91Èȱ¬

interesting blog, i wonder how closely the players they choose are going to be looked at or if it is just imagine if we got the next ronaldo. I'd hope it was the former

By the way you may want to delete the paragraph under the first picture as you have repeated it from above

"So it is a surprise, perhaps, to discover that a new investment fund has just been set up by the former Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon and Ronaldo's and Jose Mourinho's agent Jorge Mendes to invest in the economic rights of players."

This phrase has been written twice David. Before and after the picture. You know come to think of it I've noticed a fair few mistakes on the 91Èȱ¬ Website...

Anyhow surely the Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez affair would put anyone off dealing with a third party player...

There is a reccesion on, and yet millions of pounds are still being passed around by high rollers for their mutual benefit. I wish I had paid more attention at school!

No surprise the unconscionable Kenyon is involved. On the other hand this disagreeable greed monger might indirectly being doing English football a favour. Fees of imports go up to disengage these insipid blood suckers, premiership clubs are forced to look closer to home.

I can understand how young South American players can benefit from these types of arrangements, but how will it work in Europe. Why would any club invest time and money in developing a player only for a third party to cash in if / when the player is sold to a bigger club. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the club - who are ultimately the end user.

Football agents take enough money out of the game as it is and ventures such as this should not be encouraged at any cost.

Oh the Irony. But warnock says "this isn't Tevez pt 2". Now, what was the punishment he thought WHU should have got???

Any scheme that keeps PK away from English football is fine by me.

Unsurprisingly this scheme seems to encourage the mercenary instincts of some professionals.....

So, even though this is blatantly immoral, it's still legal in many countries and shock horror, Peter Kenyon is involved.

Will football ever be a 'clean' sport, or is that just asking too much?

It smaller countries like Portugal for example these funds are the only way teams can compete for good players. Benfica for example bought Ramires through a fund similar to this one. If it wasn't for the fund we would not have bought him. he cost 7.5 million Euros and we sold him for 25 million. of those 25 million 50% went to the club and the rest was paid to the fund. Di Maria was a similiar case, although what happened there was that Benfica sold to a fund a % of his rights in order to get cash upfront.

Its easy for clubs in the PL to say that these funds are immoral, but they exist only beacuse smaller leagues cannot compete financially with the PL. Wolves gets more TV money than Benfica or Porto. I think that is more immoral than these funds

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Absolutely disgusting. It's time we got rid of football agents and moneybags wanting to exploit young talent. To acquire a cut of the transfer fee is preposterous, but wanting economic rights throughout a footballer's career is a step too far. It is sad to know that, at the end of the day, the money going to these fat cats is coming from the fans.

By far the most frustrating thing about these sort of stories are the apparent transfer fee's. Instead of using the old Euro/Sterling difference they use the current one. Which is very inaccurate. Apparantly United paid £25m for Anderson in one paper. When Porto registered €20m at the time in their finances.

Why doesn't he just buy a club? Plenty to choose from.

Would PK be a fit and proper person under FA rules?

Here's me thinking slavery had been abolished.

"QPR could be deducted points"
On what basis?
It would be a travesty if this happened, as West Ham, who were bang to rights, got a fine and no point deduction, it is illogical and immoral to suggest that another club should lose points for a lesser offence. As such this is probably exactly what will happen as football is only on nodding acquantaince with logic and morality

Kenyon was always a great negotiator at United ... somehow managed to double the price of any player. I thi k he's finally found his calling.

@16: If memory serves, I believe at the time a number of articles were written that the rules that the Carlos Tevez transfer broke weren't explcitly designed to forbid such activity and weren't expected to be - Third Party Ownership hadn't previously been a big issue. The rules that were put in place afterwards are now specifically designed to prevent a repeat, so you could argue that QPR's is the greater offense since they must have known full well that what they were doing was illegal under the rules.

QPR should be fined £5.5m

And then pay whoever loses the Play-Off Final £25m in compensation.

Interesting. Do you see any potential conflicts-of-interest where these agents and/or investors also represent active managers who might have a say in player transfers?
The cynical part of me also imagines that when these agent-owners wish to transfer a player to the Premier League, they might make him a 'personal loan', or some such, to buy out his contract. At an interest rate in excess of 10%

In any event, I certainly won't be surprised to learn of cases where English clubs get involved with agents trying to get round the regulations with a bit of "financial engineering" that they hope will go unnoticed.

Amazing how agents have 'rights' but the fans who pay far more into the pot have none, isn't it?

Tells you what you need to know about football, I guess.......

Frankly it's about time this was made legal in the UK. There are many clubs out there who could benefit from outside investment in their youth programs in exchange for a return on wages and sell on fee of the players that it generates.

16. At 22:07pm on 23rd Mar 2011, Herbi J wrote:

"QPR could be deducted points"
On what basis?
It would be a travesty if this happened, as West Ham, who were bang to rights, got a fine and no point deduction, it is illogical and immoral to suggest that another club should lose points for a lesser offence.
-----------------

The rules have been very much tightened since the Wesdt Ham affair. Also at the time there was a grey aea where nobody was entirely sure if rules were being broken. Now with QPR there is no grey area, they KNEW they were breaking rules from the start.

I don't see a points deduction, nor necessarily feel it is deserved but there should be a very heavy fine and it should be worked out as a percentage of revenue over the next 3 years.

I recall that an investment group has a 5% stake in the future transfer fees of Brazilian starlet Neymar, a stake bought for 1.5m Euros.

All other things being equal, for a return on this investment Neymar must go for at least 30m Euros. As a fan of the game what concerns me is how much lobbying power these investment groups will have over player transfers simply to make a profit margin. It will increase prices and further inflate the football economy, already absurdly cash-sodden.

It also seems the loyalty of star players to clubs may be weakened further by this development.

The concept makes perfect business sense for the investors, but I do not see any other reason to support it.

As others have already described, is this for the good of football or for the good of investors?

Ultimately the fans will end up paying and there is no mention that this will make someone a better footballer, so what is the benefit?

And then the conflicts of interest as well.

David Bond - do you think this is good for football?

Isn't it time the FA / Football League / Premier League and FANS told Mr Kenyon what to do with himself?? The fool does not contribute to Footbal at all, to my knowledge, all he seems to want to do is line his, and anybody else with a big Wedge, to further line their pockets!!!
THEY ARE GOING TO RUIN OUR GAME, and then dump it!!

3. At 19:01pm on 23rd Mar 2011, Luffie wrote:
There is a reccesion on, and yet millions of pounds are still being passed around by high rollers for their mutual benefit. I wish I had paid more attention at school!

.................................

Really wish you did pay more attention at school. The recession is over mate!!!

Hackerjack

This is allowed in this country. You buy into a club, invest your money in players and then take the profits when you sell those players on... This is a very different prospect and with different issues at stake.

By owning the rights, commercial or otherwise, of a player a third party could be seen to have influence over the timing and nature of any transfer or even the performance of the player. A club could be forced into a sale they don't want to make resulting in a imbalance in the way football operates. This scheme creates outside influence which in many other areas is forbidden by FIFA. For example, any political pressure from a member state's government is typically met by immediate FIFA suspension.

If you want to invest in talent, buy a football club. The rules are already in place to allow you to do so and to prevent ownership of multiple clubs. Rights ownership messes with the sporting nature of the game... but perhaps I am being naive in believing that football is run in a sporting way...

I believe what is required is something like relegation for clubs who agree to buy a player who is owned by a third party. This thing is going too far. The next thing is to see economic rights of footballers in the stock exchange. It's ridiculus.

It isn't enough that when a player is transfered, the player has to agree, the club has to agree, the agent has to agree. What's the need to add more? And what would stop third party being a group of investing groups, to take the argument to the limits?

It's issues like this that UEFA need to take action upon and not FFP silly things.

28. At 10:27am on 24th Mar 2011, bdyke04 wrote:

3. At 19:01pm on 23rd Mar 2011, Luffie wrote:
There is a reccesion on, and yet millions of pounds are still being passed around by high rollers for their mutual benefit. I wish I had paid more attention at school!

.................................

Really wish you did pay more attention at school. The recession is over mate!!!

......................................

Why doesn't it feel like the recession is over to millions of football supporters?

Oh I forgot a bunch of Harvard Business School and Oxford PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) graduates have done their sums and told us so!!!

People posting here seem to be under the misconception that football is still a sport. At the top level it is not any more. It is business. This scheme is just a further extension of that.

Peter Kenyon has seen a way to make money out of football. So what? Players, managers, agents, the media, owners, chief executives all take very large sums of money out the game.

It is up to Football's governing bodies to reduce the influence of money if they wish to. They don't.

The only choice fans have is whether to continue paying for it all or not.

#31

Thats kinda true, the economy is officially in recession when it has had 2 consecutive quarters (2 periods of 3 months, jan-march, april - june for example) of deflation, which we have not had for some time now, so the economy is not officially in recession but granted for a lot of people it feels like it is. And I guess fair point, that method was probably designed by Harvard and Oxbridge grads (but who else has the brains and motivation to do it).

On the blog, I sometimes feel stupid and naive (and Im sure alot of others to do) still thinking football is about the sport/passion/energy etc as it was when I was a kid, but it is not that anymore, which is such a real shame! We all know its all about the money now, but probably dont want to admit (to ourselves) that it has changed so much.

People like Stuart Pearce (I had to pick him as an example as I grew up in Notts) are the last of a generation of proper football people.

RIP the great game!! :(

Recession is never over when public funds are allocated to initiating wars instead of healthy investment.

@ 33,

footballers were always being played much more than working class citizens.
Just, a semi detatched used to cost £3k some 30 years ago and now costs a fraction of a £million

@ 35

Paid* silly me :)

@ 35

agreed, top footballers were always paid more, and so they should be, anyone in the top 1% of most professions should earn more the average, its the way the world works and should work.

I think the difference now is that the gap is so so big between a moderate footballer and the average person (let alone the top players) that how can the fan relate to the player, team and in general sport. Also, footballers where always kinda celebraties (excuse my spelling) but not like now, they are like gods now, and at such a young age, its not good for the sport or society, or sometimes the players! But it is the world we live in now I guess.... wow I sound old!!! hahah :D

@ Football_UK
There's a mighty big difference between top players from any era upto the end of the eighties getting very good wages, maybe 3, 4, even 8 times the average wage and the current level where the very top players 'earn' 300+ times more than the average wage, heck, every bloke who currently plays in the Championship will still get miles more than Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Armfield or Emlyn Hughes ever got, relatively speaking.

That photo of Tevez, Pards and Masch brings back memories of what ultimately turned out to be yet another false dawn for West Ham. As far as third-party ownership is concerned I do not see what the problem is, as long as all player/club ownership is transparent and the correct monies are paid where due then does it really matter who owns what?

38. At 12:30pm on 24th Mar 2011, Truth_Hurts101 wrote:
@ Football_UK
There's a mighty big difference between top players from any era upto the end of the eighties getting very good wages, maybe 3, 4, even 8 times the average wage and the current level where the very top players 'earn' 300+ times more than the average wage, heck, every bloke who currently plays in the Championship will still get miles more than Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Armfield or Emlyn Hughes ever got, relatively speaking.



That is bacause football back then did not generate anywhere near the amount of money it generates now. How many people around the world were watching those players every week on telly? The only live televised game used to be the FA cup final. Now millions of people pay hefty subscriptions to watch them play every week. That's why they are paid more now. Because they generate more.

Also, how many kids worldwide purchased pair of Bobby Charlton football boots? Compare that to how many kids worldwide will buy Cristiano Ronaldo endorsed boots and it is obvious why top players earn more now.

If I was genuinely unhappy about money in football, I would not pay my TV subscription each month. But I do - and I'm happy to. I enjoy it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ 40. Interesting and relevant comments, and I agree to a degree. In any business the people that generate alot of revenue get paid the most (they basically get thier cut of the money and this cut is there for anyone who wants it and can achieve it), however football clubs should not be like a bank, law firm, sales agency or whatever because with those type of companies people can take thier business elsewhere (dont like your bank, move bank, done like your lawyer, change lawyer), but with football clubs, it dosnt work like this and the people who run/own the clubs are taking advantage of emotional, cultural and community attachment.

The fans are partly to blame for being so blind (for example how could liverpool fans get so upset when Torres left, he is not from liverpool and is not a fan, he is doing the best for his career as he sees it, yes for money but people all over the world do that everyday) and worshipping the players and buying all the rubbish the clubs sell them.

It has gone past a point of return and perhaps it will blow up like the banking sector did (altough banking is truely back and booming) but the government wont bail out the clubs like they did the banks.

shame, real shame for all fans of the game.

FYI who is this clown wanting to be President of FIFA, he is no way a football guy!

Peter Kenyon scheme is it? Its dodgy then! Not sure about 'investing' in players. He ought to adopt John Terry. A relationship made in heaven id say.

until the revolution starts and the evil capitalist empire falls the fans demand for football will continue to generate huge sums of money, I’d rather the players got hold of it than the executives

3. At 19:01pm on 23rd Mar 2011, Luffie wrote:
There is a reccesion on, and yet millions of pounds are still being passed around by high rollers for their mutual benefit. I wish I had paid more attention at school!

.................................

Really wish you did pay more attention at school. The recession is over mate!!!

.................................


you think its over?you dont know the half of it,it hasnt even started mark my words theres worse to come and it will make this reccesion look like a teddy bears picnic.and then what ever p.k. does wont really matter lol

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

6. rastafairy5 wrote:

Oh the Irony. But warnock says "this isn't Tevez pt 2". Now, what was the punishment he thought WHU should have got???
---------
Ironic indeeed, but it's not what the punishment he thought WHU should have got that's important, it's the punishment they actually received that sets the precedent.

In order to fulfil the promise to investors of a return of 10% for 3-5 years then these 3rd party agents will have to encourage their players to move clubs as often as possible.
Even when they don't move they will no doubt be telling their players that they deserve a pay rise and therefore try and get a new contract out of the player's club.

I am glad that this is illegal under the FA rules because the only ones this sort of business benefits are the agents and their already wealthy backers.

"...West Ham, who were bang to rights, got a fine and no point deduction, it is illogical and immoral to suggest that another club should lose points for a lesser ..."

An important point to note - and one which the tabloid-like 91Èȱ¬ journos David Bond always conveniently gloss over - is that when West Ham got punished it wasn't for having illegally players, nor was it for third party ownership. At that time, third party ownership was legal. It was only banned the summer following West Ham's punishment to make the actual rules more in line with the media-generated public perception of what the rules should be. West Ham were punished for having a side agreement with the players' owners that allowed for them to be transferred without the agreement of West Ham, which was loosely interpreted as potentially "third party interference". The bigger punishment was for initially lying to the PL about the existence of such an agreement.

The difference between West Ham and QPR's offences are very little, and much less than you would imagine unless you actually dug a little deeper and found out the real details of the affair.

The main difference this time, is QPR have done this SINCE new rules were put in place. Should this mean no points penalty but more than £5.5m fine? Who knows. Hammers fans were generally expecting a points penalty at the time but everyone in the media were convinced that we were doomed to relegation anyway and that it would be a more effective punishment if we were hit with a massive financial penalty.

And then along came those goals from Tevez that has eluded him all season, and of course that quite spectacular collapse of Sheffield United's run-in which included a defeat at home to fellow strugglers Wigan on the last day of the season. Note, most reporter insist it was Tevez's goal in the 1-0 win against Man Utd that sent Sheff Utd down, but that is just more lazy journo nonsense as Robert Green's brilliance would have at least ensured a 0-0 draw, which would still have sent the hapless Blades down!

And that brings us to the most interesting part of QPR's predicament.

What most other fans still din't appreciate - because it was never properly reported in the media - was the significance of the FA arbitration ruling by Lord Griffiths against West Ham in favour of Sheffield United. Using a bonkers bit of case law known as "Chitty-on-Chitty" he ruled that simply because West Ham had been found to have broken the rules during that season, that Sheffield United could be entirely exonnerated from their own contribution to their poor season and relegation and that West Ham could be held as partially responsible and entirely liable for the costs Sheff Utd suffered. As a result, a further £25m has had to be payed out to them.

It will be interesting to see the same principle applied against QPR when the Blades go down again this season.

Why is David Bond a bitter Man United hater? You shouldn't be the 91Èȱ¬ Sports Editor if you are struggling to be impartial when talking about Man United.