Co owning in Italy

What is the point? All I get is pathetic offers for crap players who, if I agree to the transfer, am now stuck with until the other club wants to do something with them. And, if I ever want to sell them I have to split the cash. Also, who decides which club they play for or train at?

Not only that, I'm getting offers constantly for crap players from big clubs. I just don't see the point, it just seems like pointless drama and complications for the sake of it.

Some of my thoughts: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/273391-Co-ownerships-in-Italy?p=7041933&viewfull=1#post7041933

tl;dr: It's "halfway" between a transfer and loan, so the risks and rewards are "halved". Just beware of the final blind auction, which can really hurt if you get it wrong.

You also have to factor in the fact that there isn't a reserves league in Italy, so players who are no-hopers are often co-owned to send them somewhere to play football.

I hate that option in Italy. Anytime i start there I don't bid for any player that is co-owned - just put in a 0 bid. I get rid of them as fast as I can. Once they're all gone from the first season I don't bother with them anymore.

I hate that option in Italy. Anytime i start there I don't bid for any player that is co-owned - just put in a 0 bid. I get rid of them as fast as I can. Once they're all gone from the first season I don't bother with them anymore.

I don't know why you hate it. Perhaps the game should explain co-ownership or something. Co-ownership is a really nice thing in lower-league Italian sides, as you can get twice as many players for the same amount of money. Although, of course, in practice, you wouldn't do that as there's a risk you'll end up paying all their wages in the future if both clubs bid £0 for the player (he stays with the current club after the blind auction if both clubs bid equal amounts). But your purchasing power is definitely increased.

Italian teams do this all the time in reality, because it works.

Why is there no resereves league in Italy? Surely it would benefit everybody.

I agree with Eugene, it's nothing but a pain in the butt and I can't wait to be rid of these players in my team. Seen the Genoa squad? Awful, truly awful with what seems like 100's of crap players on fairly long contracts and a few decent players that are co owned and unavailable to me so I can't even train them, I just have to hope the other club sells them.

I hate that option in Italy. Anytime i start there I don't bid for any player that is co-owned - just put in a 0 bid. I get rid of them as fast as I can. Once they're all gone from the first season I don't bother with them anymore.

i'm the same as you Eugene, i completely ignore it, reject all offers associated with it and get rid of all players tied into it as quickly as possible, i guess its prob because we dont really use the system over here so its not something we are accustomed to dealing with, still doesnt mean id give it any though in the future tho lol.

I don't know why you hate it. Perhaps the game should explain co-ownership or something. Co-ownership is a really nice thing in lower-league Italian sides, as you can get twice as many players for the same amount of money. Although, of course, in practice, you wouldn't do that as there's a risk you'll end up paying all their wages in the future if both clubs bid £0 for the player (he stays with the current club after the blind auction if both clubs bid equal amounts). But your purchasing power is definitely increased.

Italian teams do this all the time in reality, because it works.

Probably the UI when you have to bid for players. It's very messy to deal with on a season by season basis. And most of the Co-Owned players at the start are of very poor quality that I wouldn't have any need for them. I managed lower-league Italy for a while too and saw no benefit of co-owning players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-ownership_%28football%29

I've also heard that this co-ownership was brought in to circumvent foreign players rule over there. Where a club would buy too many foreign players, they can't loan them out, so they co-own them with another club, who they can play that player and he'll gain Italian citizenship, at which point the club will buy the player back.

Something like that - I'm not up on the legal side of how things work over there (or anywhere )

Why is there no resereves league in Italy? Surely it would benefit everybody.

Probably due to the lack of money. It costs money to run a Reserves league, after all (travel, broadcasting, stadia and maintenence, etc.). To make up for it, the Primavera (youth) team supports up to Under-19s, with three overage players per match, and Italian teams naturally keep first-team squads smaller. They are just accustomed to it, I guess.

But look at what Spurs did last season, and what City are doing this season - the rubbishness of the English Reserves leagues means that some clubs are trying something different. The Reserves league in itself isn't necessarily a solution nor benefit.

I agree with Eugene, it's nothing but a pain in the butt and I can't wait to be rid of these players in my team. Seen the Genoa squad? Awful, truly awful with what seems like 100's of crap players on fairly long contracts and a few decent players that are co owned and unavailable to me so I can't even train them, I just have to hope the other club sells them.

Genoa are one of those clubs that are incredibly speculative with co-ownership - the other clubs are not as, well, active as them in these areas.

Remember that they have likely paid peanuts for these co-ownership deals but if these players develop, then they can reap half the benefits. Sure, it's not as much as the full benefit, but if the player had gone bad, they would only lose half as well.

Half the Genoa squad this season are out on loan anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoa_C.F.C.#Out_on_loan_2011.E2.80.9312), which wouldn't necessarily be reflected in FM11.

For players that appear to be co-owned, not owned by Genoa but are quite good - Genoa are doing exactly the same thing - speculating. Genoa can't afford to pay for most of the players outright, but Milan wouldn't mind the money but would still like to keep them anyway. If the player's value goes up by 10%, then the value of the co-ownership deal rises by about 10% too - leaving a theoretical profit.

Probably the UI when you have to bid for players. It's very messy to deal with on a season by season basis. And most of the Co-Owned players at the start are of very poor quality that I wouldn't have any need for them. I managed lower-league Italy for a while too and saw no benefit of co-owning players.

Messy yes, but this might be somewhat fixed with the "merged transfer offers" thingy in FM12 this year.

Poor co-owned players are only a real issue if you they are playing for you that season - usually, co-owned players play for poorer sides (although like Genoa, sometimes they can be speculative). If they are rubbish but co-owned and playing for a poorer side, you have received some money up front for that deal (although not as much for a transfer) so there was some benefit anyway.

The English equivalent would be older players in the Reserves who cannot find a loan and will likely leave on a free transfer anyway. Co-ownership gives you some (although not a lot) of cash, and I believe also saves you wages somewhat (no idea how wages work in co-ownership, however). If you still don't want that player, bid £0 at the end of the blind auction. If he had left on a free, you would have got nothing - if you let him leave on co-ownership, you get something.

Transfers give the club definitive control, which some managers would prefer.

However, also consider that most Italian clubs have a Director of Football who would go through each of these deals one by one and decide what happens. On occasion a manager might want a specific co-ownership to be resolved, possibly to "buy back" the player (I think Abate to Milan fits this situation) so they can be part of the squad, but usually, it's more of a "financial" decision than footballing decision and the Director of Football is best-placed to do these things. So the billion or so co-ownerships at Genoa were likely done by their Director of Football who has not much to do in his spare time besides make money.

As an aside, I think it makes for a healthier league (the Italian league system is poor for different reasons than co-ownership): It reduces risk by spreading transfers over many clubs, and helps guarantee players football (if sacrificing some stability). It keeps players' transfer fees low and I'd imagine wages would be spread over both clubs too. It wouldn't be the worst decision in the world to put this into England, although I'd imagine it would meet with some resistance regardless.

So should I just offer o cash to co own players and I won't end up getting them?

So should I just offer o cash to co own players and I won't end up getting them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "offer"...

If it's the final blind auction: In a blind auction, the player goes to the highest bidder. If the two bids match, then the player stays with the club he's currently at. So if you don't want a player and he's with the other club, bid £0 and you will never get that player back.

I mean offer to co own players at the end of the season. You have to respond to it.

I think I'm done ever managing in Italy again. There's enough pointless clicking in this game already without having to respond to 50 co ownership deals a season.

I mean offer to co own players at the end of the season. You have to respond to it.

I think I'm done ever managing in Italy again. There's enough pointless clicking in this game already without having to respond to 50 co ownership deals a season.

If you're managing Genoa, don't pick Genoa then! But once you finish all those deals, you don't have to go through co-ownership again unless you want to, so won't need to do this. I think it's a decent punt for a Director of Football addition to the series.

You have to remember that a co-owned player could either be with you or with the other club. Usually, if the player is with you, it's because he's somewhat useful.

If the player is with you

- If you don't want the player, you will be likely be selling him on if he ends up with you. However, you might still be able to make a profit off him. If you think you can sell him for £X, bid less than £X. If you get the player, sell him for £X for a quick profit. If you don't, then you get <£X as the transfer fee as your (yearly) profit but if your £X estimate is wrong in a bad way, it's not a bad thing. Hopefully £X is low in the first place - if it's high, then you really need to think about whether you really don't want this player. Bidding £0 isn't the worst thing to do here, of course, if you simply want to get rid of them, but remember that you may be missing out on money.

- If you want the player, it's tricky because bidding 50% of the player's value isn't guaranteed if the other party also wants the player. Game theory here is fascinating but you have to weigh up the losses of not getting the player versus overbidding. There's no silver bullet, unfortunately.

If the player is with the other party

- If you don't want the player, bid £0. You can bid greater than £0 if you think you can sell him on for more, of course, but usually, bidding £0 is the least-tedious and risky method.

- If you want the player, the same case applies as if the player is with you, but remember that since you hold the player, bidding equal means you keep the player. In practice, this only applies where the player is so rubbish neither side really wants the player, but then again, there's a reason why you co-owned that player in the first place...

----

Aside - I think the game needs a nice co-ownership bit in the tutorial or help guides, and a Director of Football could really help here ("Here, I see there are 40 deals to seal this season - why don't you pick the ones you'd like to keep or get, and I'll handle them and the rest?").

i love co-ownerships. i basically accept any offer if the player is transfer listed. after the year, i bid $2 and keep the player. Though I'm stuck with him, I've made a profit. why? well, I'll give an example that occurs very often.

I have a transfer listed player who's valued at 1M. Cagliari offers a co-ownership deal of 200K. I accept for one year, with Cagliari being his playing team. At the end of the season, they always make a bid of 0, so I make a bid of $2. I basically make a profit of 200K. I can then sell that player for 200K less than what I was originally going to sell him for. If I was going to sell him for 1.6M, I can now sell him for 1.4M and clubs are much more willing to accept.

Overall, co-ownerships are a definite yes for transfer listed players.

i love co-ownerships. i basically accept any offer if they player is transfer listed. after the year, i bid $2 and keep the player. Though I'm stuck with him, I've made a profit. why? well, I'll give an example that occurs very often.

I have a transfer listed player who's valued at 1M. Cagliari offers a co-ownership deal of 200K. I accept for one year, with Cagliari being his playing team. At the end of the sseason, they always make a bid of 0, so I make a bid of $2. I basically make a profit of 200K. I can then sell that player for 200K less than what I was originally going to sell him for. If I was going to sell him for 1.6M, I can now sell him for 1.4M and clubs are much more willing to accept.

Overall, co-ownerships are a definite yes for transfer listed players.

Yup, and it's a win-win for Cagliari too, as they get a $1.4m player for $200k and get to spend the rest of their money on other players. You win because you get $200k free and the player at least gets fitness and reputation playing (and if he doesn't, that's $200k free). They were never interested in keeping the player, but in the unlikely case where they might want to in the end, they would have that option too.

There's no reserve league because there's no need or demand for it...

Clubs don't have enough backups to justify a reserve league... The deadwood can be sent training/playing with the Primavera team, but even the clubs with the biggest squad can't really "spare" more than 5-6 players, including the uber-veterans and the U19s brought up to fill some spaces.

Also, with most Serie B clubs drawing less than 5000 people (and Lega Pro barely making it to the 2k mark) there's little point in spending money to arrange a reserve league that would either split the already dwindling fanbase of lower leagues or get completely ignored by both fans and media.