TheGoodJoe:


You bring report to counter the point.

The point is simple and there is zero indictment.


This was a contract thing. The academy. That is the base of his development gets the bulk of his money. Now in the contract, there is a part for a 5% development fee. That is, for outsider(s) that played key role in the players development.

Arsenal wrote the contract. And the club has to put a name. They picked Amunike and his coaching crew because of the key role he played in his development.

As for collecting from all the players, it is up to the selling party to decide who gets development fee. It is not rocket science. If the boy was training in one academy before moving to the selling party, the club can put that party.

EEGA:
After Wilfred Ndidi's move from Genk to Leicester, the coach that trained Ndidi in Lagos millitary cantonement from age 13-17 was paid 400,000 euros.

Can we call this fee, developmental fee?

This should put an end to the argument of Amunike being an Egunje coach.

EEGA:
After Wilfred Ndidi's move from Genk to Leicester, the coach that trained Ndidi in Lagos millitary cantonement from age 13-17 was paid 400,000 euros.

Can we call this fee, developmental fee?

This should put an end to the argument of Amunike being an Egunje coach.

Kog45:
400,000 euros?are you serious about this cuz the money is huge,well Ndidi moved from Natty boys academy to Genk

mostob:
As stated in Annexe 4 art. 3 section 1, training compensation occurring as a result of the player signing his first professional contract, shall be divided between all the clubs that contributed to the player’s training. In the case of subsequent transfers however, training compensation is paid only to the player’s former club.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/training-compensation-and-solidarity-mechanism#:~:text=3%20section%201%2C%20training%20compensation,to%20the%20player's%20former%20club.

Kog45:
I brought this up for opinions.Pls go read my original post on how the transfer money was shared

The stellar group rejected the idea of paying Nwakali family due to Amuneke interference during Chidi Nwakali transfer.

The developmental fee was for the academy and two academies were involved.The contract paper did not included Amuneke cuz the 5% he got was internal arrangement.

My question is it right for Amuneke to get a cut and did he got the same cut from Osimhen and other under-17 transfer fees.

TheGoodJoe:


Where did you read internal agreement. I did not see such. The point is clear. How the money was shared. The article talked about renegotiation and how the money paid was shared.

Now is it right? The question you should ask yourself is that, did Amunike play a part in the development of the player? If your answer is yes, getting the developmental fee with the crew is not wrong in anyway.

Did the same happen to other players? It depends on the management of the players and if the negotiating team feel he played a part in their development.

If he put in the work to help develop the players, getting paid for it after the competition is not wrong in anyway.

lovewins:


I don't think you're being sincere here. It's okay to like Amuneke (I do too by the way and hope he becomes the next coach should the NFF decide to go local), but what you shouldn't do is shift the goalpost to shield him from accountability.

The said developmental fee goes to clubs that contributed in the players development. So only the club Nwakali played for while developing should be entitled to any of it. Was Amokachi the owner of said club? Did he have a stake in it? I don't have a problem with the club giving him something after they received their share but his name shouldn't have been anywhere near that.

When you say he contributed to his development, what timeline are you refering to? At what stage did he do that? Was it when he was contractual employed by the NFF? If yes, then that doesn't count, as he was paid to do a job and he did it. It also means every age grade coach can under the same guise seek same for players they invited to play in the national team. Or academies and clubs can give national team coaches these offers as incentives to invite their players. If the invitation of Nwakali to the team is consequent on him being included then that's bribery plain and simple. This is wrong and we should be bold to call it out as such.

There's also an ethics matter. Why invite a player to a team you have financial interest in? In law it's called conflict and it is ethically wrong. The current Minister of interior was recently under fire because a company he has stake in got a government contract. This isn't even under his own ministry, but there's conflict and people rightly called it out. We shouldn't be seen shielding those we like from accountability.

lovewins:


I don't think you're being sincere here. It's okay to like Amuneke (I do too by the way and hope he becomes the next coach should the NFF decide to go local), but what you shouldn't do is shift the goalpost to shield him from accountability.

The said developmental fee goes to clubs that contributed in the players development. So only the club Nwakali played for while developing should be entitled to any of it. Was Amokachi the owner of said club? Did he have a stake in it? I don't have a problem with the club giving him something after they received their share but his name shouldn't have been anywhere near that.

When you say he contributed to his development, what timeline are you refering to? At what stage did he do that? Was it when he was contractual employed by the NFF? If yes, then that doesn't count, as he was paid to do a job and he did it. It also means every age grade coach can under the same guise seek same for players they invited to play in the national team. Or academies and clubs can give national team coaches these offers as incentives to invite their players. If the invitation of Nwakali to the team is consequent on him being included then that's bribery plain and simple. This is wrong and we should be bold to call it out as such.

There's also an ethics matter. Why invite a player to a team you have financial interest in? In law it's called conflict and it is ethically wrong. The current Minister of interior was recently under fire because a company he has stake in got a government contract. This isn't even under his own ministry, but there's conflict and people rightly called it out. We shouldn't be seen shielding those we like from accountability.

villagereporter:
.

Good morning sir. On a lighter mood, Amunike is a cousin to the club owner and elder brother to Nwakali

Seriously, is it not probably possible that, there must have been an underhand dealings b4 d world cup to induced his inclusion in the team?

TheGoodJoe:


From what I read, the discussion was sharing the money used in selling the player. Amunike did not have a stake. He was given a development fee after a player was sold for his role played in developing the player.

It is very normal. If Kelechi Nwakali did not get sold, he gets nothing for his work. However, because of his work, he got the 5% to share. The money being shared is not development fee, but money used in selling the player.

AndSunGorilla:

Very well said Dr. Infact the nurturing argument is "interesting".

TheGoodJoe:


Development fee.

It was not only Amunike but the whole coaching crew for their role played in the development of the player.

Development fee.

Development fee.

Development fee.

Not only Amunike but the whole coaching crew.

Amunike and the coaching scouted the player and impacted a lot that led to his development.

Na wa.

There is nothing like corruption. This was after the tournament and it is the whole coaching crew.

Haha.

Marjoribanks:
How was Amunike part of Nwakali's development?
Is he the owner of the club or part of the club's coaching team? The club putting his name (a National team coach) is a serious indictment.
It shows he selected the player based on financial gain! Period!
You've been very vocal in criticizing the current admin but you're here defending a concrete corruption case. Wow!

lovewins:


Exactly. How is this difficult a conclusion to reach. We can't be criticizing Salisu Yussuf for corruption while at the same time excusing Amuneke because he's someone we like. It is why Nigeria as a nation as refused to live forward. We have different rules for different people.

chrisooblog:
Since the incident when Amuneke had a running with Iheanacho's proposed agent soon after the u17 WC in 2013 I haven't really been on board with him being the SE coach. Unfortunately all our former ex-international SEs coaches are on this table of mixing managing with agent work. From Keshi (RIP), to Siasia, to Oliseh, all were involved in one shenanigans or the other. Eguavoen who knows did his own but at least his own was small or he just hid it well.

chrisooblog:
Since the incident when Amuneke had a running with Iheanacho's proposed agent soon after the u17 WC in 2013 I haven't really been on board with him being the SE coach. Unfortunately all our former ex-international SEs coaches are on this table of mixing managing with agent work. From Keshi (RIP), to Siasia, to Oliseh, all were involved in one shenanigans or the other. Eguavoen who knows did his own but at least his own was small or he just hid it well.

lovewins:


You didn't address the points raised sadly, cause if you did you'll reach the same conclusions I did. And no it isn't normal, it's an aberration. You'll also fail to see how this sets a precedent that could potentially kill football development in Nigeria. All age grade coaches just need to collude with agents and clubs, and potentially invite players where they have a 5% stake in.

You put the timeline at scouting, he did this as a coach of the national team. In essence he was doing a job he was already paid for. Every thing he contributed to Nwakali's supposed growth during that timeline was as a coach under contract to the NFF. He did same to at least 20 other players, why not make same argument for others since he also contributed to their development? It's just bizarre.

lovewins:


Exactly. How is this difficult a conclusion to reach. We can't be criticizing Salisu Yussuf for corruption while at the same time excusing Amuneke because he's someone we like. It is why Nigeria as a nation as refused to live forward. We have different rules for different people.

TheGoodJoe:


Salisu was collecting bribe to play unqualified players.

Amunike received a part of the development fee for a player after the tournament for his work put in for years in the player.

How can you equate it?

lovewins:


I'm sorry but this is becoming ridiculous. You're too intelligent not to see how bizarre this is. I apologise if this comes across as insulting but that isn't my intention.

Outcomes don't determine whether one runs foul of the law. Whether the player who benefitted from the scheme is competent or not isn't the question. Was the action lawful? Was it ethical? Those are questions the law will ask. Also, you can't speak to the timeline of the agreement you weren't a part of. What conclusive evidence do you have that the 5% agreement was reached after the tournament? How is Salisu's case bribery but Amuneke's conveniently "developmental fee"?

What you're doing is justifying a wrong action based on your belief of the person who carried it out. It's Amuneke so he couldn't have induced the club or the player to part with some of their fees as a requirement for being a part of his team. Let's even assume this isnt true, can't you see how this creates a bad precedent that other people "not as good" as Amuneke could take advantage of? And like your rightly noted could lead to the national team due to it's being monetized is filled with average players?

elyte89:
🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹😞😞🥹🥹 dis man is not
Coming back ,shey our World Cup neva go like dis

TheGoodJoe:


I think you meant QUIET. By the way, this is coming from someone who had no idea about developmental fees. You have been exposed multiple times here. You did not even know trainee coaches do thesis and thought it was just a simple multiple choice question test.

Now you want to claim substantive knowledge.

Abeggi.

We are talking of things I knew decades ago here.

villagereporter:
.

A little bit clear but still need more elaborate explanation.

lovewins:


I'm sorry but this is becoming ridiculous. You're too intelligent not to see how bizarre this is. I apologise if this comes across as insulting but that isn't my intention.

Outcomes don't determine whether one runs foul of the law. Whether the player who benefitted from the scheme is competent or not isn't the question. Was the action lawful? Was it ethical? Those are questions the law will ask. Also, you can't speak to the timeline of the agreement you weren't a part of. What conclusive evidence do you have that the 5% agreement was reached after the tournament? How is Salisu's case bribery but Amuneke's conveniently "developmental fee"?

What you're doing is justifying a wrong action based on your belief of the person who carried it out. It's Amuneke so he couldn't have induced the club or the player to part with some of their fees as a requirement for being a part of his team. Let's even assume this isnt true, can't you see how this creates a bad precedent that other people "not as good" as Amuneke could take advantage of? And like your rightly noted could lead to the national team due to it's being monetized is filled with average players?

EEGA:
After Wilfred Ndidi's move from Genk to Leicester, the coach that trained Ndidi in Lagos millitary cantonement from age 13-17 was paid 400,000 euros.

Can we call this fee, developmental fee?

This should put an end to the argument of Amunike being an Egunje coach.