06-20-2012, 01:15 PM
(06-20-2012, 10:51 AM)reza Wrote: I meant a financial investigation, not a football one, actually when Genoa are benefiting from it (too) then the case to worry is stronger.
Two teams that are in competition (same league) have set up something that has beneficial financial repercussions for at least one party. Not just one or two transactions but a seeming pattern.
Well yes you can say it probably raises eyebrows given that the teams are competing in the league and maybe needs investigation, but until now I've not seen anything in particular that looks like something illegal is going on or really deserves investigating, as both teams still look to be working out deals which work best for them personally (mostly with us getting players and Genoa money).
The way I see it is the clubs negotiate for players and as part of those negotiations they will have these "gentleman's agreements" whereby Genoa generally get the money they want and Milan get the player without being overpriced. Both take each other's words for the negotiation, but essentially it's the same as loaning or co-owning a player with an option to buy at a fixed price when the year is up, just without the written agreement.
In this scenario, Boateng's deal was done this way, as Genoa brought him from Portsmouth and immediately loaned him to Milan (arguably similar to how some big clubs might buy a player as a bargaining chip when trying to get someone else). Both clubs agreed a fixed price for the end of the year and Milan got him, with Genoa gaining a profit from the sale. As there was no written agreement, we ended up getting Amelia as part of the deal and giving back Sokratis, who Genoa, again, sold on for a profit.
Basically, not having the fixed or written agreement in place, basically meant both clubs were able to be flexible when working out the details of the transfer. In this case, we probably paid a little less than originally planned as we gave Sokratis back and bought Amelia, essentially losing a player deemed unnecessary and keeping those valuable or of use in the squad. Genoa didn't lose any money as this scenario meant they got Sokratis back and he was free to sell on again, meaning they make a profit either way.
Boateng's transfer is by far the most complicated transfer we've done with Genoa as it involved multiple players in the end and it seemed puzzling as to why Genoa would buy Boateng for us when we could get him outright from Portsmouth. My thought is Genoa saw an opportunity to make a profit from the deal (I presume they'd have sold him to someone else if not us), while we got to essentially "trial" a player rather than signing him outright from Pompey.
It's difficult to say why we involved Genoa in our purchase of Boateng, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was as simple as both clubs wanted him and we also wanted players from Genoa (Sokratis and Amelia). Preziosi probably knew he wouldn't be able to outbid us for Boateng and so we worked out a deal in which they essentially allowed us to get Boateng whilst making a small profit, while we sweetened the deal with them to get them to sell others to us.
Other transfers are just normal transfers. El Shaarawy came at a fixed price with Merkel going to Genoa as part of the deal. A player plus cash exchange isn't odd.
Sokratis was initially bought outright at a fixed price, a standard transfer.
Amelia was loaned with an option to buy, which is normal. In the end he came in the Boateng transfer, but was bought outright in a standard transfer.
There might be other transfers I've missed, but I can't think of them at the moment.
Acerbi it seems will come either on loan or co-ownership with an option to buy. This again appears to be a normal transfer, just that we've negotiated early before Genoa are sure of getting him. Speaking of Acerbi, I'm reading rumours that Genoa haven't yet agreed to get him outright from Chievo, but giving Chievo Paloschi could unlock the deal (source Gazzetta).