Football Banter Thread

You're right, players can look at all these things and make a decision on which agent to go with. Do you think that happens though?

I remember a documentary with Alan Hansen from years ago on agents and there were kids at the age of 7-8 years old with agents. Now obviously it's the responsibility of parents to make the correct decision for their child but can you imagine how difficult that decision can be when, often coming from very poor backgrounds, you've got effectively a salesman promising you the world and often money if your kid signs with him?

One of the interesting things I remember from the documentary was that Clubs weren't allowed to give financial incentives to families to persuade their kid to sign for them but there was nothing stopping agents doing so and iirc, an agent admitted that he knew of families being given £20k for their son to sign with a particular agent. Now, you're from a poor background, struggling to get by and you're offered £20k for your sons signature. Not many could turn that down.

You've now got a situation where a young, impressionable kid has got an agent in his ear before he knows anything different. This kid will only ever learn to think for himself when his agent drops him because he doesn't make it.
 
Whether you find it amusing is subjective, what's clear though is that terms like that, for all sides, are against the rules. This is something I'm sure eatcustard is aware of seeing as he's been warned about it previously.
 
Just to be clear, please try not to use any derogative terms for others sides no matter how funny you think they are.
They're usually not anyway.
 
It's only football ffs, how old are half the people posting here? You can post what you like about Arsenal, I couldn't give two hoots! Seriously, getting offended over a name someone calls your team? It is pretty pathetic let's be honest?
 
Hamburg players being confronted at the end of the match a la Dortmund after they lose again today.

izyTuU9.jpg


One guy was seen going bat **** crazy earlier on though :D
 
Well, they did bring in Djourou and have since gone to utter crap... he also managed to get himself sent off again today. One foul and yellow, wasn't quite sure if he got the yellow for the foul or complaining about it. Then after a freekick was given near the box they were getting ready for it to come in and he seems to have said something/gestured something at the ref who gave him a second yellow and sent him off. Brain dead idiot he is.

Hamburg 7th 2 years ago, buy Djourou and they end up in the play off for relegation. I actually looked it up to check, I thought the bottom 2 went down then the next two had a play off to see who goes down. But the bottom 2 go down and the third bottom play the third top from the league below and the winners stay/go up and the losers stay/go down. Less play off games, but interesting way to do it.
 
I'd have thought everyone on here knows that an Agent only gets paid when a player either moves clubs or signs a new contract? I'd imagine most contracts have a 'signing bonus' of some sort of which ch the agent may get up to 20% of. That could be £200,000 quite easily, maybe more along with other 'sweeteners' negotiated into the contract. Of course an agent is going to be filling his clients head with nonsense about being spoken to 'on the QT' by Chelsea or City in the case of Sterling. It's in the agents best interest for himself to get the best deal first then for his client second, despite what most agents will tell you.

Of course Managers don't help themselves when Brendan said Sterling was 'the best young player in the Premiership' which was just encouragement for his agent to say 'so pay him like he is then!'
 
How does the agent get paid by filling their clients heads with nonsense offers... if they aren't real they wouldn't materialise, then no new deal gets signed, no money? Managers talk up the evils of agents and the bad advice they are getting.... because it costs them more money. If an agent offers his player around and gets better offers then for Liverpool to keep him will require a bigger offer, which gets the player more but that isn't the best thing for the club.

It's complete fallacy that agents are just lying to their clients, fake offers that don't exist don't help their clients or themselves get more money. REAL offers, for actually more money gets them their chunk from a bigger pie.

If Sterling has turned down 100k a week, it's because his agent either has serious interest from other clubs or believes Liverpool can and will make a higher offer. Why is it bad that Sterling turned it down, why isn't it Liverpool getting bad advice by not offering 120k a week. Managers and pundits(who are generally friends with and semi affiliated with the clubs, not the agents) all decry agents because it's in their best interest to. 90% of the people talking about Sterling getting bad advice are ex Liverpool pros who want what is best for the club, not the player.
 
The more the player thinks there are other offers the more likely he is to turn down any contract, forcing the club to put the contract offer up? Your favourite player, Theo Walcott basically had Arsenal over a barrel and Arsenal ended up breaking their wage structure for him. Look where that got them!
 
We didn't break the wage structure for him, we did give him more than he was worth though. Multiple players had made what Walcott is currently on when he signed his new deal.

Forcing the club to put the offer up, no club is forced to put their offer up. If Pool only want to offer 100k, the player turns it down, the player looks to leave. Liverpool don't have to offer more and if no firm offers come in say this summer, Liverpool may make a new offer of 80k a week.... making up offers doesn't automatically increase existing offers, if it did.. this would be a never ending situation in which all players who want to stay make half a million a week.

Walcott didn't have Arsenal over a barrel, Wenger loves Walcott and massively over paid for him. There was also the simple situation that English players due to the stupid stupid home grown rules are worth more than non home grown rules.

But again, even if a agent made up an offer and got a higher contract offer from the same club... how is that bad for the player? Though in reality, why lie? The player wants more money, the agent wants more money, tell the player you want to hold out for a larger contract... not rocket science.

Why is the player automatically wrong for holding out for more and the club automatically right, again it's perception, club tells everyone player is getting bad advice, ex players give the same message.

The thing is, if the club don't believe the player is worth more, don't up the offer, if they don't believe another club will come in, offer less, if the player isn't worth keeping, sell him. With Walcott Arsenal should have said you can get 100k a week elsewhere... go get it, hell, we'll let you walk today if they stump up 5-10mil, it's happened multiple times with other players and absolutely should have happened with Walcott.
 
He has a thin squad, has had loads of injuries and has his top players poached every season. Its amazing he has done what he has with the resources and restrictions he has had.

I would hate to see him at city and i cant imagine they are the kind of club he would go to but perhaps I'm wrong. I would like to see him take a year or two off then come to united.

Potentially City and Liverpool could be after him though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom