CityBuzzin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 225
johnmc said:
Spot on
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.
Managers getting a cut of transfer fees
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
Spot on
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,013
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
His argument might have some merit as long as the practice is accepted by the club concerned and the manager pays his tax on the money he gets. I have heard tales of 'brown envelopes' and 'cash in an attache case' in connection with transfers, and if these are true I doubt very much that HMRC gets its share in every case.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
This is where there is some confusion as to the responsibility of the manager. Some clubs have executives with responsibility for player acquisition and the "head coach" goes about getting results on the pitch. Others combine the 2 roles. The latter is the traditional british way but has been slowly disappearing in the last 20 years.
There will always be a conflict between results and profit and to be honest thats what the FFP rules are trying to address. That's not to say that I agree with how they are being implemented but no one can deny that burying a club in debt to achieve fleeting success is a bad policy. A head coach doesn't care about the debt so if you let him he will bankrupt the club for the sake of his CV. Bent Arry was the UK champion at doing this but at Spurs he no longer pulls purse the strings.
It's clear that Mancini doesn't have the spending responsibility at city which leads to the conflict he has between results and squad size. He wants more players but the money men say no.
If you get the chance to see the film Moneyball, it shows how the same conflict between money and results, the GM and the Head coach, was resolved in baseball. How a new model readdressed how players are valued. We could do with some similar correction in football.
So back to Holloway and his cut, as a club exec with the financial health of the club in mind he performed well and deserved a bonus but as the head coach with results in mind he failed and the club was relegated. He should have been sacked and lost any claim to profit sharing.
There will always be a conflict between results and profit and to be honest thats what the FFP rules are trying to address. That's not to say that I agree with how they are being implemented but no one can deny that burying a club in debt to achieve fleeting success is a bad policy. A head coach doesn't care about the debt so if you let him he will bankrupt the club for the sake of his CV. Bent Arry was the UK champion at doing this but at Spurs he no longer pulls purse the strings.
It's clear that Mancini doesn't have the spending responsibility at city which leads to the conflict he has between results and squad size. He wants more players but the money men say no.
If you get the chance to see the film Moneyball, it shows how the same conflict between money and results, the GM and the Head coach, was resolved in baseball. How a new model readdressed how players are valued. We could do with some similar correction in football.
So back to Holloway and his cut, as a club exec with the financial health of the club in mind he performed well and deserved a bonus but as the head coach with results in mind he failed and the club was relegated. He should have been sacked and lost any claim to profit sharing.
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
This whole "bonus"thing seems to apply more to the smaller clubs that need to wheel and deal to help keep the club in business,some of the more old school managers like Holloway,Redknapp and Allardyce made their reputations at a lower level before moving up,maybe they brought these practices with them.I'd be extremely surprised if the likes of Bobby,Wenger and Ferguson are on similar deals.
Comrade Buka
Well-Known Member
What a fool.
Wheelsy
Well-Known Member
But it IS a conflict of interest when you buy players that you've already purchased for another club, surely?
mcmanus
Well-Known Member
lust overlord said:This whole "bonus"thing seems to apply more to the smaller clubs that need to wheel and deal to help keep the club in business,some of the more old school managers like Holloway,Redknapp and Allardyce made their reputations at a lower level before moving up,maybe they brought these practices with them.I'd be extremely surprised if the likes of Bobby,Wenger and Ferguson are on similar deals.
But dodgy 'arry has already stated "I'm not a fackin wheeler dealer, I'm fackin football manager"
It's a clever article and he has a few valid points, however there are too many conflicts of interest.
I don't get it. If anything it should be up to management to assess his performances on the field, off the field, and in the transfer market and give him a annual bonus. IF good amounts of money are generated from a transfer then they should include a few extra zeros in to the bonus. Just like any other business.
There are so many variables which make that system not correct.
I don't get it. If anything it should be up to management to assess his performances on the field, off the field, and in the transfer market and give him a annual bonus. IF good amounts of money are generated from a transfer then they should include a few extra zeros in to the bonus. Just like any other business.
There are so many variables which make that system not correct.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Look at the overall transfer profit at the end of the season and if they've made a profit without impacting on-field performance then by all means give the manager a bonus. But Holloway wants all the up-side without any down-side.adammck said:It's a clever article and he has a few valid points, however there are too many conflicts of interest.
I don't get it. If anything it should be up to management to assess his performances on the field, off the field, and in the transfer market and give him a annual bonus. IF good amounts of money are generated from a transfer then they should include a few extra zeros in to the bonus. Just like any other business.
There are so many variables which make that system not correct.
All the talk of Financial Fair Play and this is allowed? The FA are the joke imo.
As someone said, as bad as it is it isn't illegal provided you declare it and pay your taxes. But hopefully this will highlight it and prompt someone (like a minister for sport) to stick their oar in as the FA obviously again have failed the fans.
As someone said, as bad as it is it isn't illegal provided you declare it and pay your taxes. But hopefully this will highlight it and prompt someone (like a minister for sport) to stick their oar in as the FA obviously again have failed the fans.