• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Echo News Southend United cut their spending on agents

Now this could explain why we cant get the players of MMs choice as their agents not getting a big slice of the pie .
 
Now this could explain why we cant get the players of MMs choice as their agents not getting a big slice of the pie .

It's not that agents won't get what they owed, it's who pays them. In most cases, during a transfer the agent is working on behalf of the player. It should therefore be up to the player to pay their agent. However, a lot of clubs pay the agent on behalf of the player. RM (quite rightly in my view) refuses to do so.

Obviously some players might decide to go elsewhere because of that, but I would argue the biggest reason players go elsewhere is because our reputation is so poor and players would rather go somewhere where they feel they're more likely to actually be paid.
 
When you look at how much the wage bill was cut for this season it's no surprise agent fees are lower.
 
We did sign a striker in February, i.e. during the time this was measured.
Hardly say ranger agent would of required lot though. Not even sure he still has an agent. Say we signed akinde, no doubt his agent would of demanded a decent fee...... decent strikers are the most valuable assets.
 
Hardly say ranger agent would of required lot though. Not even sure he still has an agent. Say we signed akinde, no doubt his agent would of demanded a decent fee...... decent strikers are the most valuable assets.

Isn't that the point? We signed a striker and didn't pay the agent. For clarity, I suppose neither of us actually know how (and how much) the agent was paid.
 
Last edited:
The more incredible story is that we paid £126,273 between February 2019 and January 2020.

During that time I think we we only registered 6 signings

Goodship
Milligan
Ralph
Shaughnessy
Ridgewell
Blackman (on a month to month)


Was this because
a) the Kevin Bond and Dirty' Arry factor (we'd need Panorama to investigate)
b) paying agents to off-load Brown's signings from the wage bill
c) related to managerial appointments because we had nearly as many managers as transfers in
d) the Osadebe and Vassell transfers
e) something else?
 
The more incredible story is that we paid £126,273 between February 2019 and January 2020.

During that time I think we we only registered 6 signings

Goodship
Milligan
Ralph
Shaughnessy
Ridgewell
Blackman (on a month to month)


Was this because
a) the Kevin Bond and Dirty' Arry factor (we'd need Panorama to investigate)
b) paying agents to off-load Brown's signings from the wage bill
c) related to managerial appointments because we had nearly as many managers as transfers in
d) the Osadebe and Vassell transfers
e) something else?

I would go for option E. More likely that we had been late paying agents. Therefore the bill for those dates does not correlate to who we signed during the same dates.

If everyone else gets payed late then it stands to reason that so would agents.
 
I would go for option E. More likely that we had been late paying agents. Therefore the bill for those dates does not correlate to who we signed during the same dates.

If everyone else gets payed late then it stands to reason that so would agents.

Good point. Is it agents' fees incurred or paid? If the latter, we might not have actually decreased our agent expenditure and just be late paying....
 
It's not that agents won't get what they owed, it's who pays them. In most cases, during a transfer the agent is working on behalf of the player. It should therefore be up to the player to pay their agent.
Is there any real difference between the two though? Surely if we refused to pay agent's fees then the player would just demand a signing on fee to cover what they owe the agent instead, except he'd have to demand a higher fee than if we just paid the agent directly because the player would get taxed on that.
 
Is there any real difference between the two though? Surely if we refused to pay agent's fees then the player would just demand a signing on fee to cover what they owe the agent instead, except he'd have to demand a higher fee than if we just paid the agent directly because the player would get taxed on that.

They might do, but I doubt it. I think Ron would know if the signing on fee a player is asking for is excessive or not. If it is then he'll know why and I reckon he'll just refuse and negotiate.
 
Back
Top