QPR Agents Fees: Highest in Football League

[QPR Report]

For the past six months January 1 - June 30, 2009: QPR paid agents 380,000 pounds - The most in the Championship/Football League.

[To be fair: In the twelve month period June 2008-June 2009, QP spending was not top. It was "only" 420,000 pounds - dwarfed by Derby County (1 million +) Birmingham (750,000 +), Cardiff (530+), Norwich (526,000) and Preston (460,000)

[The QPR Official Site has the League Summary but not the QPR spending amounts. www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~1761263,00.html ]


Championship
SUMMARY OF CLUB BY CLUB
TRANSACTIONS AND AGENTS’ FEES

Barnsley 11 3 7 7 28 15,000
Birmingham City 21 3 3 8 35 332,000
Blackpool 12 8 3 18 41 0
Bristol City 9 12 0 3 24 214,322
Burnley 6 0 1 2 9 0
Cardiff City 10 5 2 7 24 365,000
Charlton Athletic 13 2 3 11 29 60,000
Coventry City 7 4 4 3 18 30,000
Crystal Palace 13 4 2 9 28 9,300
Derby County 10 5 6 6 27 325,000
Doncaster Rovers 8 3 3 4 18 0
Ipswich Town 9 9 1 8 27 9,425
Norwich City 9 1 5 12 27 36,000
Nottingham Forest 8 15 5 12 40 165,616
Plymouth Argyle 8 4 2 4 18 27,500
Preston North End 9 2 3 4 18 250,000
Queens Park Rangers 16 1 11 3 31 380,000
Reading 11 17 3 6 37 138,735
Sheffield United 12 6 6 9 33 15,000
Sheffield Wednesday 5 4 4 5 18 0
Southampton 23 2 4 2 31 30,000
Swansea City 8 4 4 6 22 0
Watford 17 8 5 6 36 209,446
Wolverhampton Wanderers 8 9 5 8 30 110,000
Division Total 263 131 92 163 649 2,722,344
Agents’ Fees Report Season 2008/200

Explanatory Notes:
1 The amounts disclosed include all guaranteed payments due to an agent arising out of player transactions entered into
during the reporting period, even if such payments may include instalments payable outside of the reporting period.
2 The amounts disclosed do not include:
a any payments made during the reporting period that relate to transactions completed before 1st July 2008; and
b any contingent payments based on future events, e.g promotion, retention of divisional status, player appearances, etc.


www.football-league.co.uk/page/PublicationsDetail/0,,10794~1761359,00.html


Football League Summary

Football League - AGENTS’ FEES FALL BY £2m

The latest publication of Football League clubs spending on agents' fees has revealed that the amount of money committed to agents has fallen by more than £2 million in the last twelve months.

League clubs committed £8.8m to agents between July 2008 and June 2009 compared to £11.1m for the same period in 2007/08.

In announcing the latest agents' fees figures Football League Chairman Lord Mawhinney said:

"Given the current financial outlook, it is encouraging that clubs are being more circumspect in terms of their payments to agents.

"In fact, clubs only committed to pay an agent in 6% of the 3,700 player transactions that took place during the course of the season. This is the lowest figure recorded in the five seasons since the publication of agents' fees began.

"I would like to think that in pioneering the publication of agents' fees, The Football League has helped bring this about."

During the 2008/09 season clubs committed to pay agents in 229 (6.1%) of the 3,727 player transactions that took place, collectively committing the sum of £8,809,501.

Championship clubs accounted for £7.5m (86%) of this total, with League 1 and League 2 clubs accounting for £1.1m (12%) and £0.2m (2%) respectively.

Nineteen clubs did not commit any money to agents during the 12 months covered by this report. They were Accrington Stanley, AFC Bournemouth, Barnet, Chester City, Chesterfield, Crewe Alexandra, Dagenham & Redbridge, Darlington, Exeter City, Gillingham, Grimsby Town, Hartlepool United, Hereford United, Macclesfield Town, Northampton Town, Port Vale, Rochdale, Sc***horpe United and Tranmere Rovers. A further ten clubs paid less than £10,000.

OVERALL 2008/09 FIGURES (2007/08 figures in brackets)

o Between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 Football League clubs engaged in 3,727 (3,399) player transactions (new registrations/player transfers, contract updates, contract cancellations and loans);
o Clubs committed to pay an agent in 229 (283) of these transactions;
o Therefore, no agent was used in 3,498 transactions;
League clubs committed to spend £8,809,501 (£11,066,083) on agents' fees during the period of this report;
o 19 clubs (18) did not commit any money to agents during the 12 months covered by this report; They were Accrington Stanley, AFC Bournemouth, Barnet, Chester City, Chesterfield, Crewe Alexandra, Dagenham & Redbridge, Darlington, Exeter City, Gillingham, Grimsby Town, Hartlepool United, Hereford United, Macclesfield Town, Northampton Town, Port Vale, Rochdale, Sc***horpe United and Tranmere Rovers.
o 29 clubs (23) committed to pay less than £10,000 to agents in the same period.

THE CHAMPIONSHIP

o In The Championship there were 1,227 (1,129) player transactions, 142 (199) involved the use of agents;
o Clubs committed to spend a total of £7,541,379 (£9,302,060) on agents' fees during this period;
o All 24 clubs (23) committed to paying for the services of a licensed agent;

LEAGUE 1

o In League 1 there were 1,259 (1,082) player transactions, 62 (124) involved the use of an agent;
o Clubs committed to spend a total of £1,078,955 (£1,531,337) on agents' fees during this period;
o 18 clubs (21) committed to paying for the services of a licensed agent;
o 6 clubs (3) did not pay for the services of a licensed agent (Crewe Alexandra, Hartlepool United, Hereford United, Northampton Town, Sc***horpe United and Tranmere Rovers).

LEAGUE 2

o In League 2 there were 1,241 (1,188) player transactions, 45 (38) involved the use of an agent;
o Clubs committed to spend a total of £189,167 (£227,686) on agents' fees during this period;
o 11 clubs (10) committed to paying for the services of a licensed agent;
o 13 clubs (14) did not pay for the services of a licensed agent (Accrington Stanley, AFC Bournemouth, Barnet, Chester City, Chesterfield, Dagenham & Redbridge, Darlington, Exeter City, Gillingham, Grimsby Town, Macclesfield Town, Port Vale and Rochdale).

NEW MEMBER CLUBS

o A total of £0 (£5000) was committed to agents by clubs that joined The Football League in June 2009. Football League

[QPR Report]

Previous Agents Fees Report
qprreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/qpr-agents-fees-latest-report.html

[Bushman]

Does our "Director of Sport" make anything from these fee's ?.

[QPR Report]

I think not.

I was trying to think of who we bought in those past six months, because by then our spending had declined seriously.

So who did we sign between Jan 1 and June 30 of this year?


New Reg/Trs 16

Updated 1

Cancelled 11

Loans 3

Totdal 31

= $380,000

[Zamoraaaah]

Routledge and HH I think

[QPR Report]

Now why should WE pay for Helguson?!

[QPR Report]

Previous Agents Spending for QPR


Total Amount Committed to Agents (1 July - 31 Dec 08) £40,290

Total Amount Committed to Agents (1 July - 31 Dec 07) £211,000




Thursday, July 26, 2007Latest League Report on Agents Fees Released

- QPR Paid Just £5,000 Jan-June 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007

Latest League Report on Agents Fees Released - QPR Paid Just £5,000 Jan-June 2007
-
The Football League's latest report on clubs' spending on agents fees has been released. For QPR, it's way down to just 5,000 in the January-June 2007 Period.

Queens Park Rangers
New Registrations & Transfers - 6
Updated Contract 0
Cancelled Contract 11
Loans 8
Total Transactions 25
Total Amount Committed to Agents - 1 Jan 07 to 30 June 07 £5,000
Total Amount Committed to Agents - 1 July 06 to 30 June 07 £192,340
Agents Fees

.....Queens Park Rangers
New Registrations & Transfers - 6
Updated Contract 0
Cancelled Contract 11
Loans 8
Total Transactions 25
Total Amount Committed to Agents - 1 Jan 07 to 30 June 07 £5,000
Total Amount Committed to Agents - 1 July 06 to 30 June 07 £192,340
Complete Agents Fees


January 18, 2007 - Football League Agents Fee Report, July 1-December 31, 2006 - Six Months, July 1 - December 31, 2006
July 1- December 31, 2006. In this six months period, QPR paid to agents almost £187,340 - up from the £131,600 the same period the previous year.

July 13, 2006
[See: The complete Football League "Agents Fee Report - Season 2005/06"

[From January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006, QPR paid 16,000 pounds for agents.

(From June 5 2005 to June 6, 2006, QPR spent in total 147,600 pounds to agents.)

[For July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005: QPR paid £320,935 to Agents]
See Past Agents Fees Reports

qprreport.blogspot.com/2007/07/latest-league-report-on-agents-fees.html

[klr]

So Dodgy, So Depressing, and above all, So Predictable.

[londonranger]

Loans dont count, thinking all the midfielders, miller, lopez. tarabt, any others?

[QPR Report]

I guess maybe they do count. An agent arranging the loan.

Now if you read other messageboards, you get some interesting responses to this fact. But it IS a fact: The latest reporting period of agents payments, January 1-June 30, QPR paid more than any other club in the football League.

You can explain it; you can support it; you can defend it; you can try and mitigate it or you can condemn it. But THAT's the fact.

[londonranger]

We only use the best agents and they dont come cheap.

[QPR Report]

But surely no agent in QPR history (except of course for THE Men: Gianni and Antonio) has featured as prominently in the QPR pantheon as Dexter Blackstock's agent!

[QPR Report]

I vaguely recall there was some assertion by a poster re Sousa demanding money when signing a Portugese defender...If there had been any truth to that assertion (and we'd actually signed the player), what part of the accounts would that "payment" feature?

[Zamoraaaah]

I'm afraid it's a fact of life. If you want the best you sometimes have to grease a few palms to sweeten the deal.

With all the interest from other clubs it must have cost a right few quid to secure Yrag.

Onwards and all that

[Zamoraaaah]

Also on the plus side think of all the money saved by not bothering with medicals.

[QPR Report]

Aug 20, 2009 14:18:26 GMT Zamoraaaah said:

Also on the plus side think of all the money saved by not bothering with medicals.

Also I don't quite understand why. But the Official Site has the Football League Summary. But they don't offer a link (or just provide the gist) of what QPR spending on agents was!

[QPR Report]

As Finney posted elsewhere, this was Dave McIntyre's take six month ago at the time of the last report

QPR score well in agents' fees report
QPR
by David McIntyre - BBC Sport (U1628513) 26 February 2009


The reduction in fees paid directly to agents by QPR is reflected in the latest Football League Agents’ Fees Report.

The report shows that Rangers committed £40,290 to agents between the start of July and end of December last year, compared to £211,000 during the same period for 2007.

That may come as a surprise to some given the turnover of players at Loftus Road, which has been huge in recent seasons with more significant transfer activity taking place last year.

The club – and sporting director Gianni Paladini in particular – has been criticised for their dealings with agents in the past.

Much of this criticism has been unfair.

More recently, QPR have made it clear that agents will be paid by their player – not the club.

There was also a new regulation introduced by the Football Association, which prohibited clubs from making one-off payments to players which they could then use to pay their agent's fees.

The FA suspended this rule during the recent transfer window, so whether this affects Rangers' next six-monthly figure for agents’ fees remains to be seen.

At present, QPR tell players that payments to their agent must come from them.

This may then be reflected in the player’s wage demands (given that he will be making a payment to his agent) and affect his salary and/or signing-on fee, although Rangers do have a salary cap in place.

It means the cost of agents fees is absorbed within the players’ wages rather than paid directly to the agent by the club.

The figures to really watch out for then are the ones in the annual accounts, which should put a stop to any criticism of the board for not investing heavily in the playing squad.

Despite their reluctance to pay large transfer fees, Rangers’ 'big spenders' tag, which seems to annoy many fans, is more than justified – and the accounts should reflect this.

A very large amount has been spent on players, and this has in some ways helped the club limit the amount paid to agents.

Rangers are now usually able to offer players more money than they can get, or are getting, elsewhere.

That means it’s usually in a player’s interests to agree to their terms.

In the past, QPR’s hand was weaker and competition for each player’s signature usually much stronger.

In theory, that meant they were more reliant on the agent's role in helping them complete a signing.

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A47941653

[QPR Report]

I have seen a lot of spinning in my time....

And when in doubt, well you know what to do.

In ye olde days, I would have linked. Now I don't do those kind of things

[qblockpete]

Why did you edit Scott's post from 6 months ago, today at 7.20pm?

Could it be, that you never posted the last time the football league results became available, when it was the lowest?

proving my point, you have nothing better to do than focus on the negative.

[QPR Report]

Aug 20, 2009 18:43:38 GMT @qblockpete said:

Why did you edit Scott's post from 6 months ago, today at 7.20pm?

Could it be, that you never posted the last time the football league results became available, when it was the lowest?

proving my point, you have nothing better to do than focus on the negative.

As I responded in the other thread Pete,

In truth, no board has focused more on this today, than WATRB; and no poster on WATRB has posted more on this subject today, than you!


Do you really want to know what the edit was, Pete?

It was to add to the subject title of Scott's post "February 2009 Report" - so that people wouldn't get confused about the subject.

As for what I posted and where. I have no recollection. I may well have posted on WATRB on that subject. You'd have to check on the old WATRB.

But I Certainly posted it on this Messageboard and more importantly on the QPR Report Blog "The Flagship" of my postings...

Now you said a number of other things on WATRB with which I might take exception. If you repeat them here, I'll be happy to respond.
_________________

[finney]

the point i think that was made on dotorg.org was that Burnley spent 0 on agents and went up.
No question about it that was a brave move

[scottjones]

All that matters - imho is that contrary to some allegations we havent spent a fortune on agents.

If you look at our number of transactions our average is actually damned low.

Albeit, if we bunged a million quid to someone to buy a new striker i doubt any of us would give a monkeys at the moment

[finney]

You may well be right but then again why did some feel the need to post their outrage in their posts about Sousa and a player from portugal and him being in on the deal and getting something out of it.............and out of interest was he a forward?

[klr]

It appears self evident that the club is being mismanaged.

Why any genuine QPR fan would want to defend that really is beyond me.

So please, is there anyone who can explain to me why there are those so called "fans" all too eager to defend what appears to be the indefensible ??

Is our club run well ?? No

Is our club run badly ?? Yes

Although exactly how badly is anyones guess.

[Zamoraaaah]

Finn,
I think the poster said the player was a fullback but it may have been a striker???
I do remember he unequivocally stated the deal was dependent on Sousa getting a bung.

But we've all moved onwards and upwards, We are QPR etc.

[QPR Report]

The quote was ""[T]he Portugal defender was wanted for £300,000 for which Sousa would have got a cut"

[QPR Report]

Aug 20, 2009 20:35:04 GMT scottjones said:

All that matters - imho is that contrary to some allegations we havent spent a fortune on agents.

If you look at our number of transactions our average is actually d***ed low.

Albeit, if we bunged a million quid to someone to buy a new striker i doubt any of us would give a monkeys at the moment

Amazing (over?) reaction yesterday to my factual posting. (Which Vital QPR also noted. And later in the day, Clive/LFW also.]

Have to wonder at the reaction. Every six months the Football League issues a six-month report. And includes the entire calendar year. Last six months, I don't recall everyone rushing around look at the entire calendar year. It was: Look at what QPR spent in this six months period.

And as I noted, the QPR Official Site included a Football League Summary. It did not include a link to the actual report. Or even just make note of how much QPR spent. Just a fact. Not a commentary.

[scottjones]

In fairness to you Mike, and i havent been online much, but trawling thru the posts you made it clear from point one that over the year we had spent less than other clubs.

Hence, no finger pointing or whatever from me to you.

I just wish people would read everything - or indeed all of your posts!

[Zamoraaaah]

Oh my god! Over-reaction is an understatement!
I've only just had a look at the boards and unless I've missed something I can't see why on earth Pete would lose the plot over this.
Thread after thread ranting like a paranoid lunatic.

Hilarious ;D ;D

[haqpr1963]

Aug 21, 2009 9:04:47 GMT Zamoraaaah said:

Oh my god! Over-reaction is an understatement!
I've only just had a look at the boards and unless I've missed something I can't see why on earth Pete would lose the plot over this.
Thread after thread ranting like a paranoid lunatic.

Hilarious ;D ;D

Shame really, obviously whatever medication he was on on Wednesday morning, when he was actually talking sense, has worn off....