Juventus-capital gains, the Court of Appeal to recalculate the penalty of -15- Corriere.it

Tomorrow evening the Serie A standings will change still on the recommendation of a court. This is not said to be the last time this happens, because in this huge judicial tangle that is the Juventus case there are no certainties: there is in fact the possibility that the second trial on salary maneuvers (whose referrals arrived on Friday) which will take away around June 15, and whose appeal judgment will be held in July, can end with a penalty to be served again this season. It cannot be excluded, it depends on the theme of afflictivity (the sporting penalty must be afflictive, if not this season then it must be applied in the next), even if the timing moved to late summer could suggest that the penalty will be discounted next championship (and not said it is good news for Juve).

This is provided that, before the trial begins, there is no plea agreement between the parties. To understand if the hypothesis is still on the table, much, if not all, will depend on tomorrow evening’s judgment on the first trend.

Back to the Federal Court of Appeals, naturally in a different composition than the one that took place on January 20 -15: the president Ida Raiola judge of the IV section of the Naples TAR, the hearing takes place remotely, the decision will arrive during the day. We return here with the expectation of a (not particularly substantial) discount on the -15, after having read the motivations of the Guarantee College which, in 75 pages, fully confirmed the sentence of the previous Court of Appeal, in particular the disloyalty of the top executives, the president Andrea Agnelli, the former sporting director Fabio Paratici, the former ad Arrivabene and the technical director Federico Cherubini. What will have to be reviewed, because it is not adequately motivated, is the concrete contribution of the executives without signatory power (Nedved, Garimberti, Grazioli-Venier, Hughes, Marilungo, Roncaglio). But how much did the behavior of these minor managers affect the determination of the -15?

Juventus defense

The pool of Juventus lawyers will start by arguing that – if there are fewer executives involved – the penalty calculation cannot fail to take this into account. It is possible for the prosecutor Giuseppe Chin to underline that, faced with the capital gains system, the role of junior managers had little weight in determining the sentence. It will be interesting to understand if the prosecutor will restart from the -9 points he asked for (the outcome that many expect) or whether to defend the -15. Juventus’ defensive line will then be articulated around 3 other points: it should be considered that the club has adopted a prevention model for three years, an internal supervisory code which could constitute an exemption from the penalty, given that the club has not certainly the power to intercept the executives (the Board of Guarantee rejected this point but, for the defence, without motivating it).

Then there is the issue of the company’s discontinuity: of the four executives convicted, only one (Cherubini) is still in the organization chart. Finally there is the vexed question
of afflictivity: the penalty must be really penalizing but, according to the lawyers, even going from second to fourth place (keeping the Champions League) is the same, given the difference of 10 million in lost prizes. In any case, the penalty must be determined first, it is decided whether it is afflictive on this classification and, if not, it must be calculated on the next one. True, but on the other hand it is argued that the penalty must also be fair: there are few who bet that Juventus can take a few points and keep the Champions League. Defense will cite as precedent the Foggia case: the club was punished with a -6 in the face of complaints about illegal funds and money laundering. We’ll see if the previous one will be considered relevant. We will know tomorrow.