Newell allegedly received 10% of transfer fees

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Luton turn up the heat on sacked Newell over alleged cash from transfer deals

 

 

Stuart James

Wednesday March 21, 2007

The Guardian

 

Mike Newell was last night accused of hypocrisy after Luton Town claimed he received more than £500,000 from transfer deals during his time in charge. The claim comes little more than a year after Newell claimed corruption was rife in football, his criticism of agents prompting a Football Association investigation into transfer deals. "Millions of pounds have gone out of the game that will not be seen again," said Newell in January of last year.

 

Newell is currently in dispute with Luton after he was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct last week. His tenure at Kenilworth Road came to an end following a fifth successive league defeat when he attacked the Luton board for the handling of the club's finances. He has since indicated that he plans to contest Luton's decision to terminate his contract. "I am going to fight the dismissal for gross misconduct and I may have one or two other surprises for the board as well."

 

Luton, responding to supporters concerns about the club's finances, published figures on their official website yesterday which indicated that £1.852m had been paid to "players, agents and football management" since they came out of receivership in May 2004. According to the club Newell had a clause in his contract that ensured he took 10% of any transfer fees received, enabling him to directly profit from player sales.

 

The club's accounts indicated £8.6m had been generated in transfer fees through selling Curtis Davies, Steve Howard, Kevin Nicholls, Carlos Edwards and Rowan Vine - with £2.525m outstanding. Those figures suggest Newell is due £860,000, although the club claims, to date, he has been paid around £500,000. Whether he receives the remainder will depend on the outcome of the legal battle likely to unfold following his dismissal.

 

Newell has not breached any regulations by having the 10% clause in his contract but the notion that he was making money from transfers, having criticised agents for doing the same, sits uncomfortably. He had also asked "Where's the £9m gone?" following the defeat against Hull City eight days ago. That comment fuelled unrest among Luton fans but their anger no longer appears to be directed solely at the club's board.

 

"Mike Newell likes to portray himself as whiter than white, but there's no way that he is," said Mark Chapman, the supporters' club chairman. "The fans will see it as hypocritical and they won't like the fact that he's been taking money out of the club. But the board has to be held responsible as well. They were the ones who gave him the contract in the first place."

 

Newell targeted agents when he sought to expose illicit payments being made in football. His comments 14 months ago included: "A lot of people involved with the agents and doing the deals are taking back-handers. The FA must play a much bigger role than they are doing. I've seen the money agents make at Championship level and I can only imagine what they make at the top level" Those remarks, together with yesterday's revelations, prompted Barry Silkman, a football agent, to criticise Newell. "The man's saying he doesn't want agents to have anything," said Silkman.

 

"Nine out of 10 players that came [to Luton] were not discovered by him but, if they are sold for more money, he's taking the money. That's fine but don't begrudge anyone else earning money as well. There is no harm with the agreement but it is completely hypocritical."

 

Agreements similar to the one Newell negotiated at Luton are believed to be unusual. "I have only ever heard of it happening at one other club," said Silkman.

 

It is not clear whether Newell requested the clause be inserted into his contract, though it is believed he was the first manager in Luton's history to take such a sizeable cut from selling players. Newell, who does not have an agent, could not be contacted last night.

 

Bit rich for the man at the head of an anti bungs campaign and who moaned about the board selling off his players.

[East Stander 0]

Isn't a former ex Southampton/Rangers/Liverpool and other clubs ( manager supposed to have had a similar type of contract too, especially at Southampton?

[Lazarus 0]

If its written into his contract then i suppose its technically a bonus.

 

 

Sleazetastic though