Agents fees released from prem

Man City £10,537,982
Liverpool £8,600,444
QPR £6,818,688
Tottenham £6,595,905
Chelsea £6,490,382
Arsenal £5,580,873
West Ham £4,436,992
Man Utd £3,681,580
Newcastle £3,485,503
Everton £3,092,891
Aston Villa £2,730,539
Fulham £2,581,208
Sunderland £2,173,762
Reading £2,167,833
Wigan Ath £1,974,305
Stoke City £1,717,266
West Brom £1,341,301
Norwich City £1,248,725
Swansea City £1,100,845

Total £77,003,130

Man City £10,537,982
Liverpool £8,600,444
QPR £6,818,688
Tottenham £6,595,905
Chelsea £6,490,382
Arsenal £5,580,873
West Ham £4,436,992
Man Utd £3,681,580
Newcastle £3,485,503
Everton £3,092,891
Aston Villa £2,730,539
Fulham £2,581,208
Sunderland £2,173,762
Reading £2,167,833
Wigan Ath £1,974,305
Stoke City £1,717,266
West Brom £1,341,301
Norwich City £1,248,725
Swansea City £1,100,845

Total £77,003,130

I'm really not interested in Swansea city agents fees. Take it to a Swansea message board

It's the premier league agents fees, no idea why you are concentrating on the swans.

If your not interested then don't read, the title was pretty self explanatory kid.

You have a s**t username.

I have started the same thread without the jacks if you want an alternative.

It's the premier league agents fees, no idea why you are concentrating on the swans.

If your not interested then don't read, the title was pretty self explanatory kid.

You can't help but concentrate on them when their position in that table shouts out. QPR seem to be wasting some cash.

It's the premier league agents fees, no idea why you are concentrating on the swans.

If your not interested then don't read, the title was pretty self explanatory kid.

Ill say it again, you're not fooling anyone Roath with your pro Swansea posts.

Got to love the fact you conveniently missed out Southampton just to make Swansea the lowest

I have started the same thread without the jacks if you want an alternative.

you do realise I have not mentioned them right?

Got to love the fact you conveniently missed out Southampton just to make Swansea the lowest

Southampton were not the for the full prem season so didnt feel it relevant.

Got to love the fact you conveniently missed out Southampton just to make Swansea the lowest

Southampton were not the for the full prem season so didnt feel it relevant.

Yet Reading and West Ham are?

Got to love the fact you conveniently missed out Southampton just to make Swansea the lowest

Southampton were not the for the full prem season so didnt feel it relevant.

Yet Reading and West Ham are?

They had spent a significant amount in a short period of time, I thought it was interesting.

If Southampton are mentioned then the pro Swansea post is flawed

Got to love the fact you conveniently missed out Southampton just to make Swansea the lowest

Southampton were not the for the full prem season so didnt feel it relevant.

Yet Reading and West Ham are?

They had spent a significant amount in a short period of time, I thought it was interesting.

Southampton spent more money on transfer fees than Liverpool this summer. And I think twice as much as Swansea did on transfer fees. Wouldn't you agree it;s interesting to see such high transfer fees but very low agents fees?

must remember to not get this financials number.hes a block head

The figures were collected from the dates - October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012.

So over that 12 month period the newly promoted 3 were only active for a third of it.

Last edited by FinancialAdvisor on Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

:lol: must remember to not get this financials number.hes a block head

Really? which figure do I have wrong in your opinion?

I can assure you they are all correct.

FinancialAdvisor is a s**t name.

FinancialAdvisor is a s**t name.

Oh?

FinancialAdvisor is a s**t name I said.

FinancialAdvisor is a s**t name I said.

I know.

I said "oh?"

Its not very good of a "finanical advisor" who picks and chooses what figures he puts up. If you were going to include West Span and Reading then you have to include Southampton. We all know the point your getting at and we dont care. Cheerio

I wasn't advising anyone on any financial matter.

I copy and pasted a table of factual figures regarding other clubs expenditure on agents fees. I didn't find it particularly interesting that Southampton spent 600k when only counted for a quarter to a third of the time it was measured.

However the other two were astonishing, more than clubs that have been there the full 12 month period.

If you want to add Southampton you may, but it doesn't change any figure from the ones I posted. And that's a fact.

I'm glad I'm not sad enough to make multiple accounts on a rival club's messageboard just to get a reaction from a few people.

I wasn't advising anyone on any financial matter.

I copy and pasted a table of factual figures regarding other clubs expenditure on agents fees. I didn't find it particularly interesting that Southampton spent 600k when only counted for a quarter to a third of the time it was measured.

However the other two were astonishing, more than clubs that have been there the full 12 month period.

If you want to add Southampton you may, but it doesn't change any figure from the ones I posted. And that's a fact.

You didn't post a table of factual figures; you posted a table of figures to make your club look good.

You claim you didn't include one club, because they hadn't been there for a year, yet you include the other two.

Says it all really.

I wasn't advising anyone on any financial matter.

I copy and pasted a table of factual figures regarding other clubs expenditure on agents fees. I didn't find it particularly interesting that Southampton spent 600k when only counted for a quarter to a third of the time it was measured.

However the other two were astonishing, more than clubs that have been there the full 12 month period.

If you want to add Southampton you may, but it doesn't change any figure from the ones I posted. And that's a fact.

You didn't post a table of factual figures; you posted a table of figures to make your club look good.

You claim you didn't include one club, because they hadn't been there for a year, yet you include the other two.

Says it all really.

what it shows is swans are cheap skate team, cheap players and now agents says it all really!!

Takes out Southampton to make the Jacks look good This man's desperate.

Leaving southampton in or taking them out makes no difference to Swansea's figures. They are £1.1m with Southampton in and astonishingly £1.1m without them.

If you want to put Southampton in, by all means do so.

Leaving southampton in or taking them out makes no difference to Swansea's figures. They are £1.1m with Southampton in and astonishingly £1.1m without them.

If you want to put Southampton in, by all means do so.

You're missing the point.

Leaving southampton in or taking them out makes no difference to Swansea's figures. They are £1.1m with Southampton in and astonishingly £1.1m without them.

If you want to put Southampton in, by all means do so.

You were trying to imply Swansea spent the least, which is untrue.