Reading slam meddling agents...

[Thaumagurist*]

Why? Shouldn't they do that to avoid getting sued for running untrue stories. I think Reading should sue Sky Sports News.

On what legal basis?

Slander.

[Silver Fox]

"Reading have rejected a 3.5M bid from Everton for midfielder Steven Hunt" is slanderous how mr LOLawyer?

[Thaumagurist*]

I was really kidding.

[FiNeRaIn]

I was really kidding.

Sure you were

[1960]

Theatrical agent: gets his money by getting his client into a play/show/film etc and getting payment for doing so. When the play comes to an end or filming is finished he earns his money by doing the same again. He doesn't say look here Sir Larry, I know you're in Lear at the Old Vic, but I can get you Hamlet at the RSC if you pay me something and you can walk out of your contract.

Football agents do say this. It's the way they get the majority of their money (% of signing-on fee). The more the player moves the more the scum makes.

They have stopped agents working for both ends of a deal. Maybe they should not be allowed to take a % of signing-on fees, just get a retainer from the player. In that way they woudn't be motivated for the player to move every five minutes.

[bowmans tash]

Ban agents and a wage cap sounds a good idea. Oh and get rid of that idiot Sepp Blatter whilst we're at it.

[chandog]

Ban agents and a wage cap sounds a good idea. Oh and get rid of that idiot Sepp Blatter whilst we're at it.

agreed
i would also say get rid of brian barwick (prize prick) but it seems i've been beaten to it by the FA - although they let him stay til the end of the year for some reason

[PEARCEY]

SSN just hype things up all the time. I have switched off from the Sky Sports channels although still get SSN...but they always have to overplay it.
They get the occasional scoop but then constantly ram it down the viewers throats....I'm bored of Sky.

[Franchise FC]

Ban agents and a wage cap sounds a good idea. Oh and get rid of that idiot Sepp Blatter whilst we're at it.

Cap the BASIC wage, but allow unlimited contracts based on actually playing. It'd stop the money grabbers going to rich clubs to sit on benches or in the reserves.

Oh, and getting rid of Sepp Blatter is such a good idea that I think it should be government policy in all European countries.

[West Stand Man]

1) We never had anybody to cover for when Shorey was playing badly
2) I can't see Hunt not giving anything less than 100% as we have Convey as cover if he does play up and he knows he'll get dropped

Can someone explain the relevance of this statement to this thread?

[Wycombe Royal]

Ban agents and a wage cap sounds a good idea. Oh and get rid of that idiot Sepp Blatter whilst we're at it.

Cap the BASIC wage, but allow unlimited contracts based on actually playing. It'd stop the money grabbers going to rich clubs to sit on benches or in the reserves.

Oh, and getting rid of Sepp Blatter is such a good idea that I think it should be government policy in all European countries.

You can't cap wages - it is against EU law.

What the FA could do is place a cap on the total wage bill allowed at any club thus meaning the club can have a smaller squad of higher paid players or a larger squad of lower paid players or anywhere in between. This is the type of system used in American Football I think.

[Hoop Blah]

Ban agents and a wage cap sounds a good idea. Oh and get rid of that idiot Sepp Blatter whilst we're at it.

Cap the BASIC wage, but allow unlimited contracts based on actually playing. It'd stop the money grabbers going to rich clubs to sit on benches or in the reserves.

Oh, and getting rid of Sepp Blatter is such a good idea that I think it should be government policy in all European countries.

That's not a bad idea on the wage cap actually, I quite like it.

[Matt de K]

1) We never had anybody to cover for when Shorey was playing badly
2) I can't see Hunt not giving anything less than 100% as we have Convey as cover if he does play up and he knows he'll get dropped

Can someone explain the relevance of this statement to this thread?

It was a response to what, at the time of me typing was, the above post - but someone posted 1 minute before I submitted.

The post in question may have been too long for you to read, so I understand your questioning

[prostak]

What the FA could do is place a cap on the total wage bill allowed at any club thus meaning the club can have a smaller squad of higher paid players or a larger squad of lower paid players or anywhere in between. This is the type of system used in American Football I think.

It's something used in all major US sports, perhaps most interestingly in baseball where teams are permitted to pay above the aggregate limit but any such excess is subject to a 'luxury tax'. This is paid back into the MLB's development fund, spent on youth development among other things.

While I'd like to see something to create greater parity, I can't see it happening without a major slump in the profitability of football. Bear in mind also that it would likely be a matter for individual FAs rather than UEFA, and the bearing international club competition would have on this. A pan-European salary cap would be difficult to put into practice for the simple reason of the disparity in economic strength of even the major footballing nations, and I doubt national FAs would put their respective clubs at a disadvantage in the Champions League by having varying caps (i.e. if Serie A set it at €80m and the Premier at £70m). Any amount the big clubs would dream of agreeing to wouldn't help out the smaller clubs/countries anyway, which is surely one of the primary points of such an imposition (in fact, when the G14 have discussed this in the past, they suggested a percentage-based cap - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 402329.stm).

[Stooper]

Firstly, I apologise for bringing Rugby League into it (again) but we have a salary cap per club.

£1.6m for the squad per year and every top flight club has to abide by this. Obviously some of the lesser teams don't have the turnover to be able to spend up to this but it does make it more competitive.

There's also the 20/25 rule where you cannot have more than 20 players in your registered 25(minimum) earning more than 25k per year.

Along with the video refs,the substitutions taking place while play continues and a maximum of 8 overseas players I think football could use a few changes like this.

So shall we say £39m for a Prem squad (30 players on 25k a week), £25m for Championship, £12m for League One and Two?

[chandog]

Firstly, I apologise for bringing Rugby League into it (again) but we have a salary cap per club.

£1.6m for the squad per year and every top flight club has to abide by this. Obviously some of the lesser teams don't have the turnover to be able to spend up to this but it does make it more competitive.

There's also the 20/25 rule where you cannot have more than 20 players in your registered 25(minimum) earning more than 25k per year.

Along with the video refs,the substitutions taking place while play continues and a maximum of 8 overseas players I think football could use a few changes like this.

So shall we say £39m for a Prem squad (30 players on 25k a week), £25m for Championship, £12m for League One and Two?

good idea - rugby league seems to have a good thing going
i dont think we need to be giving figures for salary caps in each division as it is not really relevant until a wage limit is brought in by the FA
also we dont really have a good idea of what each club spends on wages each season

[Hampshire Royal]

That's interesting, but how does it work in practice?

20 players on 25,000pa = 500,000. How big are the squads if 1,100,000 is shared out among the rest with none of them earning as much as 25,000pa?

[Stooper]

That's interesting, but how does it work in practice?

20 players on 25,000pa = 500,000. How big are the squads if 1,100,000 is shared out among the rest with none of them earning as much as 25,000pa?

Well you can't go over 20 players on that much, but £25k is a pretty standard figure for your average SL player. Scott Hill at Harlequins RL is reportedly on 100k a year, Matt King at Warrington on 150k so as long as you've got a few lower earners in your first 25, you can bring in the bigger players.

In theory you could just have a squad of 20 players earning 80k pa

[Hampshire Royal]

OK, got you (I misread your original post).

That seems a fair way of doing things. You get your 'Stars' earning big money, but the fans will still be able to identify with the majority of players. If you have to be careful about who you pay the big money to, you are more likely to bring in only the true overseas stars, so English football wouldn't be so attractive to the run-of-the-mill foreign player, thus allowing young English players to be brought into the game, allowing them to a) learn from the real stars and b) gain experience at the highest level in English football.

[RoyalBlue]

I would love to see some form of control over wages/squad costs along the lines people have suggested.

However, I suspect there are enough devious barstewards spread around the game, amongst clubs, agents and players, that some would soon find a way to fiddle the controls!

If things continue going the way that they are, the finances, and consequentially the competition, at the highest level of the English game will become so farcical that 'traditional' supporters will either have to convert to the 'dark side' or will walk away in their droves in favour of 'proper football & competition' lower down the league structure.

I reckon we could end up with two types of football in this country, the 'commercial ridden' and the 'traditional English'!