Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, A12owl said:

I would. Are you ITK. 

See other thread. 

I dont need to be ITK.....its is common knowledge that clubs employ agents to shift players on

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

I dont need to be ITK.....its is common knowledge that clubs employ agents to shift players on

Players agent and club agents. Different animals. 

That's possibly true but why should a club pay a players agent to agree a contract which the player gets money not the club. 

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

If they want to sign players on contracts worth that much then they'd need to.....simple as

Virtually every club chairman would have to be a multi millionaire. Maybe some sort of fixed fee put aside to put off the chancers, but as started above dont think many chairman would put entire squads contract values at one time in a fund they just wont have that kind of disposable income.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A12owl said:

Players agent and club agents. Different animals. 

That's possibly true but why should a club pay a players agent to agree a contract which the player gets money not the club. 

They aren't different animals

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Virtually every club chairman would have to be a multi millionaire. Maybe some sort of fixed fee put aside to put off the chancers, but as started above dont think many chairman would put entire squads contract values at one time in a fund they just wont have that kind of disposable income.

or sign players on sustainable contracts

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ian said:

or sign players on sustainable contracts

My point is more that even if that was the case then the club would generate probably 50 or 60% of the wages for the season over the course of it, so why does a chairman have to put 100% in a pot first.

Edited by pazowl55
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A12owl said:

OK. 


He’s right.

 

The only difference is who is paying the retainer.

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

Am I missing something but how could a club employ a agent To influence things when the player already has a agent 

Take Rhodes for example......his agent has done his job and got him a ood contract with us......Why would Rhodes pay him any more.

 

The club however would offer to pay the agent to find a club who will pay Rhodes wages that are acceptable to us and possibly even a transfer fee

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

My point is more that even if that was the case then the club would generate probably 50 or 60% of the wages for the season over the course of it, so why does a chairman have to put 100% in a pot first.

You’d forecast cash flows surely and then the shortfall that the owner puts in would need to be escrowed

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll stand by the fact that, the only thing that baffles me about this whole debate, is 373 pages without any concrete evidence of an outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not know what I’m talking about but why are footballers given more job security than the rest of us. What if clubs were given the right to make players redundant. Then the chairman would only need to escrow the amount needed to pay redundancy for the squad. 
That would mean that the 25 man squad each on a 4 year £ 20 million contract would equate to an escrow payment of around £21 million ( enough to pay each player 2 months wages as a redundancy payment )  rather than the £1 billion calculated by blondeau. 
Surely £21 million would be affordable for most wealthy owners. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jackowl97 said:

I may not know what I’m talking about but why are footballers given more job security than the rest of us. What if clubs were given the right to make players redundant. Then the chairman would only need to escrow the amount needed to pay redundancy for the squad. 
That would mean that the 25 man squad each on a 4 year £ 20 million contract would equate to an escrow payment of around £21 million ( enough to pay each player 2 months wages as a redundancy payment )  rather than the £1 billion calculated by blondeau. 
Surely £21 million would be affordable for most wealthy owners. 

I don't think you could make players redundant unless you were closing the business. As I understand it you can only make someone redundant if their position is no longer required by the company which is what I think redundancy means. You could say that you have too many players and make some redundant but you couldn't do it on the basis of who earns the most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jackowl97 said:

I may not know what I’m talking about but why are footballers given more job security than the rest of us. What if clubs were given the right to make players redundant. Then the chairman would only need to escrow the amount needed to pay redundancy for the squad. 
That would mean that the 25 man squad each on a 4 year £ 20 million contract would equate to an escrow payment of around £21 million ( enough to pay each player 2 months wages as a redundancy payment )  rather than the £1 billion calculated by blondeau. 
Surely £21 million would be affordable for most wealthy owners. 

I may not know what I am talking about either. But I am pretty sure we are all on rolling contracts. 1month notice that type of thing. 

We are also just predominantly seen as workers where as footballers are seen as commodities. So companys want to tie them down to deals.

Would also happen in other walks of life to. Sure most of the celebrity world work under similar type contracts to footballers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bolton9owl said:

I think agents have a job to do but considering they are acting for and on behalf of their particular player then it should be the player that remunerates their agent out of there own pocket.

its absolutely crazy that a club should have to cough up hundreds of thousand or even millions when he agent is affiliated to the player.

Clubs having to pay millions to agents is ludicrous 

 


It doesn't really matter whether the club or player pays the agent as they would still want the same combined total to complete the deal. Say the player is on 10m over 4 years and the agent wants a fee of 1m from the club to complete the deal and the club told the player to pay the agent he would just say ok then I'll have 10m over the 4 years plus 1m upfront. Same cost to the club and same total to player and agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rev Owl said:

I don't think you could make players redundant unless you were closing the business. As I understand it you can only make someone redundant if their position is no longer required by the company which is what I think redundancy means. You could say that you have too many players and make some redundant but you couldn't do it on the basis of who earns the most.

Pretty sure you would still have to pay their contracts in full. so makes it a pointless exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jackowl97 said:

I may not know what I’m talking about but why are footballers given more job security than the rest of us. What if clubs were given the right to make players redundant. Then the chairman would only need to escrow the amount needed to pay redundancy for the squad. 
That would mean that the 25 man squad each on a 4 year £ 20 million contract would equate to an escrow payment of around £21 million ( enough to pay each player 2 months wages as a redundancy payment )  rather than the £1 billion calculated by blondeau. 
Surely £21 million would be affordable for most wealthy owners. 

its a 2 way street this one.....footballers cant just give a months notice or whatever we do and go elsewhere.

 

They are the same as the rest of us in many respects just that the notice period is the length of their contract just like some of us have a month, some 3 months

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sham67 said:

 

Not if we've sold the training ground for £20 million. 

 

:Chansiri:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ian said:

its a 2 way street this one.....footballers cant just give a months notice or whatever we do and go elsewhere.

 

They are the same as the rest of us in many respects just that the notice period is the length of their contract just like some of us have a month, some 3 months

But I can get sacked for poor performance (after 2 warnings...) also for possible long term sickness, admittedly if that happened to our squad now and over previous years we wouldn't have/had many players left!!!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...