Ciro Immobile (5 Viewers)

[Luca]

And why would it being an equal share entitle Juve to force Genoa to give him up?

I'm not saying that, but he should be interested in what we say; since we own half of the player. He's anti any sort of co-operation and that's what I really don't like about this guy. He's so pro Milan it's stupid for us to do business with him at all.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Red]

He's so pro Milan it's stupid for us to do business with him at all.

I don't disagree with that, or your assertion that Preziosi is a cunt.

However, he is an important player for Genoa in their attempt to avoid relegation, so I don't see that you can blame Preziosi for not being willing to give Immobile up easily.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

If they are unwilling to negotiate over Immobile then we shouldn't sell them a player who is going to strengthen their squad either. Once their relegation is confirmed Ciro should be much easier to sign in the summer anyway.

This.

Send Ziegler to Sampdoria just to fuck with them.

 

[Kasaki]

Getting relegated to Serie B?

Melo you know as well as anyone that Moggi did nothing different than any other S.D.

 

[LowLife]

This.

Send Ziegler to Sampdoria just to fuck with them.

I already said that!

 

[Klin]

Excuse them for seeing your posts irrelevant.

 

[Cronios]

So Marotta has failed to bring him back, as expected, these co own deals of his are killing us, expect to lose more cash when they allow us to take him back, after the damage in our season is already done, due to lack of options...

 

[Deep C]

...

 

[JuveJay]

So Marotta has failed to bring him back, as expected, these co own deals of his are killing us, expect to lose more cash when they allow us to take him back, after the damage in our season is already done, due to lack of options...

I doubt you even understand co-ownership deals on a basic level.

 

[ZoSo]

I doubt you even understand co-ownership deals on a basic level.

Isn't it obvious? Sell half to other team, player plays for other team, buy back half for more than sold.

 

[JCK]

I doubt you even understand co-ownership deals on a basic level.

It's really straight forward and does not require extra brains to understand, the result is similar to shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Zlatan]

yes, coownerships suck, thats why people who run football clubs for a living do them, because they're obviously dumber than a bunch of posters on an internet forum.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

So Marotta has failed to bring him back, as expected, these co own deals of his are killing us, expect to lose more cash when they allow us to take him back, after the damage in our season is already done, due to lack of options...

We're doomed.

 

[Cronios]

I doubt you even understand co-ownership deals on a basic level.

Actually do, its Marotta that obviously doesnt, because he doesnt know when to co own and when to loan, with Juventus ending up in loss every single time...

What i am saying is that we should never do a co ownership again without a buy back clause, esp after the Giovinco incident.
And esp for this player. And considering that we never had a chance to bring another CF, the whole loan thing was a mistake in many levels.

 

[JuveJay]

It's really straight forward and does not require extra brains to understand, the result is similar to shooting yourself in the foot.

If we pretend that there are no benefits to co-ownership deals, then yes, this is 100% true.

Actually do, its Marotta that obviously doesnt, because he doesnt know when to co own and when to loan, with Juventus ending up in loss every single time...

What i am saying is that we should never do a co ownership again without a buy back clause, esp after the Giovinco incident.
And esp for this player. And considering that we never had a chance to bring another CF, the whole loan thing was a mistake in many levels.

OK I'll run through this again for the 4th or 5th time, nothing better to do.

- they generate cash for other areas of the market for the current window. Wiki Richmond Boakye, otherwise.
- the investment from the other team makes them more inclined to play the player than a loan deal, because they want to retain or increase value (now pay attention here)
- the player we sold is not the player we then buy back. Understand this, it is not the same player. Co-ownership deals last 1-2 seasons, by which the time the value of a player changes like any over the market.

It could decrease, increase or stay the same, all depending on performances. The Giovinco we brought back from Parma was not the same we sold. Giovinco is but one deal, have a look at the other players we make money on. Have a look at those we co-own who then do poorly and retain no value. Palladino, Paolucci, Lanzafame, Ekdal, Criscito, Ariaudo. Just a few winners for us. We'll buy good players back, we'll sell the rest and make money. Make money. It's not just about the Giovinco and Immobile's, players we try to buy back. Those are the 5%.

If a player has done well then his value increases. SO WE HAVE TO PAY MORE TO BUY THE HALF BACK. This is the same as any player on the market.

The idea that we are entitled to buy the half back for the same or similar price is absolute rubbish, rubbish. You pay 50% of what the player is now worth. Right now Immobile's value is very similar to what we sold it for, because he hasn't really done an awful lot so far. Maybe's he's worth €12m instead of €10m, but that's it. So we aren't going to offer Genoa much more than we what we sold him for, ergo, he'll probably stay there.

If the clubs can't agree anything after 1 year he stays at Genoa, no questions, don't bother. If they can't agree after 2 years it goes to a blind auction. This is the only instance where you can get a great deal on a successful player, because it all depend on how much money and how much balls the other club has.

 

[JCK]

If we pretend that there are no benefits to co-ownership deals, then yes, this is 100% true.

There is no need to pretend, the benefits are not worth the losses. Not even close.

 

[Hydde]

yes, coownerships suck, thats why people who run football clubs for a living do them, because they're obviously dumber than a bunch of posters on an internet forum.

woah, one of the old school TuZ posters.

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

If we pretend that there are no benefits to co-ownership deals, then yes, this is 100% true.


OK I'll run through this again for the 4th or 5th time, nothing better to do.

- they generate cash for other areas of the market for the current window. Wiki Richmond Boakye, otherwise.
- the investment from the other team makes them more inclined to play the player than a loan deal, because they want to retain or increase value (now pay attention here)
- the player we sold is not the player we then buy back. Understand this, it is not the same player. Co-ownership deals last 1-2 seasons, by which the time the value of a player changes like any over the market.

It could decrease, increase or stay the same, all depending on performances. The Giovinco we brought back from Parma was not the same we sold. Giovinco is but one deal, have a look at the other players we make money on. Have a look at those we co-own who then do poorly and retain no value. Palladino, Paolucci, Lanzafame, Ekdal, Criscito, Ariaudo. Just a few winners for us. We'll buy good players back, we'll sell the rest and make money. Make money. It's not just about the Giovinco and Immobile's, players we try to buy back. Those are the 5%.

If a player has done well then his value increases. SO WE HAVE TO PAY MORE TO BUY THE HALF BACK. This is the same as any player on the market.

The idea that we are entitled to buy the half back for the same or similar price is absolute rubbish, rubbish. You pay 50% of what the player is now worth. Right now Immobile's value is very similar to what we sold it for, because he hasn't really done an awful lot so far. Maybe's he's worth €12m instead of €10m, but that's it. So we aren't going to offer Genoa much more than we what we sold him for, ergo, he'll probably stay there.

If the clubs can't agree anything after 1 year he stays at Genoa, no questions, don't bother. If they can't agree after 2 years it goes to a blind auction. This is the only instance where you can get a great deal on a successful player, because it all depend on how much money and how much balls the other club has.

The blind auction part scares me a bit, but other than that co-owns really aren't that bad of a system.

 

[Nejc]

Blind auctions usually favor the big clubs. I just don't understand why Marotta negotiated a deal with Parma for Giovinco instead of going to the auction. I am sure Juve could get him for at least a couple of million less and if Parma outbid Juve, we would still sell him for a more than fair amount of money.

 

[JuveJay]

There is no need to pretend, the benefits are not worth the losses. Not even close.

I'd say our bank balance disagrees, if you look at all of our co-ownerships and not just one. That's not even considering the technical benefits.