[m1ke]

All Ignazio Abate talk in here.

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

[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.

[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.