During the transfer window, particular as it nears closure, I get calls from players or contacts close to players who claim they are desperate to get away from their agent, break that contract and be represented by you or someone else as they are doing nothing for them.
Most of the time, all this does is put me off the player entirely.
Unless there is a genuine reason, most of the time the player has not taken the time to consider the right agent before signing for them. Additionally, they've just got desperate and are ready to cut off loyalties.
What does this tell me? How could I trust such a player myself?
Likewise there are agents who pursue players to try and get them to break out their contracts with their current agents. If I was player, how could I trust that agent to represent me ethically and within the rules of the game? When clearly it's an illegal approach or they've found a way around the FA ruling. You couldn't.
I'd rather a player if he is under contract and does want to seek help be honest with his agent and ask that agent to contact me to work together on a deal. Likewise, I'd want a player represented by me, who got desperate (and I hope it never happens but I'm not ignorant that it never will) to ask me to do the same.
All I can say is, the agent a player decides to go with is a reflection of themselves, I want players to realise this. If you are a player, make sure you take the time to consider the right agent for you before you commit. Look yourself in the mirror and believe that you are signing with the right person and that you find someone who is as loyal to you as you will be to them. There will always be someone out there telling you they can do better. Whether I could benefit from you as a player doing that or not financially, or if one of my player's was to incite such a possibility for another agent, this is not why I'm doing this. I expect loyalty and respect from players I represent. I want clubs to know when I call they are dealing with an agent of these types of players and this is an exceptional thing for players themselves as you can negotiate better deals from this stand point when Chief Executive's and Owner's think they are getting that type of player.
For players, before you sign with any old agent who fulfills your ego, ask yourself what they can do for you and can you commit to them and can you commit to you in a way that feels right in your heart and your gut. Don't just sign and feel on transfer deadline day that you can call 10 agents to try and break a contract and that goes to other agents too.
Thursday 31 January 2013
Sunday 27 January 2013
Parents: Don't believe all you're told by clubs
My role as an agent is there to protect and enhances the interests of my clients, it is also to help clubs source new players and mediate with players currently there to keep them happy and progressing, regardless of age.
Perhaps fitting into the former more than the latter on this particular issue, I have to admit I am seeing more and more clubs, particularly at academy level, create scenarios, laws and regulations that simply do not exist and portray them to unsuspecting parents as the truth.
The new myth of the month being touted by the odd academies across the country, which I believe was first implemented by a club in the south, is this so called 'scholarship extension'. Now, I am not talking about an 18-year old at the end of his 2-year scholarship being offered a 3rd year on 'scholarship terms' either. I am talking about under-16s being told at this particular time by clubs that at the moment they will not be being offered a scholarship. However, the clubs are then going on to say they want to offer them a month's "extension" or a rolling extention - to give the player time to convince them they are worthy of a scholarship.
Now just for clarity for parents and players that don't know - this is not an extension.
This type of talk is also another ploy by clubs. If on 12 January I tell young Johnny he isn't going to be offered a scholarship and he can have the 6 weeks to prove himself or can go on trial elsewhere if would like, there is a financial reason behind this also. If Johnny decides to go on trial and that club would like to sign him before 1 March then the original registered club of Johnny are within their right to ask for full compensation inclusive of the scholarship years (even if he wasn't going to be offered) as they can still imply they intended to offer a scholarship and therefore expect that payment. This can be done and some clubs are sly in wanting this. However, this does present risks to clubs who to try to maximise compensation may end up offering a scholarship with the interested club(s) pulling out and the club still being obliged to fulfill that scholarship offer. Ultimately, offering for Under-16 players to go out on trial or be heavily watched before 1 March is a good idea for clubs if they have players that truly are 50/50 on whether they want to take or not so they can either aim for full compensation or if it comes to the worst he will have a scholarship but only after clubs have shown interest in him anyway.
At least the regulations protect Under-16s to an extent that at least there is sometime for them to find another club if they don't get offered a scholarship before the season ends. Whereas players coming to the end of their scholars can go until May before finding out if they're going to be offered contracts and by then the season can end without them being able to source a new club or having time to trial. That is something that also needs to reviewed - and will probably require another blog post I'm sure at some point!
Perhaps fitting into the former more than the latter on this particular issue, I have to admit I am seeing more and more clubs, particularly at academy level, create scenarios, laws and regulations that simply do not exist and portray them to unsuspecting parents as the truth.
The new myth of the month being touted by the odd academies across the country, which I believe was first implemented by a club in the south, is this so called 'scholarship extension'. Now, I am not talking about an 18-year old at the end of his 2-year scholarship being offered a 3rd year on 'scholarship terms' either. I am talking about under-16s being told at this particular time by clubs that at the moment they will not be being offered a scholarship. However, the clubs are then going on to say they want to offer them a month's "extension" or a rolling extention - to give the player time to convince them they are worthy of a scholarship.
Now just for clarity for parents and players that don't know - this is not an extension.
Under regulations, the club has until 1 March to offer a scholarship to a player. It also does not have to release the registration of any player before that. In essence, the player is just continuing on a registered basis as he always has - no extension, no additional contract length, no nothing. All I ask is parents do not be fooled by some of the terminology being used, it is not fair ever to use legal and regulatory language to in essence try to motivate players if it is not true. Additionally, it is just confusing.
This type of talk is also another ploy by clubs. If on 12 January I tell young Johnny he isn't going to be offered a scholarship and he can have the 6 weeks to prove himself or can go on trial elsewhere if would like, there is a financial reason behind this also. If Johnny decides to go on trial and that club would like to sign him before 1 March then the original registered club of Johnny are within their right to ask for full compensation inclusive of the scholarship years (even if he wasn't going to be offered) as they can still imply they intended to offer a scholarship and therefore expect that payment. This can be done and some clubs are sly in wanting this. However, this does present risks to clubs who to try to maximise compensation may end up offering a scholarship with the interested club(s) pulling out and the club still being obliged to fulfill that scholarship offer. Ultimately, offering for Under-16 players to go out on trial or be heavily watched before 1 March is a good idea for clubs if they have players that truly are 50/50 on whether they want to take or not so they can either aim for full compensation or if it comes to the worst he will have a scholarship but only after clubs have shown interest in him anyway.
At least the regulations protect Under-16s to an extent that at least there is sometime for them to find another club if they don't get offered a scholarship before the season ends. Whereas players coming to the end of their scholars can go until May before finding out if they're going to be offered contracts and by then the season can end without them being able to source a new club or having time to trial. That is something that also needs to reviewed - and will probably require another blog post I'm sure at some point!
Sunday 20 January 2013
Law and/or Enforcement
Whilst I studied for my master degree in laws over 4 years ago at Durham, I very much recall being fascinated by a legal theory question that essentially posed the question: What acts as a greater deterrence, law itself or enforcement of the law?
Ultimately, the obvious conclusion is that without enforcement, law itself is rendered redundant. So it begs the question of why many football regulatory bodies set down such extensive regulations yet not prepare itself to be able to enforce the regulations?
At a recent AFA (Association of Football Agents) meeting in London, The FA's key financial regulation department figures themselves admitted they did not have the man power or finances in order to always be able to speedily forward on finances held in their account, let alone to fully enforce all the regulations rigorously.
The FA are ready to admit there is a problem with unlicensed agents operating in the business for example or a knowledge that players and agents are signing contracts but not lodging with the FA or know that experienced pro players are trying to sign shorter representation agreements which are not in line with FA regulations - but really do not have the time or resources to investigate. As a result, where these people can get away with sometimes notably honest mistakes or mis-alignment with the regulations and should be due just a quick personal reminder, this never comes and these (sometimes honest) corners can easily open up to something much wider to those who care to exploit it.
An example would be pretty crime. If petty crime was not acted upon and enforced then criminals would move on and on to see how far they can go without repercussion. Likewise this is happening in our industry.
One of the most known reactions recently by FIFA to the fact that many people operate out of alignment with agent regulations they set at the top and through associations country by country is to look to allow agents to operate without a license potentially from the end of this year. They want to do this so their regulations towards agents and anything related will apply to anyone automatically who is involved in this side of the game - regardless of whether they are licensed. Again all this relates to is greater regulations. But the key question should be what is being done to increase enforcement?
I'll make this rather simple. Unless FIFA, the FA and other bodies looking at increasing what can be done to increase enforcement - not just to agents - but to players, clubs and more who wish to deviate from the regulations relating to transactions and more - then why bother to look at what can be done with changing the regulations? Otherwise all your doing is widening the catchment of what the law applies. Is that enough?
Ultimately, the obvious conclusion is that without enforcement, law itself is rendered redundant. So it begs the question of why many football regulatory bodies set down such extensive regulations yet not prepare itself to be able to enforce the regulations?
At a recent AFA (Association of Football Agents) meeting in London, The FA's key financial regulation department figures themselves admitted they did not have the man power or finances in order to always be able to speedily forward on finances held in their account, let alone to fully enforce all the regulations rigorously.
[For those interested in the AFA please visit here.]
The FA are ready to admit there is a problem with unlicensed agents operating in the business for example or a knowledge that players and agents are signing contracts but not lodging with the FA or know that experienced pro players are trying to sign shorter representation agreements which are not in line with FA regulations - but really do not have the time or resources to investigate. As a result, where these people can get away with sometimes notably honest mistakes or mis-alignment with the regulations and should be due just a quick personal reminder, this never comes and these (sometimes honest) corners can easily open up to something much wider to those who care to exploit it.
An example would be pretty crime. If petty crime was not acted upon and enforced then criminals would move on and on to see how far they can go without repercussion. Likewise this is happening in our industry.
One of the most known reactions recently by FIFA to the fact that many people operate out of alignment with agent regulations they set at the top and through associations country by country is to look to allow agents to operate without a license potentially from the end of this year. They want to do this so their regulations towards agents and anything related will apply to anyone automatically who is involved in this side of the game - regardless of whether they are licensed. Again all this relates to is greater regulations. But the key question should be what is being done to increase enforcement?
I'll make this rather simple. Unless FIFA, the FA and other bodies looking at increasing what can be done to increase enforcement - not just to agents - but to players, clubs and more who wish to deviate from the regulations relating to transactions and more - then why bother to look at what can be done with changing the regulations? Otherwise all your doing is widening the catchment of what the law applies. Is that enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)