Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Dangers of Co-ownership

  1. #1
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF

    The Dangers of Co-ownership

    Original article here



    For many years now, I have been a huge fan of co-ownership schemes as deployed by Inter to help develop young players. But recent sagas have led me to rethink this, and Im starting to sway towards the decision to get rid of co-ownership entirely, which is due to come in at the end of the next season.

    Ishak Belfodil Co-ownership

    Co-ownership is a great way to get your hands on some young talent players we have recently signed under this scheme include Marco Benassi, Alessandro Capello, Lorenzo Tassi, amongst many many others. And historically, I have always been in favour of these co-ownership schemes. Its a nice way to sign half of a player whilst letting him stay at his original (and presumably, thus, smaller) club to develop, and at the same time give equity incentive to his parent club to develop him into the best player he can possibly be.

    From the other perspective, too, its a great way to loan out a player for a couple of seasons so he can develop his skills, whilst incentivising the other club to develop them as best as possible.

    So wheres the fault?

    We observe this now with Parma, and Crisetig. They can hold us to ransom for him hes an Inter home-grown player (something we are desperately short of), and by all accounts potentially a stellar talent. Now that we have sold half of him to Parma, we both hold equal rights to the player. We cant strong arm them into selling him, the best thing we can do in the case of no agreement is to go to a blind auction, which is clearly dangerous.

    Parma, it would seem, too are very keen on the talent that Crisetig offers, and are looking to keep him next season. So the usual approach of thrashing out the details as we always have done will not work here. Instead, were risking going to blind auction. Either that, or Parma can gouge us as much as they like. Which is exactly what they are doing.

    Ishak Belfodil moved to Inter for a substantial amount of money by some accounts approximately 7 million euros. This is of course partially to offset the cost of Antonio Cassanos wages, who moved the other direction on loan, but nonetheless, this information is useful for time being.

    Whats the problem with this? Well, Parma are demanding the other half of Belfodil now for Crisetig + Yao (another youth player who they co-own). There is no world, unfortunately, in which Crisetig NOW is a 10 million euro (or more) midfielder. We are now being gouged to the eyes for a player who we owned, and probably only sold half of in co-ownership for a minor fee.

    We have up until now assumed other partners would be reasonable, and that when dealing with Inter, they would charge a premium for developing players, but many of the players who dont develop would average out the premium costs and all clubs come out happy in the end. This is the first time in recent years (Bologna is another example, but it is slightly different) where we have had to deal with a club who is NOT prepared to be reasonable.

    If we lose Lorenzo Crisetig because of this situation, I will be extremely disappointed and I will also be disappointed if he is re-signed at a premium. There are pressures that come with being purchased for a substantial amount of money, and I do not think that Lorenzo Crisetig needs more pressure on his shoulders at the moment.

    This whole situation has entirely reversed my opinion on the co-ownership rules, unfortunately, and perhaps it is for the best that we get rid of them, despite some of the benefits they have brought us.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Be interested to see what you all think, tbh, I've been a very vocal fan of co-ownership for a while

  2. Thanks (5): Dylan, Fitzy, Guney, Inter7, pier

  3. #2
    Wings's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 13
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanked
    5,077 times

    Marshall Islands

    14
    But there's the argument that without co-ownership, Crisetig would never have reached the level of development that caused Parma and Inter to even fight over him.

  4. Thanks (1): Redbullsnation

  5. #3
    Universe's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 09
    Posts
    16,707
    Thanked
    26,922 times
    Fav. Player
    Bossvaldo

    South Korea

    89 Forum Supporter Most Humorous Member
    Co ownership would be fine to stay around so long as there are more stringent and transparent regulations between the owning clubs. While it's a tangent to go off on, what I really, really dislike is the idea of 3rd parties having a share in players a la Falcao.
    **I move away from the mic to breathe in

    \_(ツ)_/

  6. #4

    Join Date
    17 Aug 12
    Posts
    726
    Thanked
    292 times

    United States

    What?? This Inter team uses co-ownership to give youngsters a stepping stone for their careers and you hate it?? WTF??

  7. #5
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF
    Quote Originally Posted by Wings View Post
    But there's the argument that without co-ownership, Crisetig would never have reached the level of development that caused Parma and Inter to even fight over him.
    But there's no merit to that.

    Crisetig's co-ownership has nothing to do with the loan, where he ACTUALLY developed.

    All we did was to sell half of him, and then loaned him out ANYWAY. If he was developing at the co-owned club, then that's an entirely different story. But he isnt.

    The fact that he's co-owned has had no impact on his development. He hasn't spent a single day at Parma, and his co-ownership is purely 'administrative', with up until now no impact on his actual career. That's part of my point, its a completely unnecessary dilution.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbullsnation View Post
    What?? This Inter team uses co-ownership to give youngsters a stepping stone for their careers and you hate it?? WTF??
    If the co-ownership was to smaller clubs who KEPT the players and developed them, and we were in essence compensating them for training, its fine. But thats not what is happening here, and also, that's not what happens to 95% of the players we send out on co-ownership. All we do is give up an equity share on the player, AND THEN THEY GO OUT ON LOAN ANYWAY!

    Duncan - loan. Benassi - loan. Bardi - loan.

    The only players I'm aware of on co-ownership who are actually doing well out of it is Pecorini and Crisetig right now. Off the top of my head.

  8. Thanks (1): Fitzy

  9. #6
    Wings's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 13
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanked
    5,077 times

    Marshall Islands

    14
    Quote Originally Posted by browha View Post
    But there's no merit to that.

    Crisetig's co-ownership has nothing to do with the loan, where he ACTUALLY developed.

    All we did was to sell half of him, and then loaned him out ANYWAY. If he was developing at the co-owned club, then that's an entirely different story. But he isnt.

    The fact that he's co-owned has had no impact on his development. He hasn't spent a single day at Parma, and his co-ownership is purely 'administrative', with up until now no impact on his actual career. That's part of my point, its a completely unnecessary dilution.
    I mean that's easy to say in hindsight, now that he's started to develop, but that wasn't so apparent a few years ago. People were ready to write him off, and we would've fronted all the costs of he had failed to reach the required level. (As the majority of players coming out of our academy). In this case, we made a loss on Crisetig (if we redeem him), but think of all the nobodies we've sold half of who have seen their value fall subsequently because of a failure to reach their potential.

    And the whole Crisetig thing is mooted anyway I think, because reports say we are close to an agreement with Parma anyway.

  10. Thanks (1): Redbullsnation

  11. #7
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF
    But my point is whats the point even? We made and lost nothing in the obi/obiora fiasco, so theres absolutely fuck all reason to do it.

    the point is that the coownership and the loan are COMPLETELY irrelevant here. Loan and development is fine. His coownership is unrelated.

  12. #8
    monster09's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Mar 11
    Posts
    9,064
    Thanked
    6,483 times
    Fav. Player
    Solskjr

    India

    18 Forum Supporter
    Not sure where I read it, but Serie A are stopping this co-ownership rules isn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cal View Post
    I think the point is theres a fine line between comming across as a learned individual and comming across as a bit of a wanker, and utilising every corner of your vocabulary on a global internet football forum with people many of whom don't have don't have english as their first language makes you come across as the latter.

  13. #9
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF
    Yup. No new ones this summer no nore at all next summer

  14. #10
    Inter7's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Jun 11
    Posts
    4,222
    Thanked
    1,865 times
    Fav. Player
    Kova Magic

    United States

    64
    I feel it will make it more tough for us to steal talents now we have to buy them outright...

  15. Thanks (2): Guney, Redbullsnation

  16. #11
    Wings's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 13
    Posts
    3,181
    Thanked
    5,077 times

    Marshall Islands

    14
    Quote Originally Posted by browha View Post
    But my point is whats the point even? We made and lost nothing in the obi/obiora fiasco, so theres absolutely fuck all reason to do it.

    the point is that the coownership and the loan are COMPLETELY irrelevant here. Loan and development is fine. His coownership is unrelated.
    So you've got two examples...Obi (which I admit was a massive fuck-up) and Crisetig (which was resolved as usual). So basically

    Co-ownership ideally incentivizes player development, but even if it doesn't make a difference, you at least minimize the risk.

    Most players out of our youth system won't make it. Their value will drop, and we will want to offload them. Initially selling half of a player based on his potential (before their value falls) means we will get more out of the player than if we had all of the player and then sold him at reduced value after an unproductive loan spell.

    In some cases, a co-owned player will develop as hoped, and we will have to pay more for a half than we sold it for. But those cases are the exception.

  17. Thanks (1): Redbullsnation

  18. #12
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF
    Quote Originally Posted by Wings View Post
    So you've got two examples...Obi (which I admit was a massive fuck-up) and Crisetig (which was resolved as usual). So basically

    Co-ownership ideally incentivizes player development, but even if it doesn't make a difference, you at least minimize the risk.

    Most players out of our youth system won't make it. Their value will drop, and we will want to offload them. Initially selling half of a player based on his potential (before their value falls) means we will get more out of the player than if we had all of the player and then sold him at reduced value after an unproductive loan spell.

    In some cases, a co-owned player will develop as hoped, and we will have to pay more for a half than we sold it for. But those cases are the exception.
    Well, this comes to my previous point on the dangers of a youth system. If we do believe in kids, we should ekep them 100% and loan them to develop. If we dont, we should sell them, completely.

    None of this half arsed 'oh i dont really believe in you but maybe you'll make it' crap, tbh.

  19. #13
    Bluenine's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 09
    Posts
    6,480
    Thanked
    10,717 times
    Fav. Player
    Zanetti

    England

    Most Serious Member Transfer Guru
    Good points there, Browha. A sensible argument. But how much of this, I wonder, is mismanagement by Inter rather than a case against co-ownership? Lets look at the Belfodil case again, tracing back the funds to 2011:

    2011: Inter buy Pazzini for 19m (12m + Biabiany)
    2012: Inter swap Pazzini for Cassano + 7m
    2013: Inter give away Cassano + 4m for half of Belfodil
    2014: Inter give away their half of Belfodil for half of Crisetig (a player from our own youth academy).

    So in 3 years, we basically threw away most of the 19m we paid for Pazzini (not even counting the disastrous wage bill impact of these idiotic transfers). In a way, we spent almost 16m for getting back that "half of Crisetig" that we had given away almost for free. And if we now end up buying back Biabiany for 12m, that would complete the full circle - classic Inter mis-management.

    If you want to look at the benefits/flaws of co-ownership, and your arguments are sound both ways, maybe we should look at how better run clubs like Juventus do it. With Inter, its down to poor management most of the time, whether is a loan, co-ownership or full transfer!


  20. #14
    .h.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jun 05
    Posts
    19,418
    Thanked
    19,147 times
    Old name
    browha

    Europe

    25 Forum Supporter 10 years of FIF
    Well, thats a good point.

    Even in other clubs like Juventus they still get gouged. Look at the shit they had with Giovinco when we semi-tried to signed him a year or two ago - they got gouged to fuck by Parma for him for example.

  21. Thanks (3): Devious, Guney, Redbullsnation

  22. #15
    CafeCordoba's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Mar 04
    Posts
    18,456
    Thanked
    6,544 times
    Fav. Player
    Kovacic

    Finland

    39 10 years of FIF
    I think we can find an agreement for a reasonable price for Crisetig by letting him for Parma for next season.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •