Millwallawayveteran1988
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 37,109
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Agents Fees.
- Thread starter Millwallawayveteran1988
- Start date
City Raider
Well-Known Member
What’s equally mind boggling is the lengths the BBC will go to, to put us top of any table in relation to spend. We sit top because they have chosen to order the table according to current league position, yet we’re 3rd in agent fees spend which is what the article is about, and 12th in total transfer spend.
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 27,482
Spurs managed 11 mill on agents .without any transfer spend.
Millwallawayveteran1988
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 37,109
Spurs managed 11 mill on agents .without any transfer spend.
I saw that. Did Kane sign a new contract? Bet it was related to that if he did.
Skip Donoghue
Well-Known Member
Likely to be dual representation, if a player renews the club use said players agent to act for both parties, with the fee usually a percentage of the final year of the new contractSpurs managed 11 mill on agents .without any transfer spend.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I'd question your use of the word earn there.
Uwe Already
Well-Known Member
Spurs managed 11 mill on agents .without any transfer spend.
That confused me that they claim 24 million for us in a period where we bought 60 million Mahrez? Sounds a bit off? Am I missing something?
Agents are leeches, but they rely on players ignorance. They tell them, correctly, that if they pay the agent they will be paying out of taxed income, whereas if the club pay, there is no tax implication for the player. What they never tell them, is the impact on that arrangement on their wages or even at which club they end up at.. A smart player pays his agent himself.
Skip Donoghue
Well-Known Member
There is a tax implication for the player if dual representation takes place which is the norm, as it becomes a “benefit in kind” for the player meaning he is liable to pay a percentage in tax on the fee paid to the agentAgents are leeches, but they rely on players ignorance. They tell them, correctly, that if they pay the agent they will be paying out of taxed income, whereas if the club pay, there is no tax implication for the player. What they never tell them, is the impact on that arrangement on their wages or even at which club they end up at.. A smart player pays his agent himself.
which is usually 5% of the final year of the contract, if a player is on £1mill a year the agents fee will be £50k paid by the club the player will then be liable to pay tax on £25k of this fee, which at 20% would be £5k
Cheers.There is a tax implication for the player if dual representation takes place which is the norm, as it becomes a “benefit in kind” for the player meaning he is liable to pay a percentage in tax on the fee paid to the agent
which is usually 5% of the final year of the contract, if a player is on £1mill a year the agents fee will be £50k paid by the club the player will then be liable to pay tax on £25k of this fee, which at 20% would be £5k