aintforever Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 If it's true it's good that Cortese is no mug but not good if it means missing out on potentially good players. Impossible to judge either way from throw-away comments like that.
jasoneuelllfanclub Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 saints wont be mugged off by any other club or agent. this is why so many clubs are in financial peril because they pay over the odds and players negotiate ridiculous wages and image rights iinto their contracts. agents have been too used to dictating the terms and conditions so they turn their nose up at saints for playing hardball. i would much rather us lose out on players if it meant we stayed financially sound. If a players really wants to play for us then he will accept realistic wages and terms.
angelman Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Could this be about agents knowing (or thinking they know) that there is a lot of money available, asking over inflated prices/wages, NC not entertaining their demands? Chelsea and Man City may well have more money than sense, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the footballing world has to follow suit. At the end of the day, NC is a businessman who is acting in the best interests of the owner (and ex-owner). I am sure that there is a very good business plan in place, which does not involve us over stretching ourselves massively by paying huge fees and wages.
Doctoroncall Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Worth repeating as there seems to be too much drawn from a one line twitter feed: NC = 'Don't call us, we'll call you." In my opinion a canny merchant banker just wants agents to stop pestering him and has made that clear. If we are interested in someone we call the club first, check out the position and attempt to agree a potential deal then, if it goes further, the player and agent come in to the frame. We drive the player acquisition agenda rather than respond to a continual stream of agents touting their players around to see if they can get us to bite. I don't see the original twitter statement as negative but positive! Of course the "agents won't deal with them" needs to understood. Surely he is saying that it is no use approaching Southampton with a prospective players as they always say no. As others have pointed out, though, if a club says to a player, "Southampton want to talk to you, are you interested?" and they are interested they will be here quick enough with their agent and the agent will do the dealing. We may be tough negotiators, what's wrong with that if it gets positive results. I would rather have NC Dealing with things like this than Mr Storrie!
Window Cleaner Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Agents will deal with anyone and anything they can make a bent halfpenny from.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Agents will deal with anyone and anything they can make a bent halfpenny from. That's a bit of a sweeping statement. There are plenty of good agents out there.AL would have had an agent when he signed his new contract,Nigel would have had one when he got on the bus. In fact every player that NC deals with regarding contract extenstions, wages ect will have an agent. Just because some of them are shysters, doesn't mean that there are not deceent honest ones out there.
Supersubpuckett Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Sounds positive to me, if we're difficult to deal that means we're no pushovers and I would imagine NC is a good negotiator. My view is that agents are lazy and chase the easy money, so any club that makes them work for it won't be liked as much.
up and away Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Originally Posted by View From The Top A lot people will believe anything. A lot of people are very, very, very thick. As are the people who won't even entertain for a moment that there could be just an ounce of truth to this. Of course there is truth in this, but the relevance of that is what you need to consider. The biggest gripe between clubs and agents is that agents expect the club to pay their fees for any deals. Now if we approach another club and agree a price for a player, it would not surprise me that Cortese may insist any agent fees are a matter for the player and his agent. The only reason an agent will not deal with you will be solely based around money, not that you are rude, brusque or don't give a fook how the family are getting on. The other small fact that agents are not allowed any where near Staplewood the Academy players any more may well have upset some, but TFFT. There are certain things we know about Cortese in the transfer market. Generally he sets a value on what he is prepared to pay and lays that upon the table. He has also demonstrated with the signing of key players that he can get the job done for someone the club really want, so there must be some flexibility in there. As he has delivered every season he has been here, we will have to wait and see for any changes. But as yet there is no reason to take the opinion that what this agent has to say is in anyway significant. It's akin to taking advice from paedophiles on shool dress code.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Hypo makes a valid underlying point though. Had said 'agent' posted something positive and uplifting regarding something about to happen at SFC most people on here would have been fawning all over it. In other words, there's a tendency to judge the validity of sources based on how good or bad said news is. I think that's the point Hypo was making. Its a shame you buy the Mail - otherwise I would say you were one of the saner people on here!
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Of course there is truth in this, but the relevance of that is what you need to consider. The biggest gripe between clubs and agents is that agents expect the club to pay their fees for any deals. Now if we approach another club and agree a price for a player, it would not surprise me that Cortese may insist any agent fees are a matter for the player and his agent. The only reason an agent will not deal with you will be solely based around money, not that you are rude, brusque or don't give a fook how the family are getting on. The other small fact that agents are not allowed any where near Staplewood the Academy players any more may well have upset some, but TFFT. There are certain things we know about Cortese in the transfer market. Generally he sets a value on what he is prepared to pay and lays that upon the table. He has also demonstrated with the signing of key players that he can get the job done for someone the club really want, so there must be some flexibility in there. As he has delivered every season he has been here, we will have to wait and see for any changes. But as yet there is no reason to take the opinion that what this agent has to say is in anyway significant. It's akin to taking advice from paedophiles on shool dress code. An outbreak of sanity thank ****.
St_Tel49 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 If that's the case you should know that agents have masses of power generally, and influence over players. It is naive to think anything otherwise. What is your personal experience to support this assertion? And besides, accusing people who disagree with you as being naive is a rather feeble debating tactic.
Gingeletiss Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 You really think that, or just trying to wind people up? I tend to find this site far more prepared to believe the negative true rather than the positive. This really isn't about positive/negative though, it's about the tendency of people to form opinions based on absolutely nothing and then post them as absolute fact! . Comments by agents, players etc would have been secret a few years ago. They'd still be made. Yet today we hear every comment, every rumour, every happy or unhappy agent, transfer target, coach etc. If dozens of agents come out saying they won't deal with us, explain why and we fail to sign players despite having money to do so, then there's a problem. But I've got zero evidence to suggest any of those things are remotely true. Personally I don't believe this thread would make it past 1 page if we were playing matches. A laughable thread, once again based on rumour, and here we are at each others throats, yet again!
Itchen_block4 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 If a player is interested in talking to us, it's not his agent's job's worth to refuse. It's perfectly acceptable for us to not deal with clubs or agents that thrust players infront of us if they are not what we are looking for. If a player wants to join and the selling club are content with the fee, the agent has little choice but to negotiate. We play hardball and we won't get held to ransom, even if we do sometimes miss out.
egg Posted 22 June, 2011 Author Posted 22 June, 2011 What is your personal experience to support this assertion? And besides, accusing people who disagree with you as being naive is a rather feeble debating tactic. Ffs! So because I'm not an agent or had dealings with one in a professional capacity I cannot point out the well known fact that agents have a lot of power in the game? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
JonnyLove Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Has anyone else thought why is someone following a guys called @FootballAgent46. They could be anyone. I can make my ID to be @FootballAgent47
aintforever Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 If a player is interested in talking to us, it's not his agent's job's worth to refuse. It's perfectly acceptable for us to not deal with clubs or agents that thrust players infront of us if they are not what we are looking for. If a player wants to join and the selling club are content with the fee, the agent has little choice but to negotiate. We play hardball and we won't get held to ransom, even if we do sometimes miss out. The problem could be that good players will probably have a whole load of clubs interested, if the player's agent does all the negotiating and doesn't want to deal with Saints we could miss out.
Prince Jazzbo Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Lets be honest, agents would deal with Satan if it meant them getting more money. They probably wont deal with us because there isn't much in it for them. Thats why they love good old Harry etc because 'he sees they're alright'.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 You really think that, or just trying to wind people up? I tend to find this site far more prepared to believe the negative rather than the positive. This really isn't about positive/negative though, it's about the tendency of people to form opinions based on absolutely nothing. Comments by agents, players etc would have been secret a few years ago. They'd still be made. Yet today we hear every comment, every rumour, every happy or unhappy agent, transfer target, coach etc. If dozens of agents come out saying they won't deal with us, explain why and we fail to sign players despite having money to do so, then there's a problem. But I've got zero evidence to suggest any of those things are remotely true. Personally I don't believe this thread would make it past 1 page if we were playing matches. Unreal. Do you honestly think this site believes the negative more than te positive? Seriously? I think I need a lie down. If people were able to talk about things sensibly instead of immediately dismissing a negative rumour and accepting a positive then this place would be far better.
southamptonfc Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Just adding one more pointless post to this thread
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 All in saying is it would be nice to discuss rumour both positive and negative without it immediately being accepted or dismissed based upon whether it is positive or negative. You see it on here all the time with the mail printing a negative story which is dismissed as the paper having an agenda against us whilst positive articles from the same paper are roundly applauded!
This Charming Man Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 I have no reason to doubt someone pretending to be a football agent, hiding behind a pseudonym, on a social networking site. Seems we're doomed...
shirleysfc Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 All in saying is it would be nice to discuss rumour both positive and negative without it immediately being accepted or dismissed based upon whether it is positive or negative. You see it on here all the time with the mail printing a negative story which is dismissed as the paper having an agenda against us whilst positive articles from the same paper are roundly applauded! Fair point but... if this was true and we had p*ssed off the footballing world to the point that no clubs or agents want to deal with us, wouldn't you expect to have read it in the echo, mail, sun etc by now rather on one anon twitter account?
Lighthouse Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 All in saying is it would be nice to discuss rumour both positive and negative without it immediately being accepted or dismissed based upon whether it is positive or negative. You see it on here all the time with the mail printing a negative story which is dismissed as the paper having an agenda against us whilst positive articles from the same paper are roundly applauded! Nobody is dismissing it because it's negative. We're dismissing it because it's clearly bullsh*t. Agents only care about how much cash they can get for themselves and their players. To that extent, they'd get into bed with Satan himself if the cash was right. Cortese history of signing about 20 players of 2 seasons shows that clearly people don't have a problem signing for us when the deal is right.
Johnny Shearer Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 http://theseventytwo.com/football-league/league-two/2011/06/20/the-not-so-secret-footballer-5-why-i-signed-for-afc-wimbledon/ Good read and a little insight into what some players are like or want - not completely driven by agents or money.
egg Posted 22 June, 2011 Author Posted 22 June, 2011 Nobody is dismissing it because it's negative. We're dismissing it because it's clearly bullsh*t. I think you just confirmed Hypos point. Hoping something is not true does not mean that it isn't, and does not address the significance if true. Don't get me wrong I'm not sure I believe it, just playing devils advocate.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 I have no reason to doubt someone pretending to be a football agent, hiding behind a pseudonym, on a social networking site. Seems we're doomed... And if this weren't same agent posting Something broadly positive about saints would it be treated with the same skepticism by the majority?
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Nobody is dismissing it because it's negative. We're dismissing it because it's clearly bullsh*t. Agents only care about how much cash they can get for themselves and their players. To that extent, they'd get into bed with Satan himself if the cash was right. Cortese history of signing about 20 players of 2 seasons shows that clearly people don't have a problem signing for us when the deal is right. We do not know If we have missed out on players due to this alleged agent issue which could make us an even better team.
Wes Tender Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 When we signed any of the players we bought from other clubs, who would we have approached first? The player, his agent, or his employer? The employer, obviously. An agent would get involved in arranging the deal once it's under way, but you wouldn't need to go via an agent to talk to a player who's under contract. For players not currently under contract, then it probably would be their agent we'd approach first. But any agent will relay an approach to their client; if not then they run the risk of being sacked if the player finds out that he wasn't informed about interest from a given club. And, as others have said, any agent will be all too happy to deal with us when there's money to be made. If we discourage approaches from agents who are simply touting their clients around the place, then I have no problem with that. Absolutely. What a load of tosh it is, stating that if we can't get past the agent we can't get to the player. What is also forgotten in all of this conjecture, is that if a player's agent was being his usual canny self, then it is also in his interests to talk up the interest in his player as much as possible, in order to inflate the price because the player is in demand. Personally, I can't see somehow an agent refusing to mention that Southampton had made enquiries about a player, just because that agent's nose had been put out of joint.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 The problem with this site is that people pick a view and then defend that whatever happens. People decide Lowe was the worst chairman in history and so exaggerated everything he did wrong and belittled whatever small positives he had. The same thing has happened with cortese where people will defend everything he does and see it as a positive without contemplating for a moment that he could make mistakes or do something wrong. It's gone fro one ridiculous extreme to another.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Absolutely. What a load of tosh it is, stating that if we can't get past the agent we can't get to the player. What is also forgotten in all of this conjecture, is that if a player's agent was being his usual canny self, then it is also in his interests to talk up the interest in his player as much as possible, in order to inflate the price because the player is in demand. Personally, I can't see somehow an agent refusing to mention that Southampton had made enquiries about a player, just because that agent's nose had been put out of joint. Any small matter which could reduce the chances of us getting a player we want I see as a negative thing. Not saying this is true but it merits discussion.
shurlock Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 (edited) All in saying is it would be nice to discuss rumour both positive and negative without it immediately being accepted or dismissed based upon whether it is positive or negative. You see it on here all the time with the mail printing a negative story which is dismissed as the paper having an agenda against us whilst positive articles from the same paper are roundly applauded! And when has there been a positive rumour printed about us? I cant think of one - so speculating about how you think fans would react draws from your own prejudices not any shred of evidence. Most of the positive things that come out are from the horses mouth i.e. cortese; of course, we should be careful not to swallow things hook line and sinker; but even critics will admit such statements have a different level of admissibility and credibility than a third-hand, often unattributed source, especially since NC's words and deeds have been broadly consistent to date. Of course, the real tests start now as his more ambitious targets are chased. Edited 22 June, 2011 by shurlock
Wes Tender Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 We do not know If we have missed out on players due to this alleged agent issue which could make us an even better team. And as you're so keen to have balance in this matter, neither can you provide one single shred of evidence that there is any grain of truth in this tweet. So, rather pointless conjecturing about it, but the discussion about the role of agents is interesting in itself, so long as nobody credits the original post with any credence without supporting evidence as the basis of their argument.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 And as you're so keen to have balance in this matter, neither can you provide one single shred of evidence that there is any grain of truth in this tweet. So, rather pointless conjecturing about it, but the discussion about the role of agents is interesting in itself, so long as nobody credits the original post with any credence without supporting evidence as the basis of their argument. Seems an awful lot of trouble to go to pretending to be an agent on twitter for years with hundreds of boring tweeds designed purely to wind up saints fans.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 And when has there been a positive rumour printed about us? I cant think of one - so speculating about how you think fans would react draws from your own prejudices not any shred of evidence. Most of the positive things that come out are from the horses mouth i.e. cortese; of course, we should be careful not to swallow things hook line and sinker; but even critics will admit such statements have a different level of admissibility and credibility than a third-hand, often unattributed source, especially since NC's words and deeds have been broadly consistent to date. Of course, the real tests start now as his more ambitious targets are chased. There have been tons of positive runours about infrastructure and signings etc. Tons.
St_Tel49 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 (edited) Ffs! So because I'm not an agent or had dealings with one in a professional capacity I cannot point out the well known fact that agents have a lot of power in the game? What evidence do you have to the contrary? But I am not the one making assertions about how much power they have or haven't got. You seem to be suggesting that they are all powerful and what the player/ clubs wants is irrelevant. Edited 22 June, 2011 by St_Tel49
Gingeletiss Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Seems an awful lot of trouble to go to pretending to be an agent on twitter for years with hundreds of boring tweeds designed purely to wind up saints fans. For years! really? I didn't think Twitter had been around 'for years'?
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 For years! really? I didn't think Twitter had been around 'for years'? Months then. It doesn't lessen the point unless you seriously believe that he created the twitter account to pretend to be an agent to wind up saints fans.
ant Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Twitter started becoming popular in 2007, I'd count that as 'years' myself
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Twitter started becoming popular in 2007, I'd count that as 'years' myself Thanks. Unnecessary pedantry the speciality of this place.
Wes Tender Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Seems an awful lot of trouble to go to pretending to be an agent on twitter for years with hundreds of boring tweeds designed purely to wind up saints fans. As you say; so obviously a wind-up by somebody with an extensive wardrobe of boring tweeds.
Charlie Wayman Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Wouldn't it be nice if there were no agents taking their 25% or whatever, then we might see more realistic prices and players actually wanting to play for us rather than the usual crap... "always been my dream to play for XYZ" (fill in as appropriate). I'm glad that Cortese is difficult to deal with, means we won't roll over and have our tummies stroked every time some tinpot tosser says "I'm from the PL and your best player is better off with us than little you"
shirleysfc Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 The problem with this site is that people pick a view and then defend that whatever happens. People decide Lowe was the worst chairman in history and so exaggerated everything he did wrong and belittled whatever small positives he had. The same thing has happened with cortese where people will defend everything he does and see it as a positive without contemplating for a moment that he could make mistakes or do something wrong. It's gone fro one ridiculous extreme to another. Are you interested in a debate about it or are you only interested in jumping on the posts of people who instantly dismiss it as rubbish? A couple of times now I've tried putting a reasoned arguement to you why it may not be true but you just ignore it.
egg Posted 22 June, 2011 Author Posted 22 June, 2011 But I am not the one making assertions about how much power they have or haven't got. You seem to be suggesting that they are all powerful and what the player/ clubs wants is irrelevant. I did not say that what a player or club want's is irrelevant. My view is that agent's have a lot of power. They set up talks for players. If they don't set up talks with a club then the club does not speak with the player. Simple as that.
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 As you say; so obviously a wind-up by somebody with an extensive wardrobe of boring tweeds. Lol. Obviously.
Junior Mullet Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Thanks. Unnecessary pedantry the speciality of this place. You love Ricky Martin.
dronskisaint Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 According to an agent on twitter agents won't deal with us. See below: " @FootballAgent46: Lots of people ask about Southampton deals. A lot of you on Twitter! They are so tricky to deal with now most agents and clubs don't bother" Worrying if true. Or professional and hard nosed in our dealings. Think it's a bullsh*t post but were it to be true I'd be well happy...agents are leeches on the modern game.
benjii Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 People seem to be missing the point that if we can't get past the agent we can't get to the player. They might be scum but they are scum that we need. If, and it is an if, that "word around the agents campfire is that agents or clubs won't deal with saints" then we should be concerned. Just cease this tiresome idiocy.
Saint_clark Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 I have no doubt this particular agent doesn't like dealing with us. I'm also pretty certain he has no idea if any other agents or clubs feel the same way - he's just exaggerating to make himself look good.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now