Andy Holt Vs The Premier league on Twitter

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Tue May 09, 2017 8:57 pm

A war of words has broken out with Accrington Stanley chairmen slagging the wasteful premier league off for allowing things like Pogbas 41m agent fee. That sum is more than the EFL receive in filtered down payments from the premier league TV deal.
The premier league has seemingly hit back threatening to stop payments to Accy if he doesn't like it.

The story is being covered by Dan Roan.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:05 pm

Why shouldn't Mino Raiola get the cut of Pogba's transfer fee? He's his agent. There wouldn't be a transfer without him. It's a lot of money but so was the transfer fee. It's relative.

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:07 pm

Even Accy Stanley have distanced themselves from Holt's comments

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:13 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Even Accy Stanley have distanced themselves from Holt's comments

Andy Holt said they were his views only before Accy tweeted, probably on his instruction.

He is right. The premier league has pushed the wages up so much it's trickled down the leagues so every club struggles.

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:15 pm

He has a very real and valid point. A payment to an agent of that size is an obscenity however you look at it. In every other profession where agents are used the represented person is the one paying the agent. Music, acting, writing, baseball, US football, basketball etc all see the use of agents negotiating contracts between the people they represent and the potential employer. They then take a percentage of the amount negotiated for their client.

I can understand football clubs maybe using an agent to make contact with the club of the person they wish to purchase. The club would be responsible for this cost.

So where did the idea that a purchasing/selling club should pay the player's agent? It seems so disgustingly illogical and definitely dodgy!

Maybe the FA, or, failing that, the government, should bring in rules to regulate the payments to player's agents by clubs. Maybe HMRC should start investigating.

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:18 pm

bfcmik wrote:So where did the idea that a purchasing/selling club should pay the player's agent? It seems so disgustingly illogical and definitely dodgy!

The usual case is that clubs pay agents for brokering the deals on their behalf, not the player agents.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:19 pm

I was listening to talksport on the way home and they made me laugh tonight.

Pre 5pm they were complaining that promoted clubs aren't giving value for money or spending enough of it to attract players and play attractive football, they seem to be more interested in survival first.

After 5pm - complaining about how much Pogba's agent got paid, how much Pogba and Zlatan get paid and how their wages are distorting wages down the leagues.
Also the money paid to Pogbas agent is being taken out of the game which is shocking when clubs at the bottom of the ladder are struggling to survive.

I'm not sure if they were being ironic with those two segments next to each other or just ignorant.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:20 pm

bfcmik wrote:He has a very real and valid point. A payment to an agent of that size is an obscenity however you look at it. In every other profession where agents are used the represented person is the one paying the agent. Music, acting, writing, baseball, US football, basketball etc all see the use of agents negotiating contracts between the people they represent and the potential employer. They then take a percentage of the amount negotiated for their client.

I can understand football clubs maybe using an agent to make contact with the club of the person they wish to purchase. The club would be responsible for this cost.

So where did the idea that a purchasing/selling club should pay the player's agent? It seems so disgustingly illogical and definitely dodgy!

Maybe the FA, or, failing that, the government, should bring in rules to regulate the payments to player's agents by clubs. Maybe HMRC should start investigating.

Fair point. My original comment - I was thinking the cut came from the fee, as it does in acting and literary contracts for example. But it wasn't in this case was it? In effect the Pogba transfer cost circa £89 million (fee) then circa £41 million for Raiola. And then wages on top. That's a lot.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:22 pm

From what they reckon on talksport half of that transfer fee went to the agent, although they may have that wrong.

There was a comment about Raiola getting nearly as much as Juventus did from the deal.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:24 pm

Sidney1st wrote:From what they reckon on talksport half of that transfer fee went to the agent, although they may have that wrong.

That's more of what my initial understanding of it was - that Raiola took a percentage of the fee which in turns bumps the fee up. Half seems a lot though.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:26 pm

Sidney1st wrote:I was listening to talksport on the way home and they made me laugh tonight.

Pre 5pm they were complaining that promoted clubs aren't giving value for money or spending enough of it to attract players and play attractive football, they seem to be more interested in survival first.

After 5pm - complaining about how much Pogba's agent got paid, how much Pogba and Zlatan get paid and how their wages are distorting wages down the leagues.
Also the money paid to Pogbas agent is being taken out of the game which is shocking when clubs at the bottom of the ladder are struggling to survive.

I'm not sure if they were being ironic with those two segments next to each other or just ignorant.

It was Durham and Gough Sid, they are thick as pig **** the pair of them and contradict themselves at virtually every turn on every subject.

I'm a huge cricket fan and was a fan of Gough and then talksport let him open his mouth, I now cannot stand the bloke.

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:31 pm

RocketLawnChair wrote:It was Durham and Gough Sid, they are thick as pig **** the pair of them and contradict themselves at virtually every turn on every subject.

I'm a huge cricket fan and was a fan of Gough and then talksport let him open his mouth, I now cannot stand the bloke.

Sorry for upsetting you with the reference to the Rochdale game

but I have to agree with the comments on Gough.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:36 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Sorry for upsetting you with the reference to the Rochdale game but I have to agree with the comments on Gough.

You'll leave it a couple months then throw it in again to keep me grounded during the transfer window CT haha.

Archer · Post by **Archer** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:43 pm

Entirely/somewhat/slightly/not at all related: FIFA investigating the Pogba deal today

Related: Holt bang on and no need for AS to try and distance themselves

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:45 pm

What are Fifa investigating?

Wasn't their cut of the deal big enough?

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Tue May 09, 2017 9:46 pm

Dont mean to speak ill of the dead but its all jimmy hills fault

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Tue May 09, 2017 10:23 pm

Jimmy Hill was doing his job as the PFA top man.
It was Tommy Trinder who opened the floodgates by paying Johnny Haynes £100/week. Bloody comedian(that's for the older readers).

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue May 09, 2017 10:38 pm

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:Why shouldn't Mino Raiola get the cut of Pogba's transfer fee? He's his agent. There wouldn't be a transfer without him. It's a lot of money but so was the transfer fee. It's relative.

There wouldn't be a transfer without Mino Raiola? So if Raiola (God forbid!) had dropped down dead last May, Pogba would still play for Juventus?

I could have arranged that transfer. Any of us could. The player himself will no doubt want an agent because he probably hasn't got the negotiating skills to get all he could/should, but I'm sure Man united and Juventus have the in house skills to arrange a transfer without any agent needed.

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:51 am

Can just imagine what Bob Lord would have said if a player turned up with an agent.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:10 am

Sidney1st wrote:I was listening to talksport on the way home and they made me laugh tonight.

Pre 5pm they were complaining that promoted clubs aren't giving value for money or spending enough of it to attract players and play attractive football, they seem to be more interested in survival first.

After 5pm - complaining about how much Pogba's agent got paid, how much Pogba and Zlatan get paid and how their wages are distorting wages down the leagues.
Also the money paid to Pogbas agent is being taken out of the game which is shocking when clubs at the bottom of the ladder are struggling to survive.
I'm not sure if they were being ironic with those two segments next to each other or just ignorant.

No, they're just ******* ignorant.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:16 am

Fifa could stop it all by making players themselves, responsible for their agents fees. So mind numbingly obvious you wonder who is getting a kick back to say nowt. Too many agents stroll the corridors of power, it's a self feeding phenomena. The more they interfere, the more they think they need them.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:54 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:Fifa could stop it all by making players themselves, responsible for their agents fees. So mind numbingly obvious you wonder who is getting a kick back to say nowt. Too many agents stroll the corridors of power, it's a self feeding phenomena. The more they interfere, the more they think they need them.

Works in practice but then the players just demand more signing on fees and give it to their agents. It still finds its way into their pockets.

Problem is player power. They know how much clubs need to survive/get to PL so they can charge what they want.

If you're hungry in an airport you have to pay an extortionate price or go hungry.

If you want an upgrade in midfield you have to pay an extortionate price or miss out.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 7:55 am

I think in all honesty, I'd rather miss out. Any player that mercenary isn't worth having. Players can only hold clubs to ransom if they're allowed to. Again, it's self defeating. If you give in the next player knows that you gave in.
**** em.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:42 am

HelloHiGoodbye wrote:Fair point. My original comment - I was thinking the cut came from the fee, as it does in acting and literary contracts for example. But it wasn't in this case was it? In effect the Pogba transfer cost circa £89 million (fee) then circa £41 million for Raiola. And then wages on top. That's a lot.

Is this for real?

I've heard of sweeteners to get business deals done, usually a fancy meal at posh restaurant and some alcoholic beverages. But 46% of the fee ON TOP of the fee is absolutely obscene if not disgusting.

People are right to be disgusted.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed May 10, 2017 8:52 am

maybe if Accy Stanley weren't utter sh**e on the pitch they'd have a few bob. Do they really expect the PL to bankroll their tinpot pub team?

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:57 am

ClaretEngineer wrote:Is this for real?

I've heard of sweeteners to get business deals done, usually a fancy meal at posh restaurant and some alcoholic beverages. But 46% of the fee ON TOP of the fee is absolutely obscene if not disgusting.

People are right to be disgusted.

I don't know if it's for real. That's kind of what I've been saying.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:01 am

The point is they could bank roll the whole of league one and not even notice the blip.
When they were passing the bucket around, outside the ground for Accy, they could have been saved for a half of Tevez's weekly wage. Teams should live within their means but that's obscene.

HelloHiGoodbye · Post by **HelloHiGoodbye** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:04 am

dsr wrote:There wouldn't be a transfer without Mino Raiola? So if Raiola (God forbid!) had dropped down dead last May, Pogba would still play for Juventus?

I could have arranged that transfer. Any of us could. The player himself will no doubt want an agent because he probably hasn't got the negotiating skills to get all he could/should, but I'm sure Man united and Juventus have the in house skills to arrange a transfer without any agent needed.

Lots of people underestimate the skills of agents, I reckon. There's got to be a reason top players are represented by Mino Raiola. Read Zlatan's autobiography. Raiola comes across as absolutely fierce and cutthroat in negotiations.

The "to get all he could/should" part of that is what's important. Betting we'd all do the same. Someone in your occupation says "it's possible for you to get X amount more but would you like to waive that and give it to a company you might've literally never heard of and have no emotion towards whatsoever (Accy)?"

Er, no thanks pal, I'll take the X amount.

It's an obscene amount of money but it's not Pogba's fault or Mino Raiola's fault. Clubs have this amount of money and however unfortunate it might be, they're going to spend it on massive players first rather than funding Accy Stanley.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed May 10, 2017 10:28 am

You're confusing the two issues. I couldn't have arranged Raiola's contract negotiations; that's skilled work. For that, an agent deserves his commission, which should come out of the player's contract.

But as for arranging for Man United to want him and Juventus to sell him, that's trivial. It's like acting as agent for you to buy a bottle of milk at Tesco - no arrangement necessary. United wanted him, Juventus could be persuaded to sell for enough money - all that the agent needs to do is make the player aware so he can rock the boat if need be, and the Pogba's personal agent can do that as part of his own duties.

There was a case in Scotland a few years back, where the agent took commission from both the player and the buying club, and it was ruled in court that he had to pay both lots of commission back. The act of being an agent means by definition (in Scottish law at least) that you have to act in "utmost good faith". You have to do your absolute best for the person you are agent to. Obviously you can't be agent for both sides in any transaction under that rule; it's a rule that ought to apply in football - that a player's agent cannot take commission from a club.

MiltonKeynesClaret93 · Post by **MiltonKeynesClaret93** » Wed May 10, 2017 11:18 am

KRBFC wrote:maybe if Accy Stanley weren't utter sh**e on the pitch they'd have a few bob. Do they really expect the PL to bankroll their tinpot pub team?

First of all, it's not ''they''. Andy Holt, the chairman made the comments, not the club.
Secondly, no EFL team ''expects'' to be bankrolled by the Premier League, let alone Accrington Stanley, but they should be supported in some way given the frankly, insane amounts of money floating about.
His comments which I, and most people think are absolutely spot on, were about the enormous financial gulf between the Premier League and the EFL.

You have Pogba's agent earning £40,000,000 through ''brokering'' a transfer (if you can call it that, I mean what the hell does he even have to do to make it happen?) when there are clubs struggling to pay their players a few hundred quid a week in League 2, there's clearly a problem.
There are people at fault for both being a reality but it doesn't mean that nothing should be done about it.

Perhaps educate yourself a little and read into the comments a tad more next time around.

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 11:37 am

Sidney1st wrote:From what they reckon on talksport half of that transfer fee went to the agent, although they may have that wrong.

There was a comment about Raiola getting nearly as much as Juventus did from the deal.

The fee the agent got was not just for the Pogba transfer. He is also the agent of Ibrahimovic so a lot was for his transfer too.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed May 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Cleveleys_claret wrote:The fee the agent got was not just for the Pogba transfer. He is also the agent of Ibrahimovic so a lot was for his transfer too.

So one of the biggest clubs in the world needed to employ an agent to broker the signing of a player who was out of contract and free to go wherever he chose?

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Wed May 10, 2017 1:57 pm

KRBFC wrote:maybe if Accy Stanley weren't utter sh**e on the pitch they'd have a few bob. Do they really expect the PL to bankroll their tinpot pub team?

I Know you're only after a bite but Accy finished highest in the place Vs budget table this season and last.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed May 10, 2017 2:17 pm

MiltonKeynesClaret93 wrote:First of all, it's not ''they''. Andy Holt, the chairman made the comments, not the club.
Secondly, no EFL team ''expects'' to be bankrolled by the Premier League, let alone Accrington Stanley, but they should be supported in some way given the frankly, insane amounts of money floating about.
His comments which I, and most people think are absolutely spot on, were about the enormous financial gulf between the Premier League and the EFL.

You have Pogba's agent earning £40,000,000 through ''brokering'' a transfer (if you can call it that, I mean what the hell does he even have to do to make it happen?) when there are clubs struggling to pay their players a few hundred quid a week in League 2, there's clearly a problem.
There are people at fault for both being a reality but it doesn't mean that nothing should be done about it.

Perhaps educate yourself a little and read into the comments a tad more next time around.

Obviously there is more money in the top league compared to the bottom league. The top league is for top clubs with top players. The PL is the most watched league in the world, nobody really gives a sh** about Stanley in comparison.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed May 10, 2017 2:20 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:The point is they could bank roll the whole of league one and not even notice the blip.
When they were passing the bucket around, outside the ground for Accy, they could have been saved for a half of Tevez's weekly wage. Teams should live within their means but that's obscene.

Compare the owner of Chelsea with the owner of Accy Stanley, compare Man Utds shirt sales compared with Accy Stanley, compare the attendances, the most watched league in the world and I don't care how Roman Abrahmovic wants to spend his fortune on players for Chelsea and I certainly don't expect him to bankroll the whole football league because he can.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed May 10, 2017 2:45 pm

KRBFC wrote:Obviously there is more money in the top league compared to the bottom league. The top league is for top clubs with top players. The PL is the most watched league in the world, nobody really gives a [expletive deleted] about Stanley in comparison.

For you, it's all about Chelsea, and clubs like Stanley (and for that matter Burnley) can go bust for all you care. But football as a whole needs grass roots. Without small clubs, what's the point of big clubs? English football doesn't want to be officially a world league to the abolition of English football as we know it.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed May 10, 2017 2:56 pm

dsr wrote:For you, it's all about Chelsea, and clubs like Stanley (and for that matter Burnley) can go bust for all you care. But football as a whole needs grass roots. Without small clubs, what's the point of big clubs? English football doesn't want to be officially a world league to the abolition of English football as we know it.

No, I just understand the reason PL clubs have more money than clubs in League Two. I understand that PL players earn more than players lower down the pyramid. Why should the owners of PL clubs bankroll lower league teams? Its all based on viewership, the PL is the most watched league in world football so they receive more money in TV rights and draw wealthier investors.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed May 10, 2017 3:18 pm

We all understand why the PL has more money than lower leagues - it's not rocket science. But (as other threads will confirm) I'm not the most socialist-minded person on this board, but I still think it would be reasonable if the lower divisions received a more generous allocation, in the interests of the game as a whole.

No-one is asking the Premier League owners to bankroll anyone. There's plenty of money to go round from the TV deal.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:05 pm

I'm afraid, dsr, that that sort of reasonable thinking finally went out with the very formation of The Premier League - forced on the rest of football by the elite (rich) clubs.

Some money does in effect trickle down via FA sponsorship of research into fitness and other areas, or training of groundsmen.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:08 pm

KRBFC wrote:Obviously there is more money in the top league compared to the bottom league. The top league is for top clubs with top players. The PL is the most watched league in the world, nobody really gives a sh** about Stanley in comparison.

No, you don't give a shite about Accrington Stanley. Clearly many people with common sense and a sense of fair play do. It isn't just because it's Accy, to see any team struggling financially, when there is so much money in the game, is sad to say the least. The supporters of these 'small' clubs are true fans. You don't go away to follow Exeter or Stanley to the other end of the country. Stand in a leaky **** hole of a shed, to see your team get beat again, unless you are passionate about the game. These fans wouldn't recognise a prawn sandwich if you gave them one, AND if you were a real fan yourself, you would understand that. Unfortunately your just a sad troll looking for a bite. Try Rovers board.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:28 pm

KRBFC is right in this case though.

The Premier League money - and much other money in the lower leagues - comes from television. Television viewers mostly want to watch the bigger teams - they haven't paid their money to watch Accrington Stanley or Newport.

We have little sympathy for Blackburn or Portsmouth who mismanaged their money at the top, and I have little sympathy with any football club who lives beyond their means, including AS. Unfortunately AS do not attract enough support and it's a marvel how well they do at the moment (like our own club). I don't see why, in this current age of football, that AS or any other club should be given handouts, nice as that might be in an ideal world.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Wed May 10, 2017 4:38 pm

Another thing the FA or Premier league should be doing is paying for all league one and two to have the latest Desso pitches. No more postponed games and the entire English football playing on great pitches that's better for developing youngsters.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:34 pm

if it wasn't for jimmy Hill, we would have been the team of the 60's and 70's!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 5:38 pm

Hipper wrote:KRBFC is right in this case though.

The Premier League money - and much other money in the lower leagues - comes from television. Television viewers mostly want to watch the bigger teams - they haven't paid their money to watch Accrington Stanley or Newport.

We have little sympathy for Blackburn or Portsmouth who mismanaged their money at the top, and I have little sympathy with any football club who lives beyond their means, including AS. Unfortunately AS do not attract enough support and it's a marvel how well they do at the moment (like our own club). I don't see why, in this current age of football, that AS or any other club should be given handouts, nice as that might be in an ideal world.

It's not handouts they are after Hipper, just a fairer proportion of the available money.
The Premier league comes with lots of glitz and glamour, TV sees to that. It's still a game of 11v11 kicking a football. Do you think WWE would attract the audiences it does, or make the money it does, without all the razzamatazz that goes with the pyrotechnics and ham acting.
The lower leagues have been the life blood of the Premier/Top League for a century. Without those leagues the top leagues would struggle to create a team as good as they have. Now the net is cast world wide the Prem think it's ok to turn it's back on it's own. The other glaring failure is the fact that they don't make money. Profit in football is limited to a handful of clubs even Man U, Citeh, Arsenal have debt, only theirs is called sustainable because of the very cash cow they created. Yet the more they make, the more they waste re Pogbas agent, Tevezs wage. They don't hold on this wealth because they need it, merely to **** it down the drain and away from the football pyramid.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:03 pm

But what do you mean by 'a fairer portion of the available money'?

If they find a good player they'll get a good transfer fee. If the team does well they should get more money (from TV appearances and gate money etc.). If they do none of these things they may fail. That's how things are today.

What do they do to earn this 'fairer portion'?

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:30 pm

There's nothing to stop Andy Holt becoming an agent himself and ploughing all his earnings into Accrington.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:50 pm

Andy Holt could do with practicing what he preaches. Unless it's the Premier Leagues Fault that the Plastic Box Company (Whatmores) take an eternity to settle an invoice...

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed May 10, 2017 6:56 pm

Hipper wrote:But what do you mean by 'a fairer portion of the available money'?

If they find a good player they'll get a good transfer fee. If the team does well they should get more money (from TV appearances and gate money etc.). If they do none of these things they may fail. That's how things are today.

What do they do to earn this 'fairer portion'?

The likes of Chelsea, and City, as has been shown with their ban, can afford to buy multiple youngsters dirt cheap. Very few of these players make it into the first team, but they can 'afford' to carry the cost because it is a pittance compared to what they would have to pay a smaller club for someone who had been playing first team football. The smaller clubs have no way of retaining these youngsters once they have had their heads turned, with all the glitz and the glamour.
The little club lose yet another possible asset, another youngster finds himself on the scrap heap when his dream is shot down, and the big clubs don't bat an eyelid, because it is chicken feed to the money they are receiving.
That is the main point, they don't earn money from being on TV, they receive money. They don't create anything, or produce anything, they just turn up for the cameras. Far better for football all round, if the money from TV was filtered down the pyramid to improve grass roots football. It would create better English players, eventually it would improve the England team. It would improve the quality of the football on show.
All this could be done and the Premier League would hardly notice the difference, but the changes it could make to the rest of the football league would be immense.
There have always been, and always will be, teams that abuse the system and spend what they haven't got, but this is for those clubs who try to live within their means but find it impossible. It gives clubs like Accy a fighting chance.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:31 pm

After earning £41 Million for a telephone call, maybe Pogba's agent might buy Accrington Stanley, maybe. If an agent earns more than the player then it's time for a re-think.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed May 10, 2017 9:33 pm

I think I might become Lionel Messi's agent then I can earn £50 Million. I'll just go down the Job Centre and pick up the job.