How did clubs afford to pay transfer fees back in the day?

[Scubby]

I remember being a kid and some huge transfers taking place - such as Andy Gregory (Wire to Wigan) 100k+, Graham Steadman (Fev to Cas) £150k+, Offiah (Widnes to Wigan) 440k, Newlove (Fev to Bradford) 250k etc. How the hell did clubs afford to pay these fees back then? Offiah's would be close to £1m now with inflation.

There was no TV money, season ticket sales were modest (most pay on the gate), sponsors were often local, and clubs also ran A teams and U19s teams which must have been a drain. Where did the cash come from? I suppose the answer to the question is that many didn't afford it?? But why then did it used to happen?

[dixiedean]

The players weren't paid as much? Lack of agents meant most of the money stayed in the game?

Just ideas.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Good question. My initial guess is that they couldn’t afford it and were pretty severely leveraged in many cases. I remember Fev spending £100k on Leo Casey. Madness. 

One of my favourite commentary lines from John Hill was about Owen Simpson “50 thoooouuuuusand pounds from Keighley....we’ve had him gid”. £50k a bargain for a half decent winger! 

[Whippet13]

Players were "tied" to clubs pre the Bosman ruling, so a transfer fee was often the only way to sign them. That meant the selling club had the upper hand, often the money would come from wealthy sponsors, or a player would go to the other club in exchange, so a £50k fee might be £25k cash plus a player. Looking back it was a very restrictive structure and rather like being indentured. At the risk of lighting the fuse, the Bosman ruling is something that came from the EU...dives for cover...

[David Shepherd]

Most clubs sold as well as bought.

Part time wages were significantly lower than those paid today.

Backroom and medical costs were lower, there was no army of "trainers" and the "physio" was usually a bloke in a track suit, armed only with some Vaseline, Elastoplast and a bucket with some mucky water and a sponge.

Attendance figure were routinely under declared, players were paid in conveniently untraceable and non VATable cash.

[Odsal Outlaw]

I remember the Bulls selling Paul Newlove to Saints, think it was £500k deal with £250k cash plus Sonny Nickle, Bernard Dwyer and Paul O’Loughlin.  Good deal on reflection!

[Tex Evans Thigh]

4 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

I remember the Bulls selling Paul Newlove to Saints, think it was £500k deal with £250k cash plus Sonny Nickle, Bernard Dwyer and Paul O’Loughlin.  Good deal on reflection!

I remember thinking that was a good deal and you did well out of it. Newlove was guaranteed quality though, not seen a better centre partnership than him and Iro. 

Fev should have put a soccer style percentage of next sale clause in there. Might have got Bernard Dwyer every 4 weeks.

[thirteenthman]

Presumably it was the directors putting their hands in their pockets or, as often happened, getting sponsorship from local companies. I seem to recall Royce Simmons, when he was coaching Hull, ran a series of marathons (5 in 5 days or something like that?) to try and raise money for new signings. 

Those were the days of the transfer list, where you'd get teams lose a few matches and the board would announce that certain players had been placed on the transfer list, usually with wildly over optimistic transfer fees attached to them. A really bad defeat would lead to the entire team being put on the transfer list. 

[The Blues Ox]

I remember Fax signing numerous players at 50k+ with Karl Harrison been around the 100k mark and turned out to be worth every penny. Sadly as well the transfer fees pushed some players out of the game as well. I remember Leeds putting a 250k transfer fee on the head of the late Mick Shaw who would eventually within a few months be back playing for his local amateur team.

[bobbruce]

8 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

Most clubs sold as well as bought.

Part time wages were significantly lower than those paid today.

Backroom and medical costs were lower, there was no army of "trainers" and the "physio" was usually a bloke in a track suit, armed only with some Vaseline, Elastoplast and a bucket with some mucky water and a sponge.

Attendance figure were routinely under declared, players were paid in conveniently untraceable and non VATable cash.

The Bosman ruling was a perfectly sensible ruling no matter where it came from. Before it you had a situation were players were tied to a club even if their contract had run out. So clubs would have to pay a fee for a player who didn’t actually have a contract with the selling club. 

[Smudger06]

No competition for players from Yawnion, much less competition for players from NSW Premiership......

Entire squads wages therefore could be kept low. 

Plus a stricter contract system making a vibrant transfer market. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

...and the transfer fee was almost invariably paid in instalments.

[Barry Badrinath]

Club sponsors, local businessmen, the maroon blazer brigade

[Futtocks]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The Bosman ruling was a perfectly sensible ruling no matter where it came from. Before it you had a situation were players were tied to a club even if their contract had run out. So clubs would have to pay a fee for a player who didn’t actually have a contract with the selling club. 

Jean-Marc Bosman, one of the most influential professional sportsmen in history, and barely anyone ever saw him play.

[Clogiron]

The transfer system, right or wrong created some excitement in the game, the smaller clubs were helped by getting fee's for young player's they had developed, 1 or 2 sales a season secured their future, and remember the top clubs didn't sign up every youngster at 15/16 back then. During the season you would get the phrase 'staying away' about a player, code for he'd been tapped up by someone else so a move was on the cards. If he settled his difference's with the club you might see him driving around it a better car or moving to a better house depending on the level of player.

When the C Cup ment somthing there was excitement to see who your club would add to the squad even if they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning it.

As others have said the fee's were paid in instalments and in many cases it was like spinning plates, money owed to one club due from another for a player who may have left there already so another player might move to cover that and so on. You had players such as Geoff Clarkson who played for something like 12 clubs, non as a loan player but probably getting a sign on fee for everyone of them.

 

[JohnM]

I recall Norweb as it was then, paid £450k or similar for Wigan to sign Martin Offiah. 

I guess someone could ask Maurice

[Trojan]

Plus of course a player would be an asset on the clubs' balance sheets.   Newlove, arguably the best outside back in the country went to Bradford for 250K,  Rovers could possibly have got more from Saints, but Newey was under the influence of one P Fox, so he went to Bradford.  Caisley said he wasn't worth what Fev were asking because he was "inexperienced"  he was a bloody international for god's sake.  They sold him to Saints at a 200K profit the following year, and IMO if anything he wasn't aa good when he left them as he was when he left Fev, having piled on a load of muscle.  Still a very good player, and possibly stronger, but not as mercurial as in his Fev days.  According to some who used to post on here Fev trialled Ieuan Evans as a big name replacement but he didn't sign. Instead they blew some of the cash on Andy Currier from Widnes who played one game.  There's the trap of the transfer system.  If you buy a pup it's tough luck. But of course there's that draw value of a big name signing to take into account too.

 

 

 

 

[Trojan]

11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I recall Norweb as it was then, paid £450k or similar for Wigan to sign Martin Offiah. 

I guess someone could ask Maurice

I also thought that Dave Whelan provided a substantial amount to bring Hanley to Wigan.

[David Shepherd]

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The Bosman ruling was a perfectly sensible ruling no matter where it came from. Before it you had a situation were players were tied to a club even if their contract had run out. So clubs would have to pay a fee for a player who didn’t actually have a contract with the selling club. 

Oh I agree.  A club "owning" a human being and treating him as a balance sheet asset has a whiff of slavery about it, not really something that should be happening in the modern age.

[Southerner80]

It's a real shame that Football did not do a bit more for Bosman. The players who made fortunes since and the relevant PFAs could have and could still offer a bit more support. 

Life hasn't been so good for him since the ruling and he could certainly do with some help. 

Transfer fees were exciting however the reality of what was a Feudal system behind them means its good they are gone. 

[yipyee]

There used to be

Less support staff

Less facility's

Less wages

No player leaches (agents)

Also transfer figures are not a good metric as it's the same money being passed around.

You sell a player and that gives you money to buy players etc...

Bowman ruling is ok in principle but should a club be able to apply a development fee to a player who leaves on a free/ not renews their contract?

[yipyee]

57 minutes ago, Southerner80 said:

It's a real shame that Football did not do a bit more for Bosman. The players who made fortunes since and the relevant PFAs could have and could still offer a bit more support. 

Life hasn't been so good for him since the ruling and he could certainly do with some help. 

Transfer fees were exciting however the reality of what was a Feudal system behind them means its good they are gone. 

Club signs a kid and spend tens of thousands developing him to be a pro player in all aspects including nutrition healthcare, strengthening, knowledge of the game etc...

Player walks away and shakes a fistfull of dollars in the distance....

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The Bosman ruling was a perfectly sensible ruling no matter where it came from. Before it you had a situation were players were tied to a club even if their contract had run out. So clubs would have to pay a fee for a player who didn’t actually have a contract with the selling club. 

It also mirrored earlier, similar rulings in North America which brought agency into the established pro leagues here.

[Southerner80]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Club signs a kid and spend tens of thousands developing him to be a pro player in all aspects including nutrition healthcare, strengthening, knowledge of the game etc...

Player walks away and shakes a fistfull of dollars in the distance....

The reality is the talent really is with the player, you can't develop someone who Dosent have it. You can't make a player skilled if there isnt the talent. So I don't feel the club merits special treatment because of it tbh. Having access to talented players will improve a clubs prospects while he is there. I also feel no club is spending big Bucks in the UK to bring through players. Sam Tomkins for example barely scraped a 3-4k scholarship at Wigan in his early days for example and he's one of the best talents to come through in the last 15 years. 

Also, the alternative ie the feudal system we had is a bad alternative tbh. It can't work in today's world. In other areas of employment people leave jobs after apprenticeships And the company accepts this. 

Contracts to some degree give a club some level of protection as a player needs to be bought out or agree some way out of it to Leave a club while still under contract. 

Further correct me if I'm wrong however a player under 24 who leaves a club he was brought through out still commands a fee, ala Fages going to Saints in 2015 or 16.

 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Club signs a kid and spend tens of thousands developing him to be a pro player in all aspects including nutrition healthcare, strengthening, knowledge of the game etc...

Player walks away and shakes a fistfull of dollars in the distance....

That's absolutely no different from any other walk of life where an employee gets qualified and skilled up then goes elsewhere for more money.