Tekel Towers » Alleged transfer percentage payments

Trap_6 · 03/4/2015 11:13 am

Going by the media today, it looks like this is the part of the statement and its fall-out that is making most waves.

What's everyone's thoughts on it? ST is quoted as saying he won't give any details on the contracts of the management (legally he can't), so without knowing the exact details it's difficult to make a judgement on the specifics. But as a general concept, what do you think?

I'm on the fence. On the plus side, it will definitely influence the manager to bring in and rear players who have a potential sell on value. That definitely fits in with the club ethos. It could also influence the manager to play a style of football which will showcase good players. Also, the Record states that JM's salary is significantly lower than what both CL and PH were on. Naturally then, it makes good sense to give good bonuses and potential for 'top-ups'. Ordinarily, I don't think many people would have issue with that. I think it's the fact that the payments are a percentage of transfer payments and reducing that overall figure that is making people question it.

The flipside is that team selection can be influenced if management thinks there is potential for a sale ie, putting a player in the shop window. Also, if a bid comes in and is discussed by chairman and manager, the potential for a percentage is likely to colour the manager's judgement on whether this is indeed an acceptable bid for the player.

Having typed all that, I think I'm probably leaning towards being in favour. Ultimately, the arguments against come down to a judgement on JM's character. Is he the type of person who would attempt to force through a deal or make questionable team selections, just so he could potentially line his own pocket? I don't think he is.

Last edited by Trap_6 (03/4/2015 11:18 am)

The Shed · 03/4/2015 11:39 am

Trap_6 wrote:
Going by the media today, it looks like this is the part of the statement and its fall-out that is making most waves.

What's everyone's thoughts on it? ST is quoted as saying he won't give any details on the contracts of the management (legally he can't), so without knowing the exact details it's difficult to make a judgement on the specifics. But as a general concept, what do you think?

I'm on the fence. On the plus side, it will definitely influence the manager to bring in and rear players who have a potential sell on value. That definitely fits in with the club ethos. It could also influence the manager to play a style of football which will showcase good players. Also, the Record states that JM's salary is significantly lower than what both CL and PH were on. Naturally then, it makes good sense to give good bonuses and potential for 'top-ups'. Ordinarily, I don't think many people would have issue with that. I think it's the fact that the payments are a percentage of transfer payments and reducing that overall figure that is making people question it.

The flipside is that team selection can be influenced if management thinks there is potential for a sale ie, putting a player in the shop window. Also, if a bid comes in and is discussed by chairman and manager, the potential for a percentage is likely to colour the manager's judgement on whether this is indeed an acceptable bid for the player.

Having typed all that, I think I'm probably leaning towards being in favour. Ultimately, the arguments against come down to a judgement on JM's character. Is he the type of person who would attempt to force through a deal or make questionable team selections, just so he could potentially line his own pocket? I don't think he is.

I think its totally wrong, IF its true.

When theres money riding on things like this it will undoubtedly influence Managers thinking whether he means it to or not.

Plenty other, more productive ways bonuses can be paid.

doontheroadarab · 03/4/2015 1:01 pm

The only concern I would have if true is our own youngsters being overlooked for another kid who's been brought in by the management team, is this maybe the reason, the Stevie Campbell rumour is circulating ?

I think the United fans owe the Thompson family big time, I don't think we would be anywhere near the position we are in football and business wise, you've only got to read ST's reply to see he has done a pretty good job, remember when he was sticking up for us and getting death threats, everybody bar none thought he could shit chocolate biscuits Sir Stephen Thompson, now because he makes a couple of mistakes (in some fans eyes) he's destroying our club !
If I was him I would think what a load of ungrateful ***************************

PatReilly · 03/4/2015 1:18 pm

If the management staff are receiving payments on transfers out of the club at United, and I’ve been offered no reason or hard evidence that it is or isn’t happening, then I’d argue that it is wrong in my opinion.

A point being put forward by some is that it happens at many clubs, so we shouldn’t be so naive. However, I’m aware that some clubs operate in a distasteful manner, Celtic being a prime example recently. I don’t find transfer incentive payments to our management staff acceptable.

I take a passing interest in the Development Squad, but am not too bothered about results on the park. It seems, though, that we may actually be running two Development Squads: one from which players rarely are promoted, maybe due to our management team not getting along with Stevie Campbell or perhaps because the management staff have to bring players to the club to benefit from transfer payments; and another, more senior Development Squad, which most of us know as the First Team.

This First Team Development Squad is the one which many of us hoped would win games in an entertaining manner, and get opportunities to compete in cup tourneys. Yet, all the time, results didn’t really matter there anyway; the major aim of the First Team Development Squad is to showcase footballers who can be transferred to other teams for hard cash.

Possibly what I’ve written is a bit over the top, but the opportunity to either win games in an entertaining manner, or even showcase footballers who can be transferred, wouldn’t exist if it was not for our, the supporters, hard cash. And that, for me, is the bit that the directors of DUFC have to grasp and address.

Tek · 03/4/2015 1:34 pm

I am totally against our Manager (and even more ludicrously) his coaches receiving any commission on the sale of transferred players.I personally don't care how teams in England do their business.Most of them are in a different stratosphere financially so the big clubs can afford to operate in such a manner.

If McNamara's wage is low and we had to entice him with bonuses offer them high for Cup Final,european appearances etc.If that wage or those terms weren't sufficient he shouldn't have taken the job to begin with.

It obviously is happening because Thompson would have denied it otherwise.I don't buy this 'confidentiality' line for one moment.

It is an unacceptable conflict of interests imo.Starting to become clearer why several phone calls were made on January 31st between,Manager,Chairman and players.So much self-interest taking place at the club presently,and little of it to do with what's actually best for the team.

You have to wonder how somebody like Marc McCallum must feel.If it becomes a straight choice between him and Mikael Szromnik next season,what one do you think the Manager would rather see succeed at the club?And i don't blame him,it's human nature to sub-consciously think of the personal finacial benefits for yourself in such a circumstance.I also don't blame Jackie for asking or agreeing to such a clause.

The blame for this lies firmly at our Chairman's door for me.

Becoming very dismayed at a lot of things i've heard coming out of the club this season.

lifesanocean · 03/4/2015 1:40 pm

TEK wrote:
I am totally against our Manager (and even more ludicrously) his coaches receiving any commission on the sale of transferred players.I personally don't care how teams in England do their business.Most of them are in a different stratosphere financially so the big clubs can afford to operate in such a manner.

If McNamara's wage is low and we had to entice him with bonuses offer them high for Cup Final,european appearances etc.If that wage or those terms weren't sufficient he shouldn't have taken the job to begin with.

It obviously is happening because Thompson would have denied it otherwise.I don't buy this 'confidentiality' line for one moment.

It is an unacceptable conflict of interests imo.Starting to become clearer why several phone calls were made on January 31st between,Manager,Chairman and players.So much self-interest taking place at the club presently,and little of it to do with what's actually best for the team.

You have to wonder how somebody like Marc McCallum must feel.If it becomes a straight choice between him and Mikael Szromnik next season,what one do you think the Manager would rather see succeed at the club?And i don't blame,it's human nature to sub-consciously think of the personal finacial benefits for yourself in such a circumstance.I also don't blame Jackie for asking or agreeing to such a clause.

The blame for this lies firmly at our Chairman's door for me.

Becoming very dismayed at a lot of things i've heard coming out of the club this season.

I agree and think its a conflict of interest which is going to chip away at the fans trust in the manager. We should move heaven and earth to get Craig Levien back as manager. Someone who actually demands and puts in the maximum, on and off the training ground and genuinely acted in the best interests of the club despite having no emotional attachment with us. I'm thouroughly pissed off with the club at the moment.

Last edited by lifesanocean (03/4/2015 1:45 pm)

Tangy · 03/4/2015 1:48 pm

Did ian holloway have this sort of deal at blackpool? Seem to remember he got a cut of the charlie allan deal? Its probably not as un-common as we may first think.

I'm not sure how keen i am on it - do we know the percentages involved? I'm going to go with no - why should the management get a cut of transfer fees they didn't develop too much? Armstrong had been at united way before JM - as had GMS and Gauld for that matter (theres a train of thought, i guess that he brought them on further but thats a different conversation in itself)

Say, we sold colin and justin for 2m - what is left after tax and agent fees and these 'unknown fees'? The case could then be made that its not worth selling GMS and rather keep him until the summer - obviously there are wages freed up by him being away too.

What do you need to pay in taxes? 20%? - so 2m becomes 1.6m( 1.4+0.2)
Agent and player fees? -
Mystery Fees? -
Is it possible that the sale of GMS only raised around 100K? - Sorry if this has been looked at before.....

I don't know what i want ST to say, which makes it difficult to see how it could be made better. I do think that since the sales of C&J, the clubs statesments have all been very much a 'suck it up' which doesn't help make people feel any better.

Its also a difficult situation - ST has went to lengths to make the club appear transparent - he loves the £1.2m profit lines and also loved to go on about being debt free - something that, as fans, we bought into....so if you are going to deceive slightly, then you can't be surprised when people ask questions. Fans are neither bline nor stupid

Trap_6 · 03/4/2015 1:53 pm

I think there's a separate issue arising here - that the management team receive more commission when the club sells players that have been signed by JM. I've absolutely no idea if that's the case. Has anyone heard this from a good source?

For me, this is entirely different and not something I'd agree with.

The Shed · 03/4/2015 2:02 pm

lifesanocean wrote:
TEK wrote:
I am totally against our Manager (and even more ludicrously) his coaches receiving any commission on the sale of transferred players.I personally don't care how teams in England do their business.Most of them are in a different stratosphere financially so the big clubs can afford to operate in such a manner.

If McNamara's wage is low and we had to entice him with bonuses offer them high for Cup Final,european appearances etc.If that wage or those terms weren't sufficient he shouldn't have taken the job to begin with.

It obviously is happening because Thompson would have denied it otherwise.I don't buy this 'confidentiality' line for one moment.

It is an unacceptable conflict of interests imo.Starting to become clearer why several phone calls were made on January 31st between,Manager,Chairman and players.So much self-interest taking place at the club presently,and little of it to do with what's actually best for the team.

You have to wonder how somebody like Marc McCallum must feel.If it becomes a straight choice between him and Mikael Szromnik next season,what one do you think the Manager would rather see succeed at the club?And i don't blame,it's human nature to sub-consciously think of the personal finacial benefits for yourself in such a circumstance.I also don't blame Jackie for asking or agreeing to such a clause.

The blame for this lies firmly at our Chairman's door for me.

Becoming very dismayed at a lot of things i've heard coming out of the club this season.
I agree and think its a conflict of interest which is going to chip away at the fans trust in the manager. We should move heaven and earth to get Craig Levien back as manager. Someone who actually demands and puts in the maximum, on and off the training ground and genuinely acted in the best interests of the club despite having no emotional attachment with us. I'm thouroughly pissed off with the club at the moment.

CL is never gonna happen.

Not got a problem with Jackie, he should never have been offered this type of deal, cant blame him for taking it. If the chairman has any sense he'll get him in and re-negotiate his contract to get rid of this type of clause asap.

huntedbyafreak · 03/4/2015 2:15 pm

I can live with then getting a cut of players they brought in.

Armstrong though? Wouldn't be happy if he got a slice of that

Sieb22 · 03/4/2015 3:02 pm

Darren Jackson would be up to speed with the these new clauses in contracts etc due to his past when he was a football agent, that's why I am guessing he got in Jackie's ear when they were negotiating a deal, he knew he would be on a low wage and tried to boost it up with bonuses and clauses.

Just pure speculation on my part, but do I blame Jackie and the management team for having that? no not really. Does it make it right for the club that I support from a fans/my own perspective from outside looking in? no not really.

Bit of a catch 22 for me.

I would like to think that Jackie would be professional about these descisions and think about the team, and not be in it for a quick buck. I want to be proved right that this is the case...

Beharder · 03/4/2015 6:23 pm

Its all results based if we are winning the fans in the know (but were no saying what we know) will say it is not having any effect. If we continue the current poor run it we be because of the alleged conflict of interest caused by JMs contract.

Tek · 03/4/2015 7:01 pm

Club have released a statement confirming McNamara does indeed get a bonus for players transferred.

Club Statement
April 3, 2015
Following reports in a Scottish newspaper today, based on a statement by ArabTRUST and the Federation of Dundee United Supporters’ Clubs, perpetuating the inaccurate suggestion that the manager of Dundee United and/or other employees may have benefited through the payment of over £500,000 in relation to transfer activity, the Board of Dundee United Football Club issue the following statement -

"The Club engaged Jackie’s management team in January 2013 with a clear mandate to develop and play young talent in the first team. This mandate was in line with our strategic objective to reduce the overall debt at that time by successful trading in the transfer market. We sought a candidate who was more likely to develop and take the opportunity to blood young players in the first team rather than recruiting experienced players.

“The Manager’s basic remuneration package was reduced considerably, replaced instead by a performance-based contract, with several bonus initiatives, which included developing young players into actual transfer targets. This way the Club drove down management costs and engaged a forward-looking management team whose income would only increase by achieving results. This practice is well established throughout the UK, particularly in England where transfer markets are a substantial incentive.

“The Club has consistently positioned itself as a club that will sell player(s) if that sale is to the benefit of the Club and, we believe, the Club remains the best platform in Scotland for the development of young talent, to the mutual benefit of the Club and players alike.

“The Manager has now specifically waived his right to confidentiality and requested that we clarify publicly that certain bonuses are payable in respect of player transfers, but that he plays no part in any transfer negotiations. This remains the responsibility of the Chairman and the Board. All bonuses are capped and properly monitored.“It is important to note that the Manager has not received bonuses anywhere near the highly misleading figure of £500k stated publicly this week.

“It is also worth noting that since January 2013, the Club’s overall debt has been reduced from £5.6m to £2.65m to date, and is projected to be further reduced to some £1.4m later this year on the receipt of the next scheduled receipt of transfer income.”

huntedbyafreak · 03/4/2015 7:16 pm

He's a goner

The Shed · 03/4/2015 7:17 pm

At least i can stop putting IF its true in every post now.

Shambles

bowers · 03/4/2015 7:17 pm

Another bullshit statement from them how many will they release before answering the fucking questions?

The trust/fed statement doesnt say Jackie got 500k it says unnamed parties.. Not one person and not naming them in it either..

They keep throwing in that we are due to reduce the debt to 1.4m when i thought it was already lower than that.

Doing my fucking box in

HeggyHandshake · 03/4/2015 7:30 pm

huntedbyafreak wrote:
He's a goner

He knows that, he also knows he will get a massive pay off. Alls good though.

PatReilly · 03/4/2015 7:30 pm

This new statement doesn't help the situation much, does it?

And the last one yesterday was odd: "qualified for European competition in three of the last four years"?

Which club was that? It all seems to be rushed out, without much thought now. Who writes the stuff?

HeggyHandshake · 03/4/2015 7:32 pm

PatReilly wrote:
This new statement doesn't help the situation much, does it?

And the last one yesterday was odd: "qualified for European competition in three of the last four years"?

Which club was that? It all seems to be rushed out, without much thought now. Who writes the stuff?

Real Madrid?

PatReilly · 03/4/2015 7:40 pm

HeggyHandshake wrote:
PatReilly wrote:
This new statement doesn't help the situation much, does it?

And the last one yesterday was odd: "qualified for European competition in three of the last four years"?

Which club was that? It all seems to be rushed out, without much thought now. Who writes the stuff?

Real Madrid?

Ha ha: but wrong, they've been in four out of four.

Think the answer is St Johnstone.

bowers · 03/4/2015 7:46 pm

PatReilly wrote:
This new statement doesn't help the situation much, does it?

And the last one yesterday was odd: "qualified for European competition in three of the last four years"?

Which club was that? It all seems to be rushed out, without much thought now. Who writes the stuff?

Said this to a mate yesterday.

Theyll put afew more out with out giving answers.

The spin will be unreal

lifesanocean · 03/4/2015 7:51 pm

New statement out now. Admits there are bonuses in JM's contract for developing players to be ready to sell. JM waived right to confidentiality. No amounts mentioned other than sayings its way below 500k figure. Says its standard practice in England (doesn't make it right though, there or here imho).

Gauld and Robertson fair enough, Armstrong was established before JM's arrival though (granted he did get better under JM). But, if he got money from GMS sale its fucking ridiculous. GMS went backwards as a player under JM getting shunted about everywhere bar his best position and looking thoroughly pissed off with it.

Anyway, game tomorrow. No pressure.

Last edited by lifesanocean (03/4/2015 7:53 pm)

The Shed · 03/4/2015 7:56 pm

lifesanocean wrote:
New statement out now. Admits there are bonuses in JM's contract for developing players to be ready to sell. JM waived right to confidentiality. No amounts mentioned other than sayings its way below 500k figure. Says its standard practice in England (doesn't make it right though, there or here imho).

Gauld and Robertson fair enough, Armstrong was established before JM's arrival though (granted he did get better under JM). But, if he got money from GMS sale its fucking ridiculous. GMS went backwards as a player under JM getting shunted about everywhere bar his best position and looking thoroughly pissed off with it.

Anyway, game tomorrow. No pressure.

Re GMS, the fact he wouldnt sign an extension, thus making him less valuable in terms of bonus, did this effect JM's use of him? Makes me wonder at least

arabugsy · 03/4/2015 9:13 pm

TEK wrote:
Club have released a statement confirming McNamara does indeed get a bonus for players transferred.

Club Statement
April 3, 2015
Following reports in a Scottish newspaper today, based on a statement by ArabTRUST and the Federation of Dundee United Supporters’ Clubs, perpetuating the inaccurate suggestion that the manager of Dundee United and/or other employees may have benefited through the payment of over £500,000 in relation to transfer activity, the Board of Dundee United Football Club issue the following statement -

"The Club engaged Jackie’s management team in January 2013 with a clear mandate to develop and play young talent in the first team. This mandate was in line with our strategic objective to reduce the overall debt at that time by successful trading in the transfer market. We sought a candidate who was more likely to develop and take the opportunity to blood young players in the first team rather than recruiting experienced players.

“The Manager’s basic remuneration package was reduced considerably, replaced instead by a performance-based contract, with several bonus initiatives, which included developing young players into actual transfer targets. This way the Club drove down management costs and engaged a forward-looking management team whose income would only increase by achieving results. This practice is well established throughout the UK, particularly in England where transfer markets are a substantial incentive.

“The Club has consistently positioned itself as a club that will sell player(s) if that sale is to the benefit of the Club and, we believe, the Club remains the best platform in Scotland for the development of young talent, to the mutual benefit of the Club and players alike.

“The Manager has now specifically waived his right to confidentiality and requested that we clarify publicly that certain bonuses are payable in respect of player transfers, but that he plays no part in any transfer negotiations. This remains the responsibility of the Chairman and the Board. All bonuses are capped and properly monitored.“It is important to note that the Manager has not received bonuses anywhere near the highly misleading figure of £500k stated publicly this week.

“It is also worth noting that since January 2013, the Club’s overall debt has been reduced from £5.6m to £2.65m to date, and is projected to be further reduced to some £1.4m later this year on the receipt of the next scheduled receipt of transfer income.”

Crucial part of the statement is "performance-based contract" as it could be football success or business success. This is most definitely aimed at the business side and we should really be getting back to JYM style WIN bonuses.

The Shed · 03/4/2015 9:20 pm

The fact the contract was agreed on the basis of improving the clubs financial position and not for success on the park is pure pish IMO.

From a fans point of view where's the incentive to go and watch games when winning isnt the main priority.