Liverpool spend 9m on agents in year ending sept 2010

[CJ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/9244286.stm

Chelsea and Liverpool paid out £9.2m and £9m respectively to agents in the year ending in September 2010, according to Premier League figures.

That was £3m higher than the next biggest club - Manchester City, who which splashed out £5.9m on agents.

In all £67.1m passed hands between the 20 top-flight clubs and agents for the period October 2009 to September 2010 - £3.5m less than the previous year.

Blackpool were bottom of the top-flight agent table having spent just £45,000.

However, the newly promoted club imposed strict spending limits when they were promoted to the top-flight at the end of last season.

More to follow.

a bit worrying when we didnt spend much money though maybe the frees cost a lot

[Baracus]

we had 2 free transfers and a big lump sum for roy

[Kinell]

A break down of the costs would be interesting because as you pointed out Marsh we haven't spent that much.

[The Birdman]

I expect most of that was to Joe Cole and Jovanovich's agents for the 'free' transfers

[The Birdman]

we had 2 free transfers and a big lump sum for roy

If we ****ing paid Roy's agent as well to get that senile old fool here as well I'll be even more raging!!

[CJ]

well i reckon its possible we paid Rafas and Maschers agents too

[Cormack74]

I always assumed that agents work on a percentage basis, so surely City's bill should be stratospheric.

Or have I got this wrong?

[little dave hedgehog]

semi frequently, the bidding club also offers the agent improved terms or a lump sum to ensure they get their player

[CJ]

I always assumed that agents work on a percentage basis, so surely City's bill should be stratospheric.

Or have I got this wrong?

they will get a % from who employs them which in many deals is the player

plus am sure they negotiate fees etc etc etc

[wildman]

you would expect citys to be the biggest, not sure why its not tbh, £9m for us is obscene and just shows why those 2 dickheads had to go

[red g]

what a piss take. SHould have been performance related then it would have only cost us £9 and not 9million

[Imy]

you would expect citys to be the biggest, not sure why its not tbh, £9m for us is obscene and just shows why those 2 dickheads had to go

I don't know how much control they exerted toward the end but Purslow was certainly the man in charge and should also be held to blame.

[red g]

Total money spent on agents (Oct 2009 - Sep 2010):

Arsenal - £3,660,199.00
Aston Villa - £2,279,536.50
Birmingham - £1,518,529.09
Blackburn - £1,623,232.92
Blackpool - £45,000.00
Bolton - £3,549,316.72
Chelsea - £9,293,751.48
Everton - £3,599,040.51
Fulham - £2,087,373.55
Liverpool - £9,032,528.49
Manchester City - £5,952,261.33
Manchester United - £2,312,726.00
Newcastle - £2,417,776.00
Stoke - £2,196,968.50
Sunderland - £4,421,990.72
Tottenham - £5,361,229.87
West Brom - £614,195.73
West Ham - £3,419,089.99
Wigan - £2,461,500.00
Wolves - £1,291,794.00

I would question Tottenham's at well. Although i am sure brown paper bags don't count

[wildman]

I don't know how much control they exerted toward the end but Purslow was certainly the man in charge and should also be held to blame.

I think they would of had alot of say in it but yes Purslow is also to blame but thats what you get I suppose when you have non footballing guys running the club. I bet you coles agent got a good whack of that though, no such thing as a free transfer

[wildman]

apparently utd have the story on their website must be proud of how little they spent which is only because they tap the players up themselves. Football is so corrupt these days