[m1ke]

All Ignazio Abate talk in here.

(IMG:http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7604/urlae5.jpg)

[han2503]

He said that he wants to be sent on loan to play consistanly next season.

Still happy we gave him a 4 year deal and he'll be back after his loan spell with more games and experiance under his belt

[Fillipo Simone]

He said that he wants to be sent on loan to play consistanly next season.

Still happy we gave him a 4 year deal and he'll be back after his loan spell with more games and experiance under his belt

Yep. And now that we have (await) Dinho, his loan deal isn't that bad.

[dst]

I hope to see him in a Milan shirt in the future!

[jefri91]

I like this guy, he is very talented and faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast

[Tennie]

I like Abate too -- he did rather well at Empoli last year, all things considered, and he really impressed me during the Toulon tournament (see the nice match reports that whoarethepatriots did). I'd like to see him remade into a right back because he IS fast down the flanks and has a good cross. Another year on loan somewhere where he'll get more playing time might not be a bad idea though. Note: Abate is a member of the Italian Olympic team.

[Tennie]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif)

L'A.C. Milan comunica di aver ceduto in compartecipazione all'F.C. Torino le prestazioni sportive del calciatore Ignazio Abate.

[Milan announces that they have sold Ignazio Abate to Torino in a co-ownership deal.]

[dst]

Well done! Now let him develop and spend a bunch of millions to get him back... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Now this is stupid! Just what the ****?

[Jako19]

******* really, I fell like let go all of our young promising youngins....

I don't like it either, but even so obscenities aren't allowed.

This post has been edited by Jako19: Jul 23 2008, 04:37 PM

[Zed.D]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/realmad.gif)

L'A.C. Milan comunica di aver ceduto in compartecipazione all'F.C. Torino le prestazioni sportive del calciatore Ignazio Abate.

[Milan announces that they have sold Ignazio Abate to Torino in a co-ownership deal.]

I have no idea how good he is, but this sounds stupid. considering he was quoted on acmilan.com as saying 'one year out on loan, then Milan', roughly two weeks ago. I don't understand why we sold half of his contract... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[gal_kenny]

I have no idea how good he is, but this sounds stupid. considering he was quoted on acmilan.com as saying 'one year out on loan, then Milan', roughly two weeks ago. I don't understand why we sold half of his contract... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

Don't worry we gonna get him bak..We're just trying him out by selling half of his contract...He's regarded as a milan future and Galliani praised him publicly...If or when he performs good in the Olympics, Galliani would surely bring him bak because he belongs to milan...I ain't worried cuz i know he's gonna come bak

[TriniKing_CE]

Don't worry we gonna get him bak..We're just trying him out by selling half of his contract...He's regarded as a milan future and Galliani praised him publicly...If or when he performs good in the Olympics, Galliani would surely bring him bak because he belongs to milan...I ain't worried cuz i know he's gonna come bak

Yes this is possible, but wouldn't a loan have been more fesasible for us (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[whoarethepatriot...]

This is a little disapointing. I hope he does well enough at Toro and we buy him back, but there is always the possibility we will be made to look stupid in the progress e.g. Borriello and his transfer

[CrazyMilanFan]

why do we always do co-owner shps deal ???

[Bluesummers]

why do we always do co-owner shps deal ???

money, it seems after all there will be one last transfer. I can see why we did that instead of just straight up loaning him.

[CrazyMilanFan]

money, it seems after all there will be one last transfer. I can see why we did that instead of just straight up loaning him.

i read he and paloschi to be in cownerships deals to finance alex silva

[Bluesummers]

i read he and paloschi to be in cownerships deals to finance alex silva

yup i knew it. We dont just do co ownerships for no reasons. Good find cmf

[Habitant]

yep this is rebuilding (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif)

[Jack Sparrow]

It's really a double edged sword I guess. What if there are two teams - Team A and Team B? At Team A he will play. And at Team B he will play with a good foundation and at an excellent atmosphere to develop. But Team B will only take him on a co-ownership, while Team A will be willing to take him on a loan. What then??

Now I'm not saying this is how it is, but it could be. We can't judge without knowing facts. And they're not gonna reveal all the facts either. For all you know, this co-ownership, might not involve money at all, but first option on Rosina. I don't consider Milan as complete retards on the market. You don't last 20 years among the top 10 clubs in Europe that way.

[Diavolo]

As Galliani said, nowdays nobody is willing to grow your talents in their team and than when they become realy good returning them back for nothing (in terms of money and the money is everything in these days - sure the team benefits momentarely from his performances, but if the player isn't yours and you know that if he performs well he will go away for nothing, than with co-ownership at least you get some money for that - small teams almost live from that money). You have to pay for growing your talented players in other teams and that is what Co-ownerships are about.
Plus you get some money right away for other transfers and other options for talented players of that team.
Just don't worry, if Abate continues to play like he did and grows his talent even more, then he will be back to Milan in 1-2 years.

[kurtsimonw]

THe thing with co-ownership, I just don't understand how on earth it benefits Milan at all. We still have to pay to get the player back, so why not just loan him out for a few seasons? I don't understand. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[CrazyMilanFan]

THe thing with co-ownership, I just don't understand how on earth it benefits Milan at all. We still have to pay to get the player back, so why not just loan him out for a few seasons? I don't understand. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

yea borriello hald contract was sold for about 1.5 million euroes and was bought for about 10 million now abate is sold for 2 million after 2 years if he plays well his price will be what 12 million does not make sense to me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[dst]

It's what Diavolo says, it makes sense.

[kurtsimonw]

So why do it then? We sell half of the player for a tiny amount, but if he plays well, we end up buying the half back for 4 or 5 times the amount we sold it for. I just don't see the upside for co-ownership for a team like Milan. Surely just loaning would be more beneficial.

[han2503]

They usually do co-ownership deals rather then loans because the players would get much more playing time then they would if they were just loaned.

But still co-ownership deals always favour the big clubs so if he really does well next season we'll buy him back

[Rossoneri7]

It's really a double edged sword I guess. What if there are two teams - Team A and Team B? At Team A he will play. And at Team B he will play with a good foundation and at an excellent atmosphere to develop. But Team B will only take him on a co-ownership, while Team A will be willing to take him on a loan. What then??

Now I'm not saying this is how it is, but it could be. We can't judge without knowing facts. And they're not gonna reveal all the facts either. For all you know, this co-ownership, might not involve money at all, but first option on Rosina. I don't consider Milan as complete retards on the market. You don't last 20 years among the top 10 clubs in Europe that way.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/king.gif)

[kurtsimonw]

I still don't get the Borriello one, as we do have the numbers for that. We sold half of him, then bought that half back for £6m. Now we definitly did not sell our half for that much, so surely that's just wasted money? I honestly don't see the upside for Milan in this deal. Yes, he got first team experience, but he would have got that from a loan too, and it'd have saved us £6m as well.

[Rossoneri7]

I still don't get the Borriello one, as we do have the numbers for that. We sold half of him, then bought that half back for £6m. Now we definitly did not sell our half for that much, so surely that's just wasted money? I honestly don't see the upside for Milan in this deal. Yes, he got first team experience, but he would have got that from a loan too, and it'd have saved us £6m as well.

Ur speaking on hindsight.

[kurtsimonw]

Ur speaking on hindsight.

It's really irrelevant, it's just common sense, especially with young players.

Loan:
The player remains yours - he gains experience elsewhere - you then have the player back at the club.
If he turns out bad, you sell him for a small price, if he's good, you've had to pay nothing for a good player.

Co-ownership:
You make a small fee to sell half - he gains experience elsewhere - you have to buy the player back.
If he turns out bad, you can get rid of the other half of him, you don't make much. If he's good, you have to pay out to get the player back.

So the outcomes are:
If he's bad? You barely make anything on either a loan or a co-ownership as he is not of much value.
If he's good? With a loan you keep a good player, without costing you a thing. With co-ownership, you have to end up paying out to get him back.

I do not see one single upside with co-ownership. And I'm amazed that after the Marco situation we haven't learned from it and have done it again with Abate.

[Diavolo]

Because almost no one wants loaned players in their teams (every year it's more difficult to negotiate a loan, because the other team has no gain from that in the long run, so they at least try to make some money in short run and for small teams that's a big deal). It's co-ownership or nothing. If the player than remains in your team and doesn't play (just in coppa games - big deal) it's even more bad. You have to risk something in order to gain in the future and that has a price like all things in life.

[kurtsimonw]

But when a small club loans somebody, they're getting somebody for free to fill a hole for them, why would they not want that? Hell, even top clubs loan players in since they're so beneficial.

Co-ownership, I think, is one of the most laughable thing in football.

[CrazyMilanFan]

But when a small club loans somebody, they're getting somebody for free to fill a hole for them, why would they not want that? Hell, even top clubs loan players in since they're so beneficial.

Co-ownership, I think, is one of the most laughable thing in football.

and the worse part is that gallaini seems to be in love with it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[Jack Sparrow]

I still don't see what the problem is here kurt.


Think of it this way... their half of the ownership is the fee we are paying Torino to train Abate. And understand this, during this time, we do not pay his salary either.

Now on loan, Torino gets this bloke for one year, and then they have to pay his salary, after that, either the loan needs to renegotiated, or he might move onto another club. It's not really the sort of thing on which Torino can have cause for stability.

Now if it's a co-ownership, there's a contract out, and if Abate does so well that Milan want him back, they have to pay (like we did with genoa), so finally there is something in it for Torino for all the effort they put into training him etc. Else Milan will continue the co-ownership. He'll play for Torino,but Torino have got a decent player for less price. It's common sense for Torino. Otherwise they're just being used.

Loaning works kinda wierdly in Italy. It's very rare for loaned players from Italy to have a lot of space in the first team. Think of Di Gennaro or Digao.

Besides, it also creates some good relationships between the clubs, which might be very useful for the future. In case a new Lentini pops up in Torino. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Habitant]

But when a small club loans somebody, they're getting somebody for free to fill a hole for them, why would they not want that? Hell, even top clubs loan players in since they're so beneficial.

Co-ownership, I think, is one of the most laughable thing in football.

Co-ownership is good for mid-table and lower half clubs.

you sell half a player to a club in a similar financial position.

by the end of the season if you need the money (as do many of these clubs) you sell your half, if you really want the player then pay up. and player fees tend to not inflate as much as well.

[dst]

I think co-ownership makes sense. I mean... for a mid-table team (that's getting the player) it's the best choice. Of course Milan can opt for a smaller team but a better team means better players and I think that's more beneficial for a young player's development. Also, it guarantees more chances...

[Jack Sparrow]

Concurrence. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif)

Now pay me Pana. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Rossoneri7]

It's really irrelevant, it's just common sense, especially with young players.

Loan:
The player remains yours - he gains experience elsewhere - you then have the player back at the club.
If he turns out bad, you sell him for a small price, if he's good, you've had to pay nothing for a good player.

Co-ownership:
You make a small fee to sell half - he gains experience elsewhere - you have to buy the player back.
If he turns out bad, you can get rid of the other half of him, you don't make much. If he's good, you have to pay out to get the player back.

So the outcomes are:
If he's bad? You barely make anything on either a loan or a co-ownership as he is not of much value.
If he's good? With a loan you keep a good player, without costing you a thing. With co-ownership, you have to end up paying out to get him back.

I do not see one single upside with co-ownership. And I'm amazed that after the Marco situation we haven't learned from it and have done it again with Abate.

I know the difference kurt ... It isn't exactly rocket science.

Thing is, Milan have always sent it's players on co-ownership deals. Some players come back and make the first team, others remain at other clubs and are more than often bought by them. Milan tends to do this in most cases to help out the other teams in Serie A. And if a player peaks there, its not a problem, Milan bring the player back.

Now if the reason behind you not seeing this as a feasible move, and prefer an alternative, ie loaning the player ... It is just a matter of politics between the Milan management and the other clubs.

This is another element of the Milan philosophy, just like when Buffon got injured and the management handed them Abiatti.

[kurtsimonw]

I still don't see what the problem is here kurt.

Think of it this way... their half of the ownership is the fee we are paying Torino to train Abate. And understand this, during this time, we do not pay his salary either.

Loaning works kinda wierdly in Italy. It's very rare for loaned players from Italy to have a lot of space in the first team. Think of Di Gennaro or Digao.

It's not a problem as such, just annoying that it's a bad idea.

I don't think we should be paying them though - which is why I think a loan is much better. The fee we pay them should not be their 'reward'. Their 'reward' is having a Milan class player bang in 19 goals for them, for free - in a co-ownership deal, they have to buy half of him, so he wouldn't be free. A loan suits both parties so well Milan get the player trained for them, Genoa get a class player for free, who'll score plenty of goals.

I don't see why whether the deal is a loan or co-ownership should have any bearing at all. So you're telling me that if Boriello to Genoa was a loan and not a co-ownership, he would have played much less? Nah, you play the best players available, regardless of the reason them being on your squad list.

Suppose it's just a difference of opinion.

This post has been edited by kurtsimonw: Jul 25 2008, 07:02 PM

[whoarethepatriot...]

The advantage of a co-ownership is that it gives the player a sense of security. Borriello was happy at Genoa and he knew if he didnt too well Genoa would have probably bought him back. he was given confidence and treated as a potential long term signing. Compare that to a loan (he went to Doria, Treviso etc) he never had any confidence and so suffered, the security was missing because even if he did do well, Sheva, Inzaghi etc were all there and he would have been shipped to another side

The Abate co-ownership is puzzling. He is a bright light for the future and i expected a loan for experience not a CO for security

[Tennie]

Brutta tegola in casa Torino. Il centrocampista Ignazio Abate, infortunatosi con la Nazionale Olimpica del ct Pierluigi Casiraghi nei Giochi di Pechino, dovrà restare lontano dai campi di gioco per sei settimane. Gli esami cui si è sottoposto il giocatore hanno evidenziato una lesione di primo grado al bicipite femorale sinistro.


Bad news for Torino: Ignacio Abate is facing 6 weeks off. Exams have shown that he's got a tear in his left thigh muscle. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[YoungGun]

I'm not sure about my idea, but in world class team like Milan, very few youth can enter the 1st team. It means that even Milan sell a half of, let's say, 20 youths, they may get around over 10m, it's not a small money.

Sometimes the youth becomes too talent (Ex: Boriello), you still won't lose too much consider to the total money we get from all the 20 transfers. So, in general, co-own is the better way to make money. However, the big team should not apply co-own on their very potential players. The stupid Inter with Adriano was an exception.

For the small teams, if they loan, they have nothing after the players left. They If the loaned player becomes very good, they will return their own club or be loaned to a higher club. have to find other players that they're not sure about the quality then it's risky. In most cases, the loaned players are not good enough to return their club, but still good for the small sides. Therefore the big club won't put a too high price for him then the small side can get the players with an afforded money.

[Rossoneri7]

I'm not sure about my idea, but in world class team like Milan, very few youth can enter the 1st team. It means that even Milan sell a half of, let's say, 20 youths, they may get around over 10m, it's not a small money.

Sometimes the youth becomes too talent (Ex: Boriello), you still won't lose too much consider to the total money we get from all the 20 transfers. So, in general, co-own is the better way to make money. However, the big team should not apply co-own on their very potential players. The stupid Inter with Adriano was an exception.

For the small teams, if they loan, they have nothing after the players left. They If the loaned player becomes very good, they will return their own club or be loaned to a higher club. have to find other players that they're not sure about the quality then it's risky. In most cases, the loaned players are not good enough to return their club, but still good for the small sides. Therefore the big club won't put a too high price for him then the small side can get the players with an afforded money.

Totally agree ... Where have u been buddy ?

[Bluesummers]

co-ownerships are somethign that needs to be incorporated everywhere in football in order to get these huge fluctuated prices down. THe premiership has no problem paying 20+ mil for english players and grown english talent but not all countries have rich foreign owners. In italy if it weren't for co ownerships a lot of teams would feel no reason to try and even challenge the top, they would do what all other countries do, just create youth and hopefully they will make money. Look at italies top 10 teams last season to any other leagues. They were the most competitive by far and i'm not just talking about the race to the top 4 because thats decided by money and luck, nothing else. How many different teams beat us, look at napoli/ genoa they just advanced to the top div and their kicking @$$.

This is how i would look at co ownerships: Instead of asking our big sugar daddy for money everytime we want players, we should try and sell(co-ownership) the players we dont use like marzoratti/pozzi/abate etc and help pay for transfers like cardaccio and viudez, two players we would use. It is the reason why galliani is such a master in the mercato. Because he knows how to spend as little as possible while still buying the class players. Teams like tottenham who just splash the cash will suffer in a few coming years unless they expand their stadiums and really sell out.


afterall guys silvio didn't pay anythign for this mercato excluding sheva. This was all CL winning and the overall collection of co ownerships.

This post has been edited by Bluesummers: Aug 25 2008, 07:42 AM

[kurtsimonw]

Co-ownerships are terrible in my opinion. It makes clubs look stupid and is basically a loan where you throw your money away in the process. Like we sold Borriello for £1m in a co-ownership.. then bought him back for £6m. We basically threw £5m away! If we had just loaned him out, we do not lose any money, Geno don't have to pay anything to get him so will still be happy that they got a 19 goal player for free, then we can take him back without throwing money away.

I just don't see the benefit in the long run. The idea of two clubs owning one players just doesn't seem right, and is a bit dodgey to me, West Ham were nearly relegated when it was found Tevez and Mascherano were still owned by somebody else as well!

[Jack Sparrow]

Not really...Genoa only took in Borriello because of the co-ownership. Besides bringing in funds, co-ownership is usually done in the case of players whom you're 70% sure are not good enough to play for you, but you still wish to keep your options open.

[Bluesummers]

Co-ownerships are terrible in my opinion. It makes clubs look stupid and is basically a loan where you throw your money away in the process. Like we sold Borriello for £1m in a co-ownership.. then bought him back for £6m. We basically threw £5m away! If we had just loaned him out, we do not lose any money, Geno don't have to pay anything to get him so will still be happy that they got a 19 goal player for free, then we can take him back without throwing money away.

I just don't see the benefit in the long run. The idea of two clubs owning one players just doesn't seem right, and is a bit dodgey to me, West Ham were nearly relegated when it was found Tevez and Mascherano were still owned by somebody else as well!

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

[kurtsimonw]

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.

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.

[YoungGun]

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.

[kurtsimonw]

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.

[whoarethepatriot...]

Co-ownerships are terrible in my opinion. It makes clubs look stupid and is basically a loan where you throw your money away in the process. Like we sold Borriello for £1m in a co-ownership.. then bought him back for £6m. We basically threw £5m away! If we had just loaned him out, we do not lose any money, Geno don't have to pay anything to get him so will still be happy that they got a 19 goal player for free, then we can take him back without throwing money away.

I just don't see the benefit in the long run. The idea of two clubs owning one players just doesn't seem right, and is a bit dodgey to me, West Ham were nearly relegated when it was found Tevez and Mascherano were still owned by somebody else as well!

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

[kurtsimonw]

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.

[acid911]

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.

[Bluesummers]

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.

[Bluesummers]

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.

[kurtsimonw]

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.

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.

[Jack Sparrow]

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.

[Bluesummers]

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.

[Jack Sparrow]

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)

[kurtsimonw]

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.

[Jack Sparrow]

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

[kurtsimonw]

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'.

Villa had a loan to purchase option on Scott Carson last year, and apparently we didn't pay any of his wages, Liverpool did.

And also, I don't think it's as easy as saying "If he's bad, they can cut their losses and sell their half", who exactly is going to buy?

Anyways. I think this is going to be another me/dst/nationality thing, so we should really stop. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[Tennie]

Fishdoll (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) Abate!

He looks like one of the kids who could really add to the squad.

Forza Ignazio!

[han2503]

Fishdoll (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) Abate!

He looks like one of the kids who could really add to the squad.

Forza Ignazio!

I sense that fishdoll is walking into fanboy territory when it comes to Abate...

[Tennie]

Fishdoll is, though he was hovering on fanboy territory for some time.

[kurtsimonw]

I didn't see the game. Was he really that good? Where did he play today?

[il_diavolo_mtl]

RM

[Habitant]

same here, i really like what i've seen from abate, in fact have had a good feeling about him since he's been with the azzurrini. imo he'll never be a world class player but he can def be a milan starting 11 for years to come.

[dst]

If he learns to be patient and to not rush into challenges he will become a great RB. Hopefully Zambro can teach him a thing or two.

[Bluesummers]

If he learns to be patient and to not rush into challenges he will become a great RB. Hopefully Zambro can teach him a thing or two.

he can play cm in our system too it seems. Its very free flow.

[Tennie]

So I just looked through the postmatch comments on acmilan.com. Rino and Leonardo both went out of their way to compliment Abate, and Abate was one of the 3 players interviewed. Looks like it's not just Fishdoll who likes him.

[il_diavolo_mtl]

i loved all the mid-fielders that game. Rino, Flamini and abate

[Tennie]

Nice interview with Abate today on acmilan.com (translation by Fishdoll) link

Ignazio, it's 2 days to the derby. How's the preparation going?
'Tension's growing but I'm calm because we're training well and that's the most important thing. The coahc is preparing for the game with Inter very well. It was important to recupreate all the elements because with the squad complete I believe we can play our game.'

You're in your first year with Milan's first team. What's the effect of training with great champions?
'From champions like Seedorf, Ambrosini, Gattuso, Flamini and the others I can only learn, but I'm also convinced of the fact that I have to do my best to make it hard for the coach day by day (fishdoll note: the implication in Italian is that he's trying to make it hard for Leonardo to pick the regular starters above him).'

What sort of Inter do you expect after their home draw against Bari?
'I think it'll be the same Inter: a squad that's very physically strong with great quality going forward. They're very cynical because players like Milito and Eto'o have impressive goalscoring averages, but we also have our cards to play and I think we'll play a good game.'

Do you think Pato can cause problems for the opposition's defense?
'The coach is trying different solutions. Alexandre is a very important player for us, but at the same time there are also other great champions especially in the offensive positions like Huntelaar and Inzaghi who could be decisive. We have different solutions to play and we'll try to do it in the best manner.'

[Tennie]

(IMG:http://i33.tinypic.com/2e3sits.jpg)

Fishdoll's hero.

[dst]

So fishdoll likes Milan players too? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

What I like most about Abate is his confidence.

[Bluesummers]

So fishdoll likes Milan players too? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

What I like most about Abate is his confidence.

Yeah he is very confident. What I liked about him is his drive and never give up attitude. He truly shows that wearing the jersey is no joke.

[Tennie]

It's clear that playing for Milan really means something to him -- he's been on loan to several clubs and now that he's back, he's REALLY determined. I'm perhaps not at Fishdoll's fanboy level but I really do like the kid and was very happy to see him play well today.

[Bluesummers]

He has the attitude that this squad need. He knows the value of what it means to play for Milan. Therefore, when he's on the pitch he never stops running. I agree with you tennie, I think the movement around to different clubs around Italy has really done him good.

He is our best Fb right now and hes not even a Fb (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Bluesummers]

AC Milan Vice-President Adriano Galliani: Ignazio Abate Is The New Cafu

AC Milan have found the 'new Marcos Cafu' in Ignazio Abate, according to vice-president Adriano Galliani.

Abate was one of the protagonists during the 1-0 win over Bologna, and Galliani feels he can emulate the two-time Brazilian World Cup winner.

"Ignazio will be the new Cafu," the chief is quoted as saying on Tuttomercatoweb.com.

Galliani's comments have led to speculation which suggests the winger will be used in a right-back position with Gianluca Zambrotta moving over to the left.

Voices also claim the Rossoneri's plans for a right-sided, defensive minded player have been shelved given Abate's explosion. Although the player's natural position is more advanced, he could adapt to play deeper in defence.

Why do you open your big mouth... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[il_diavolo_mtl]

Why do you open your big mouth... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

LOL!!!! it was a matter of time before galliani over-glamorized a decent performance by calling someone a great champion, but here i thought he would tut seedorf's performance

[Danny]

Abate and one other are the only bright spots this season so far. Abate's winning me over - looks determined, can defend as well as go forward, and has the right attributes to be an excellent RB. A much better bet than Zambrotta.

[Maestro10]

If there is anything to take away from this piss-poor team, it is Abate

[Jack Sparrow]

It's the return of Nesta for me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[TriniKing_CE]

If there is anything to take away from this piss-poor team, it is Abate

It's the return of Nesta for me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Both are acceptable positives in this time of negativity!

[il_diavolo_mtl]

Early team awards go to Abate-Nesta-Silva (before he got hurt)-Storari

[Danny]

It's the return of Nesta for me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

If only he was accompanied by his form of old too though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Looks at about 50% of what he was.

[Jack Sparrow]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) Maybe...but it's still holding up our defence.

[Tennie]

Maybe my memory's fuzzy or Fishdoll slipped something naughty into my coffee but I think this year's Nesta is certainly equivalent to the 2007 Nesta, and probably better. Is the the Lazio Nesta? Nah. THat one is gone.

[il_diavolo_mtl]

Maybe my memory's fuzzy or Fishdoll slipped something naughty into my coffee but I think this year's Nesta is certainly equivalent to the 2007 Nesta, and probably better. Is the the Lazio Nesta? Nah. THat one is gone.

Nesta must have been amazing for Lazio is you think his performances are no where near the Nesta of Old (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

[Tennie]

Nesta was on another planet when he played for Lazio, ayup.

[han2503]

Nesta was on another planet when he played for Lazio, ayup.

He was still as good in his first years with us before the injuries started. 02/03, 03/04, 04/05 seasons he was still from another planet. Him and Maldini in the middle was just magic

[dst]

I think his best years were with us, not with Lazio. He had to run a lot more back then due to Lazio's leaky midfield and he was, unavoidably, making more mistakes. He was more agile though.

[Tennie]

(from the ticker on acmilan.com's english page)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY IGNAZIO ABATE
11/12/2009
MILANELLO - Ignazio Abate, important element of the Rossoneri's squad, was born on November 12, 1986. Today the Milan wing-back celebrates his 23rd birthday. Best wishes!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/balloons.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/balloons.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/balloons.gif)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

[Zed.D]

Happy 23rd Birthday, Ignazio (IMG:http://i34.tinypic.com/b9dvk1.gif)

[Tennie]

Awww. an interview on his birthday.

(from acmilan.com. their translation)

RECHARGE OF ENERGY
11/12/2009 4:41:00 PM
On the day of his 23rd birthday, Ignazio Abate talked about his happiness at wearing the Rossoneri shirt and the usefulness of the break to recharge the batteries and reprise the league in the best possible way.


MILANELLO - Here are the declarations made today at Milanello by Ignazio Abate, exclusively to Milan Channel's microphones:

Ignazio, first of all happy 23rd birthday.
"Thank you! It seems yesterday that I started playing at Napoli, but time passes for me as well, however I am still young! In these years I had my experiences travelling around Italy, I'm happy about everything I've done because many of them helped me improve and mature. The most important thing, now, is to have returned here at Milanello and to wear this shirt, finally."

There's been a lot of talk of rejuvenation at Milan.
"There's a lot of talk about buying new players. I don't want this team to be underestimated, it's an important group with important values. We are showing it and we hope to continue on this road."

With Ronaldinho you have a great relationship.
"He really is a very nice lad, he has a good heart, and he's very sociable, we talk a lot. He's doing well and we hope he continues like this and continues improving because he's one of those players who, if he's doing well, is able to win games on his own."

Did you need this league break?
"Yes, I needed it because playing for four weeks every Sunday and Wednesday isn't easy. We needed to recover energies and working physically is good for us. Now we are recharging our batteries and we hope to have more good weeks like the past ones. When the league resumes we have an important block of games, we'll have to continue trying to reduce the distance from the top teams and as for the league we can still do it. The journey is long, you need consistency and we have to lose as few points as possible."

[Bluesummers]

happy birthday! He will become a milan legend, i can feel it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Fishdoll]

(from acmilan.com)

A.C. MILAN COMUNICATO UFFICIALE
11/02/2010
L'A.C. Milan comunica che i calciatori Ignazio Abate e Luca Antonini hanno prolungato i rispettivi contratti con la Società fino al 30 Giugno 2014.

Contract renewed through 2014.

[Jack Sparrow]

Any way we can dig out their new salaries? Or do we need to wait for FM '11?

[Danny]

Any way we can dig out their new salaries? Or do we need to wait for FM '11?

FM has a LOT to answer for...

[Bluesummers]

Any way we can dig out their new salaries? Or do we need to wait for FM '11?

Well My guess is that they were bumped up to the average salary of milan which is probably around 45K.


Abate was making 20 and Antonini was making 25 before.

[Fishdoll]

Got sources for those figures, Blue? Just curious as the figures for Antonini I remember seeing last year on tuttomercatoweb (when he asked for and didn't get a raise) were about half that. The figures discussed then were tha the was in the 500k/year range. No clue on Abate's wages.