Agent fees Published

The Muppet

The below table shows the payments made by each Premier League club to agents in the period 1st October 2009 to 30th September 2010.

There were 742 transactions during this period. Not all of these will have attracted an agent's fee. The amounts shown include payments made by clubs on behalf of players.

The Premier League agreed, in June 2008, that from season 2009/10 onwards each club would publish, on 30th November each season, the total amount it paid to authorised agents during the period 1st October of the previous year to 30th September of that year (encompassing the two transfer windows).



Arsenal £3,660,199.00
Aston Villa £2,279.536.50
Birmingham City £1,518,529.09
Blackburn Rovers £1,623,232.92
Blackpool £45,000.00
Bolton Wanderers £3,549,316.72
Chelsea £9,293,751.48
Everton £3,599,040.51
Fulham £2,087,373.55
Liverpool £9,032,528.49
Manchester City £5,952,261.33
Manchester United £2,312,726.00
Newcastle United £2,417,776.00
Stoke City £2,196,968.50
Sunderland £4,421,990.72
Tottenham Hotspur £5,361,229.87
West Bromwich Albion £614,195.73
West Ham United £3,419,089.99
Wigan Athletic £2,461,500.00
Wolverhampton Wanderers £1,291,794.00

http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2234236,00.html


Some very interesting figures there.

Le King

Liverpool and Chelsea are the big spenders there. Anybody want to dig out the figure they actually paid for players during that period. I'm too lazy.

flahavaj

Blackpool £45,000.:pac:

Mr Alan

Ollie Kay made a nice tweet earlier pointing out Utd were the only club publishing this on their official website, and questioned how come they haven't done the same for media related fines this season?

The fees Liverpool have paid out are crazy, would love to know what's gone on with them.

Chucky the tree

Nearly went into Administration and we were paying £9m to agents? :rolleyes:

The Muppet

Le King wrote: »

Liverpool and Chelsea are the big spenders there. Anybody want to dig out the figure they actually paid for players during that period. I'm too lazy.

Net or gross:D

Gross Liverpool spent around €£23.5 million net would be -£9 million or so.

Chelsea would be around £23.5 gross and £11.5 net.

Clubs spending almost 50% of their transfer budget on agents fees appears to be little mad to me.


Interestingly United's gross spend in this period is also around the £23.5 million mark yet their agent fee's were so much lower, I wonder why that is?

CantGetNoSleep

How does one become an agent?

The Muppet

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nearly went into Administration and we were paying £9m to agents? :rolleyes:

Roy must have been playing hardball .;)

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

Interestingly United's gross spend in this period is also around the £23.5 million mark yet their agent fee's were so much lower, I wonder why that is?

Cause they were signing homeless blokes like Bebe who didn't have an agent?
Or the likes of Smalling or Hernandez who were hardly household names.

That's 24m odd there.

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

Cause they were signing homeless blokes like Bebe who didn't have an agent?
Or the likes of Smalling or Hernandez who were hardly household names.

That's 24m odd there.

Which household names have Liverpool signed that merits their £9million + to agents? Man City only spent £6 million and they were not signing homeless blokes.

Guy:Incognito

The Muppet wrote: »

Which household names have Liverpool signed that merits their £9million + to agents? Man City only spent £6 million and they were not signing homeless blokes.

Who doesnt know who Paul Konchesky is?

flahavaj

Stekelly wrote: »

Who doesnt know who Paul Konchesky is?

The way Aaron Lennon was going past him Sunday you could've sworn he doesn't exist at all.....

The Muppet

Stekelly wrote: »

Who doesnt know who Paul Konchesky is?

You must rate him highly.:D

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

Which household names have Liverpool signed that merits their £9million + to agents? Man City only spent £6 million and they were not signing homeless blokes.

It doesn't merit the level of fees paid out.

But Liverpool have signed Maxi, Meireles, Cole, Poulsen and Koncheskey to go into the first team.

Utd have signed Bebe, Smalling and Hernandez to develop over the next number of years.

You see the difference, right?

The Muppet

Mr Alan wrote: »

It doesn't merit the level of fees paid out.

But Liverpool have signed Maxi, Meireles, Cole, Poulsen and Koncheskey to go into the first team.

Utd have signed Bebe, Smalling and Hernandez to develop over the next number of years.

You see the difference, right?

No, City blow a pretty big hole in that theory.

Peyton Manning

Mr Alan wrote: »

Cause they were signing homeless blokes like Bebe who didn't have an agent?

Two hefty doses of bullshít there Al.

Bebe was never homeless, and Bebe did and still does have an agent.

Keep up the accurate posts.

eigrod

Mr Alan wrote: »

Cause they were signing homeless blokes like Bebe who didn't have an agent?
Or the likes of Smalling or Hernandez who were hardly household names.

That's 24m odd there.

Bebe's transfer absolutely stinks. Would be nice if Panorama started digging there, cos the PL certainly won't.

everdead.ie

I think free agents and new contracts are normally an agent's biggest pay day's it's not related to the amount paid for the player.

Dempsey

everdead.ie wrote: »

I think free agents and new contracts are normally an agent's biggest pay day's it's not related to the amount paid for the player.

Thats what I think too, did Liverpool/Chelsea renew many players contracts during the past year?

I'm sure Joe Cole's agent got a nice whack

Kess73

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ollie Kay made a nice tweet earlier pointing out Utd were the only club publishing this on their official website, and questioned how come they haven't done the same for media related fines this season?

The fees Liverpool have paid out are crazy, would love to know what's gone on with them.

There were a lot of contract extensions and the like during that period as well as comings and goings, but it is still a stupidly high figure.

daithijjj

Liverpools fees are high because so called bigger names who were free agents like maxi, jovanovic and cole would have pretty big agent fees as a result. No xfer fee = high agent fee. As was pointed out, free xfers are the biggest pay day for an agent.

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

Cause they were signing homeless blokes like Bebe who didn't have an agent?
Or the likes of Smalling or Hernandez who were hardly household names.

That's 24m odd there.

Dude you got to stop ruining threads, its not fair!

everdead.ie

This gives a bit of a better understanding and break down of who's spending more or less with City making a £7m difference in theirs this year.

Premier League clubs paid just over £67m to agents over the past 12 months, marginally down on the previous year, when the figure was £70.69m . In only the second year of the league's publication of fees, all 20 clubs' aggregate payments were listed in the total of £67,138,040.40. Twelve provided a number to the last penny.
Liverpool fans may wonder how the club could afford to spend more than £9m on agents, when they were so close to going to the wall over its inability to pay interest on £350m loans to Royal Bank of Scotland and Wells Fargo bank. That sum made them the second-highest payers in the Premier League, with only Chelsea's £9.29m exceeding it. The sums detailed relate to payments for player transfers in and out of the clubs and also to payments for contract renegotiations.
Given that these payments are routinely made over the life of a player's contract, there is a lag over the impact of monies due to agents. This might help explain why the fees payable to agents in 2010 declined only marginally from the year before, despite a dramatic drop in transfer fees paid.
During January this year and the close season £380m was paid by Premier League clubs in transfer fees. In 2009 the transfer-fee spend for the English top flight was £620m. This constituted a 38.7% year-on-year fall in the amount paid to other clubs. Yet the decline in the amounts agents were paid over the past 12 months was only 5%, or £3.5m. Most notable was the saving of nearly £7m for Manchester City's owner, Sheikh Mansour, in what the Eastlands club paid to agents over the year.
There was also an economy announced at West Ham United, who changed ownership this year, of more than £2m, and Arsenal and Wigan Athletic also paid more than £1m less to agents over the 12-month period.
Portsmouth, who were relegated last season, had paid more alone than all three promoted clubs combined, with Ian Holloway's Blackpool spending only £45,000 on agents' fees. But aAlthough these broad economies might have had an effect, other clubs' fees rose significantly year on year. Liverpool's were up £2.3m, Sunderland's by £2.4m, Everton's by almost £1.6m, Stoke City's by £1.2m and Manchester United's by almost £800,000.
Fulham, Aston Villa and Birmingham City between them accounted for another £1.7m extra paid to agents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/30/chelsea-liverpool-agents

JimsAlterEgo

everdead.ie wrote: »

This gives a bit of a better understanding and break down of who's spending more or less with City making a £7m difference in theirs this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/30/chelsea-liverpool-agents

so Liverpools was only up 2.3 from last year, that over 15M in 2 years, bixarrely high given their level of transfers compared to city

Frisbee

Am I the only one suprised at how low City's is considering how much they've spent?

everdead.ie

Frisbee wrote: »

Am I the only one suprised at how low City's is considering how much they've spent?

No not at all it's hard to understand where they cut it so much

Peyton Manning

I think it's an absolute disgrace Al hasn't explained why he made up lies in this thread. Clearly lying through his teeth and hasn't the courtesy to admit it.

He knows he's wrong. His lack of response is a bang on indicator of that. If he doesn't reply here, I'm going to assume he's admitting he's been wrong about everything ever.

The Muppet

Frisbee wrote: »

Am I the only one suprised at how low City's is considering how much they've spent?

I'm more surprised at the teams that paid more than City . I would have expected city to be the highest last year and £6 million for the year is a considerable amount of money for agent fees IMO.

ilovelamp2000

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ollie Kay made a nice tweet earlier pointing out Utd were the only club publishing this on their official website, and questioned how come they haven't done the same for media related fines this season?

The fees Liverpool have paid out are crazy, would love to know what's gone on with them.

Trying to get rid of some of the dross that Rafa signed:

Liverpool's new owners, New England Sports Ventures, have made the pursuit of better value in the transfer market a priority. But as the club seeks to ship out many of the players that Benitez had on the books, their payments to agents may not look much better when the Premier League publishes its next table of sums paid to agents in a year's time.

Hodgson, who has complained publicly that Benitez bequeathed him an "unbelievably overstaffed" club, has sold Diego Cavalieri, Javier Mascherano, Damien Plessis, Albert Riera, Krisztián Nemeth, Yossi Benayoun, plus Lauri Dalla Valle and Alex Kacaniklic, makeweights in the deal which brought in Paul Konchesky from Fulham. Each has incurred agents' fees and so, too, the loan deals including Philipp Deggen, Alberto Aquilani, Nabil El-Zar and Emiliano Insua.

Hodgson did not choose to sell Mascherano and Benayoun, but he and his former managing director, Christian Purslow, mandated agents to find new clubs for some of the players they were desperate to shed. The substantial effort put into keeping those stars that Liverpool do not want to lose has brought new contracts for Fernando Torres and Pepe Reina, from which their agents also take a cut.

The incoming players have been Brad Jones, Fabio Aurelio, Konchesky, Christian Poulsen, Joe Cole, Danny Wilson, Jonjo Shelvey and Raul Meireles. A concern for Liverpool must be how to sell some of those players currently out on loan whom they do not want back: Aquilani has impressed at Juventus but Insua, also on a season's loan, is currently not a starter at Galatasaray. Agents may be called in to help secure deals which will spare Liverpool their salaries.

The new director of football strategy, Damien Comolli, also has his ideas about whom he wants to bring in – and it is little wonder that Liverpool are so desperate to do something about their academy's dire record in nurturing players of Premier League standard. In the past decade, only three Anfield academy graduates have played 40 or more games for a Premier League club.

Tom_Brady

Tom_Brady wrote: »

I think it's an absolute disgrace Al hasn't explained why he made up lies in this thread. Clearly lying through his teeth and hasn't the courtesy to admit it.

He knows he's wrong. His lack of response is a bang on indicator of that. If he doesn't reply here, I'm going to assume he's admitting he's been wrong about everything ever.

Yea I have to agree with this, why have you not responded Al? Surely even an acknowledgment that you were indeed lying would be considered common courtesy. You're always a courteous bloke, why abandon these values now?

leeroybrown

Frisbee wrote: »

Am I the only one suprised at how low City's is considering how much they've spent?

In a way it's quite understandable. The big transfer fees and wages they've been paying have made them them only show in town for a lot of deals. When there's definitely only one buyer and one seller who'll be talking direct to each other there's no way the agent can really force their fee up. And anyway, they'll be more than happy with the huge windfall they get out of their percentage of the pay deal.

flahavaj

Its all Joe Cole's fault tbh.

The Muppet

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Trying to get rid of some of the dross that Rafa signed:

The figures certainly add's credance to Hicks comments during the summer about Rafa's extravagant spending. No wonder he eventually pulled the plug on him.

redzerdrog

Tom_Brady wrote: »

I think it's an absolute disgrace Al hasn't explained why he made up lies in this thread. Clearly lying through his teeth and hasn't the courtesy to admit it.

He knows he's wrong. His lack of response is a bang on indicator of that. If he doesn't reply here, I'm going to assume he's admitting he's been wrong about everything ever.

What the fcuk are on about on that high horse of yours it is pretty obvious mr alan was making an off the cuff remark about bebe being homeless something that thousands of other people have done over the past few months.

your just being a dick for the sake of being a dick if ya wanted to have a little witchhunt you should have picked a thread where he was actually lieing instead of just making a smart remark

ilovelamp2000

The Muppet wrote: »

The figures certainly add's credance to Hicks comments during the summer about Rafa's extravagant spending. No wonder he eventually pulled the plug on him.

It's more mismanagement of the wage bill than extravagant spending. But the effect is still the same.

flahavaj

redzerdrog wrote: »

What the fcuk are on about on that high horse of yours it is pretty obvious mr alan was making an off the cuff remark about bebe being homeless something that thousands of other people have done over the past few months.

your just being a dick for the sake of being a dick if ya wanted to have a little witchhunt you should have picked a thread where he was actually lieing instead of just making a smart remark

Maybe Tom Brady (IF THAT INDEED IS HIS REAL NAME - I HAVE MY DOUBTS) was making an off tehe cuff remark as well.

Maybe we all are.

redzerdrog

redzerdrog wrote: »

What the fcuk are on about on that high horse of yours it is pretty obvious mr alan was making an off the cuff remark about bebe being homeless something that thousands of other people have done over the past few months.

your just being a dick for the sake of being a dick if ya wanted to have a little witchhunt you should have picked a thread where he was actually lieing instead of just making a smart remark

I think he's perfectly entitled to question what were clearly falsified claims?

You can't call someone a dick merely for asking someone to quantify a lie?

Peyton Manning

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he's perfectly entitled to question what were clearly falsified claims?

You can't call someone a dick merely for asking someone to quantify a lie?

Exactly.

Al can answer these accusations himself. He doesn't need his little sidekick redzer to do it for him. Step aside Robin, this is between me and Batman.

Le King

This thread is becoming:




lol Robin

Chucky the tree

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Trying to get rid of some of the dross that Rafa signed:

The only major players to leave were Riera, Aqualani and Mascherano. Mascherano is dross now? :pac: I'm not sure how much loan moves would cost in agent fees either.

flahavaj

Even the catchphrase is perfect - this time next year Rodders.......we'll be champions.:pac:

redzerdrog

Tom_Brady wrote: »

Exactly.

Al can answer these accusations himself. He doesn't need his little sidekick redzer to do it for him. Step aside Robin, this is between me and Batman.

So ironic while your little sidekick Hardy is in here doing the same thing for you.

anyway I am done with this no time to reading your ****ty little witch hunts

The Muppet

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The only major players to leave were Riera, Aqualani and Mascherano. Mascherano is dross now? :pac: I'm not sure how much loan moves would cost in agent fees either.

Poor Yossi, already a distant memory.:D

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote: »

Poor Yossi, already a distant memory.:D

Again, hardly dross.

Peyton Manning

redzerdrog wrote: »

So ironic while your little sidekick Hardy is in here doing the same thing for you.

anyway I am done with this no time to reading your ****ty little witch hunts

Ironic?

Nice to see you have the same grasp of the definition of ironic as Alanis Morissette.

Here, its for you. Happy Christmas.

flahavaj

Mr Alan has asked me to point out that he cannot reply at the moment as he's serving a 6 month ban. He was only joking about Bébé.

That is all.

The Muppet

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Again, hardly dross.

I give you Dossena and Voronin?

Le King

Tom_Brady wrote: »

Ironic?

Nice to see you have the same grasp of the definition of ironic as Alanis Morissette.

Here, its for you. Happy Christmas.

PMSL...

Have you and flah being taking comedy classes?

The Muppet

flahavaj wrote: »

Mr Alan has asked me to point out that he cannot reply at the moment as he's serving a 6 month ban. He was only joking about Bébé.

That is all.

AHH F*ck that who'll give us our comedy moments now. Bring back Al.

Peyton Manning

flahavaj wrote: »

Mr Alan has asked me to point out that he cannot reply at the moment as he's serving a 6 month ban. He was only joking about Bébé.

That is all.

Probably banned for those exact lies actually.

That's not quite ironic, but it's still a hell of a lot closer to the meaning than what Robin was saying.

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote: »

I give you Dossena and Voronin?

2 plums alright. Although not sure why we'd pay agents when we are selling players. Maybe Ilovelamp has a link to this?