- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 36,772
Yeah, can't see it happening though.Only the clubs can do it but there would need to be a global agreement among several leagues.
Yeah, can't see it happening though.Only the clubs can do it but there would need to be a global agreement among several leagues.
Which is what they do.If a player wants an agent pay for the fecker yourself.
There's a reason the FA has a standard conflict of interest form for intermediaries, agents are generally contracted to act on behalf of both the player and the club.The agents work for they player, So the player must pay the agent some sort of salary. Why does the club have to pay the agent aswel? The agent is employed by the player and is nothing to do with the club. I don’t get it.
Nah, clubs generally pay for the players' share of the agents fees and the player is taxed on the benefit in kind.Which is what they do.
I was going to add that part, that's the real new thing. Clubs are more and more likely to let the agent or an agent deal with the negotiations which obviously has a fee.There's a reason the FA has a standard conflict of interest form for intermediaries, agents are generally contracted to act on behalf of both the player and the club.
Wouldn't that mean the money gets taxed twice?Not sure how UEFA can stop this, all clubs will do is pay the player big signing on fee which will be shared with agent.
It's not particularly new, been going on for years.I was going to add that part, that's the real new thing. Clubs are more and more likely to let the agent or an agent deal with the negotiations which obviously has a fee.
But that's part of his wage, they negotiate it that way. It's like clubs can pay for physios on behalf of the player but that's also part of the remuneration.Nah, clubs generally pay for the players' share of the agents fees and the player is taxed on the benefit in kind.
Same as when you or I have medical insurance or a company car provided by our employers, basically.
By new, I mean last 20 something years and it's more and more normal.It's not particularly new, been going on for years.
He had a cut on the next transfer fee, a really big cut. Think it was 40%.Wasn’t some of Raiolas fee in the pogba deal just like when the selling club gets a profit down the line because he went for free.
Other than that, it is fecking ridiculous what they get.
Not sure about that.Wouldn't that mean the money gets taxed twice?
Sort of, yea, the contract stipulates wages over the course of the deal and then goes into details of any other amounts being provided, which is where signing bonuses, loyalty bonuses, win bonuses, insurances, intermediary (agent) fees etc.But that's part of his wage, they negotiate it that way. It's like clubs can pay for physios on behalf of the player but that's also part of the remuneration.
Ah yea, definitely.By new, I mean last 20 something years and it's more and more normal.
Yes, the player would pay tax on the income he received and would then have to pay his agent from his net income. The agent would then pay tax on his own income.Wouldn't that mean the money gets taxed twice?
I think its more PSG and City that has triggered this. Mainly PSG's recent record-smashing purchase of Neymar.Am I wrong in thinking that governing bodies only consider taking action on transfers, fees etc when British clubs start showing their financial power?
Or, say, wanting to buy a house and paying the real estate agent's commission.Well said, its like wanting to buy a car, for instance, then having to pay the fecking salesman because you negotiated with them to get a good deal
from a working perspective as well. It's like an employer paying for the recruitment firm when they hire a candidate. Happens all the time.Or, say, wanting to buy a house and paying the real estate agent's commission.
Oh.
These companies that like to underpay the employees but like to waste a crazy amount of money on various consultants...from a working perspective as well. It's like an employer paying for the recruitment firm when they hire a candidate. Happens all the time.
Like any business, middlemen get paid alot.Good. Absolutely ridiculous how much of the pie agents have been taking just for drumming up interest and doing a bit of negotiating.
You don't see an issue with an agent taking many millions of pounds away from players and clubs for hardly doing any work?Like any business, middlemen get paid alot.
I don't see the issue with it.
The market decides these things.
FIFA and UEFA officials complaining about middlemen is a bit rich.
Well we don't have any idea what they do, likewise other businesses where agents are paid loads of money.You don't see an issue with an agent taking many millions of pounds away from players and clubs for hardly doing any work?
Agree..Theyl'll just add the difference onto the players wages and pass it on that way.
It does seem so.Am I wrong in thinking that governing bodies only consider taking action on transfers, fees etc when British clubs start showing their financial power?
It's not tax efficient.Yeah, agreed. Making the players pay it makes sense, would mean the agents have to be competitive (not that anyone would care then other than the players) and a transfer would be slightly less ridiculous.
That was a completely separate thing. A specific arrangement with Juve whereby he effectively part-owned Pogba.He had a cut on the next transfer fee, a really big cut. Think it was 40%.
He didn't part owned him, Juventus didn't pay him and Pogba when they initial signed him from United. The deal was that they would get paid on the next transfer.That was a completely separate thing. A specific arrangement with Juve whereby he effectively part-owned Pogba.
They really think that? All they will do is promote money laundering. Agents will still get their cut, just off the books.Citing the risk of "economic exploitation of young players, fraud, corruption, and money laundering," UEFA said European lawmakers can help address illegal practices.
It wasn't technically that (not sure if still allowed in Italy), but the outcome is the same. If I have an agreement with you that when you sell your car I get 40%. I don't have an asset, own nothing, but participate in the proceeds.He didn't part owned him, Juventus didn't pay him and Pogba when they initial signed him from United. The deal was that they would get paid on the next transfer.
It's not an ownership because he didn't own Pogba's rights that's a crucial point. Juventus owed them money on a previous move and the date to pay it was the next transfer. And it's illegal everywhere.It wasn't technically that (not sure if still allowed in Italy), but the outcome is the same. If I have an agreement with you that when you sell your car I get 40%. I don't have an asset, own nothing, but participate in the proceeds.
Make the rule and it will be dodged one way or the other.
You don't see an issue with an agent taking many millions of pounds away from players and clubs for hardly doing any work?