Agents fees

[Bucks Dave]

http://www.football-league.co.uk/static ... 050,00.pdf

has the latest in agents fees paid by the clubs. At £1.6M we are the third highest with Crystal Palace surprisingly fourth with over £1M

[Green]

Surely we need to see the figure expressed as a percentage of transfer or wage fees for this to be a meaningful figure, Bucks Dave

Or am I missing something

[Bucks Dave]

We tend not to pay a lot for players. As The Swiss Ramble ( a blog on football finances ) stated, in the last 4 years up to 2011, we were in the bottom 4 for net transfer spend (just below Watford), yet in the top six for wages. Our wages bill the year before last for the football side was around £18-£19M, I suspect higher for last year with Jason Roberts on board.

[JC]

This year would have included the sales of Matt Mills and Shane Long and I assume we pay agents fees on sales as well
Also if you look at the figures we were amongst the highest number of transactions which include new contracts and the like.

[Green]

We tend not to pay a lot for players. As The Swiss Ramble ( a blog on football finances ) stated, in the last 4 years up to 2011, we were in the bottom 4 for net transfer spend (just below Watford), yet in the top six for wages. Our wages bill the year before last for the football side was around £18-£19M, I suspect higher for last year with Jason Roberts on board.

Sorry, Dave. Spell this out for me - if you'd be so kind.

You're saying that we pay very little in the way of transfer spend relative to wages, yet the fees to agents are amongst the highest in the league? This does seem odd, why do you think this is, are you suggesting foul play?

[ayjaydee]

We tend not to pay a lot for players. As The Swiss Ramble ( a blog on football finances ) stated, in the last 4 years up to 2011, we were in the bottom 4 for net transfer spend (just below Watford), yet in the top six for wages. Our wages bill the year before last for the football side was around £18-£19M, I suspect higher for last year with Jason Roberts on board.

Sorry, Dave. Spell this out for me - if you'd be so kind.

You're saying that we pay very little in the way of transfer spend relative to wages, yet the fees to agents are amongst the highest in the league? This does seem odd, why do you think this is, are you suggesting foul play?

My take would be that agents negotiating on behalf of players who are free agents are in the position to sort out a big signing on fee for both their client and themselves.

[Bucks Dave]

Green

The figures on transfers quoted in the Swiss ramble is net, ie what we get minus what we spend. Thus we get a lot more for players than we spend and were one of the most successful teams in the division at doing this. That allows us to pay competitive wages which our normal income cannot afford. I have no idea how the figures divide up between transfers and players' contracts but since both involve significant sums of money it is not a huge surprise that the agents cut adds up to a substantial sum also.