[Archived] Stevens Outcome

[Billy Castell]

Yes it does, I thought I heard the SSN bloke mention Manchester Citeh rather than Coventry, but I was leaving the room so I didn't quite catch it.

[Fife Rover]

Yes it does, I thought I heard the SSN bloke mention Manchester Citeh rather than Coventry, but I was leaving the room so I didn't quite catch it.

Perhaps he likes sky blue shirts!

[philipl]

99.7% clean- a Guardian reading of the Stevens Report

Incidentally, there used to be transfers which left one wondering where on earth justification for such a high valuation came from. Can anyone think of an obviously over-paid transfer fee in the last year since Stevens started work?

Having watched him in the u-21s, Young to Villa looks OK at £9m.

[philipl]

What a short time ago that last post was- every transaction since then has been over-priced!

Anyway new rules for transfers being brought in by the FA with effect from 1 September.

[Fife Rover]

What a short time ago that last post was- every transaction since then has been over-priced!

Anyway new rules for transfers being brought in by the FA with effect from 1 September.

I have just finished reading this article and have written a number of comments and suggestions in the box provided under the tha article. I supplied all the required information for identity etc, but nothing has appeared. This is the second time this has happened to me when replying to articles on this blog. Can anyone tell me why?

[blue phil]

The Times are very selective , Fife .........

[Fife Rover]

The Times are very selective , Fife .........

Aha! so that's it. Some of the suggestions I made may just be considered a little controversial in the posh drawing rooms of the Times readers. Might even cause someone to knock over their afternoon tea cup onto the expensive Axminster.

[blue phil]

Try The Daily Mail , Fife .......they are far more receptive to new ideas and reasoned debate

[Fife Rover]

Try The Daily Mail , Fife .......they are far more receptive to new ideas and reasoned debate

Aha again! Got a result! This morning I was reading the 1st link provided by Philipl on the West Ham thread (the Times one) and I came to the end, and decided to follow the alternative links nested in the article to the one I had replied to yesterday. There was my missing reply from yesterday with another reply from someone else agreeing with it. So maybe it was not so controversial after all.

[philipl]

This has all happened very quietly. 28 year old man arrested and bailed- believed to be a Premiership footballer.

[Ozz]

I hope it is a West Ham full back!

[2k.]

Isn't Neill 29 though?

[nicko]

The player is Pascal Chimbonda.

He was quizzed and not charged.

The investigation is frankly ludicrous.

Good to see public money being spent wisely by the boys in blue.

[philipl]

Brum lose the same VAT case on agents' payments that Newcastle lost. Interesting exposee of how Brum went about signing players- Brady approached the agent of the target and paid the agent when the move happened.

[Boz]

I like the idea that clubs are no longer permitted to pay agents and that players' must pay their agents themselves, out of their own money!!! I don't imagine many players will be that keen on that!

[nicko]

I like the idea that clubs are no longer permitted to pay agents and that players' must pay their agents themselves, out of their own money!!! I don't imagine many players will be that keen on that!

It's a stupid development.

The only winner is the tax man and that is hardly something to celebrate.

The agent will get his money - one way or another. If the player has to pay him, then the club will have to pay the player more before it is handed on to the agent.

To think otherwise would be very naive.

[Boz]

A stupid development indeed if you are a mega rich agent or footballer, but as a UK citizen and tax payer I personally would feel that this was cause to celebrate if everyone pays the correct tax.

I have no problem with anybody providing a service being suitably rewarded. If an agent using their skills manages to negotiate a pay increase for their client, then fair play to them and the player, but then to ask the employer to pay the agent’s fee? The player is the beneficiary and as such he should pay his agent. If the player negotiates for his employer to pay this personal expense, then tax on this benefit must be paid.

No I’m sorry but the sooner football rids itself of all the dodgy dealings, the better. Clarity, lucidity and transparency in all transactions are the only way forward for football to regain any integrity. I personally and perhaps naively, sincerely hope that this is a further nail in the coffin of all the spivs, conmen and charlatans that inhabit football.

[Fife Rover]

It's a stupid development.

The only winner is the tax man and that is hardly something to celebrate.

The agent will get his money - one way or another. If the player has to pay him, then the club will have to pay the player more before it is handed on to the agent.

To think otherwise would be very naive.

When the agents first burst on the scene some years ago (80's?) we were all under the impression that all football agents were the players agents and nothing else. That is what was published at the time and that is what is SUPPOSED to happen. Therefore one would naturally expect the agents to be paid by their clients i.e. the player. Also it can never be either logical or lawful for a single agent or even the same firm of agents to represent both club and player in a single transaction. Whenever I use an agent I expect to pay him a fee previously negotiated, and indeed have always done so. That is the right and lawful way to operate and as far as I am concerned anything else is illegal and corrupt.

[nicko]

When the agents first burst on the scene some years ago (80's?) we were all under the impression that all football agents were the players agents and nothing else. That is what was published at the time and that is what is SUPPOSED to happen. Therefore one would naturally expect the agents to be paid by their clients i.e. the player. Also it can never be either logical or lawful for a single agent or even the same firm of agents to represent both club and player in a single transaction. Whenever I use an agent I expect to pay him a fee previously negotiated, and indeed have always done so. That is the right and lawful way to operate and as far as I am concerned anything else is illegal and corrupt.

Players do not usually pay agents. The fee is normally paid by the club as part of the player's terms.

If the player had to pay the agent he would demand much more from the club to cover those costs.

So, like I say, with the new plan the taxman is the winner. I am amazed that club chairmen do not see that point.

The bottom line is that clubs will pay whatever is needed to buy or keep a player and also do it the cheapest way. If that means paying the agent separately, so be it.

Apart from anything else it would be hard to make a player pay an agent out of his wages and over the length of his contract. There is every chance that the player-agent contract agreement will not run for the length as the club-player contract.

It would make it far more complicated if a player had to keep paying an agent when he had split with him during the course of the contract...then the lawyers get involved and they and the tax man are happy. Do you really want that?

I think the rule has always been that agents cannot be paid by both the club and the player, but there are obvious ways round that.

[Fife Rover]

Players do not usually pay agents. The fee is normally paid by the club as part of the player's terms.

If the player had to pay the agent he would demand much more from the club to cover those costs.

So, like I say, with the new plan the taxman is the winner. I am amazed that club chairmen do not see that point.

The bottom line is that clubs will pay whatever is needed to buy or keep a player and also do it the cheapest way. If that means paying the agent separately, so be it.

Apart from anything else it would be hard to make a player pay an agent out of his wages and over the length of his contract. There is every chance that the player-agent contract agreement will not run for the length as the club-player contract.

It would make it far more complicated if a player had to keep paying an agent when he had split with him during the course of the contract...then the lawyers get involved and they and the tax man are happy. Do you really want that?

I think the rule has always been that agents cannot be paid by both the club and the player, but there are obvious ways round that.

Nothing you have said there Nicko can in any way detract from what I posted earlier, and which you have just quoted. I don't doubt for one minute that what you have just said actually happens, but my point is that it should NOT happen and is both illegal and corrupt. I am surprised and disappointed that you as a prominent journalist apparently support such practices.

[Boz]

There is no confusion as to what has been happening, cloak and daggers etc... I've no problem with players (or their agents) negotiating with the clubs the best possible deal for themselves and if that includes “oh yes and by the way you’ve now got to also pay my agent who has screwed you for the best possible deal”. The transparency will now come in as this will form part of the players’ taxable contracts.

I’m sure club chairman are fully aware of this and have no doubt been warned by their Accountants & Tax Advisors that this was an area that HM Revenue & Customs, who have been crawling all over football clubs for the past few years, are showing great interest in.

At the end of the day the pie can only be split into so many slices and if this impacts on the feeding frenzy at the trough then so be it. I don’t think many agents or footballers will receive much sympathy from the supporters.

I find it amusing the thought of the agents waiting at the training ground gates for the players’ wage packets to be opened and then divided out. But if this ultimately drives down agents fees as players’ pay themselves for that renegotiated contract, then I feel this can only be good for the game.

UK tax laws are in place to collect what is right and proper and also as a result of the FA and the FAPL placing their own rules concerning transfers and the payment of agents, then clarity may follow. If clubs flout their rules then they should be prepared to expect to receive the appropriate punishment, despite sceptical doubts to the contrary.

Yes, ultimately it may well be the clubs who end up meeting the costs, but this should not include defrauding HMRC. Any illegal ways around this should be frowned upon by any right minded person.

Hopefully this is just one more step along the path of football cleaning up its act.

[nicko]

It seems that a major figure at FIFA talks a bit of sense...

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,1...2793157,00.html

In other words, there are times when clubs can and probably should pay agents to keep things simple.

I cannot think of any good reason why you should want a club - yours for instance - to have to pay more to get a player than they need to.

Unless, of course, you are a tax man. :ph34r:

[Boz]

I’ve just read your link and whilst interesting, this guy is not representing FIFA, is he? It says he’s the Chairman of the Association of Football Agents and quite understandable just like turkeys voting for Christmas, he is not over the moon about these new rules.

I think that this is more a case of if you work within a sector, normal customs and practices are taken for granted and perhaps you don’t see the bigger picture. Just as Bosman flowed out of Human Rights and Employment Laws, I think you might find that UK tax laws may very well be the governing factor here, and despite all the squealing from agents and ultimately players and football clubs, there’s ultimately only one winner. No I’m not a tax man, but I do have a bit of knowledge in this area.

If you want a reason why I should want my club to pay more for a player, how about this? Integrity, honesty and following the governing rules. No I don’t want my Blackburn Rovers to sink to the levels of the West Hams, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Newcastle United, Bolton Wanderers and all those other clubs that we all get a nasty whiff of....? A scent of, well, things are not run quite right.

[nicko]

Zen-Ruffinen was with FIFA for a long time. He is an experienced and well-respected voice.

The point remains that the only winner under the new system is the tax man.

It's not about clarity or all that stuff. Football never is.

The bottom line is if a player comes on the market in January and you want him, then you do what you have to.

Theories go out of the window...it's signing players and winning matches that counts in the real world.

[nicko]

Take this as an example.

Player A is in talks with Rovers and wants £1 million a year and a four-year deal. His agent wants a £500,000 payment for doing the deal.

Under the 'old' ways this would cost Rovers £4 million in wages and a £500,000 agents fee. Total cost £4.5 million. The player would also pay, roughly, 40 per cent tax on his wages and be left with £600,000-a-year. The agent would get his £500,000 and have to pay tax on it - probably corporation tax.

Now - if the rules are implemented - Player A would have to be paid an extra amount, just over £200,000 per year for four years, to find the £500,000 needed to pay his agent. So he is now being paid £1.2 million which would mean Rovers would have to pay £4.8 million in wages over four years.

So - Player A finishes with the same amount left, his agent gets his cash and Rovers are £300,000 worse off.

The tax man gets his extra cash from the player.

The winner is the tax man, the loser is the club.

Wages keep on rising and agents still get their slice.

Hmm, good idea.