Just been published and puts us towards the bottom of the list - which is great in a sense. But you have to think whether it is having any impact on getting deals over the line?

AFC BOURNEMOUTH: £10,295,433
ARSENAL: £11,181,730
BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION: £6,859,429
BURNLEY: £3,975,928
CARDIFF CITY: £2,802,375
CHELSEA: £26,850,552
CRYSTAL PALACE: £6,976,425
EVERTON: £19,116,370
FULHAM: £8,234,360
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN: £5,023,807
LEICESTER CITY: £12,720,618
LIVERPOOL: £43,795,863
MANCHESTER CITY: £24,122,753
MANCHESTER UNITED: £20,759,350
NEWCASTLE UNITED: £8,868,027
SOUTHAMPTON: £6,151,107
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR: £11,141,255
WATFORD: £10,894,179
WEST HAM UNITED: £14,414,845
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS: £6,479,714

No doubt.

A few notable ones though. Liverpool 43m. Wow. Spurs 11m despite signing nobody this season. Wow.

Fulhams and Wolves impressively low.

Spurs didn’t sign anybody this season did they? How have they spent £11m?

Anybody able to break down that to average per signing or rate of fees spent?

wilks_bfc wrote:Spurs didn’t sign anybody this season did they? How have they spent £11m?

Anybody able to break down that to average per signing or rate of fees spent?

Must be ongoing. Or even perhaps player sales...

The thing that puzzles me is how much clubs pay in the first place.

No issue with agents as a concept. I would even say they are essential. Both for young players who could be exploited (the irony I know) or for older players who are paid so much and command even more. Amongst other things (image rights, promotions, sponsorship etc etc)

The issue I have is that the bulk of the costs come from the clubs not the players.

Be much easier to compare/read if done in a table from lowest to highest or visa versa.

Also to answer a question above, I'd presume agents fees will include new contracts for existing players.
So Kane at Spurs would have been a big agent fee for that big new deal he signed

wilks_bfc wrote:Spurs didn’t sign anybody this season did they? How have they spent £11m?

Anybody able to break down that to average per signing or rate of fees spent?

More than likely will be for new wage deals as Spurs try to keep their squad together and happy - most of the English players have signed new deals

wilks_bfc wrote:Spurs didn’t sign anybody this season did they? How have they spent £11m?

Anybody able to break down that to average per signing or rate of fees spent?

It'll be down to contract renewals

That Wolves figure has probably just increased

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47811338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wilks_bfc wrote:Spurs didn’t sign anybody this season did they? How have they spent £11m?

Anybody able to break down that to average per signing or rate of fees spent?

They have extended a number of contracts in that time.

Wolves super agent must be working for free.

What dates are these fees for please?

Considering Newcastle fans (and their manager) whinge on and on and on and on that they don't spend enough they have still managed 8.8m on agents.......nearly 5m more than Burnley

cricketfieldclarets wrote:The thing that puzzles me is how much clubs pay in the first place.

No issue with agents as a concept. I would even say they are essential. Both for young players who could be exploited (the irony I know) or for older players who are paid so much and command even more. Amongst other things (image rights, promotions, sponsorship etc etc)

The issue I have is that the bulk of the costs come from the clubs not the players.

What difference does it make if the player pays the agent fee and demands a bigger signing on fee from the club to cover it or if the club pays the agent directly?

Tall Paul wrote:What difference does it make if the player pays the agent fee and demands a bigger signing on fee from the club to cover it or if the club pays the agent directly?

Spot on. The signing club looks at the total package. Fee, salary, bonuses, length of contract, agents fees, etc.,

MACCA wrote:Be much easier to compare/read if done in a table from lowest to highest or visa versa

Agreed so here they are

LIVERPOOL: £43,795,863
CHELSEA: £26,850,552
MANCHESTER CITY: £24,122,753
MANCHESTER UNITED: £20,759,350
EVERTON: £19,116,370
WEST HAM UNITED: £14,414,845
LEICESTER CITY: £12,720,618
ARSENAL: £11,181,730
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR: £11,141,255
WATFORD: £10,894,179
AFC BOURNEMOUTH: £10,295,433
NEWCASTLE UNITED: £8,868,027
FULHAM: £8,234,360
CRYSTAL PALACE: £6,976,425
BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION: £6,859,429
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS: £6,479,714
SOUTHAMPTON: £6,151,107
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN: £5,023,807
BURNLEY: £3,975,928
CARDIFF CITY: £2,802,375

ClaretTony wrote:Agreed so here they are

LIVERPOOL: £43,795,863
CHELSEA: £26,850,552
MANCHESTER CITY: £24,122,753
MANCHESTER UNITED: £20,759,350
EVERTON: £19,116,370
WEST HAM UNITED: £14,414,845
LEICESTER CITY: £12,720,618
ARSENAL: £11,181,730
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR: £11,141,255
WATFORD: £10,894,179
AFC BOURNEMOUTH: £10,295,433
NEWCASTLE UNITED: £8,868,027
FULHAM: £8,234,360
CRYSTAL PALACE: £6,976,425
BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION: £6,859,429
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS: £6,479,714
SOUTHAMPTON: £6,151,107
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN: £5,023,807
BURNLEY: £3,975,928
CARDIFF CITY: £2,802,375

Then I think of teams like Bolton, Bury, Coventry etc struggling with wages & payments to staff. The above figures show everything that is wrong about the premier league n these leeches need stamping on.

claretdj wrote:Then I think of teams like Bolton, Bury, Coventry etc struggling with wages & payments to staff. The above figures show everything that is wrong about the premier league n these leeches need stamping on.

If it wasn't going to agents it'd just go to players instead.

Are Cardiff bottom as they haven't paid the agent for the Sala deal?

ClaretTony wrote:Agreed so here they are

LIVERPOOL: £43,795,863
CHELSEA: £26,850,552
MANCHESTER CITY: £24,122,753
MANCHESTER UNITED: £20,759,350
EVERTON: £19,116,370
WEST HAM UNITED: £14,414,845
LEICESTER CITY: £12,720,618
ARSENAL: £11,181,730
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR: £11,141,255
WATFORD: £10,894,179
AFC BOURNEMOUTH: £10,295,433
NEWCASTLE UNITED: £8,868,027
FULHAM: £8,234,360
CRYSTAL PALACE: £6,976,425
BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION: £6,859,429
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS: £6,479,714
SOUTHAMPTON: £6,151,107
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN: £5,023,807
BURNLEY: £3,975,928
CARDIFF CITY: £2,802,375

Cheers

A table I'm more than happy to see us near the bottom of.

Tall Paul wrote:If it wasn't going to agents it'd just go to players instead.

I agree but I would like to see some of the prem money being fed down to teams in league 1 n 2 to stop them going to the wall as without these teams a lot of young kids wouldn't climb the ladder to get to the premier league, so it benefits the selling/buying clubs n keeps the cog turning in the lower leagues.

These people are just financial advisers, without the training!

Quickenthetempo wrote:Wolves super agent must be working for free.

What dates are these fees for please?

I’m not having that Wolves figure at all.

I don't see why clubs should pay agents at all, they represent the players not the clubs.

Isn't Wolves Super Agent on the payroll?

Tall Paul wrote:If it wasn't going to agents it'd just go to players instead.

Yep, I agree, but at least the players can't do their jobs lying in bed and they have to actually do something and break sweat to earn it.

boatshed bill wrote:I don't see why clubs should pay agents at all, they represent the players not the clubs.

If the player pays them they'll just demand more money from the club, so what difference does it make?

Tall Paul wrote:If the player pays them they'll just demand more money from the club, so what difference does it make?

I don't know, but I'd love to see what would happen.

boatshed bill wrote:I don't know, but I'd love to see what would happen.

Nothing would happen. The players would pay the agents, the clubs would pay the players more money to cover their agent's fees and the cost to the club would be exactly the same.

Tall Paul wrote:Nothing would happen. The players would pay the agents, the clubs would pay the players more money to cover their agent's fees and the cost to the club would be exactly the same.

Actually that seems better to me.

FeedTheArf wrote:Just been published and puts us towards the bottom of the list - which is great in a sense. But you have to think whether it is having any impact on getting deals over the line?

AFC BOURNEMOUTH: £10,295,433
ARSENAL: £11,181,730
BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION: £6,859,429
BURNLEY: £3,975,928
CARDIFF CITY: £2,802,375
CHELSEA: £26,850,552
CRYSTAL PALACE: £6,976,425
EVERTON: £19,116,370
FULHAM: £8,234,360
HUDDERSFIELD TOWN: £5,023,807
LEICESTER CITY: £12,720,618
LIVERPOOL: £43,795,863
MANCHESTER CITY: £24,122,753
MANCHESTER UNITED: £20,759,350
NEWCASTLE UNITED: £8,868,027
SOUTHAMPTON: £6,151,107
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR: £11,141,255
WATFORD: £10,894,179
WEST HAM UNITED: £14,414,845
WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS: £6,479,714

I know for a fact it is as I’ve spoken to a few who say it’s common knowledge that agents avoid dealing with Burnley, it is what it is though, 95% of them are snakes anyway

Burnley1989 wrote:I know for a fact it is as I’ve spoken to a few who say it’s common knowledge that agents avoid dealing with Burnley, it is what it is though, 95% of them are snakes anyway

Theyre a necessary evil.

Like anything though I suspect a few rogue ones have tarnished them all!

MACCA wrote:Cheers

A table I'm more than happy to see us near the bottom of.

Maybe but if Mr. Rigg finds it as easy as most seem to think who post on here to find hidden gems across European leagues then Burnley will make a meteoric rise up this particular table

I wish my careers adviser at school had been shrewd enough to recommend being a football agent. Is there another job that requires so little for such a big return?

Something needs to be done about it, I don't agree that passing this cost onto players wouldn't have an effect. The club's would be in a stronger position to push the market value of an agent down by coercing the players into making more by paying the agent less. But it wouldn't be enough.

I think the change would have to come within the industry, I'm surprised there has been a market disruptor that cuts their fees to a less ridiculous level while still making a good sum and diversifying to make up shortfalls. It would make them more appealing to deal with from the club's pov, but also the player. If for example I came along charging 30% less, I could pass a 20% reduction to clubs and increase players money by 10%. Simplistic I know, but the right agency could also invest money for the player at a % fee of returns given players are notoriously bad with money. There are of course good agents but they're still good players in a shady game. Someone needs to change the rules.

I’ve asked this question previously on here and never got a reasonable reply. It seems as though the agent thing is ‘black hole’ which no one appears to understand! I’ll ask again, see where this leads.

I totally understand why a player needs an agent, surely the player pays his agent? Now, WHY do clubs use/need agents? Surely they have their own negotiating teams? At a pinch I can understand why smaller clubs such as Burnley may offload negotiating to more experienced third party, but why do big clubs need an agent?

Thanks for any input.

Not sure I can answer that - but it does seem far too easy to become one

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/statu ... 2189131778" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some clubs retain Agents, Wolves being a prime example. This is however not standard practice. Retained Agents usually have specific contacts or areas of influence. La Liga teams for example. This helps the buying club access the players.
Pretty much all players have Agents to represent them.
If you want the player, clubs have to go through the Agent. That’s the way it is.
I have an acquaintance who was an Agent. He retired a couple of years ago. He got the position by chance, used to be in the army and had no business training whatsoever.
He’s now a multi millionaire and one of the most arrogant, distasteful people I have ever met. His approach was basically to screw the buying club for as much as he could. In fact he just screwed everyone.
If you want to learn what these slime balls are really like. I recommend reading Simon Jordan’s book ‘ Be Careful What You Wish For’ . And coincidentally that is the Agent I know. Fortunately, he’s moved away now.

That's why I'm surprised it's sustained itself this long touchline. Usually in any line of business malpractice is an opportunity for people with better ethics to make money by giving customers a better, fairer deal.

Yes agreed Wills.
Unfortunately it’s a world within a world. More sharp practice than malpractice.
Generally, they have no morals or professionalism. Everything they do is short term and they don’t see their role as a service.
They see that clubs have big money and they want as much of it as they can get. Not interested in ethics or service levels.
It’s really that annoyingly simple.

exilecanada wrote:I’ve asked this question previously on here and never got a reasonable reply. It seems as though the agent thing is ‘black hole’ which no one appears to understand! I’ll ask again, see where this leads.

I totally understand why a player needs an agent, surely the player pays his agent? Now, WHY do clubs use/need agents? Surely they have their own negotiating teams? At a pinch I can understand why smaller clubs such as Burnley may offload negotiating to more experienced third party, but why do big clubs need an agent?

Thanks for any input.

Another thing most wont know on here is agents don’t just make money off a signing on fee, a lot are payed a salary from the player as well, a percentage of their wage. It’s a crazy world, they’re like Wall Street bankers