[ITA] Serie A 2013/2014 (49 Viewers)

[Deep C]

Why are they looking to get rid of co-ownerships?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[AOD4]

Serie A needs alot of change, but is co-ownership abolition one of them? I think it should remain rather than abolishing it.

 

[Nejc]

Good, buyback options with fixed price are better anyway.

 

[Deep C]

Good, buyback options with fixed price are better anyway.

Why?

 

[petersmit]

buyback options..... is that the thing real madrid are doing? where they got carvajal for a dime because there was a certain number in his contract?

 

[JBF]

I can't see that happen TBH. Both small and big clubs are benefiting from co-ownership deals, small clubs probably more in both monetary and performance returns.


Only in Italy would they call abolishing a beneficial system for an unproven one, a reform

 

[NinjaPoggy]

Why?

because that benifits big clubs...so fuck the poor its a win for us

 

[Xperd]

Maybe in terms of youngsters there is an advantage.

But without co-ownership its going to be harder for the big clubs to buy established players within the league especially with inflation and all.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

co-ownership is a great risk mitigator, and also allows you to put your eggs in multiple baskets, take our summer mercato for example if it werent for co-own we would not be able to have stakes in all of gabbia, zaza, and berardi. If anything it's also good players because more of them are given a chance per same logic.

 

[Red]

What is the argument for abolishing co-ownerships?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

apparently too many disputes once the 2 year window come to a close

 

[Deep C]

What is the argument for abolishing co-ownerships?

"Nobody else does it"

 

[Red]

apparently too many disputes once the 2 year window come to a close

Too many are going to the blind auction to resolve the ownership of the player or some other dispute?

"Nobody else does it"

I guessed that was probably part of the thinking behind it, but it ain't a good reason.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

ya but knowing italians, blind auctions are never really 'blind', it's almost always is settled before

 

[Red]

Yeah, I know.

Still not seeing any compelling reason(s) to get rid of co-ownerships.

 

[Ocelot]

Who exactly came up with the proposal to abolish the system anyways? It seems to be working out great for everyone, doesn't it?

 

[jukazem]

co-ownership is a great risk mitigator, and also allows you to put your eggs in multiple baskets, take our summer mercato for example if it werent for co-own we would not be able to have stakes in all of gabbia, zaza, and berardi. If anything it's also good players because more of them are given a chance per same logic.

There are many downsides too, for instance foreign clubs are afraid to buy for having to negotiate with two clubs with conflicting views and valuations to buy a players. eg: Juve couldn't sell Sorensen because Bologna didn't give consent, now his valuation/price probably gone down.
Mitigating risk most often means lower returns, fingers in too many pies. eg: Immobile 1st half for Boakye's 1st half, seems only Immobile 2nd half will earn the money some of it will be lost on the loss on Boakye, we literally got no money for Immobile's 1st half (I guessing half of Boakye won't get us much).
Also sometimes some clubs has to make compromises to keep a good rapport with the other club, eg. if Juve wants stake in Cuadrado then Juve will prolly have to deal Isla as Udinese wants it done. this for me is the reason blind auction cannot and wouldn't work for too long.

 

[Mark]

The league and apparently gave his ok for it.

 

[Powis]

@Ragazza How does it feel when one of your legends, the guy who scored more than 100 goals for your club, badmouths you on every occasion he gets?
Bobo

I wonder why he hates them so much. The guy had the best his career spell playing for them and now every time he gets an opportunity to make fun of them, he does that. And most interesting thing he's cheering for the Old Lady, classy guy :thumbs:
@DelPiero84

 

[JBF]

There are many downsides too, for instance foreign clubs are afraid to buy for having to negotiate with two clubs with conflicting views and valuations to buy a players. eg: Juve couldn't sell Sorensen because Bologna didn't give consent, now his valuation/price probably gone down.
Mitigating risk most often means lower returns, fingers in too many pies. eg: Immobile 1st half for Boakye's 1st half, seems only Immobile 2nd half will earn the money some of it will be lost on the loss on Boakye, we literally got no money for Immobile's 1st half (I guessing half of Boakye won't get us much).
Also sometimes some clubs has to make compromises to keep a good rapport with the other club, eg. if Juve wants stake in Cuadrado then Juve will prolly have to deal Isla as Udinese wants it done. this for me is the reason blind auction cannot and wouldn't work for too long.

Co-ownership aint as half complicated as you make them up to be. For God's sake, take a look at Brazil in contrast for example, where a player could be playing Corinthians while a two businessmen and a drug dealer own his rights and the club is simply a front. Yet that's not stopping anyone from buying such players.

The only real reason I could come up with for such a decision is probably tax evasion. The way Inter and Milan in particular did it, were they overestimated crappy and pointless player exchanges.

I wonder why he hates them so much. The guy had the best his career spell playing for them and now every time he gets an opportunity to make fun of them, he does that. And most interesting thing he's cheering for the Old Lady, classy guy :thumbs:
@DelPiero84

Invading his private life must have a hand in it. Moratti