Ciro Immobile who top scored in The Italian League last season for Torino is co-owned by Juventus who are also located in Turin!! Its like Aguero being co-owned by Man Utd!! Talk about conflict of interest! Some of the acceptable agreements/rules elsewhere in football.............
But Torino are not a top club - they are an also-ran club by Italian standards, even if they are in the same city.
It's finished, third party ownership is banned in Italy from this summer... http://www.thesirenssong.com/2014/5/29/5754938/italian-co-ownership-to-be-abolished-figc-rumor
Juventus and Torino both play in Serie A so conflict exists. Torino finished 7th in Serie A last season so not too bad a showing albeit in recent years they have spent more time in The Italian second division. Your missing the point; however for comparison how about then Arsenal owning a share in a Spurs player?
Yep noted, but how the hell was it approved in the first place! That said the practice continues in Latin America!
Chelsea own Lukaku who plays for Everton. LFC own Borini who plays for SAFC. Thee players are assets who need to gain experience for them to increase in value. Then they get sold.
I don't think you understand it's workings. When it's only 2 clubs involved I thinks it's actually a good system. It rewards smaller clubs for taking on youngsters and developing them, rather than them just going on loan and the little club receiving **** all for their hard work.
With the loan system at least a player knows that he is owned by a single club (his parent club), any loan is temporary unless converted after the loan into a permanent transfer with ownership changing to the new club. I'm not saying the loan system is perfect by the way; this nonsense of not being able to play against your parent club is a joke also. Joint ownership of players is a clear conflict of interest.
They may receive f**k all for their hard work, but the perceived smaller club gets access to a 'quality' player that otherwise they may not have. Within the loan system the opportunity clearly exists to agree a permanent fee BEFORE he plays for the club he's loaned to thereby fixing the fee on today's value not what he may be worth in a few months time Joint ownership is a joke. Look at the trouble with Tevez and West Ham due to joint ownership as another example were the ownership isn't necessarily two clubs, but one club and A N Other
http://www.italianfootballdaily.com/breaking-parma-denied-europa-league-torino-take-spot/#.U4xdxPnMSAg Just seen Torino has now qualified for the Europa League at the expense of Parma. That would be an excellent place to get an away trip.
It has it's flaws, specifically when a third party such as an agent gets involved in the ownership. But if some sort of middle ground could be reached between the joint ownership and loan system, that would be great. Look at Courtois for example. Chelsea snapped him up young to hoard along with dozens of other classy youngsters. Courtois, along with other youngsters, then get consistently farmed out on loan. In courtois' case, Atletico Madridio took him for 3 years straight, and now they have paid off the transfer fee Chelsea paid for him in the form of loan fees. So he's now cost Chelsea nothing, another club has paid for him, developed him into a top class goalkeeper, and that club has nothing at all to show for it. Chelsea are the only winner. The current system in place here encourages the hoarding of young players. The joint ownership system in Italy encouraged their development.
I've seen that example used a few times but I don't understand why people have so much sympathy for Athletico on it. It's not like they were forced into these deals, they agreed them and why should they deserve any more than they were able to negotiate? When we had loan goalkeepers for year after year no one expected us to just be donated one or felt it was unjust when we never got a transfer fee for them, because that'd be ridiculous.;
It's just a good high profile example to use. It's not so much sympathy for Atletico rather than frustration at Chelsea, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Rather than the big clubs hoarding all the talented young players and reaping all the benefits with the little man left empty handed for all his hard work, the little man gets a stake and reward for all their hard work and time spent developing the player.
But if the little man wants to own a stake he could just buy someone. They're not forced to use the loan system, they only do it because it's beneficial to them.
The little man can't afford to go out and buy someone as Chelsea will pay tens of millions more. That's the whole point.
That's not true though is it. Almost every other club the size of Athletico have their own goalie. Chelsea can hoard youngsters, but they can't hoard the best players. If they aren't going to play for Chelsea they'll want to move elsewhere. It's not possible for one team to just hoover up all talent against their will.
