Conor Gallagher - Going to Athletico (p81)

Off_it said:

PragueAddick said:

The Prince-e-Paul said:

No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"

If only that were true. They take money from both sides, and anyone else who gets involved. For a rare example of this which is out in the daylight, why don't you read up on the Willie McKay dynasty and their role in the tragic Emiliano Sala affair.

Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.

Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.

So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying that Charlton wanted him to stay, Chelsea wanted him to stay, the much-maligned Chelsea development team wanted him to stay, the player himself wanted to stay but the whole thing was engineered by a big bad agent who's will and desire just to make some more shekels purely for himself somehow trumped all of the other interests I mentioned earlier? 

You seriously believe that?

However, you are correct that agents do - or at least did - work for both sides of a transaction, even though this appears to be in direct contravention of FIFA directives. For black and white evidence of this see the court cases of Newcastle and Birmingham.

Not quite. In bold are the parts of your statement which have been confirmed to me by a source with better knowledge than anyone in this thread (and clearly similar confirmation has been given to the SLP, from a different source).

You raise a valid question about how an agent gets his way in the face of all that. It was my question too. The answer I got is speculative, but basically that the agent will have somebody in Chelsea's organisation in a commercial role whose ear he could bend to the proposition that Conor's value to Chelsea will be increased more quickly by this move. He did this for his own ends, because he calculates that Chelsea might listen to good offers in the summer, their squad being chock full of stars. My source said that this is common agent practice, and he inferred that it had gone on at Charlton in the past and would be stamped out by this regime. He did not elaborate, but in an earlier post I referenced the unchallenged sale of Gomez for a pittance, and another Lifer who had an inside track on the agent's involvement with that.

Agents have flexible views of who their (chargeable) client is. The example of Erlan Haarland above is a case in point. In this description of the deal, Mino Raiola is described as Haarland's agent but he has trousered €15 mill of Dortmund's money. Leaving aside whether he can demonstrate professional value deserving of 1% of that amount, it looks to me that this is money which really ought to have gone to Haarland's previous club. 

Come home Conor...

On the subject of recalls I see that, in addition to Bradford recalling Doyle from Swindon (23 in the League for them this season), Rotherham have now recalled his strike partner, Jerry Yates (12).

So that's the scorers of Swindon's 35 League goals that have walked out the door in the last 3 weeks - and the whole of the rest of the squad have managed just 14 between them!

Talk about potentially damaging a team's chance of promotion.

ricky_otto said:

Addick Addict said:

On the subject of recalls I see that, in addition to Bradford recalling Doyle from Swindon (23 in the League for them this season), Rotherham have now recalled his strike partner, Jerry Yates (12).

So that's the scorers of Swindon's 35 League goals that have walked out the door in the last 3 weeks - and the whole of the rest of the squad have managed just 14 between them!

Talk about potentially damaging a team's chance of promotion.

That’s the risk you take with loaning players and there being a recall clause I guess. 

Exactly - which is why we have no right to complain because we are not alone and have done it to other clubs too.

If we didn't like the clause then we should have asked for it to be removed at the outset but then we would not have got Gallagher in the first place because another club would have been happy to have taken him on that basis.

AFKABartram said:

2 game ban?

After 10 bookings

Another team above us.

Dazzler21 said:

bolloxbolder said:

Another team above us.

Only need 3 beneath us. Stoke are having a spurt of form, we will also have one soon.

Sheffield United will come good

I know I’ll be told to move on but it still frustrates me. If you watch the highlights on sky website, his body language seems all wrong. Had a good shot at rhs start though.

I watched the Swansea match yesterday on I follow stream, he started the match very good, he could've picked up a booking in the 1st 15 minutes though, but referee played advantage but he received one after about 25 mins and then his game seemed to suffer as he couldn't put himself about anymore, Stoke looked quite a good team tbf especially their midfield hopefully We'll have Field, Cullen and Pratley in the team by the time we play as we're going to need them. 

Danny Addick said:

So is the general consensus that they recalled him Because we were struggling and they wanted him in the playoffs or that he was being overplayed due to injuries?

Consensus is his agent wanted to move him probably to earn himself some money (and maybe Connor).
Chelsea probably agreed because Swansea paid a loan fee and a lot more of his wages, plus Connor had improved so much, he would be playing in a better team.
Connor reluctantly agreed.

soapboxsam said:

A Charlton bias exists, because we are Charlton fans so why wouldn't it ?
If Taylor, Cullen, Williams and even Field, who can sit in and give Conor licence to roam, had not had injuries, then I don't believe there would've been any need for Gallagher to go to Swansea BUT the worse injury crisis know at the Valley meant Conor was playing alongside Vennings, Dempsey, Morgan etc and his performance was obviously being affected plus teams were trying to take him out or provoke him.

If I was Lampard or the U23 manager my duty is do what's best for the player and Chelsea (I detest Chelsea and always have done) not a Championship side who we loaned one of our 40 or so players too.

Neither of these are the guilty party, according to an authoritative source I spoke to, before the SLP confirmed that the guilty party is his agent. I have also been told by the same source that we offered to pay his current Chelsea wage in full to the end of the season.

soapboxsam said:

PragueAddick said:

soapboxsam said:

A Charlton bias exists, because we are Charlton fans so why wouldn't it ?
If Taylor, Cullen, Williams and even Field, who can sit in and give Conor licence to roam, had not had injuries, then I don't believe there would've been any need for Gallagher to go to Swansea BUT the worse injury crisis know at the Valley meant Conor was playing alongside Vennings, Dempsey, Morgan etc and his performance was obviously being affected plus teams were trying to take him out or provoke him.

If I was Lampard or the U23 manager my duty is do what's best for the player and Chelsea (I detest Chelsea and always have done) not a Championship side who we loaned one of our 40 or so players too.

Neither of these are the guilty party, according to an authoritative source I spoke to, before the SLP confirmed that the guilty party is his agent. I have also been told by the same source that we offered to pay his current Chelsea wage in full to the end of the season.

So you are saying Prague, that the tail wags the dog ? The agent can raise the concerns with Chelsea about the injury crisis at Cafc and how it's having a detrimental effect on his client, which we all know did happen because he had run himself into the ground because of the loss of quality around him.
But Chelsea would've had the final say but they certainly took the issues made by Conor's agent into their decision.

I gave all the details I could earlier in the thread. The agent didn't give a toss about any "detrimental effect" on his client, not least because Tore Andre Flo, his assigned academy manager told the Charlton people that he did not see any such effect.The agent works for an agency which has a load of lower league journeymen on its books, and suddenly Conor is the biggest "asset" they've got. However he is only an asset if he is sold. The agent believes that Swansea will be a better shop window which will encourage a big offer for him in summer. It is speculated that the agent bent the ear of someone in the commercial heirachy in Chelsea to this POV.

Of course none of these considerations seemed to bother Arsenal or Bielik's agent this time last year, and I am sure Arsenal were well pleased with the business they did after his year with us.

Thanks Prague for explaining that Conor Gallagher is only an asset to his agent if he is sold; who would've thought that's how an agent makes money !

I suggest that Conor Gallagher gets himself a new agent if the rest of this agent's clients are Journeyman footballers. 
Chelsea will care about the health and welfare of their U21  England International even if his present agent doesn't.  (Either because he could be in the Chelsea 18 in a years time or he is a commodity they can sell on)

soapboxsam said:

Thanks Prague for explaining that Conor Gallagher is only an asset to his agent if he is sold; who would've thought that's how an agent makes money !

I suggest that Conor Gallagher gets himself a new agent if the rest of this agents clients are Journeyman footballers. 
Chelsea will care about the health and welfare of their U21  England International even if his present agent doesn't.

There are a few other ways too, but mainly for agents further up the food (or should I say, gravy) chain.

Indeed Chelsea care about the health and welfare of their young players. Here is the team who are dedicated only to the players who are on-loan, all household name ex-pro players. Gallagher is assigned to Flo, but as I understand it, Cudicini is the senior one, and was also present at Sparrows Lane in December.