|
Post by baldy on Jan 27, 2011 9:42:14 GMT
Right or wrong ?
Just listened to a debate on TalkSport about how Holloway has it in his contract that he will take a cut of any transfer fee for a player who he has brought in and sold on for a profit.
Personally, I dont think its right. It can only lead to all sorts of conspiracy theories amongst fans when a player is sold. I'm all for rewarding managers and, indeed, players but I would prefer to see it done by way of renegotiating an existing contract rather than on one off transfers.
If a manager maintains success on the pitch and makes an healthy profit on transfer fees then look at the contract. The Holloway issue has come to light over the Adam transfer but you will have the bizarre situation whereby selling him will make Holloway a nice personal profit but could result in the implosion of his team and relegation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 10:28:01 GMT
Wrong - players should be bought or sold in the interests of the club, not profit for the manager.
|
|
|
Post by sam1985 on Jan 27, 2011 10:59:48 GMT
He's not the first. Redknapp took a commission on all transfer fees (when sold on) of all the players he brought in at Portsmouth. Think about that one.
I think it's a conflict of interests that shouldn't be allowed personally.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Jan 27, 2011 11:01:10 GMT
I think it's wrong too, it's a conflict of interest, Holloway has been very vocal about the Fee offered by Liverpool and other clubs for Adam, this could be construed as Holloway purely looking for personal gain.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Jan 27, 2011 11:09:16 GMT
You can see the logic. They pick the player, train them, improve them and sell them on for profit, why not take some of the reward for that.
But as the other posters have said, it has to be wrong as it brings in to question the motives of selling a player on and trying to bump up the transfer fee. Plus it takes more than just a manager to develop a player.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Jan 27, 2011 11:22:02 GMT
So if Blackpool lose money on a player does Holloway have pay part of the loss?
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jan 27, 2011 11:28:01 GMT
It's not too different to the George Graham transfer bung when you think about it, abuot from the fact with George Graham it was a back-hander behind his employer's backs.
But it does call into question the motives of selling a player - Is it for the good of the team, or is it for the good of his personal bank balance?
Like Simon said, you can see the logic behind it, but surely a better yardstick for bonuses would be based on finishing position or points accumulated over the course of the season.
It just opens up a whole can of worms.
|
|
|
Post by Hicko on Jan 27, 2011 11:59:00 GMT
I don't see that much of a problem with it. I can't imagine it would be more then 1%-5% of the profit.
plus if you think about it, if he bumps the price up for personal gain (which i dont think it is) then the club will get more money, so everyone wins.
using the Charlie Adam situation, he has a player that can keep his team in the premiership. if he sold him, he would make a bit of money but in the long term, probably get the team relegated and lose out long term. If he keeps him, he will probably stay up and get a huge bonus for staying up then probably sell him. for a nice profit for himself and club.
if he sells his best player for £12m now he would get between £115,000 and £575,000 but have a team that will more or likely go down. In the long term, he would make more money staying in the league then selling him.
I'm a big Holloway fan, whats he done with Blackpool is top class, he's great in interviews, he's not the typical premiership boring manager and he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
Post by KLYellow on Jan 27, 2011 23:35:36 GMT
You could also argue a manager such as Holloway thinking that if the club are going to sell a player against the managers wishes, then he will be "compensated"
How many times have clubs sold players against the wishes of the manager and in some cases, resulted in the manager leaving?
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Jan 28, 2011 9:21:06 GMT
Fuss over nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 28, 2011 16:01:12 GMT
I'm not sure it should necessarily be allowed, but its got to be a good way of getting an expensive manager to lower his wage demands. Thus a club might see it as a win-win as they can get a manager in who will improve the team so that when it comes to the sale of players and the cut taken by the manager the club's finances can afford it.
Don't know how holloway managed to wangle it though, its not like he was that high-profile a boss when blackpool got him.
|
|