldn''t pay the agent an extra 50k then I think you''d be pretty cross. Didn''t Palace miss out on signing Tim Cahill a few years ago because Simon Jordan wouldn''t cough up to pay Cahill''s agent? He might not admit it but that was an awful decision.

Share this post


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

Whilst it is true that the manager selects the transfer targets and sometimes this necessitates dealing with an agent, this does not mean we need to spend more on them than other comparable clubs.  Think this does indicate an issue with the power balance that agents trade under but also indicates that our board have not done their part to limit this.

Just as I am sure they would have told Roeder we are not prepared to pay £10m to get Ameobi they should have said we are not prepared to pay more than x in agents fees.  If this means we miss out on players like Hoolahan, but protect the club''s long term interests then I am sure the fans would understand.

And another thing!  How can the board on one hand say how bad it is that we have a salary budget twice as large as it should be, but then suggest that paying a lot of agent''s fees is not necessarily a bad thing as a lot of them are free agents...

Free contract/long term loan = high wage commitments = high agent fees.

Honestly it almost makes me miss Chase. Doubt he would have stood for this man''s incompetence.

[/quote]

Gow is agent only, so I believe is Lita.  Lupoli I don''t know about but it wouldn''t surprise me as most Italian players work on that basis.  It is only guesswork but I suspect a fair amount of what you paid might be spread among very few players which, at the time, you apparently wanted.  What to do?

Lita wouldn''t have been short of offers (my view) so the Agent is in a very strong position to name his price - and it benefits the player, too, so they are happy for him to act for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t think it is naive to hope that a club funded by 25k home supporters every home game should be able to run up debts and wage bills that the board are saying are preventing us from signing the players we need.  We used to have great dreams of running this club like a business (a la Charlton) and in fact I think things like the restaurants are great for diversifying our income streams and supplementing the amazing fan support, but the basic business concept relies on a half decent team playing on the pitch which we have not had for years.  Successive managerial appointments have turned out to be poor and whilst I do not blame the board for choosing Grant or Roeder (who did keep us up last year), I do blame them for granting them what seem like very generous terms on long term contracts, which they need to be paid off on when their magic fades.

Agreed, Clingan will turn out to be a great bit of business when we sell him in the summer for £2m or so but as we know the problem will be when this money goes to pay off the interest on the debt incurred by poor management at team and board level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Board (including the CEO) are in charge and solely responsible for the Club''s finances. A Manager may well ask for a lot but just because he asks doesn''t mean he always gets. Roeder comes to the Board and says we can have Lupoli on loan but we have to pay the agent £150K before this happens. You either say "yes", "no" or you go back to the agent and negotiate a lower figure. At the end of the day a decision has to be taken and that applies to every Club. From the figures that have been released, it appears that other Clubs may have slightly better negotiators than us. However, please don''t try and give the impression that this is nothing to do with Mr. Doncaster and he is not involved.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indebted to Andy Larkin for his patronising comments which I am sure he gave great thought to before posting. All Clubs are in the same position and, I guess, operate in mainly the same way, i.e. Manager identifies a loan target and then approaches the Board for the money. The Board (inc. CEOs) then have to make the decision - give agreement to the deal or not, or attempt to negotiate a lower figure. Only someone who is mathematically deranged would think that the figures that have been released are acceptable from our point of view. So who is responsible for authorising these payments to agents?

Thanks for your concerns about me looking a mug. Along with numerous other posters on this forum, that is something I need no help in achieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is responsible for what - do we really know the answers? I suspect most will blame whoever is easiest to blame or suits their latest witch hunts. For instance who is responsible for giving Cureton a three year contract until 2010 when he was nearly 32 years of age? Or who is responsible for giving injury prone Drury a four year contract until 2011? Then who is responsible for not buying any strikers just relying on the hope that we could get some in on loan regardless of cost? And then who was responsible for making a top striker like Iwan continually prove his worth to get much shorter contracts? It suggests to me that it''s the football managers decisions and some of them beggar belief!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is the board''s decision to employ the manager and what length of contract to give them.  Think this then sets the tone for their negotiations with players as want them around as long as their own contract runs.

I doubt if the manager gets involved in contract negotiations with players, just goes to the board and says I want this player then passes it over.

Share this post


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

Who is responsible for what - do we really know the answers? I suspect most will blame whoever is easiest to blame or suits their latest witch hunts. For instance who is responsible for giving Cureton a three year contract until 2010 when he was nearly 32 years of age? Or who is responsible for giving injury prone Drury a four year contract until 2011? Then who is responsible for not buying any strikers just relying on the hope that we could get some in on loan regardless of cost? And then who was responsible for making a top striker like Iwan continually prove his worth to get much shorter contracts? It suggests to me that it''s the football managers decisions and some of them beggar belief!

The Club is managed by a Board of Directors who set the agenda. They hire and fire Managers and dictate the terms under which they operate. When employing a Manager they will give him a Contract of Employment which details exactly what he can and cannot do. Ultimately, the success or failure of any Club is down to the Board of Directors. We have seen long drawn-out vetting procedures on several occasions to ensure, as much as possible, that we get the right man. One day, perhaps, we might but I suspect that will not happen while the current people are in charge.

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Who is responsible for what - do we really know the answers? I suspect most will blame whoever is easiest to blame or suits their latest witch hunts. For instance who is responsible for giving Cureton a three year contract until 2010 when he was nearly 32 years of age? Or who is responsible for giving injury prone Drury a four year contract until 2011? Then who is responsible for not buying any strikers just relying on the hope that we could get some in on loan regardless of cost? And then who was responsible for making a top striker like Iwan continually prove his worth to get much shorter contracts? It suggests to me that it''s the football managers decisions and some of them beggar belief!

The Club is managed by a Board of Directors who set the agenda. They hire and fire Managers and dictate the terms under which they operate. When employing a Manager they will give him a Contract of Employment which details exactly what he can and cannot do. Ultimately, the success or failure of any Club is down to the Board of Directors. We have seen long drawn-out vetting procedures on several occasions to ensure, as much as possible, that we get the right man. One day, perhaps, we might but I suspect that will not happen while the current people are in charge.

[/quote][/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Club is managed by a Board of Directors who set the agenda. They hire and fire Managers and dictate the tems under which they operate. When employing a Manager they will give him a Contract of Employment which details exactly what he can and cannot do. Ultimately, the success or failure of any Club is down to the Board of Directors. We have seen long drawn-out vetting procedures on several occasions to ensure, as much as possible, that we get the right man. One day, perhaps, we might but I suspect that will not happen while the current people are in charge.

Share this post


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

Who is responsible for what - do we really know the answers? I suspect most will blame whoever is easiest to blame or suits their latest witch hunts. For instance who is responsible for giving Cureton a three year contract until 2010 when he was nearly 32 years of age? Or who is responsible for giving injury prone Drury a four year contract until 2011? Then who is responsible for not buying any strikers just relying on the hope that we could get some in on loan regardless of cost? And then who was responsible for making a top striker like Iwan continually prove his worth to get much shorter contracts? It suggests to me that it''s the football managers decisions and some of them beggar belief!

[/quote]

The Club is managed by a Board of Directors who set the agenda. They hire and fire Managers and dictate the terms under which they operate. When employing a Manager they will give him a Contract of Employment which details exactly what he can and cannot do. Ultimately, the success or failure of any Club is down to the Board of Directors. We have seen long drawn-out vetting procedures on several occasions to ensure, as much as possible, that we get the right man. One day, perhaps, we might but I suspect that will not happen while the current people are in charge.

[/quote]

Looks like it''s Option A then. Namely whoever it''s easiest to blame or suits the latest witch hunt.

The way I assumed it worked was that the board of directors appointed a football manager to look after the football team. I assumed they then give him a budget and he spends that budget on players he feels he needs to win football matches. I can''t imagine any manager wanting to have that budget spent for him and then having to make best of what he has been given.

Of course the buck does ultimately stop at the top with the clubs owners. But they can''t be sacked because they own the club. So if the guy they appointed wastes their money they have to sack him, try and find more money and appoint someone else. If they continually appoint people who waste their money they will have to continually replace them and waste some more until such a time as they run out of money or someone else buys them out to have a turn at wasting theirs.

 

Share this post


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

Just read it on Pinkun

“Sadly, there is no such thing as a free lunch. None of us want to pay agents'' fees. But they remain a fact of life, like the taxman, the common cold and traffic wardens. None is particularly popular - but they exist nonetheless. To opt out of paying agents'' fees is, simply, to opt out of attracting the players we want to Carrow Road.”

What a load of nonsense.  This would suggest we paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for the privilege of seeing Lupoli sit on the bench.

Brilliant, I have nothing but faith in that man...

[/quote]

Did you renew your ST?

[/quote]

so anyone who does renew has no right to complain ? utter drivel  .. people who don`t go at all have less right to complain  [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Wiz was hoping to make the following point:

- Rant about Doncaster

- Have you renewed

- Yes

- Well then you have sanctioned his behaviour and that of the board and now cannot complain about them.

I like to think he would have said this with one eyebrow raised a la Roger Moore!!

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...