opinions4u Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 They bring a player in, or through the club, develop them in to something better and sell them on at a profit for the club. Should they get a share in that profit? Or is it a reasonable expectation of the job they do. One that sets them up for a move to a bigger club with a bigger salary in future? Two examples I can think of: 1) Redknapp (allegedly) at Portsmouth. 2) Gannon at Stockport in his first spell. While it may be unconnected, both clubs ended up in administration. It may well be commonplace (no idea). But is it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 As is my understanding, there is no allegedly about the Harry Redknapp profit on transfers. The supposed extra funds make up the difference from 5% as manager to 10% if he was still director of football. Surely that though is a bung? You are therefore encouraged to sell players on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 As is my understanding, there is no allegedly about the Harry Redknapp profit on transfers. The supposed extra funds make up the difference from 5% as manager to 10% if he was still director of football. Surely that though is a bung? You are therefore encouraged to sell players on? I suppose a "bung" implies against the rules or not in the contract. There is a case for a manager like Dickov being encouraged to develop a player an move him on for a big profit. Should he be paid a cut of the profit in addition to salary though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think it is a pretty bad idea. Say Dickov wanted a new house in Spain and decided to cash in on all our better players. Surely that is going to be detrimental to the team but positive to his bank balance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Given the short term nature of football, i'm not sure how it could be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's probably not a good idea if the manager is as bent as a gay hairpin. TBH not that many managers stay in the job long enough to sell a player they bought in, and do they also pay back 10% of the transfer fees of :censored:e that they bought? King Kenny had better get saving if they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It doesn't sit right with me. Partly for the reason RR mentions above and also because it incentivises playing someone who doesn't deserve their place because giving them exposure potentially raises their value and the likelihood of other teams coming in for them. When it comes down to the finer details, there's a conflict of interests between what's good for the team and what's good for the manager personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 They bring a player in, or through the club, develop them in to something better and sell them on at a profit for the club. Should they get a share in that profit? Or is it a reasonable expectation of the job they do. One that sets them up for a move to a bigger club with a bigger salary in future? Two examples I can think of: 1) Redknapp (allegedly) at Portsmouth. 2) Gannon at Stockport in his first spell. While it may be unconnected, both clubs ended up in administration. It may well be commonplace (no idea). But is it right? Dowie was owed a cut of Fitz Hall apparently (so he claimed) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Dowie was owed a cut of Fitz Hall apparently (so he claimed) The same Dowie who signed Fitz Hall from his brother's team- just emphasises how dodgy managers getting a cut from player's transfer fees is. The only people getting a cut from a transfer fee should be the club selling and possibly the player himself (provided they've not put in a transfer request). Agents, managers and other hangers on should get nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The same Dowie who signed Fitz Hall from his brother's team- just emphasises how dodgy managers getting a cut from player's transfer fees is. The same brother who recommended Ernie Cooksey, who took a drop in wages to join Latics in Administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The same brother who recommended Ernie Cooksey, who took a drop in wages to join Latics in Administration. That's all well and good but if Oldham and Chesham (Is that who Dowie's brother was managing) had deals in place where the managers got a cut of the transfer fees then the Dowie brothers would have made a killing and that is what is dodgy. I'm sure this was not the case but it highlights how letting managers take a cut of transfer deals could/can be manipulated to make the managers money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Think Holloway got some of Charlie Adam's transfer fee to Liverpool. I think Oyston said who would get what out of that fee, Holloway, Adam, Rangers etc.. I think once everyone's cut had been taken out, Blackpool would of been left with around 50% or less of the actual fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The same brother who recommended Ernie Cooksey, who took a drop in wages to join Latics in Administration. The same player who decided to play professional rather than semi pro? I know where I would rather be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.