That's the whole point of co-ownerships. He was worth €6m-€8m when we sold him. He's played well so his value goes up. If he played badly his value would go down - see Palladino, Lanzafame etc. We pay more but we get a player who is better than when he left. It's the pro-con of these deals.
I fail to see where is the pro in that, as we were never obliged to sell his 50% for such a pitiful sum.
There is no freakin chance in hell, for one of the most overestimated trade pieces in the Italian market, a young, Italian SS, who has played for a big club, can dribble and attract attention by creating spectacle and promises, be worthy of just 6mil.
There was absolutely no chance to win money from this, as his price cannot go any worth of our evaluation, right after his worst season, of his carrier.
There never was a chance in hell, for a Parma level team, to keep him on the bench for the entire season and cause a further loss of value.
It was a certainty that his value would raise after a season, that had the time to participate in a few games, let alone, be the protagonist.
So, we dont just loan him??? The contract of the players was ours 100%, the profit we made of the sale of his 50%, was the minimum possible,
there never was a logical point to agree this deal, unless we were certain that this player was worthless and not worthy of a second chance,
so, we have chosen this way, in order to minimise loses and help the client club, to buy him.
There are no excuses, esp after the Criscito and countless other similar cases, that should have tought us smth...