[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.