The Dangers of Co-ownership

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
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 I’m 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. It’s 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 where’s the fault?

We observe this now with Parma, and Crisetig. They can hold us to ransom for him – he’s 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 can’t 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, we’re 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 Cassano’s wages, who moved the other direction on loan, but nonetheless, this information is useful for time being.

What’s 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 don’t 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
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,756
Likes
60
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.
 

Universe

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
25,709
Likes
2,413
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
Best Overall Poster
Most Humorous Member
Most Diverse Poster
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.
 

Redbullsnation

Prima Squadra
Prima Squadra
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
730
Likes
0
What?? This Inter team uses co-ownership to give youngsters a stepping stone for their careers and you hate it?? WTF??
 

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
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 - - -

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.
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,756
Likes
60
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.
 

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
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.
 

monster09

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
10,587
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Solskjær
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
Nostradamus
Not sure where I read it, but Serie A are stopping this co-ownership rules isn't it?
 

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
Yup. No new ones this summer no nore at all next summer
 

Inter7

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
4,662
Likes
98
Favorite Player
Kova Magic
10 years of FIF
I feel it will make it more tough for us to steal talents now we have to buy them outright...
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,756
Likes
60
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.
 

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
Forum Supporter
10 years of FIF
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.
 

Bluenine

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
12,253
Likes
1,173
Favorite Player
Zanetti
10 years of FIF
Most Optimistic 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. :chan:

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!
 

.h.

Part time Lazarus
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
25,133
Likes
1,065
Favorite Player
Inter1-0Wanda
Old username
browha
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.
 

CafeCordoba

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
29,190
Likes
2,387
Favorite Player
Bar, Skr, Bas
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.
 

brehme1989

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
26,226
Likes
2,214
10 years of FIF
Most Serious Member
Most Stubborn Poster
Banned since 2015.

Did you bother to pay attention to when the thread was created?


2014.png


And when the last post here was made?

2014a.png





Please just stop this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVD

Sawyer

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,306
Likes
943
Favorite Player
Brozovic
10 years of FIF
Forum Supporter
Did you bother to pay attention to when the thread was created?


2014.png


And when the last post here was made?

2014a.png





Please just stop this.
Brehme I expect better circles than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVD
Top