All Ignazio Abate talk in here.

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.

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

I like this guy, he is very talented and faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast

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.

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.]

Well done! Now let him develop and spend a bunch of millions to get him back... Now this is stupid! Just what the ****?

******* 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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

yep this is rebuilding

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.

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.

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.

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

It's what Diavolo says, it makes sense.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

Concurrence.

Now pay me Pana.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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