How are you finding the Italian CO bug?

[Candre168]

For any people who play in Italy, after a period of time has the CO bug made the league less realistic? Or is it still ok to play in?

For anyone who doesn't know of the bug, there are alot of Co-Ownership deals in Italy. Far more than in real life. It's not exactly a "game killer" but it isn't very realistic.

[MelbVictory]

Season 2019 in Italy.

I have found the AI peculiar. A talented 19 year old, worth 5 m, will have offers of up to 15 mill for CO. In every transfer period, there are offers after offers. Not only confirming which are your talent, it gets annoying, because you can't auto-reject these offers.

In the end, once, I accepted a ludicrous offer of say 10 mill, and then bought back the the player for 5mill.

[iacovone]

Season 2019 in Italy.

I have found the AI peculiar. A talented 19 year old, worth 5 m, will have offers of up to 15 mill for CO. In every transfer period, there are offers after offers. Not only confirming which are your talent, it gets annoying, because you can't auto-reject these offers.

In the end, once, I accepted a ludicrous offer of say 10 mill, and then bought back the the player for 5mill.

Agreed. In 2027 and you really do get some odd co-ownership offers at times. I had a £40m co-ownership offer for my LM. Accepted it naturally but he rejected their terms!!

But back to the OP - it hasn't made my game any less realistic.

[Elrithral]

Agreed. In 2027 and you really do get some odd co-ownership offers at times. I had a £40m co-ownership offer for my LM. Accepted it naturally but he rejected their terms!!

But back to the OP - it hasn't made my game any less realistic.

Same here. My striker rejected a CO offer of £56m and then requested a move in the summer, he went for £22m

[Deisler26]

I take advantage! Accept a £42m c/o bid, then buy the player back for £20m! £20m profit, right there!

[scoot4nat]

I take advantage! Accept a £42m c/o bid, then buy the player back for £20m! £20m profit, right there!

Just a quick question go slightly off topic (apologies)...

IRL, why is there this co-ownership?

Advantages?

Disadvantages?

Good for big/small teams?

Any controversies?

Notable players who are co-owned or have been in the past?

I just don't see why you would want this from both club and player perspective.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[Deisler26]

Just a quick question go slightly off topic (apologies)...

IRL, why is there this co-ownership?

Advantages?

Disadvantages?

Good for big/small teams?

Any controversies?

Notable players who are co-owned or have been in the past?

I just don't see why you would want this from both club and player perspective.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

1. It's a way the clubs have of not losing a player for good at once. It usually works for both sides (even if sometimes it doesn't) because the smaller clubs (or with the least money) only pay half of his transfer price and get him to play for them without spending much money. The team who sold it, gets the chance of buying him back if they feel they've made a mistake, as they've only sold 50% of the player (if that makes any sense). At this point, the player can only play for the second team, although the team doesn't own him entirely.

2. Advantage is big teams can see their players develop away from the team and snap up the big talents for little money. For the little ones, they can get a player they perhaps couldn't have afforded and who's talent is of a higher level.

Disadvantage is that you could lose a £25m player for less than £1m sometimes or that you can't keep hold of that wonderkid that you've had playing for you for 2 years.

3. Notable co-owned players are Adriano (Parma/Inter) and Fabrizio Miccoli (Juventus/Fiorentina)

[scoot4nat]

1. It's a way the clubs have of not losing a player for good at once. It usually works for both sides (even if sometimes it doesn't) because the smaller clubs (or with the least money) only pay half of his transfer price and get him to play for them without spending much money. The team who sold it, gets the chance of buying him back if they feel they've made a mistake, as they've only sold 50% of the player (if that makes any sense). At this point, the player can only play for the second team, although the team doesn't own him entirely.

2. Advantage is big teams can see their players develop away from the team and snap up the big talents for little money. For the little ones, they can get a player they perhaps couldn't have afforded and who's talent is of a higher level.

Disadvantage is that you could lose a £25m player for less than £1m sometimes or that you can't keep hold of that wonderkid that you've had playing for you for 2 years.

3. Notable co-owned players are Adriano (Parma/Inter) and Fabrizio Miccoli (Juventus/Fiorentina)

Thansk for the reply. I had an idea Adriano was co-owned although wasn;t sure.

Surely if a big team wants a player to develop away from the club, they could just as easily loan him out. Ok no big transfer fee but if he has a successful loan period his value would increase anyway. It seems over-complicated. Has it always been part of the Italian set up?

[Deisler26]

Thansk for the reply. I had an idea Adriano was co-owned although wasn;t sure.

Surely if a big team wants a player to develop away from the club, they could just as easily loan him out. Ok no big transfer fee but if he has a successful loan period his value would increase anyway. It seems over-complicated. Has it always been part of the Italian set up?

But in the end, if he's crap or not as good as they would like, they can offload him to the other club. it's like a risk-free gamble. But not quite!

[scoot4nat]

But in the end, if he's crap or not as good as they would like, they can offload him to the other club. it's like a risk-free gamble. But not quite!

Thanks for the replies. I'm gonna do some reading up o it.

Back on topic...

[Scott1990]

Juventus, Inter, Fiorentina, and Milan (not Roma though...?) offer to co-own my DM literally every day during the transfer window. It's SO ANNOYING... especially since they increase their offers by 100,000 each time. They started at offering 1 million, now they are offering more than 5 million- that shows how often they offer to co-own this guy.

And they make stupid purchases too. Inter bought Hamsik for $50 million in a co-own deal. They could have bought him outright for that much. But now they don't even get to have him on the team since he stays at Napoli. So they essentually paid $50 million to have the potential to buy him in the future for more money. What's even more stupid is that AC Milan then offered both Napoli and Inter $25 million to buy Hamsik. Both accepted (Inter accepting an offer of half of what they had paid to co-own him) so now Hamsik is at AC Milan.

[celebritykiller]

Juventus, Inter, Fiorentina, and Milan (not Roma though...?) offer to co-own my DM literally every day during the transfer window. It's SO ANNOYING... especially since they increase their offers by 100,000 each time. They started at offering 1 million, now they are offering more than 5 million- that shows how often they offer to co-own this guy.

And they make stupid purchases too. Inter bought Hamsik for $50 million in a co-own deal. They could have bought him outright for that much. But now they don't even get to have him on the team since he stays at Napoli. So they essentually paid $50 million to have the potential to buy him in the future for more money. What's even more stupid is that AC Milan then offered both Napoli and Inter $25 million to buy Hamsik. Both accepted (Inter accepting an offer of half of what they had paid to co-own him) so now Hamsik is at AC Milan.

Missed out on Hamsik to Inter (as Man City) initially. Originally had to pay 22.5mill but went to inter for 13.5m co-ownership.

Next day I bid 7.5m to Inter and 7.5m to Napoli, both accepted. The boy is mine

[x42bn6]

Thansk for the reply. I had an idea Adriano was co-owned although wasn;t sure.

Surely if a big team wants a player to develop away from the club, they could just as easily loan him out. Ok no big transfer fee but if he has a successful loan period his value would increase anyway. It seems over-complicated. Has it always been part of the Italian set up?

Well, the wages are automatically split and sometimes teams like the short-term cash boost of a co-ownership bid (for example, loan fees in real life seldom go above a million pounds). It also gives lower teams incentives to go for players too because if the player turns out to not be good enough to play for a top club, sometimes that club gives the player's last 50% away for free or cheap because they don't want to saddle their team with (comparatively) useless players, while the lower team gets a (comparatively) good player.

It tends to be used as a very speculative buy in real-life - not quite a new signing but if he's useless, you only take half the pain.

Yes, Italian teams use this a lot, although it tends not to be highlighted in the English media. For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_football_transfers_summer_2008_(co-ownership)

[GazTheDoood]

I've only read the OP, so forgive me.

But to answer your question, it completely wrecked a game for me.

After bring Castel San Pietro (previously unplayable) to Serie A in about 8 years, I was getting crazy bids of say £9m, nearly double my bank balance of the time, for some of my young guns.

Kind of wrecked my enjoyment of the save as it comprimised realism, and kind of defeated the object of what I was doing by steadily building up the club and finances etc..

Yes, I know I oculd have just rejected them, but when they're everyday, unsettling your team, it was hardly very fun anymore.

[nymanr]

Well it's annoying but not a game braker for me.

Always when i show interest in players in Italy ( i paly in England) and make a offer for them some Italian club joins the race for the signature, but they only offer CO deals.

This has happend to a number of players i have tried to purchase.

The most recent one was when i tried to buy Hamsik from Napoli.

He was valued at 29M€ so i thaught i would have to go to a massive 55M€. That was what i thought. I decided to offer 45M€ and then negotiate the offer up to 55M€ when they reject my first offer. Immediately when i put my offer in Juventus, Roma, Inter and AC Milan came in with CO offers up to 34M€ each. The CO offers where all accepted but my offer was rejected.

Napoli did want to negotiate though. They wanted 90M€ + 20% sell on. I upped my offer to 68M€, twice the CO offer only to have them reject that to and say they want 97M€ + 20%.

At this point i laughed and stopped my inquiries.

Wasn't the transfer module rewriten for this years FM

[Taytaz]

English clubs in my West Ham save fall prey to buying co owned players. Reading bought a 20yro AMC worth £5mil for £6.5 mil to each club. I had a £3 to each club rejected, and signed an equally promising spaniard instead

[Romanista.]

SI should release a mini unofficial patch for this.

[JimmyWangYang]

When you strengthen your team with say... 5 or 6 quality signings in a transfer window, and then after the deadline check your main rivals to see how they fared in the transfer market and notice they bought 3 fantastic players, only they are co-ownership deals and as such doesn't do squat to improve their team... then YES; it does make the league less realistic.

This bug is the reason I'm not going to purchase the next FM installment. It would take SI 10 minutes to release a fix for the Co-ownership mess where the least you could do is turn off this feature... but instead they have chosen to start working on FM2010 when they’re already behind on FM2009. The result is another unfinished product.

[ricki.bertolino]

Notable players who are co-owned or have been in the past?

Mauro German Camoranesi (Verona/Juventus)

Fabio Quagliarella (Sampdoria/Udinese - snapped by Udinese at the end of the deal by higher bid).

[Reggiana]

Paolo Rossi was co-owned too, i think.

[ricki.bertolino]

Paolo Rossi was co-owned too, i think.

You're right, by Vicenza and Juventus.