The simplest reason I can think of without making an effort is that Empoli have a good relationship with us and they want to keep loaning our youngsters.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Cristian Pasquato (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Turk_Bianconero
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Seriously, you guys throw a hissy fit over nothing (heh, I remember the fits Marks misinformation about Giovinco caused 
). This is only if we wanted to sell him, the option is that, only an option, nothing more (we havent sold half of him, only given the alternative to do so if we want).
Bari had 300k option on Lanzafame with the loan, if we wanted to sell him, but taken back when deemed good enough.
It means option to buy IF we want to sell, not binding whatsoever, like you assume too quickly. They are usually made to have a way to get rid of players if they arent good enough, and make the teams more willing to loan them.
). This is only if we wanted to sell him, the option is that, only an option, nothing more (we havent sold half of him, only given the alternative to do so if we want). Bari had 300k option on Lanzafame with the loan, if we wanted to sell him, but taken back when deemed good enough.
It means option to buy IF we want to sell, not binding whatsoever, like you assume too quickly. They are usually made to have a way to get rid of players if they arent good enough, and make the teams more willing to loan them.
I believe Osman is right in Pasquato's case.
These buy-out options are really confusing and people don't understand how everything goes.
But it's easy, guys.
There is : 1. Loan with an option to buy (half contract or 100% of the contract) if the club that owns the player WANTS TO SELL and option 2 where they can buy 50%/100% of the player, no matter if the club that loaned the player wants to sell.
In the second case the price is set when the loan deal is done and the team that owns the player has no rights to stop the transfer if the other team wants to buy the player (of course, the player must agree to the transfer).
Oliveira from Milan to Zaragoza was such case. Zaragoza payed for the loan deal but there was one detail in the contract that allowed Zaragoza to buy Oliveira for 10m (or 12, i don't remember) at the end of the season.
With Pasquato it's different because Empoli can buy (50% of him) only if Juve wants to sell, unlike the case with Oliveira where Milan had no power to stop the transfer or to change the set price.
These buy-out options are really confusing and people don't understand how everything goes.
But it's easy, guys.
There is : 1. Loan with an option to buy (half contract or 100% of the contract) if the club that owns the player WANTS TO SELL and option 2 where they can buy 50%/100% of the player, no matter if the club that loaned the player wants to sell.
In the second case the price is set when the loan deal is done and the team that owns the player has no rights to stop the transfer if the other team wants to buy the player (of course, the player must agree to the transfer).
Oliveira from Milan to Zaragoza was such case. Zaragoza payed for the loan deal but there was one detail in the contract that allowed Zaragoza to buy Oliveira for 10m (or 12, i don't remember) at the end of the season.
With Pasquato it's different because Empoli can buy (50% of him) only if Juve wants to sell, unlike the case with Oliveira where Milan had no power to stop the transfer or to change the set price.
The simple answer, I think, to OMGZ WHY DOES OUR BOARD CONSENT TO THESE DEALS, THEIR BAD FOR BUSINESS is the simple fact of making a deal that both sides get something out of. The starting point is that we have a lot of young players and we don't need them all. Some are better than others, and there are too many, what we want is to figure out who we want. Now this may seem like a dream come true, but truth is you need some way to make this decision. That's where small clubs come in. They get a good deal on a free player who might just be the next hit (or flop), but if all they get is a free taste then why would they continue to help us meet our own objectives, which incidentally are counter to theirs? If you make it a half share instead then at the end of the season, there's no way in hell Empoli can outbid us for Pasquato, but at least they will have some leverage against the big player (and let's face it there's no comparison between the power these two clubs have). That means buy half the contract, there's no telling what the player will be worth next year. Both clubs run the same risk. And if it turns out we want him back then at least they've turned a profit despite losing a valuable player. And what we get out of it is precisely what we needed, a player who's proven himself on the big stage.
EDIT: I might mention that I say this now and I'm pretty sure I've said it before and I'm not even sure why I bother as I bet the same group of muppets will run around screaming about this again very soon, having understood nothing. It must be pure altruism.
EDIT: I might mention that I say this now and I'm pretty sure I've said it before and I'm not even sure why I bother as I bet the same group of muppets will run around screaming about this again very soon, having understood nothing. It must be pure altruism.
The simple answer, I think, to OMGZ WHY DOES OUR BOARD CONSENT TO THESE DEALS, THEIR BAD FOR BUSINESS is the simple fact of making a deal that both sides get something out of. The starting point is that we have a lot of young players and we don't need them all. Some are better than others, and there are too many, what we want is to figure out who we want. Now this may seem like a dream come true, but truth is you need some way to make this decision. That's where small clubs come in. They get a good deal on a free player who might just be the next hit (or flop), but if all they get is a free taste then why would they continue to help us meet our own objectives, which incidentally are counter to theirs? If you make it a half share instead then at the end of the season, there's no way in hell Empoli can outbid us for Pasquato, but at least they will have some leverage against the big player (and let's face it there's no comparison between the power these two clubs have). That means buy half the contract, there's no telling what the player will be worth next year. Both clubs run the same risk. And if it turns out we want him back then at least they've turned a profit despite losing a valuable player. And what we get out of it is precisely what we needed, a player who's proven himself on the big stage.
EDIT: I might mention that I say this now and I'm pretty sure I've said it before and I'm not even sure why I bother as I bet the same group of muppets will run around screaming about this again very soon, having understood nothing. It must be pure altruism.
EDIT: I might mention that I say this now and I'm pretty sure I've said it before and I'm not even sure why I bother as I bet the same group of muppets will run around screaming about this again very soon, having understood nothing. It must be pure altruism.
Hardly, Martin. Giovinco was loaned and performed well, yet we still have people around here doubting he's ready for the big stage.
Personally, I hate loaning and will never approve of it, nor co-ownerships. I believe they should be banned outright unless a team is in desperate need of a player due to injury. No idea why people are so readily agreeing to hand over starlets to other clubs... who knows how they could fuck the kid up.
Personally, I hate loaning and will never approve of it, nor co-ownerships. I believe they should be banned outright unless a team is in desperate need of a player due to injury. No idea why people are so readily agreeing to hand over starlets to other clubs... who knows how they could fuck the kid up.
so do you agree with Almirons loan? haha would you like him at Juve this season?
i agree, loans do suck unless you got a player like i mentioned above that is sucking the wages...its nice to not have to pay the wages of players that will never step foot on the pitch for us. now with the youngsters, id rather them stay and WE develope them. I like the fact that our club is more in touch with their developement, not a lower division team where they cant learn form anyone on that team.
i agree, loans do suck unless you got a player like i mentioned above that is sucking the wages...its nice to not have to pay the wages of players that will never step foot on the pitch for us. now with the youngsters, id rather them stay and WE develope them. I like the fact that our club is more in touch with their developement, not a lower division team where they cant learn form anyone on that team.
