A bit of a crossroads?

Do we know of an agent who isn't?

 

As is a loan shark or a hedge fund manager. It doesn't make them any more useful to society at large.

 

Like, Like, Like, Like

 

Nobody is suprised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well that didn't go acording to plan did it!

 

True but I always have to ask this question regarding agents.

A player signs a contract for say 2 years. In that contract is set figures and facts and clauses etc, they don't change they are set 100%. Do this and get paid this etc.

Why then does that player need to employ an event throughout those two years? There is absolutely zero reason to do so other than to actively look for a move elsewhere and that IMO is wrong.

The rules should be changed so that a contracted player cannot have an agent representing him. A player should hire an agent as and when they need them. If a club makes an offer for a player and that offer is accepted by his club or triggers a clause THEN the player should hire an agent, until that point he has absolutely no reason whatsoever to have one employed by himself.

Times that a player should be allowed an agent:
1. When under contract and his contracted club have accepted a bid.
2. During the last few months of his contract to enable him to seek out a future club
3. When out of contract.

They are the only 3 times that an agent is required.

Oh and I'd also change the rules so that agents cannot receive a percentage of any transfer fee. They are to be paid (by the player) a flat fee agreed between player and agent. It can be anything from £1 to £1b but it must be a flat fee and cannot be linked to the transfer fee in order to stop agents having a vested interest in inflating the transfer fee which does not help the player, the club or the fans, it helps one man, the agent.