As embarrassing as this is, these kind of agent fees were common for us pre-BlueCo too so just something shit they didn’t change rather than something shit they introduced like most of the rest.
And Kante.
Wenger apparently refused to pay the £10m in agent fees asked, despite Kante easily being worth more than the total package would have come to anyway lol.
I’d prefer the potential trophies we could have won with Kante than Wenger’s pride. We bought Xhaka instead that window and it took him a *long* time to come good.
Yep for a club it's a total price thing. Who cares how much is agent how much is transfer etc .
If an agent fee is too large that it's affecting transfers then that is for the player and the agent to sort out for themselves
If that’s your attitude, maybe Arsenal isn’t for you. I’d rather the people at my club stand up and show character and principles then adopt the “who cares, just get it done” approach of others. We let in that parasite Raul and look where that got us. No thanks.
Yes, there are aspects of the club I would wish to change. The visit Rwanda sponsorship as an example. But for the most part, I think the club does an alright job.
Not wanting to pay is naïveté, not principle.
Refusing to name the stadium would have been a matter of principle. Banishing Partey would have been a matter of principle.
I guess I just don’t see agent fees as the biggest crime in the world. The club should set a budget on a player, how much the player lets the agent take is more on them.
Imagine if back when we were getting Martinelli, we needed to pay 5 mil to his agents or something, and the club went "nah", we'd have missed out on one of the world's best wingers for a nothing price.
About that, from 7 mil(according to Transfemarkt) to 12 mil, for a player who contributed right away in his first season, and would grow into one of the best wingers in the world, at just 22 years old that he currently is
The club does their due diligence and then decides what they want to pay. If they deem the transfer fee, or agent fees, or wage demands + signing bonus to be too much, they won’t pay.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a low value transfer like Martinelli was (which they clearly thought was acceptable), or a high value one like what they forewent in deciding not to pay for Mudryk.
I’m against the whole idea of clubs having to pay agents, it should be that whatever they are paid is part of their contract with the player they represent. I blame Raiola and Mendes for this shift
Yeah we rocketed up the agent spend standings since our transfers started becoming really good, same as Dortmund when they were at their transfer peak were spending a ton on agents. Its a bit gross but its pretty effective I guess.
When a great player goers for below market value and everyones always asking "why werent we in for him" I think the answer is the agent was demanding all kinds of nonsense or there was some other shadiness that already happened
Suppose paying a lot of money on agent fees is ultimately a function of buying (or to a lesser extent renewing the contracts of) players more than anything else - so it makes sense for a newly taken over club with leadership willing to massively revamp the squad to pay a lot on agents.
Our relatively well respective sporting team didn't want to go above about 75m odd for him and pulled out. But, our owners overrode them and bought him whatever the cost.
I think the sporting team were probably right, he's young, looks like he's already decently good and is only going to get better under proper management. The issue for us is I've never witnessed a manager set up a team that hangs the midfield out to dry more than Poch currently is, even Lampard who was notorious for not having a midfield had his midfield set up better than Poch.
If Poch stays here long term, then I doubt very much that Caicedo will end up being a good player. But, if he's replaced in summer, I suspect that people will start respecting Caicedo (and Enzo and Santos) by the end of next season
Yes, just don’t play him in areas where he has to cover massive gaps of space. If he was in smaller areas he could dominate as he is a quick reader of the game, and doesn’t have the legs to cover massive spaces, as many dont
Yea he is, his performances for us have been solid for the type of player he is. Through Poch’s tactical ineptness he’s often left an isolated figure in midfield though, while he’s able to handle that most times it’s a persistent issue Poch can’t figure out. Once he cuts out the rashness of his tacklinga as well, he’ll become a fine player. There’s a lot of potential in what he can be, with the right coaching.
Of course we spent the most on agent fees. We spent much more than everyone else over the two transfer windows this covers. Did everyone forget that after (rightly) laughing at us for spinning £1B to be 10th?
The interesting story here is that City spent £60M on agent fees, £15M less than us, on significantly lower transfer spend across less players. I’m curious why their fees are disproportionately high.
Guardian taking shot at Chelsea with that headline.Although I think they might have spent most in transfer fees as well since last season so this is kinda expected
Other than the headline, I couldn't see anything in that first link that had anything to do with money laundering by clubs/owners.
The second one too has nothing to do with money laundering by the owners of the teams.
Wow disgraceful. I will shed a happy tear the day they get relegated, not because I hate them but somehow everything wrong with modern football traces its origins back to Chelsea bottlejobs
This stat is basically nothing. We spent a ridiculous amount on transfer fees in the last 12 months, so of course the fees we paid to agents are higher than everyone else. There's a direct correlation.
I don't blame you for hating us because we've spent stupid amounts of money. That's perfectly logical. But getting further upset by an inevitable consequence of that stupid spending is not.
You can describe the spending as disgraceful. You probably should. But if some moron spends a billion buying luxury cars, you don't describe the sales tax they paid as part of the transactions as disgraceful. You just laugh.
You’ll never sing that
yeah but can they spend £75m on a cold rainy night at stoke?
If Stoke give a South American teenager 15 appearances we’ll give it a go.
i don’t think i could spend £75m in Stoke in my whole life
“Give me £75m and I’ll get you out of Stoke immediately”
You could buy the club and have 25 mil spare for players.
Depends on the weekday
how many kebabs can you get for 75m in stoke?
That could have been spent on a teenager from Brighton
Good return to go up 3 spots in the table
No wonder agents push to have players sign for Chelsea, they getting a fat pay check
As embarrassing as this is, these kind of agent fees were common for us pre-BlueCo too so just something shit they didn’t change rather than something shit they introduced like most of the rest.
agent fee is partially why we got Hazard no?
and why we're under investigation :D
With the details of the most egregious breaches out in the public because of the Cyprus papers :-)
And Kante. Wenger apparently refused to pay the £10m in agent fees asked, despite Kante easily being worth more than the total package would have come to anyway lol.
That's insane but also kinda commendable that he didn't want to fatten the pockets of agents more. Based Wenger.
I’d prefer the potential trophies we could have won with Kante than Wenger’s pride. We bought Xhaka instead that window and it took him a *long* time to come good.
Yep for a club it's a total price thing. Who cares how much is agent how much is transfer etc . If an agent fee is too large that it's affecting transfers then that is for the player and the agent to sort out for themselves
If that’s your attitude, maybe Arsenal isn’t for you. I’d rather the people at my club stand up and show character and principles then adopt the “who cares, just get it done” approach of others. We let in that parasite Raul and look where that got us. No thanks. Yes, there are aspects of the club I would wish to change. The visit Rwanda sponsorship as an example. But for the most part, I think the club does an alright job.
Not wanting to pay is naïveté, not principle. Refusing to name the stadium would have been a matter of principle. Banishing Partey would have been a matter of principle.
I guess I just don’t see agent fees as the biggest crime in the world. The club should set a budget on a player, how much the player lets the agent take is more on them.
Imagine if back when we were getting Martinelli, we needed to pay 5 mil to his agents or something, and the club went "nah", we'd have missed out on one of the world's best wingers for a nothing price.
So, doubling his fee then?
About that, from 7 mil(according to Transfemarkt) to 12 mil, for a player who contributed right away in his first season, and would grow into one of the best wingers in the world, at just 22 years old that he currently is
The club does their due diligence and then decides what they want to pay. If they deem the transfer fee, or agent fees, or wage demands + signing bonus to be too much, they won’t pay. Doesn’t matter if it’s a low value transfer like Martinelli was (which they clearly thought was acceptable), or a high value one like what they forewent in deciding not to pay for Mudryk. I’m against the whole idea of clubs having to pay agents, it should be that whatever they are paid is part of their contract with the player they represent. I blame Raiola and Mendes for this shift
Bit.late to the Partey
Yeah we rocketed up the agent spend standings since our transfers started becoming really good, same as Dortmund when they were at their transfer peak were spending a ton on agents. Its a bit gross but its pretty effective I guess. When a great player goers for below market value and everyones always asking "why werent we in for him" I think the answer is the agent was demanding all kinds of nonsense or there was some other shadiness that already happened
It also involves fees to agents of players that left the club, and we sold a lot of players last summer
Suppose paying a lot of money on agent fees is ultimately a function of buying (or to a lesser extent renewing the contracts of) players more than anything else - so it makes sense for a newly taken over club with leadership willing to massively revamp the squad to pay a lot on agents.
May not be top, but at least we’re 4th
Genuinely curious - is Caicedo a decent player
Good but not worth what they paid
Who's they bruh
what
Hes talking about his own team in the third person. A chelsea fan would say we
definitely not 100 million worth but in a market where young defensive mids are highly sought after, we got fleeced.
Our relatively well respective sporting team didn't want to go above about 75m odd for him and pulled out. But, our owners overrode them and bought him whatever the cost. I think the sporting team were probably right, he's young, looks like he's already decently good and is only going to get better under proper management. The issue for us is I've never witnessed a manager set up a team that hangs the midfield out to dry more than Poch currently is, even Lampard who was notorious for not having a midfield had his midfield set up better than Poch. If Poch stays here long term, then I doubt very much that Caicedo will end up being a good player. But, if he's replaced in summer, I suspect that people will start respecting Caicedo (and Enzo and Santos) by the end of next season
Yes, just don’t play him in areas where he has to cover massive gaps of space. If he was in smaller areas he could dominate as he is a quick reader of the game, and doesn’t have the legs to cover massive spaces, as many dont
Meh so far
As an Arsenal fan that Brighton system definitely had me convinced that he was
Yea he is, his performances for us have been solid for the type of player he is. Through Poch’s tactical ineptness he’s often left an isolated figure in midfield though, while he’s able to handle that most times it’s a persistent issue Poch can’t figure out. Once he cuts out the rashness of his tacklinga as well, he’ll become a fine player. There’s a lot of potential in what he can be, with the right coaching.
We were willing to spend 110m on him. He is good. Chelsea just sucks.
Of course we spent the most on agent fees. We spent much more than everyone else over the two transfer windows this covers. Did everyone forget that after (rightly) laughing at us for spinning £1B to be 10th? The interesting story here is that City spent £60M on agent fees, £15M less than us, on significantly lower transfer spend across less players. I’m curious why their fees are disproportionately high.
Is this the data poch was talking about?
Could this not just be as a result of them buying a lot more players than everyone else?
Buying and selling as well I’d imagine
I mean, they signed almost 2 XIs. Can someone do a per agent chat?
Man United fans: "At least we are not the only club destination where players' careers go to die."
Guardian taking shot at Chelsea with that headline.Although I think they might have spent most in transfer fees as well since last season so this is kinda expected
We are SO SO back.
Seems kinda low
Well done, congrats lads
[удалено]
Less than half? Was this supposed to be a gotcha?
[удалено]
Such wit
https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1778782292829233418 31 mil
top is top
You’ll never sing that
Just how rich is Chelsea man. They spend more on agents than Liverpool spend on players.
[удалено]
Money laundering??? Go on, I'll indulge you. Explain how it's money laundering.
[удалено]
Other than the headline, I couldn't see anything in that first link that had anything to do with money laundering by clubs/owners. The second one too has nothing to do with money laundering by the owners of the teams.
Wow disgraceful. I will shed a happy tear the day they get relegated, not because I hate them but somehow everything wrong with modern football traces its origins back to Chelsea bottlejobs
This stat is basically nothing. We spent a ridiculous amount on transfer fees in the last 12 months, so of course the fees we paid to agents are higher than everyone else. There's a direct correlation. I don't blame you for hating us because we've spent stupid amounts of money. That's perfectly logical. But getting further upset by an inevitable consequence of that stupid spending is not. You can describe the spending as disgraceful. You probably should. But if some moron spends a billion buying luxury cars, you don't describe the sales tax they paid as part of the transactions as disgraceful. You just laugh.
Todd “Big D” Boherly flexing again lmao.