Undisclosed fees

**BBK** · 17th July 2007

Is it just me, or does "undisclosed fee" basically just mean "look, we know we paid too fucking much, so we're not going to tell you quite how bad it was"?

Just wondering why we "know" Nigel Reo-Coker cost �8.5 million when signing for Villa from West Ham, yet Marlon Harewood, transfer from West Ham to Villa, is undisclosed?

**kizroll** · 17th July 2007

Maybe its 1 of them deals that could rise in price? like if they score so many goals and that.

**djm2k1** · 17th July 2007

Hmmm, you've got a good point.

But maybe the player/agent has requested not to release it for whatever reason.

**BBK** · 17th July 2007

Originally Posted by djm2k1

Hmmm, you've got a good point.

But maybe the player/agent has requested not to release it for whatever reason.

Surely with the need for transparency the player/agent has no say in it? Surely its a matter between the two clubs?

**djm2k1** · 17th July 2007

Originally Posted by BBK

Surely with the need for transparency the player/agent has no say in it? Surely its a matter between the two clubs?

Aye probably. Hmmm it's a strange one I'll agree.

**B.I.G.** · 17th July 2007

Originally Posted by BBK

Surely with the need for transparency the player/agent has no say in it? Surely its a matter between the two clubs?

The selling team could request it as then when they replace the sold player the team they would be buying off don't know how much they have to spend and inflate the price.It also stops teams being able to demand a higher fee by saying "well so and so went for this much and our player is better,so we want......"

**New Art Riot** · 17th July 2007

might have loads of add ons like payment after 50 games.

**gunner** · 17th July 2007

Originally Posted by B.I.G.

The selling team could request it as then when they replace the sold player the team they would be buying off don't know how much they have to spend and inflate the price.It also stops teams being able to demand a higher fee by saying "well so and so went for this much and our player is better,so we want......"

Exactly - what with the Roman Revolution, people have to be more coy with what they are seen to be paying for players.

**masterbates69** · 18th July 2007

Originally Posted by BBK

Is it just me, or does "undisclosed fee" basically just mean "look, we know we paid too fucking much, so we're not going to tell you quite how bad it was"?

Just wondering why we "know" Nigel Reo-Coker cost �8.5 million when signing for Villa from West Ham, yet Marlon Harewood, transfer from West Ham to Villa, is undisclosed?

Think it works the other way too though. IE: Diouf from Liverpool to Bolton...

**-G-Man-** · 18th July 2007

This issue was brought up at the annual Arsenal Supports trust meeting with the Arsenal Board of directors last month.

Keith Edelman (representing the Arsenal board of directors) basically said the reason was that they dont want other clubs to know what sort of money they are spending on certain players.

Its also the same reason that Arsenal never announce how much money they have to spend in the summer, so they cant be held to randsom over the price of a playuer.

If they were to come out and say that they have �XX amount to spend,the selling club know that they can push there luck with the price knowing what the buying club can afford.

**Shotgunjim** · 18th July 2007

I was under the impression that it was all to do with announcing finances to the stock market. If it is below a certain value (depending on the company turnover etc) then there is not a requirement to submit the value of the spend to the stock holders. Any value above that threshold has to be declared.

Originally Posted by -G-Man-

Keith Edelman (representing the Arsenal board of directors) basically said the reason was that they dont want other clubs to know what sort of money they are spending on certain players.

Who did you buy last season??

**-G-Man-** · 19th July 2007

Originally Posted by Shotgunjim

Who did you buy last season??

Tomas Rosicky and Alex Hleb.

**Eric** · 19th July 2007

Maybe they are just too embarrassed to admit what they paid for a lemon

**djm2k1** · 20th July 2007

Originally Posted by Eric

Maybe they are just too embarrassed to admit what they paid for a lemon

I prefer to think of him as a lime as they make better cocktails

Add a bit of his juice if he can show it and we've got one tasty cocktail

**ibleedred** · 22nd July 2007

Because Nottingham Forest have a 25% sell on clause in Harewood's contract over �500,000k.

A easy way for West Ham not to put into the public domain how much they actually recieved for him.