What is the point of co-ownership?

I just started playing in Italy for the first time in a couple of years, and I had forgotten all about this. I see most notably Kwadwo Asamoah is co-owned by Udinese, although this seems to have little practical effect on my ability to play him or treat him like any other player.

What is the cost/benefit of this arrangement?

I have never managed in Italy and would love to know this too.

As the selling club it allows you to generate income against a player's potential, if you're a small side with limited cash-flow then it's better to make some money now rather than risk getting nothing in the future if he turns out to be a dud or walks out on a Bosman, the downside is that if you want to keep the player beyond the sealed bid stage then you might end up paying more to buy back the 50% share than you received for it.

For the buying club it allows you to cost effectively line up potential future first team players & have them gain regular 1st team experience elsewhere, if the player develops as expected then there is a chance you'll get him at a reasonable price when the sealed bids are made to obtain 100% of his registration, if you're careful in your outlay then if the player doesn't turn out to be as good as was expected the loss should be minimal but there is always the risk of spending the bulk of your transfer budget on players that you never fully own if you go mad & waste it all on unfulfilled potential.

Biggest thing putting me off managing in Italy. Just cannot get my head round it. Briefly managed Napoli and my best keeper was co-owned by another team and he was playing for them. Just couldn't understand it or see the point.

It is somewhat analogous to buy-to-rent schemes, or owning 50% control over a company.

The theory is that the risk and reward is somewhere between buying a player and loaning them. If you own 50% of the player, you would only get 50% of the profits if you sell him, but this player will only cost you 50% to begin with - therefore if the player flops, you lose less money.

Because the player only costs half-price or thereabouts, you can in theory buy twice as many players on co-ownership deals, which can be useful for small sides - why buy one promising striker that you will probably lose to a top side anyway, when you can have two?

Big club - buying

- Able to take punts on riskier young players - if they flop, the loss is less

- Is close to buy-and-loan-back

- You can take 50% of a player to block other teams from owning the player outright (and maybe making up some of the profits by selling him later)

- Is a decent way of getting players who are stuck between "too good to loan" or "not good enough for the first-team" - the first-team football may make them viable later on

Big club - selling

- None, really, although it is akin to "£100 tomorrow < £50 today, £50 tomorrow" - you can do something with the £50 today

Small club - buying

- You're probably going to lose the player in the near future anyway, so you can get more players with this method

- It's cheaper than buying the player, although usually more expensive than a loan

- Promising players - you can co-own them off top sides whom they are not good enough for, and possibly get the remaining 50% for less later on (sometimes free!)

- It's a long-term loan of sorts - so it has many of the advantages associated with a loan

- You can sign promising players in lower leagues and potentially make a profit when an even bigger side swoops for both shares

Small club - selling

- Every penny counts, so getting money early is always nice

----

This is all nice in theory, but you can potentially lose out big-time on the blind auction, which is a fascinating game theory problem but one that often drives up the price beyond 50% (so the player doesn't cost 50% + 50% - but 50% + 50% + opportunity cost + risk). But it's one I tend to find is a small price to pay as long as it is a 2-year deal because a 2-year loan will give you a much better picture of the player's ability (as long as they play).

I only ever use it when I can't get rid of a player or they are not quite good enough for the first-team but could be in the future depending on circumstances (injuries, sales, etc.) - in which case, I might opt to just buy them back instead, as they will be cheaper than a new player.

Obviously, you should not co-own out your most promising youngsters as you risk losing them in the blind auction. You should use co-ownership for the players in the tiers below that, and outright sales for the utter worst (although note that co-ownership without control, with a fee, and losing on a free is usually better than losing out on a free without co-ownership).

Biggest thing putting me off managing in Italy. Just cannot get my head round it. Briefly managed Napoli and my best keeper was co-owned by another team and he was playing for them. Just couldn't understand it or see the point.

Don't think of him as "your" player in the same way that for one season, a season-long player loaned out with no option of recalls cannot play games for you. The player is "owned" by Milan but you own 50% of the rights to that player, so in theory you get 50% of the profits (or losses) - and that player might eventually play for you as your best keeper if you win the blind auction, or Milan buy someone else.

So in the case of Asamoah, what happens when his contract winds down? Do I just "offer new contract" or do I have to buy out Udinese's half or what?

You both make blind bids for his full rights, and whoever bids the most keeps him.

The most annoying part is that if we both own 50% of the player, why they have the right to use him while I don't.

I remember when I took charge of Udinese, we shared Asamoah, Vidal with Juventus and Handanovic with Inter but they play for them. Yes, they can use my 4.5-star players and I have to play LEGO with a bunch of 3-star kids.

It's a complete pain. I once took over Genoa a fair few seasons in and I had the big clubs circulating all over my young stars. Even high transfer values didn't deter them- I was rejecting offers every day!

I can see the benefit if I am a small club desperate for cash...but surley the big clubs like AC Milan, Inter, Rome (etc.) can afford to pay the whole transfer fee?! Personally I like owning all of the rights to the player - if he's good I'll take all glory and if bad I'll take the blame. Live by the sword, die by the sword!

You both make blind bids for his full rights, and whoever bids the most keeps him.

When does this happen? Is it just some automatic red inbox entry type thing? How long before contract expiration?

On the player's contract page there will be a date set in the co-ownership section, when that day comes both clubs will be asked to submit sealed bids for the other sides 50% share with the highest bid getting the player (equal value bids will see the player remain at the club he has been playing for).

LOL at the co-ownership confusion.

Inter, for e.g. bought Handanovic in the most recent summer transfer market. But Handa is a $20m GK, and Inter couldn't afford more than $10m.

Well, this way Udinese gets 10m and still keeps rights to 50% of Handanovic. When the co-ownership expires, in 1.5 seasons, then Inter and Udinese will both have to submit a blind bid, and the highest bidder gets Handa. If Inter bids 6.5m, hoping Udinese can't afford to bid that much, Inter could possibly get the other 50% for less than the initial 50%.

On the other hand, Udinese might be thinking they don't want to accept less than $12m for that 50%, so they bid 12m, and win. Downside, they overpaid to get Handanovic back.

Its basically like a loan deal where the club receiving the playing rights to the player have more incentive to develop him.

I will use it for future role players or backups to gain experience, but thats it.

LOL at the co-ownership confusion.

Inter, for e.g. bought Handanovic in the most recent summer transfer market. But Handa is a $20m GK, and Inter couldn't afford more than $10m.

Well, this way Udinese gets 10m and still keeps rights to 50% of Handanovic. When the co-ownership expires, in 1.5 seasons, then Inter and Udinese will both have to submit a blind bid, and the highest bidder gets Handa. If Inter bids 6.5m, hoping Udinese can't afford to bid that much, Inter could possibly get the other 50% for less than the initial 50%.

On the other hand, Udinese might be thinking they don't want to accept less than $12m for that 50%, so they bid 12m, and win. Downside, they overpaid to get Handanovic back.

Its basically like a loan deal where the club receiving the playing rights to the player have more incentive to develop him.

I will use it for future role players or backups to gain experience, but thats it.

I am LOLing at your answer.

Yes, Inter can pay $10M for Handanovic, but why not let him keep playing with me? It is not like I cannot afford his $80K/week salary. I can pay him even more, as long as I do not have to use 3-star Brkic (And Udinese did not have even a secondary GK!)

Udinese has no benefit in this contract. Period!

Why do I need the cash since I cannot find a substitution similar to him with $10M?

As your reasoning, let's say Udinese agrees to pay $12M after two years Handanovic played for Inter. Then after two years, Udinese lost $2M, lost 2 years of Handanovic service and only saved $80K/week for 2 years? Smart Italians eh?

Cash is king, if a club needs money then this type of deal is beneficial & as I eluded to earlier it's not always worth keeping hold of a depreciating asset as once they've been targeted by a bigger club the chances are they will be leaving so why risk them going on a Bosman?

In real life the club owners will accept these deals far more readily than in FM & I imagine that FM players taking a more realistic approach to transfer dealings are in the minority.

Cash is king, if a club needs money then this type of deal is beneficial & as I eluded to earlier it's not always worth keeping hold of a depreciating asset as once they've been targeted by a bigger club the chances are they will be leaving so why risk them going on a Bosman?

As you said, as long as the player is a depreciating good (as Handanovic at his peak), why not just sell him straight away because after 2-3 years playing for them, his value is less?

And if the player is not a depreciating good, or he is a wonderkid (like Fabregas at his early age), why not just loan him and harvest it all by your own without sharing it to anyone at the end?

Not sure how many times I can say this but it's down to money, as achilles said Inter could not afford to buy him outright but Udinese wanted to bring in some cash so letting him go while retaining 50% means they get a decent amount of cash up front & the chance of getting another decent payment in a little over a years time as Inter will have to submit an offer for the remaining 50% or risk him going back to Udinese for peanuts, the alternative for the Udinese is keeping a player who could become unhappy, disruptive & eventually worthless when he leaves on a free transfer.

The main thing to consider is that Italian football is not exactly awash with money & a side like Udinese need to look at selling their better players on a regular basis just to meet their operating costs, of course in FM the financial model is geared towards consistent profitability & the human manager can also use any number of tricks & exploits to negate the money issue which means the idea of a co-ownership deal makes less sense & can even appear to be illogical.

The most annoying part is that if we both own 50% of the player, why they have the right to use him while I don't.

I remember when I took charge of Udinese, we shared Asamoah, Vidal with Juventus and Handanovic with Inter but they play for them. Yes, they can use my 4.5-star players and I have to play LEGO with a bunch of 3-star kids.

"50%" is just a number. You don't really own 50% of the players' rights as a formal contract - i.e. the player isn't sold and you don't just take 50% of the amount. You own a "share". 50% is about accurate, though, although not as formal as third-party ownership rights.

In Udinese's case, it's like loaning out a player to a stronger side - weird, perhaps, but definitely possible.

It is basically selling him to Inter for 1/2 seasons and there is a free-for-all (slightly biased towards Inter because in equal bids, he stays with the club he's currently at) bid. If he flops, Udinese might be able to buy him back for cheaper and actually make a net profit - and he develops slightly. If he succeeds, Udinese may end up with a better goalkeeper by outbidding Inter, or will receive more money in the end from Inter (because of opportunity cost and risk).

I am LOLing at your answer.

Yes, Inter can pay $10M for Handanovic, but why not let him keep playing with me? It is not like I cannot afford his $80K/week salary. I can pay him even more, as long as I do not have to use 3-star Brkic (And Udinese did not have even a secondary GK!)

Udinese has no benefit in this contract. Period!

Wrong - Udinese's benefits are a €11m co-ownership payment. This is actually quite a lot for a co-ownership deal - assuming 50%, that puts his transfer fee around De Gea's.

Inter paid €10m for him and wanted to play him. If Udinese wanted to keep him, the price would be lower. It's not a loan - it's somewhere between a loan and buy.

Why do I need the cash since I cannot find a substitution similar to him with $10M?

You should ask the real-life Udinese board.

Personally? I think €11m is huge for a co-owned goalkeeper. If Inter do well, the second co-owned bid might be bigger than €11m - which would make him one of the most expensive goalkeepers in the world. It's a punt by both Inter and Udinese and both more-or-less split the rewards and risks. So this is not a terrible deal.

It's better than losing him and not replacing him, for sure (as long as the money makes up for it).

As your reasoning, let's say Udinese agrees to pay $12M after two years Handanovic played for Inter. Then after two years, Udinese lost $2M, lost 2 years of Handanovic service and only saved $80K/week for 2 years? Smart Italians eh?

If you think $12m is a bad deal for Handanovič, why would you bid that amount? Udinese will bid what they think is reasonable (maybe tag on a few bits for risk). If the price increased, it likely means Inter did well and hence Udinese might be getting a better goalkeeper, which you aren't taking into account.

Not sure how many times I can say this but it's down to money, as achilles said Inter could not afford to buy him outright but Udinese wanted to bring in some cash so letting him go while retaining 50% means they get a decent amount of cash up front & the chance of getting another decent payment in a little over a years time, the alternative is keeping the player who could become unhappy, disruptive & eventually worthless when he leaves on a free transfer.

Italian football is not awash with money & a side like Udinese need to look at selling their better players on a regular basis just to meet their operating costs, of course in FM the human manager can use any number of tricks & exploits to negate the money issue which means the idea of a co-ownership deal makes less sense & can even appear to be illogical.

Not sure how many times I can say this but if I am Udinese's boss, I just sell Handanovic right away. I will get more cash (if that is my purpose) and I am making more money than a co-ownership contract because his value will decrease in the next 2 years. If Inter does not have cash, it is fine, I will take a half in cash up front and a half in installments. Deal?

Otherwise, why selling a top GK in the game when it can cost you the ticket to Europe by using a low-composure Brkic?

Not sure how many times I can say this but if I am Udinese's boss, I just sell Handanovic right away.

Maybe you can't. Who would pay ~£16m for a goalkeeper nowadays? There's not exactly tons of money floating around in Italian football.

I will get more cash (if that is my purpose) and I am making more money than a co-ownership contract because his value will decrease in the next 2 years.

His value might increase, if Inter do well.

The value of interest suggests that the two, if equivalent, will cost the same factoring in interest.

You might even get more money if Inter are desperate to keep him.

If Inter does not have cash, it is fine, I will take a half in cash up front and a half in installments. Deal?

Inter might not want the player after 2 seasons and hence can somewhat cut their losses by bidding low and letting Udinese take him back.

If the player is stuck on Inter's books permanently, he could be harder to shift.

Otherwise, why selling a top GK in the game when it can cost you the ticket to Europe by using a low-composure Brkic?

In real life you will not get more cash because the offers were not there, it does appear that the concept of the co-ownership deal is alien to you so for the sake of gaming happiness I'd just ignore the system & deal with transfers in the traditional manner.

In real life you will not get more cash because the offers were not there, it does appear that the concept of the co-ownership deal is alien to you so for the sake of gaming happiness I'd just ignore the system & deal with transfers in the traditional manner.

- A 1/2 year loan

- All wages paid by the buying club

- The initial fee will not be zero and is "unusually large"

- The player automatically moves to the other club at the end of the loan (like Bojan, sort of)...

- ... But the selling club has the option to purchase the player back at an unknown amount, again "unusually large"

This is a lot more reasonable to understand and it makes sense to do such a thing if, say, you are Manchester United and the buying club is Solihull Moors or something. Because it's a loan, you have all the benefits of a loan. The only oddities are the unusually large payments (although they largely net each other off), and the automatic move (weird perhaps, but definitely possible - look at the Aquilani to Milan from Liverpool deal - after X games, Milan were obligated to buy him).

It is a lot harder to understand if it is the other way round: Would you loan out one of your better players to a better team? Usually, you'd say no - but everyone has their price - and pricing a goalkeeper, of all positions, highly, at the price of De Gea (who is much younger than Handanovič), is not the worst deal in the world.

It's also a tad harder to understand the case where you buy but keep the control with the current club - but that is basically a "punt".

Udinese did not suddenly walk on the streets and shouted "We want to sell our best GK!" Inter knocked the door and the deal happened.

And as I emphasized the spell at Inter lasts 2 years, not 1/2. And Handanovic is at his peak, his value will stay relatively the same and the chance of a decrease is more likely than the chance of an increase.

Again, going back to the most annoying part, Udinese owns 50%, Inter owns 50%. We own the EQUAL share of the player. We have the EQUAL power to the player. Who grants Inter the right to play him?

I find the concept fairly straight-forward, FM just screws it up because after a few years being run by a human manager any reasonable sized club will not have the financial pressures that make co-ownership deals an attractive option & that is where I feel people get tied up on knots.

Udinese did not suddenly walk on the streets and shouted "We want to sell our best GK!" Inter knocked the door and the deal happened.

And as I emphasized the spell at Inter lasts 2 years, not 1/2. And Handanovic is at his peak, his value will stay relatively the same and the chance of a decrease is more likely than the chance of an increase.

Again, going back to the most annoying part, Udinese owns 50%, Inter owns 50%. We own the EQUAL share of the player. We have the EQUAL power to the player. Who grants Inter the right to play him?

Udinese did when they agreed to the deal, whenever you get a co-ownership offer there is a section of the transfer offer that allows the player's current club to say where he will play, in this case Udinese could have agreed to sell Inter a 50% share for £4m but with the player staying at Udinese.

The risk with going down that route is that in 2 years time you might not have enough money to make an offer to buy back the 50% share & Inter picks him up for £2m, granted the player may have helped the club climb up the table but then again he could have pick up a serious injury that keeps him out for 18 months & because you only brought in £4m you cannot afford to buy a reasonable replacement.

Hmmm ok. Well that's good information, although I can't quite see why a human manager would ever want to get involved with co-ownership. I have enough faith in my ability to pick youngsters who will prosper that I don't need to offset the risk of buying a dud. Sure, I might buy a few who will fester in my reserves, but I think most of us would agree that it's easy enough to make massive profits on youth development in FM.

Anyway, one last question on the topic if somebody wouldn't mind taking the time to answer. What happens if a third club wishes to buy a co-owned player outright? Is this possible? If so, which club does the third club negotiate with in the deal?

As your reasoning, let's say Udinese agrees to pay $12M after two years Handanovic played for Inter. Then after two years, Udinese lost $2M, lost 2 years of Handanovic service and only saved $80K/week for 2 years? Smart Italians eh?

Its essentially then a 2 year loan deal that cost Udinese $2m. You could say thats madness, but they are getting back a player who will have likely played what, 70 odd Serie A games in that time, so its by no means the same player you are getting back.

Sure, the traditional loan arrangement sees the team that gets the player PAY the team owning the player, but in that case, there is no assurance that the club will actually play the on-loan player, never mind develop his talents.

I would only consider it for slow-learners, and future back-ups/rotation players. Agreed, everyone else you would want to keep in house, and under contract!

Anyway, one last question on the topic if somebody wouldn't mind taking the time to answer. What happens if a third club wishes to buy a co-owned player outright? Is this possible? If so, which club does the third club negotiate with in the deal?

I've had many benefits because of this, example:

Offered to co-own a player for £1m, after two years he was one of the best midfielders in the league, the other team has financial problems like many Italian sides and bid £0 at the blind auction, I bid £5k and signed a world class player on the cheap.

Another benefit

Juventus offere £4m to co own a player of mine that I kept for 2 years, juventus bid £0 at the auction I bid £500k. So I made £3.5m easy.

I sort of get it based on the explanation in this thread, but the annoying thing for me is that if I'm a club outside Italy who wants to buy a co-owned player, I have to negotiate with two clubs separately, and pay twice. Too much trouble really.

I am LOLing at your answer.

Yes, Inter can pay $10M for Handanovic, but why not let him keep playing with me? It is not like I cannot afford his $80K/week salary. I can pay him even more, as long as I do not have to use 3-star Brkic (And Udinese did not have even a secondary GK!)

Udinese has no benefit in this contract. Period!

Why do I need the cash since I cannot find a substitution similar to him with $10M?

As your reasoning, let's say Udinese agrees to pay $12M after two years Handanovic played for Inter. Then after two years, Udinese lost $2M, lost 2 years of Handanovic service and only saved $80K/week for 2 years? Smart Italians eh?

If there was another club offering 20m straight away then fair enough, Udinese would never accept a co-ownership deal instead.

However, if there is no such other offer and if Udinese need money, then 10m is the best they can get. On top, they know that in 2 years time they would either receive another transfer fee for the player or buy the player back at a price of their choice. (which alternative becomes true is not their choice, however, but only depends on who bids more)

One can also determine where a player will play when agreeing on a co-ownership deal. He can either stay at his current club (current club gets money but keeps the player at first, buying club invests in a player and secures option to sign him in the future for less money than otherwise payable) or he can move to the new club (buying club gets player at cut price, but liekely needs to pay more in two years time to keep him and selling club gets money but retains option to get the player back or to receive more money in return for losing him permanently).

Either deal may be a good deal for both sides and it's not ridiculous at all that a club may choose to agree such deal.

Look at it positively. If you move to a club in Italy you will have players being there in co-ownership deals and players at other clubs in co-ownership deals. The former are basically loan players for you, which you can sign permanently for lowish fees and for which you would even get money back if you choose to get rid of them. The latter are players were sold before, but for which you will either receive a further payment in the future or which you will get back at a cut price.

Where's the spoiler in any of those?

Anyway, one last question on the topic if somebody wouldn't mind taking the time to answer. What happens if a third club wishes to buy a co-owned player outright? Is this possible? If so, which club does the third club negotiate with in the deal?

The third club has to make an offer to both clubs for their respective 50% shares. A transfer will only go through if both clubs accept the offer.

This means if you are one of the two current owners, irrespective of where the player currently plays, no third club will take the player away from you without your consent. The downside is that if you want to get rid of your 50% share before, you cannot do so unless the other owner clubs accepts an offer as well.

The third club has to make an offer to both clubs for their respective 50% shares. A transfer will only go through if both clubs accept the offer.

This means if you are one of the two current owners, irrespective of where the player currently plays, no third club will take the player away from you without your consent. The downside is that if you want to get rid of your 50% share before, you cannot do so unless the other owner clubs accepts an offer as well.

----

In a lot of ways, I think it's a great idea for smaller clubs, because it spreads out the risk and clubs have a little more incentive to develop players. However, it does mean players have less stability - you will typically see 50% shares being bandied about like crazy in Italy, like selling cattle or something. I think it would be interesting in England - it could bring down transfer fees, too, as you don't need to buy outright.

Man Utd have been bidding for Juventus 50% of Isla all window. They bid and withdraw the bid almost immediately. They have not yet made a bid to Udinese. Seems to not be working properly, in this instance anyway. The same happened to Asamoah in the last window.

I've played two and half seasons and so far only 2 players have been bought out of their co-owned contracts to a 3rd party club and both players have gone to Italian clubs.