Agents fees : Feb 23 to Feb 24

B

basilrobbie3

Well-known member
Blackpool paid £395, 345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

Only five clubs in League One - Barnsley, Derby, Fleetwood, Reading and Wigan - spent more.

Meanwhile, the EPL, which is currently lobbying hard against having to pay around £10m (or about £530k per club) to fund an independent regulator, spent £409 million on agent fees in the same period.


www.thefa.com

2023-24 registered intermediary fees and transactions published

Read more
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Blackpool paid £395, 345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

Only five clubs in League One - Barnsley, Derby, Fleetwood, Reading and Wigan - spent more.

Meanwhile, the EPL, which is currently lobbying hard against having to pay around £10m (or about £530k per club) to fund an independent regulator, spent £409 million on agent fees in the same period.


www.thefa.com

2023-24 registered intermediary fees and transactions published

Read more
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
Click to expand...
Money well spent by Fleetwood then
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Blackpool paid £395, 345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

Only five clubs in League One - Barnsley, Derby, Fleetwood, Reading and Wigan - spent more.

Meanwhile, the EPL, which is currently lobbying hard against having to pay around £10m (or about £530k per club) to fund an independent regulator, spent £409 million on agent fees in the same period.


www.thefa.com

2023-24 registered intermediary fees and transactions published

Read more
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
Click to expand...
Another day another anti EPL post

A few things to mention;

- Agents are part of the game and the majority of players, managers, coaches and football clubs use them
- Why would the EPL clubs want to pay for something that they don't actually want, i can't image many Turkeys voting for Christmas

Oh and the two things aren't connected are they?
 
Some stand out figures there:

Chelsea £75m, the highest in the EPL by some distance, and where are they in the league? Forest Green 1/4 million, the second highest of the now L2 clubs (after Wrexham).

There's clearly no correlation between agents' fees paid and success on the pitch, which leads to the conclusion that neither is there a correlation between transfer and/ or signing on fees paid and success.
 
Begs the question re: Fleetwood how can they pass Profit & Sustainability rules if they're shelling out so much in agents fees/players salaries on 4-5000 gates? Also those perennial paupers Reading & Wigan who don't seem to learn anything from past point deductions and transfer embargoes.
 
I agree about agents, they're just part of the game, nothing really to be done about that. However I think that £400k being the going rate just for the privileges of being able to do business in L1 perhaps provides a moment of reflection for those who thinks Sadler should be spending more.
 
Just thinking about Fleetwood and forest green being in the top payers - might that be agents fees are high when no transfer fee involved for them to take a cut from? I'm no expert at all in how this works but seems plausible.
 
hills98 said:
Just thinking about Fleetwood and forest green being in the top payers - might that be agents fees are high when no transfer fee involved for them to take a cut from? I'm no expert at all in how this works but seems plausible.
Click to expand...
Or they've both had 3 managers this season so a high turnover of players.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Another day another anti EPL post

A few things to mention;

- Agents are part of the game and the majority of players, managers, coaches and football clubs use them
- Why would the EPL clubs want to pay for something that they don't actually want, i can't image many Turkeys voting for Christmas (1)

Oh and the two things aren't connected are they? (2)
Click to expand...

(1) You do know that all those Disciplinary Panels that the Leagues run don't come for free, don't you? The EFL are trying to charge Sheffield United over £300k in costs for the one in respect of them. Having an independent regulator may well save some league clubs money, in the long run.

(2) I never said they were. But it does tell you a lot about EPL priorities. Which was the point I was making.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
(1) You do know that all those Disciplinary Panels that the Leagues run don't come for free, don't you? The EFL are trying to charge Sheffield United over £300k in costs for the one in respect of them. Having an independent regulator may well save some league clubs money, in the long run.

(2) I never said they were. But it does tell you a lot about EPL priorities. Which was the point I was making.
Click to expand...
I know the point you are making i get it, you bang on about it every day

You don't like clubs spending money and you believe a regulator will wave a magic wand and everything will go back to 1966 or something
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I know the point you are making i get it, you bang on about it every day

You don't like clubs spending money and you believe a regulator will wave a magic wand and everything will go back to 1966 or something
Click to expand...
Phil_bfc deux said:
I know the point you are making i get it, you bang on about it every day

You don't like clubs spending money and you believe a regulator will wave a magic wand and everything will go back to 1966 or something
Click to expand...
I am very happy for clubs to spend money on a range of things, including on agents. I do think over £400m in one year for the EPL is excessive, and I dare say I'm not the only one. It's not spend that is conferring much direct benefit on the game in this country, in my opinion.

Spending on effective regulation, on the other hand, seems a very good thing, and if it ends up costing the EPL clubs half a million each ** (less than half of one percent of what they typically get in broadcasting revenue), I'd say that was good value for something that over time should :

  • spread good practice
  • promote far better cost control
  • give everyone far more access to real time information
  • strengthen our ability to root out people who shouldn't be in our clubs
  • give fans far more of a say at the local level
  • improve confidence in the fairness of the system

amongst other things. Our club says they support its introduction, presumably for similar reasons.

As for a "magic wand", that's just you inventing things again. The main problems in English football are a mixture of the cultural and the structural, and will take years to address, not months. And there will continue to be failures at individual clubs while all that is going on, however good the Regulator is.

Getting a Bill at all is a fantastic achievement, when you think about it. One of the most right-wing Governments we have ever had have been persuaded - by fans - to introduce external regulation into a brand new sector. It also tells you a lot about what a state the game is in that so many people in all walks of life agreed it needed to happen. If you don't believe that, go and talk to a few fans of clubs like Everton, Forest, Leicester and Luton and see how much confidence they have in the current regime.

** this is not entirely new spend either. The EPL clubs already pay for its own internal regulatory function anyway, and probably feel they aren't getting much quality or consistency for their money at the moment.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I am very happy for clubs to spend money on a range of things, including on agents. I do think over £400m in one year for the EPL is excessive, and I dare say I'm not the only one. It's not spend that is conferring much direct benefit on the game in this country, in my opinion.

Spending on effective regulation, on the other hand, seems a very good thing, and if it ends up costing the EPL clubs half a million each ** (less than half of one percent of what they typically get in broadcasting revenue), I'd say that was good value for something that over time should :

  • spread good practice
  • promote far better cost control
  • give everyone far more access to real time information
  • strengthen our ability to root out people who shouldn't be in our clubs
  • give fans far more of a say at the local level
  • improve confidence in the fairness of the system

amongst other things. Our club says they support its introduction, presumably for similar reasons.

As for a "magic wand", that's just you inventing things again. The main problems in English football are a mixture of the cultural and the structural, and will take years to address, not months. And there will continue to be failures at individual clubs while all that is going on, however good the Regulator is.

Getting a Bill at all is a fantastic achievement, when you think about it. One of the most right-wing Governments we have ever had have been persuaded - by fans - to introduce external regulation into a brand new sector. It also tells you a lot about what a state the game is in that so many people in all walks of life agreed it needed to happen. If you don't believe that, go and talk to a few fans of clubs like Everton, Forest, Leicester and Luton and see how much confidence they have in the current regime.

** this is not entirely new spend either. The EPL clubs already pay for its own internal regulatory function anyway, and probably feel they aren't getting much quality or consistency for their money at the moment.
Click to expand...
One of the most right wing governments we have ever had.😂😂😂
Piss off Boris and Sunak are pathetic examples of Conservatism.👍
 
Wait.. hang on… Blackpool paid £395,345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

How can that even be possible?

Everyone on Avftt knows we didn’t spend any of the Bowler, Yates or Critchley money except on Joseph. So if we’ve spunked £400k on agents in 1 year are we paying 50% of transfer fees on the agent?

I’m starting to think that Sadler has actually spent quite a chunk on players now?? 🤔
 
Chunkylad said:
Wait.. hang on… Blackpool paid £395,345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

How can that even be possible?

Everyone on Avftt knows we didn’t spend any of the Bowler, Yates or Critchley money except on Joseph. So if we’ve spunked £400k on agents in 1 year are we paying 50% of transfer fees on the agent?

I’m starting to think that Sadler has actually spent quite a chunk on players now?? 🤔
Click to expand...
£1 to sign Tashan Oakley-Boothe in August and £395,344 to get rid of him again in January
 
As has been said, agents are rife throughout football. Agents are also rife in showbusiness, all artistes are represented by an agent. What puzzles me is why the clubs pay the agents, they are the players representatives not the clubs. In the aforementioned showbusiness the artiste pays the agent not the venue. They are the leeches of the game who suck millions out of the game year after year. Money which could be far better spent on cheaper tickets, better facilities and many other things rather than fattening the bank balances of millionaires.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I am very happy for clubs to spend money on a range of things, including on agents. I do think over £400m in one year for the EPL is excessive, and I dare say I'm not the only one. It's not spend that is conferring much direct benefit on the game in this country, in my opinion.

Spending on effective regulation, on the other hand, seems a very good thing, and if it ends up costing the EPL clubs half a million each ** (less than half of one percent of what they typically get in broadcasting revenue), I'd say that was good value for something that over time should :

  • spread good practice
  • promote far better cost control
  • give everyone far more access to real time information
  • strengthen our ability to root out people who shouldn't be in our clubs
  • give fans far more of a say at the local level
  • improve confidence in the fairness of the system

amongst other things. Our club says they support its introduction, presumably for similar reasons.

As for a "magic wand", that's just you inventing things again. The main problems in English football are a mixture of the cultural and the structural, and will take years to address, not months. And there will continue to be failures at individual clubs while all that is going on, however good the Regulator is.

Getting a Bill at all is a fantastic achievement, when you think about it. One of the most right-wing Governments we have ever had have been persuaded - by fans - to introduce external regulation into a brand new sector. It also tells you a lot about what a state the game is in that so many people in all walks of life agreed it needed to happen. If you don't believe that, go and talk to a few fans of clubs like Everton, Forest, Leicester and Luton and see how much confidence they have in the current regime.

** this is not entirely new spend either. The EPL clubs already pay for its own internal regulatory function anyway, and probably feel they aren't getting much quality or consistency for their money at the moment.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you include Luton in that list they have made incredible progress in a relatively short time. They haven't spent shed loads of money in that rise too just made very good decisions on players & Managers.
 
Chunkylad said:
Wait.. hang on… Blackpool paid £395,345 in agent fees in this period, according to information published by the FA.

How can that even be possible?

Everyone on Avftt knows we didn’t spend any of the Bowler, Yates or Critchley money except on Joseph. So if we’ve spunked £400k on agents in 1 year are we paying 50% of transfer fees on the agent?

I’m starting to think that Sadler has actually spent quite a chunk on players now?? 🤔
Click to expand...
The clubs use agents for a number of reasons, you also pay agents when off loading players or getting free transfers
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I am very happy for clubs to spend money on a range of things, including on agents. I do think over £400m in one year for the EPL is excessive, and I dare say I'm not the only one. It's not spend that is conferring much direct benefit on the game in this country, in my opinion.

Spending on effective regulation, on the other hand, seems a very good thing, and if it ends up costing the EPL clubs half a million each ** (less than half of one percent of what they typically get in broadcasting revenue), I'd say that was good value for something that over time should :

  • spread good practice
  • promote far better cost control
  • give everyone far more access to real time information
  • strengthen our ability to root out people who shouldn't be in our clubs
  • give fans far more of a say at the local level
  • improve confidence in the fairness of the system

amongst other things. Our club says they support its introduction, presumably for similar reasons.

As for a "magic wand", that's just you inventing things again. The main problems in English football are a mixture of the cultural and the structural, and will take years to address, not months. And there will continue to be failures at individual clubs while all that is going on, however good the Regulator is.

Getting a Bill at all is a fantastic achievement, when you think about it. One of the most right-wing Governments we have ever had have been persuaded - by fans - to introduce external regulation into a brand new sector. It also tells you a lot about what a state the game is in that so many people in all walks of life agreed it needed to happen. If you don't believe that, go and talk to a few fans of clubs like Everton, Forest, Leicester and Luton and see how much confidence they have in the current regime.

** this is not entirely new spend either. The EPL clubs already pay for its own internal regulatory function anyway, and probably feel they aren't getting much quality or consistency for their money at the moment.
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you want another layer of bureaucracy in our game, i also don't know where you have plucked the 10 million figure from either, I've been reading it will be closer to 60 million

The current government is as weak as p!ss and certainly isn't one of the most right wing we have ever had, infact its one of the wokest

So all in all your post is just more agenda driven nonsense

We know you have aligned yourself with the FSA and even part wrote one of their government submissions

Not everybody thinks its a good idea
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I am very happy for clubs to spend money on a range of things, including on agents. I do think over £400m in one year for the EPL is excessive, and I dare say I'm not the only one. It's not spend that is conferring much direct benefit on the game in this country, in my opinion.

Spending on effective regulation, on the other hand, seems a very good thing, and if it ends up costing the EPL clubs half a million each ** (less than half of one percent of what they typically get in broadcasting revenue), I'd say that was good value for something that over time should :

  • spread good practice
  • promote far better cost control
  • give everyone far more access to real time information
  • strengthen our ability to root out people who shouldn't be in our clubs
  • give fans far more of a say at the local level
  • improve confidence in the fairness of the system

amongst other things. Our club says they support its introduction, presumably for similar reasons.

As for a "magic wand", that's just you inventing things again. The main problems in English football are a mixture of the cultural and the structural, and will take years to address, not months. And there will continue to be failures at individual clubs while all that is going on, however good the Regulator is.

Getting a Bill at all is a fantastic achievement, when you think about it. One of the most right-wing Governments we have ever had have been persuaded - by fans - to introduce external regulation into a brand new sector. It also tells you a lot about what a state the game is in that so many people in all walks of life agreed it needed to happen. If you don't believe that, go and talk to a few fans of clubs like Everton, Forest, Leicester and Luton and see how much confidence they have in the current regime.

** this is not entirely new spend either. The EPL clubs already pay for its own internal regulatory function anyway, and probably feel they aren't getting much quality or consistency for their money at the moment.
Click to expand...

Yep, good post - agree with all of that.

Whilst the relationship with agents is symbiotic (to a degree) it is right that "it is not spend that is conferring much benefit on the game", and this is something that we should be concerned about. If you are not personally concerned too much - which is fine - you should at least be receptive to the idea, and mildly pleased, that there are people who are concerned enough to take up cudgels on behalf of improved governance.

Getting a Government Bill is important and indeed an achievement in itself - perhaps the timing is fortuitous - but should be warmly applauded by football fans generally.

Trickle down money from the boom period of English football doesn`t need to be squandered in the way that North Sea oil revenue was to a large extent, and we can do so much better for community and junior football if we keep more money in the sport...
 
Devonshire said:
Why do the clubs pay the agents and not the players they represent 🤔
Click to expand...
Probably tax efficiency, they're an allowable expense for the club, but they wouldn't be deductible from the player's income.

I suspect if the players were paying the agents themselves, it might focus their minds on how much value they are really getting out of their agents, which is obviously something the agents would like to avoid.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Why on earth do you want another layer of bureaucracy in our game, i also don't know where you have plucked the 10 million figure from either, I've been reading it will be closer to 60 million (2)

The current government is as weak as p!ss and certainly isn't one of the most right wing we have ever had, infact its one of the wokest

So all in all your post is just more agenda driven nonsense (1)

We know you have aligned yourself with the FSA and even part wrote one of their government submissions (3)

Not everybody thinks its a good idea (4)
Click to expand...
(1) it's just discussion on a message board Phil.

(2) The £10.6m (per year) figure came from an article in the Daily Heil last week. They quoted a figure of £132.8m over the first 10 years, with the EPL clubs paying 80% of the costs (as they currently trouser around 84% of the TV money, that seems reasonable to me). I don't know where your £60m figure comes from, I haven't seen that.

We can argue about what constitutes a "reasonable" cost for regulation, but I think a figure of around £10m a year would be a very good outcome, personally. The key point though, is that any figure you are reading at the moment is at best an informed guess, and at worst completely made up.

I say this because the clubs will be asked to pay their share of the costs of the regulator through a levy. The Bill gives the Regulator powers to set it, and also obliges it to consult with clubs and a range of other interested parties before doing so. None of that can happen until the Bill becomes law.

(3) You make it sound like a crime. :)

(4) Agreed. But that argument has been had through a very extensive consultation process, and those people who think that have decisively lost it.


I've just been reading the summary of Chelsea's accounts for 22/23, which to me summarises all that is wrong with the game :

  • turnover over half a billion pounds....
  • .... day to day losses of £249m (getting on for £700k per day)
  • yet they still paid out close to three quarters of a billion pounds to buy players...
  • ... and borrowed £428m to help fund this spending spree

They sold a couple of players and a hotel to offset some of this for their PSR calculation. But that looks like a club out of control to me, and one whose spending power is causing huge ripples in football that go well beyond the EPL. And pointing it out is not a crime either, even if you don't want to think about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top