Hugh McGahan: Dangerous ground when an agent serves two masters

It is on record that Warriors' Chief Executive Mick Watson acted for Stacey Jones in his move to UTC at the end of the 2005 season. But did Jones get the best deal available in this transfer? It is not known how many clubs were aware that he was on the move from the Warriors. Was his CV circulated to all potential suitors for his services? (Not that a CV would be needed in his case.)

To simplify Watson's role, can we assume he acted as an agent. If so, he would search for the best deal - which is not purely based on finance but factors like relocation and accommodation, lifestyle, tax issues, possible sponsorships, investment opportunities, culture, other player signings, coach and management. These are issues relevant to a sound decision being made by the player and family when seeking a new club, especially overseas.

So as an agent, did Mick Watson canvass all clubs or was it just UTC? Remember no Australian clubs were considered, as it is known Mick does not want any players coming back to bite him in the backside and play well against the Warriors in future games. Other players sent packing to England include Ali Lauiti'iti, Logan Swann, Thomas Leuluai and Vinnie Anderson. Each of those players would love to have stayed in the NRL if a choice was given.

If Australian clubs were discounted as an option, then were other Northern Hemisphere clubs notified of a potential signing of massive proportions? As the agent of one of the hottest ticket items to come on to the market, the norm is to make it known to all and sundry that your player is ready to move. This is done either by direct contact with clubs or a leak to media that your player is testing themselves on the market or looking at "a challenge" with a move to the other code.

If the figures in the media are to be believed, Stacey taking 50 per cent less to go to another club is not what I would call a good deal for a player who could command a much better figure from a St Helens, a Wigan or even a Leeds. Wigan was prepared to pay a large amount of money not 12 months ago, so why not speak with that club? If this was not done, whose interest was best served?

It is common for a chief executive to speak with agents or clubs directly and let them know of the club's intentions or interest regarding players. It is also common for the same person to accommodate the easy transition of players because it is in the interest of the club to do so.

It is not common for CEOs to act for both parties, akin to what has happened here. As chief executive, you act in the club's best interest and in this case Mick Watson was saving money, but he let the club's marquee player walk out of the door. Was this the best option for the club? If his answer is yes, then there is clearly a conflict of interest in the actions of Mick Watson.

Is this an evolving role of the CEO in sports organisations or a one-off for the Warriors? I am not aware of the fallout between Stacey and his previous management and I am not interested, but I am sure other agents will be concerned if they see this club's CEO is willing to act on behalf of players in future deals. Is Mick Watson taking a personal interest in specific players? This could also be seen as a conflict of interest.

It is dangerous ground to be treading, and agents have a right to be wary. A well-known secret is that the Warriors would prefer to deal directly with players as they know they can get a player cheaper if there is no agent acting on their behalf.

Agents are a necessary evil in professional sport and there are some good ones amongst the rabble.

Where will Mick Watson fit in, and will the select few be sent to the far reaches of the rugby league world in a deal put together by the new agent-cum-CEO of the sports community? And where will it end?


- HERALD ON SUNDAY