okay and if he turned out trash then we at least made profit while on loan he would return to us and be useless again. whose gonna pay us for him? co ownerships are excellent most of the time and are a reason why the top teams invest in young italian players while in premiership you can see exactly how much carrick costs and that is just ridicioulous for your own home country.


berba is being sold for 25 million pounds while anywhere else he would barely be sold for 15. flucuation in your league is unhealthy and abnormal and in the end will hurt your countries economy.

This post has been edited by Bluesummers: Aug 25 2008, 10:55 AM

If he turned out trash, then we don't get anything, but Genoa don't lose anything either. In the co-ownership deal, Genoa could be paying out money - which they don't have alot of - on a player that is terrible. Now they're stuck with half a crappy players, and even less money. It may benefit the big clubs, but in reality the big clubs can generally take care of themself, it's not good for the smaller clubs. And as you said, it always top clubs to invest in youg italian players, leaving less of the young talent at the bottom clubs. So they lose money and players.

Prices have inflated because clubs have more money. It's nothing to do with taking out loans or anything, clubs physically have more money. I believe each team gets over £50m, so they can afford to pay more, that's all. Instead of the big teams, like they can in Italy, buying promising youngsters for next to nothing in co-ownerships or whatever, the top clubs are forced to pay the big money to get them. Which helps both clubs, the top club gets who they want, and the smaller club gets the money to compensate for losing a future star.

It's a slight myth anyways. Of the top 10 transfers of all-time, only 3 of them are to EPL clubs and none of the top 5 are to an EPL club. Gigi Buffon was bought for over £30m, the record transfer paid by an English keeper is only £9m. Hernan Crespo was bought for £35m after a few good seasons in Italy. Robbie Keane was bought for nearly half of that, depite having 6 or 7 very good EPL seasons. So it's not all the EPL you know, people just like to try and highlight that fact.

Small teams cannot buy many players due to financial issues. However, buying potential kids like a small investment. We can say 9x% the kids will be better year by year because of their young ages. It means if they buy a half contract of a player for 500k, if everything go right, they may get a palyer cost 800-1m at the end of season. In this case, they do not lose anything. BUT, if everything go smoothly, let's say, the player worths 2m at the end of season. They make some money ^^!!!! They can sell back to orginal side, or buy him then continue to develop him. AND IF the player becomes great (as Adriano or Boriello), wow, ^^.

It's also put them under pressure that they have to give chances to co-own players. Because if co-owned player does not play well, he becomes valueless and they'll lose money. Clubs who loan player, they do not have those kinds of pressure. If they don't like the player, they'll put him on the bench.

In Milan's view, surely we more interest in the team who tends to develop our youths. It's co-owned side, not loaned side. Also if you have 20+ players each season who has very little potential to qualified the 1st team, what do you want to do? IMO I want to:

- Make money from them as much as possible because we did not develop youths for nothing.
- Continue developing them and track them.
- In the case we have a great talent, I still have the rights to watch and buy back with cheaper price, consider to the market (we buy only half left, not all).

Hope that explains why co-owned works.

I understand what you're saying.. but even still, I see loaning as a much better option. I don't see any advantage that a co-ownership has over a loan, I'm just thankful they don't exist in England.

If Genoa didnt get him in a co-ownership then he wouldnt have scored 19 goals. Not even a loan would have guaranteed that many goals. Co-ownerships provide security and tell the players that the buying club is going to place confidence in them

Whether it was a loan or co-ownership, it wouldn't have made a difference, he'd have still scored 19 goals. The loaning club obviously has confidence in the player, otherwise, why loan him? What would be the point if you didn't think he was any good? It also means the loaning team doesn't waste any money.

I can't imagine Genoa have heaps of funds, so if they bought half of Boriello, and he was crap, they're stuck with half a rubbish player, and have wasted money on him. Whereas with a loan, they haven't wasted anything. On Milans side, if he performs well, we don't have to look silly buying half of the player back for £6m just months after selling that half for £1m.

I've looked over it for hours and hours on the internet.. and see no upside. Probably the reason it's not used universally, while loaning is.

I'm with Kurt on this one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Co-ownership maybe works in some instances, but loaning out is the safest route for the club that has the signature of a particular player. Makes less fuss if things go good. Or bad.

because kurt it puts pressure on the coach to use him when if he was loaned he could bench him as he pleases like with senderos right now and the fact that carlo can bench him and no one will say ****. With co ownership they club somewhat feels obligated to use the player and the player feels obligated to return the favor to the club for investing in him. Look at the players who are loaned compared to the players who are co owned and see who gets more playing time.

also about the prices. On average the highest valued player should be no higher than 50 million pounds. Anything higher is just stupid and should not exist.

I wouldn't know who gets more playing time since Serie A clubs hardly ever loan to each other. But Hernan Crespo was hardly a backup player at either Milan clubs, he featured heavily for both on loan.

It puts pressure on coaches to use them? That's exactly why co-ownership is bad, it's basically big clubs bullying little clubs and saying "You've had to pay money to have one of our players, you better play him so we can see if he's any good so we can just take him back off you - but if he's rubbish, it doesn't matter, you're the one who's wasted money on him, not us".

With loans, no team loses out. If a loaned player is bad? The loaner club will find it more difficult to sell the player, but the loaning club will have had a player who's not been much use to them - neither clubs wastes money. If the loaned player is good? The loaner clubs will have more chance of selling him, or they may decide he's useful enough to keep, but the loaning club has had a good player for a season who's going to have helped them and to make things even better - he was free of charge for the season - both teams benefit, neither team loses money.

I'm sure there's a reason every World in the league uses loaning, and not co-ownerships.

Actually...you've got it backwards. It's not the big clubs who insist on the co-ownership, it's the small ones.

See Borriello we gave him up for maybe 1 million(Total player worth= 2 mill). Suppose, he had been average. As in good for Genoa but not good enough for Milan, and we feel that's the best he can be. We can tell Genoa to buy him out, and Genoa will probably calculate that ok, his price on his performance would be now about 6 mill flat. But I already own half of him so to purchase his other half, I just need to pay 3 mill more.

Therefore Genoa end up paying a total of 3+1, i.e. 4 million for Borriello in total. While if he had been loaned with a purchase option, they would have had to pay whatever Milan wanted. So the big club is not bullying here. It's more power to the small guy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


Conversely, if he turned out good enough for Milan, we can get a player back. Someone who we thought wouldn't be too good, but turned out to be a surprise. Like Borriello! It's very rare to see, players who have been co-owned be brought back, unless they were really special. Because a co-ownership deal, unlike a loaning thing, can go on forever, till the player reaches his prime, and a decision is made once and for all.

And going from my earlier point of how it works out to be beneficial to the smaller club, this is exactly why clubs refuse to take great prospects from large clubs in Italy on loan. Loanees are almost always 2nd string players, who are meant to add depth. So a 4th choice player for Juve, might be loaned so he becomes 2nd choice at say Siena.

When both clubs realise they are talking a good prospect, the smaller club (fairly) plays hard ball.

'You're sending him here, to get him trained, to give him first team experience playing in the top level, and we have to pay his wages as well? What's in it for us?'

So if they buy half his contract, then that's it...they now have a vested interest, in developing him, coz now they know they can get him for cheap.

On the other hand, the EPL only has a loan with purchase option, which puts pressure. At the end of the year you have to say a yes or no as regards a purchase, when you want more time to check him out.


Yes, it works differently in EPL, when a player performing well in one season ,gives you enough cash due to a difference in table positions, but in Italy with TV revenues etc.. so low, for a smaller team, finish 9th or 13th doesn't make a huge difference in cash rewards. They need to gain something else.

exactly thank you i hate it when i can't clarfiy things.

Do you want me to be your assistant coach?? Or maybe translator? Starting off as translator, worked for Jose... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Jack. You missed out the most important one. Which suggests the power is still with the big clubs, if he turns out good enough for neither? Well the smaller club has already wasted money on buying half of the player, and they know the bigger club isn't going to want him back so they're almost forced to buy the rest of somebody they don't even want.

On the Boriello case: We sold half of him for £1m, we didn't know how good he's turn out and we may not have been expecting anything from him. If he has a bad season, like I said above, Genoa are almpost forced to waste money of the remaining half of Boriello. If he plays well like he did, they've got 0% chance of keeping him because there's no way they can compete with Milan for the rights.

In a loan deal, before loaning him out alot of teams have an option to be for £Xm, so obviously Boriello's value may have been fairly low, since we wouldn't know how he'd turn out. In a normal loan deal, we get our player first team experience and Gena get a guy who's scored 19 goals. With the view to a purchase option, this gives Genoa much more power than the big club. He's purchase option would have been very low, much less than £6m since he's never proved anything in this league, he then goes and has a great season and his worth doubles. But the agreement is that Genoa are to pay even less, and the bigger club can do nothing about it. Which is superb, more power to the smaller team, exactly what this game needs. With loans, the small team never loses and that is the most important thing. With co-ownerships, they basically waste money if he doesn't turn out too well.

I jut still don't see the benefit really.

If he had a bad season, nothing changes. Milan see nothing in him to buy out Genoa's half, and vice versa.Either the arrangement continues (as in Pozzi's case) or if Genoa think, this guy is totally cr@p, they can actually cut losses and sell their half to someone else. The same way shares are traded.

Loan to purchase option, means nothing if the player was a flop. Genoa gained nothing...but lost a year's wages being paid to him. On the other hand, if it was a co-ownership, they could sell their half of the contract, maybe to an even smaller team, and thus recuperate at least the wages they 'wasted'.

Similarly if he turns out to be a massive hit, the co-ownership might actually mean, they can sell their part of the deal for a much higher price (than setting the price beforehand), and use the money to buy someone else. Perhaps someone who plays for lesser wages. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


I guess, it's because I've grown used to co-ownerships in Serie A. Loaning is often almost used only to add depth. Very rarely are players loaned into first team.

This post has been edited by Jack Sparrow: Aug 26 2008, 11:59 AM