What is this Co-Ownership deal these Italians keep doing

They keep co owning players I want to buy, what does this mean?

Are only Italian clubs allowed to do this?

Also just another quickly. If you sign someone on a workpermit basis do they have to play 75% of your games?

Co-ownership means that a player is owned half & half by two clubs. It happens usually in Italy, but I think it happens sometimes in Argentina & some other countries I think (correct me if I'm wrong).

If you want to buy a co-owned player, you have to negotiate a fee with both clubs before you complete the transfer.

I think that another rule is that if a player is on co-ownership between two teams, who also happen to play each other in a match, that player will play one half for one team, and the second half for the other.

I think that another rule is that if a player is on co-ownership between two teams, who also happen to play each other in a match, that player will play one half for one team, and the second half for the other.

Very funny 108

They keep co owning players I want to buy, what does this mean?

Are only Italian clubs allowed to do this?

Also just another quickly. If you sign someone on a workpermit basis do they have to play 75% of your games?

Yea basically co-ownership works like this (I think!):

Team A bids for 'half' of Player from Team B... They have the option of making the bid so that the player stays at Team A (usually if Team A is worse than Team B) or they take the Player (usually vice versa)... after a predetermined period of time (usually 1 or 2 years) both teams make an undisclosed bid for the 'other half' of the player. Whoever bids the most gets the player.

And then they say West Ham broke the transfer rules with Tevez?? What is this then??

Will they be splitting the player in half? Team A gets the left leg and right foot and Team B can have the head and upper torso!

And then they say West Ham broke the transfer rules with Tevez?? What is this then??

Will they be splitting the player in half? Team A gets the left leg and right foot and Team B can have the head and upper torso!

Tevez wasnt co-owned.

He was owned by a third party. A non-footballing consortium of such. They owned tevez's playing rights. This is now illegal in the premiership, not sure about the rest of the world.

I imagine it wouldn't happen if Italy had a reserve league.

If a player is 50/50 then who controls his playing rights? Is it not a third party to that with which he plays? Sounds like one rule in one place, another somewhere else.

Whichever club he is with physically holds his playing rights. The blind auctions can be quite fun.

OK thanks what about the work permits?

If a player is 50/50 then who controls his playing rights? Is it not a third party to that with which he plays? Sounds like one rule in one place, another somewhere else.

This is part of the deal between the two clubs.

A player play only for one team until the end of the co-ownership.

What if one part of him refuses to play??

1) Any team may bid for 50% of a player's "rights". It's just like a transfer in some aspects. Teams can decide upon buying 50% which team he will play for.

2) Any other team, including the other 50% holder, can buy these 50% "rights" just as you'd buy 100% of a player's "rights".

3) The key difference between co-ownership and transfers is that at the end of a season, a blind auction is conducted between the two 50% owners - the one who puts the highest bid in gets the player for that price. This can be deferred for another year, in which case a blind auction must be conducted.

You can use this to get at least 50% of a promising player's transfer fee. I don't think you should use this to buy a player in full - it's often cheaper to buy them outright. Teams in weak financial positions can use this as a compromise to get money "halfway" between money up front and in sell-on clauses. Teams in strong financial positions can use this as a "loan" by buying 50% of rights, and letting them stay at that club, before signing them up in full. And teams can use this as an expensive way of ensuring players don't go to rivals - co-own Player A whom your rival is interested in and milk them for all the money you can.

I tend to ignore co-ownership as it can backfire in the blind auction. I also tend to ignore co-ownership offers for my players as it gives these teams opportunities to pilfer my players - although I usually take full transfers.

During a blind auction. Say club A bids 5million for player XYZ and club B bids 7million. Where does the 7million go to? club A?

During a blind auction. Say club A bids 5million for player XYZ and club B bids 7million. Where does the 7million go to? club A?

Yes

And if both clubs put the same amount the player become 100% of the club where he was playing in that year.

During a blind auction. Say club A bids 5million for player XYZ and club B bids 7million. Where does the 7million go to? club A?

Yes, it goes to the club the player's currently at.

A bit like a "forced" future date where two clubs bid for the same player - the highest bid wins.

It is something I like to stay clear of, if I'm the smaller club. And if I'm a bigger, financial heavyweight, why not just buy him outright. And I don't buy co-owned players - can't be bothered with the hassle. Just a personal thing I guess.

Another rule, I don't think's been mentioned - if you have a co-owned player you can't loan him out, or loan one in for that matter. just another reason to stay clear.

Tevez wasnt co-owned.

He was owned by a third party. A non-footballing consortium of such. They owned tevez's playing rights. This is now illegal in the premiership, not sure about the rest of the world.

This is pretty much correct. When Tevez (and Mascherano) played for West Ham, they were actually effectively MSI's players. At Man. United, Tevez currently still belongs to MSI and is basically on loan at United from them. However, unlike when he was at West Ham, Tevez's playing rights are owned by United as part of the loan.

It is something I like to stay clear of, if I'm the smaller club. And if I'm a bigger, financial heavyweight, why not just buy him outright. And I don't buy co-owned players - can't be bothered with the hassle. Just a personal thing I guess.

Another rule, I don't think's been mentioned - if you have a co-owned player you can't loan him out, or loan one in for that matter. just another reason to stay clear.

Bigger clubs can use this to smaller clubs to get them cheaply (although for me it backfires somewhat) - say a player is worth £500,000 when he's 17. If you co-own him for £400,000, then his value raises to £1,500,000 later, you'll probably pay less for the full 100%. Probably. A lot of teams refuse co-ownership for "sensible" amounts.

You can make a profit by predicting which players will become unsettled at their current clubs by co-owning them, letting them get unhappy and then selling your 50% for a larger amount. If you bought them outright, you'd have your own problem of an unhappy player.

i use it alot

very good getting talent for cheap

1-2 years later sometimes the small clubs doesnt even bid for the ramianing right of the player couse they have to low funds compaired to how much player have increased in value in my team

i use it alot

very good getting talent for cheap

1-2 years later sometimes the small clubs doesnt even bid for the ramianing right of the player couse they have to low funds compaired to how much player have increased in value in my team

Yeah, that's what I was meaning - I think it's a raw deal for a small club to enter into, generally.

x42bn6 Good reasoning mate, it's just I can't be bothered LOL maybe I should take it more seriously!

Another rule, I don't think's been mentioned - if you have a co-owned player you can't loan him out, or loan one in for that matter. just another reason to stay clear.

IRL a co-owned player can be loaned out (if both clubs that own him agree with the loan), it's only a thing that is coded wrong in FM