06-15-2011, 05:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2011, 05:47 PM by russo-neri.)
(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).
Ok - if we are selling 50% of players we already own because we don't expect them to improve too much and want to partially recoup our losses, then it makes sense. If we are selling 50% just to give our players playing time they wouldn't get at Milan? Then that's dumb. There are alternatives to accomplishing that such as loaning. I understand there is a difference in incentive for a team to play a player whom they borrowed rather than own. A team that has an equity stake in a player would certainly want to improve that player's play because it would not only benefit the club's standing in the league table, but it would prove beneficial to there bottom line. But 50% seems exhorbitant.
There must be more to coownership deals that I am not aware of such as limits on how much one side can bid in a blind auction. Without some type of protection, it just seems Milan are giving assets away.
(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...
Enough with the Fabregas talk!
