Denzel Dumfries

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

46 minutes ago, Bill said:

It was two months ago that that article said we had a clear plan to sign him. You said we hadn't been messing him about for two months. I think we have and that's why we've lost another one.

OR we have been trying to sign him since before the Euros but his agent and his club knew full well that a good performance at the Euros would put him in the shop window and get bigger clubs interested and get a better deal for everyone ( except Everton obviously ). Then Inter start sniffing who are champions of Italy and can offer Champions League football and like any sane minded player he chose them over us

There is nothing in the article you posted to suggest we were messing the player about, if anything it would back up my theory more!

[Bill]

Messing about or not, For the sake of £12m another one bites the dust.  We must be in a terrible state not being able to rustle up that money.

 

[Btay]

5 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

That's just not how it works in many businesses. We may not like them, but agents play a valuable role.

It's like buying and selling a house: We hate paying 6% to the agents, but it's part of the process. In some cases, the better option is simply not to move. Same here. We talk all the time about buying this player or buying that player, but much better to well manage the resources we have, especially youngsters coming through.

Not exactly accurate though because in that example it’s the person who owns the assets losing the 6% to the agent. It would be like us agreeing a fee with PSV and then the agent taking his cut from PSV

[Matt]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

Messing about or not, For the sake of £12m another one bites the dust.  We must be in a terrible state not being able to rustle up that money.

 

How is a player choosing not to sign for us when we has a deal in place somehow translated as we couldn't get the money together?

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, Btay said:

Not exactly accurate though because in that example it’s the person who owns the assets losing the 6% to the agent. It would be like us agreeing a fee with PSV and then the agent taking his cut from PSV

It has always been the club who pick up the agents fee, it’s what the clubs want to do, it’s there way of getting the better agent’s with the better players to deal with them, what difference does it make to any of us who pick up the tab, if the player picked the tab up his agent would negotiate a deal with the club that they would have to give the player an enhanced deal to cover any costs incurred by the player having to pay the agents fee, no matter how you dress it up the club will always pay the costs if they want the player recruitment. 

[Btay]

18 minutes ago, Palfy said:

It has always been the club who pick up the agents fee, it’s what the clubs want to do, it’s there way of getting the better agent’s with the better players to deal with them, what difference does it make to any of us who pick up the tab, if the player picked the tab up his agent would negotiate a deal with the club that they would have to give the player an enhanced deal to cover any costs incurred by the player having to pay the agents fee, no matter how you dress it up the club will always pay the costs if they want the player recruitment. 

But it would stop agents being excessively greedy. If the reports are true he’s asked for 66% of the transfer fee as an agent fee.
 

If he went to the player and said, good news, Inter & Everton have agreed a fee of £15 million and wages are looking around double what you are on now. Now are you good for the £10million fee or do you want me to try get it added on to the transfer fee. Id sack him instantly.

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, Btay said:

But it would stop agents being excessively greedy. If the reports are true he’s asked for 66% of the transfer fee as an agent fee.
 

If he went to the player and said, good news, Inter & Everton have agreed a fee of £15 million and wages are looking around double what you are on now. Now are you good for the £10million fee or do you want me to try get it added on to the transfer fee. Id sack him instantly.

The player doesn’t negotiate with the club he has signed up with the agent to do that, the players happy if the deal goes through and he’s doubled his wages and he’s playing for a decent club, if the agent and club can’t strike a deal the club don’t get the player, and the next club in-line get their opportunity to do the deal, what you seem to forget agents thrived in the game because clubs encouraged the agent player set up it suited and still does the way they want to do business. The clubs and players aren’t complaining about agents, it’s HMRC and some fans who seem to have a problem with the way it operates. 

[Btay]

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

The player doesn’t negotiate with the club he has signed up with the agent to do that, the players happy if the deal goes through and he’s doubled his wages and he’s playing for a decent club, if the agent and club can’t strike a deal the club don’t get the player, and the next club in-line get their opportunity to do the deal, what you seem to forget agents thrived in the game because clubs encouraged the agent player set up it suited and still does the way they want to do business. The clubs and players aren’t complaining about agents, it’s HMRC and some fans who seem to have a problem with the way it operates. 

I never said the player negotiates.

My whole point that you just missed then was if I was a player and my deal to go to a better club because my agent was holding the deal up for an extra 66% of the transfer fund as his fee I would sack him.

I gather that agents are crucial but there really should be a regulation as to what their fees can be otherwise it will become even more of a piss take than it is now due to some agents.

[StevO]

6 minutes ago, Btay said:

I never said the player negotiates.

My whole point that you just missed then was if I was a player and my deal to go to a better club because my agent was holding the deal up for an extra 66% of the transfer fund as his fee I would sack him.

I gather that agents are crucial but there really should be a regulation as to what their fees can be otherwise it will become even more of a piss take than it is now due to some agents.

Considering the agent will likely pick up between 5-15% of what the player gets, wages, sign on fees, endorsements, asking for so much of the transfer fee is greedy. 
I get the clubs want to use agents and pay them a fee, but I think Raiola takes the piss. Like when United signed Pogba for £100m, Juve got about half of that and Raiola got the rest. 
For me a cap of the transfer fee should be set. If they get 10% of the players earnings then they shouldn’t get more than 10% of the transfer fee from the buying/selling club, depending who is employing his services at the time. Though shit stains like Raiola will try to get paid by both clubs and the player. 

[Btay]

7 minutes ago, StevO said:

Considering the agent will likely pick up between 5-15% of what the player gets, wages, sign on fees, endorsements, asking for so much of the transfer fee is greedy. 
I get the clubs want to use agents and pay them a fee, but I think Raiola takes the piss. Like when United signed Pogba for £100m, Juve got about half of that and Raiola got the rest. 
For me a cap of the transfer fee should be set. If they get 10% of the players earnings then they shouldn’t get more than 10% of the transfer fee from the buying/selling club, depending who is employing his services at the time. Though shit stains like Raiola will try to get paid by both clubs and the player. 

Nail on the head here mate. Completely agree.

[Palfy]

39 minutes ago, StevO said:

Considering the agent will likely pick up between 5-15% of what the player gets, wages, sign on fees, endorsements, asking for so much of the transfer fee is greedy. 
I get the clubs want to use agents and pay them a fee, but I think Raiola takes the piss. Like when United signed Pogba for £100m, Juve got about half of that and Raiola got the rest. 
For me a cap of the transfer fee should be set. If they get 10% of the players earnings then they shouldn’t get more than 10% of the transfer fee from the buying/selling club, depending who is employing his services at the time. Though shit stains like Raiola will try to get paid by both clubs and the player. 

What should be capped is players wages then there would maybe be no need for agents, when you get Messi reportedly being paid 25 million a season, you have to blame the clubs they helped create the super agents to get them what they wanted. I wouldn’t want anyone dictating what I can earn and how much I can charge for my services, when I first worked in my industry in mid to late seventies I was on the cards on Union rates self employed construction workers didn’t exist in them days, then a lot of the national house builders found a loophole that suited them to encourage us to give up our employment status and go self employed, thus saving them money and the hassle of making sure they had plenty of work to keep us busy, now in my early years I struggled but I built a business up that I control what I earn which suits the companies I contract to, because I am doing all the leg work for them and supplying what they require, if they don’t like my costs I don’t get the contract, usually they don’t like my costs and I still get the contract, they created the likes of me in their industry because it suited them as did clubs help create agents because it was easier and suited them. What has transpired is the same in my industry and many industries, it’s called capitalism people including myself who are self employed will always push the boundaries of what they and in some cases there clients can earn, you call it greed I call it supply and demand created by the end user who benefits from the service, because if they didn’t want it  they wouldn’t use it. Don’t go feeling sorry for the clubs and condemning the agents they are providing a service, Riola is self employed and good at what he does for his clients and himself, when I meet successful civil engineering companies bricklaying companies ect ect who’s owners are multi millionaires, I don’t think greedy bastards I think fair play to them.  

[Cornish Steve]

On 12/08/2021 at 18:08, Btay said:

Not exactly accurate though because in that example it’s the person who owns the assets losing the 6% to the agent. It would be like us agreeing a fee with PSV and then the agent taking his cut from PSV

You're right that the analogy is not exact, but the principle is the same. And, of course, when buying or selling a house, the parties involved can always negotiate who pays the agent. We don't have to accept the status quo. Either way, though, the agent will be paid.

[Cornish Steve]

On 12/08/2021 at 18:44, Btay said:

But it would stop agents being excessively greedy. If the reports are true he’s asked for 66% of the transfer fee as an agent fee.
 

If he went to the player and said, good news, Inter & Everton have agreed a fee of £15 million and wages are looking around double what you are on now. Now are you good for the £10million fee or do you want me to try get it added on to the transfer fee. Id sack him instantly.

By way of comparison, injury claim lawyers in the US expect one-third of the settlement value, and that's taken from the recipient. If paid by the sued party, it would be 50%. In other words, 66% is not at all outrageous.

[Shukes]

I’m sure some manager pointed out this is one of the reasons transfer fees are so inflated, as the clubs have to take into consideration the agent fees on any fee.

[StevO]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

By way of comparison, injury claim lawyers in the US expect one-third of the settlement value, and that's taken from the recipient. If paid by the sued party, it would be 50%. In other words, 66% is not at all outrageous.

That’s the strangest comparison I’ve seen so far, especially as it comes to the conclusion that 65% isn’t outrageous.