The Objection to Ordinary Concrete Objects as Univeristables

I was wondering if you could say something more about what the problem was. Here one enters into the classical debate over nominalism that stretches back through the Middle Ages. The whole motivation behind postulating universals was to have something that could exist wholly in spatially separated places, because concrete objects don't do that. So it seems to me that on the face of it, the idea that properties are God's thoughts subverts the whole reason that properties were postulated in the first place to be universals.