(06-15-2011, 03:27 PM)Jay Crisp Wrote: I only see it on Goal.com.
It's stupid as it leaves us with only Seedorf in mid who has any creativity.Unless we sign a few player's .

(06-15-2011, 03:27 PM)Jay Crisp Wrote: If AC Milan want ElSharawwy they should buy him.Not try trades , Merkel has load's of potential and it will be retarded to give half of him away and have the player not at our club.

(06-15-2011, 03:27 PM)Jay Crisp Wrote: If in the next couple of seasons he proves to be really good then we'll end up paying stupid money for him to get the 50% back.It's not the sign of a team wants to build for the future...Hey lets get a talented 18 year old okay buy we'll have to give away a talented 19 year old to try and do it.RETARDED

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: I'm just saying you are assuming there is no way that we could be outbid by Genoa when there very well could be a chance. Market's determine price - not financial clout.

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: The Sharaawy co-ownership is the only scenario where co-ownership makes sense to me. Genoa might be trying to cash in on the hype surrounding his recent play. Plus they retain 50% in case he continues to excel and becomes a verified star. Milan might consider this an investment - they don't want to dole out 15 million, but 7.5 million is a good price for a 50% stake in a potential star.

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: But aside from this - Co ownership makes no sense. Think about it - if you have a stock that is worth 10, but you believe it will be worth 100 someday, why would you sell have of it for 5 if ultimately you will need to pay an additional 50 later on. The only reason Milan should sell 50% stakes is if they don't believe the future for these youngsters is strong. Selling 50% is then a good hedge.

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: "I have a stock that is worth 10 and it could be worth 100 someday, but at the same time it could also be worth 0. Let me get 5 for it now and if it goes up to 100, I still make 50."

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: If coownership is strictly incentive to get a lower team like Genoa incentive to develop the player (thus increasing the player's value), fine. But why 50%! Why not 49% so you still retain majority holding?

(06-15-2011, 05:04 PM)Jay Crisp Wrote: So we own half of EL Sharwwy for 7.5 million .We paid 7 million and gave them half of Merkel , is half of Merkel only worth 500,000 ??

(06-15-2011, 05:08 PM)Siregar Wrote:

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: But aside from this - Co ownership makes no sense. Think about it - if you have a stock that is worth 10, but you believe it will be worth 100 someday, why would you sell have of it for 5 if ultimately you will need to pay an additional 50 later on. The only reason Milan should sell 50% stakes is if they don't believe the future for these youngsters is strong. Selling 50% is then a good hedge.

Why making not sense? You talk about probability which some one can't predict accurately. It is a 50-50 chance or even lower than that (aside Merkel case). We are not talking about youngsters who have HUGE chance to be a star or at least good player like Pato in his young age. I don't think Milan don't believe the future of the youngsters but they try to be realistic. Many talented players turn to be average ones even poor players. There is (big risk) when we talk about talented youngsters even a super talented one there is still risk (even not so big).

(06-15-2011, 05:05 PM)russo-neri Wrote: If coownership is strictly incentive to get a lower team like Genoa incentive to develop the player (thus increasing the player's value), fine. But why 50%! Why not 49% so you still retain majority holding?

What you suggest means nothing for small club since the big club decide the price. It will be unfair. With 50-50 it is fair agreement IMO since both have chance to get the players and both will have benefits (either the money or the player).

---

(06-15-2011, 05:25 PM)Ca Rossonero Wrote: I still have my hopes we sign 2 mids... 1 big purchase (Ganso, Fabregas or Hamsik) and maybe one more modest one like aquilani who would provide perfect link at LCM between seedorf and merkel (aquilani is 27... in 4-5 years, merkel will fully replace him).

CAM: Fabregas, El Shaawary, Seedorf, Boateng
RCM: Boateng, Gattuso, Flamini
LCM: Aquilani, Seedorf, Fabregas,
DM: Van Bommel, Ambrosini

I actually like the balance of creative, workers, exerience and youth. But yeah 9 mids is a lot...

(06-15-2011, 05:45 PM)russo-neri Wrote: Enough with the Fabregas talk!

(06-15-2011, 06:00 PM)Hasan Rossonero Wrote:

(06-15-2011, 05:45 PM)russo-neri Wrote: Enough with the Fabregas talk!

On the one hand his transfer looks impossible, but on the other many, including even me in some part, believe that it may (just may) happen.

It's hard to let go of that dream .

(06-15-2011, 05:08 PM)Siregar Wrote: Source?

(06-15-2011, 04:56 PM)russo-neri Wrote:

(06-15-2011, 04:44 PM)GeoTav Wrote: A club like Genoa can't ask for unreal amounts of money for one of their players we co-own with them ... Why ? We are richer, if we can't reach a deal to buy or sell the player, we can wait for the blind bid and we will outbid them because they will never put more than 7-8M for our half. About Merkel, that's the same thing, we will take him back when we'll want, like we just did with Strasser and others.

Just because we are richer doesn't mean we can't be outbid. You're assuming that Genoa wouldn't have enough money to beat us out in a blind auction. But what if Sharaawy ends up being the next Messi. Surely, Genoa would bid an equitable amount, because they could easily flip the purchase and sell to Barca or whoever. All Genoa have to do is find a lender who will front the cash for a short amount of time. Say Madrid want this player badly. Genoa can say - lend us the money to outbid Milan and then you can have him at market. Seriously, what's to stop Genoa from simply selling their half to a team like Inter - a team that would be much more threatening in a blind auction.