possible a discount (minimum) in the Court of Appeal – Corriere.it

Not the what, but eventually the how much. The reasons for the sentence of the Board of Guarantee at Coni on the Juventus capital gains case in 75 pages explain in detail why the reconstruction of the relevant facts, of an intentional and repeated conduct as ascertained by the federal Court of Appeal which had imposed the 15 points penalty, almost entirely confirmed. At most, it will be possible to achieve a reduction in the penalty but, as far as we read, this should not be expected to be conspicuous.

We see. The reasons are not in favor of Juventus because, above all, sporting disloyalty has been confirmed, the famous article 4, to be attributed to the top executives, the president Andrea Agnelli, the former sports director Fabio Paratici and the technical director Federico Cherubini, whose inhibitions have in fact been confirmed. Nor is it of any significance for the Board that in the referral article 4 was not contested against the club, but only against its managers, since the Federal Court then clearly indicated in the reasons why, on the basis of the new facts, the sanction envisaged for the violation of the principles of loyalty and correctness pursuant to art. 4.

The new facts are naturally the papers of the Turin prosecutor’s office (tomorrow there will be the criminal hearing on territorial jurisdiction) which rightly determined the revocation of the previous acquittal without therefore violating the principle of ne bis in idem (one cannot be tried twice for the same thing: one remains within the same procedure) and without there being any conflict between the sports justice code of Coni and that of the FIGC.

What will have to be reviewed by the Federal Court (in a different composition), because it is not adequately motivated, is the concrete contribution of the executives without signatory power (Pavel Nedved, Paolo Garimberti, Assia Grazioli-Venier, Caitlin Mary Hughes, Daniela Marilungo, Francesco Roncaglio) , whose appeals were upheld. In fact, it does not appear in any way to prove that there have been, in concrete terms, one or multiple objective violations by the directors without delegated powers of Juventus Spa, we read.

Learning more about their input can have an impact on the club’s penalty. Considering, in fact, that the extent of the penalty inflicted on Juventus FC Spa is determined in relation to the ascertained violations of its representatives and managers, as well as its directors without proxy. The absence of the sanction for the latter, due to the ascertained motivational defect, is reflected, at present, also on the overall sanction imposed on the company and therefore makes a new assessment of the Federal Court of Appeal necessary, which preserves the freedom of decision by self-assessment. it is up to you, and not to the College, to quantify the sentence.

But how much did the assessment of the behavior of these minor managers affect the determination of the -15? If it had an impact, then the -15 will be reduced: the fewer executives involved, the fewer penalty points. And there are those who say that the final outcome will be a return to -9 requested by the prosecutor Giuseppe Chin (and then brought by the judges of the Court of Appeal precisely to -15). But if we arrived at determining the -15 considering the behavior of those who mattered most, therefore Agnelli and the top management, and for the characteristic of the system of capital gains and repeated conduct, then the discount will be null or minimal.

In any case in fifteen days around 24 or 25 May, the hearing in the Court of Appeal can be set and the sentence, with the times envisaged by the new code, will arrive by the end of the championship and must be afflictive, or damage the team: a this point, there are all the conditions because the afflictivity is calculated on this ranking and not on next year’sand the consequence could be the loss of the Champions League, if not all the Juventus Cups.