[m1ke]

All Ignazio Abate talk in here.

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

[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