there is no mention of

there is no mention of

Of Ariadne Ravelli

This morning the request for clarification sent by the president of Covisoc on 31 March 2021 to the FIGC prosecutor Chin was delivered to the defence. The answer emerged on Saturday. But not even the second document seems to prove that the investigation starts from here. We are talking about management situations that deserve careful monitoring

This morning the email went out from the offices of the FIGC - directed to the mailbox of the Juventus lawyers - with the second Covisoc card
the registered note with number 1440 of 31 March 2021. was formally requested only yesterday evening - after some previews of the press - and was sent immediately, this time without the need for appeals to administrative justice.

Second Covisoc Charter

But what is the second Covisoc Charter? This is the request for clarification sent by the president of Covisoc (the internal body of the FIGC that controls the accounts) Paolo Boccardelli to the federal prosecutor Joseph Chin. Up to now, the defenses had requested - and in fact obtained only after an appeal to the TAR with passage to the Council of State which had rejected the request for suspension advanced by the FIGC - the response of the latter on 14 April (n. 10940), six pages in which Juventus is never mentioned but clarifications and methodological indications are provided on the investigations into capital gains carried out in the past. The intention of the defense was to identify the start of the investigation with this document, thus backdating the expiry of the terms of the investigations: if the investigation had started on April 14, at the time when Chin replies, it would have resulted that the whole investigation on Juventus capital gains would have taken place out of time.

Since there are no explicit references to Juventus in Chin's answer, as mentionedthe defense also asked for the previous document yesterday evening, written by Covisoc. That the two-page document delivered today: here too no mention of Juventus, we are talking generically about management situations which, in your opinion, deserve close monitoring e this is also in view of the adoption of potential institutional initiatives. Institutional, therefore, and not necessarily disciplinary. It would not appear, therefore, that there was awareness of any crime news.

We are talking about situations that begin to appear with significant statistical frequency. Covisoc's focus in particular is on mirror exchanges, even if they are not called that. It reads: the possibility of resorting to compensation for the purpose to minimize (if not eliminate) the reciprocal financial flows by setting, at the same time, the purchase and sale prices of the individual assets on economic bases of which the corporate fundamentals do not always clearly transpire and intelligible. Which, obviously, determines a certain (undesirable) information opacity which risks becoming increasingly significant in the presence of any transactions between related parties.

Covisoc continues: From this point of view, Covisoc has carried out an analysis (referring to the last two years) on the effects on the financial statements of the companies of certain purchase and sale transactions of footballers. The analysis therefore shows (in general terms) how the so-called trading of players carried out by professional sports clubs - despite having guaranteed copious capital gains suitable for supporting the balance sheet aggregates - has generated very little liquidity. In the Commission's opinion, this phenomenon can only arouse attention because it makes it difficult to appreciate the real correspondence between the prices agreed for the individual operations, on the one hand, and the real market value of the athletes, on the other hand. The known issue is on point Chin in his answer will recall the difficulty of attributing an objective value to the players and will indicate the need to investigate in terms of systematicity and not dwelling on the single exchange.

The player base and the revaluation

But Covisoc then refers to another issue to be analysed, which seems to have nothing to do with capital gains and that would make one believe that it is not a document in which hypothetical disciplinary offenses are mentioned.

In fact, we are talking about revaluation of the so-called player pool that make up the fixed assets typical of professional sports clubs. the opinion of the Commission in fact that - although the revaluation is foreseen as such by legislative provisions (...) - in the case of clubs there are certain undeniable peculiarities which cannot be ignored. In particular, the assets of football clubs are often predominantly represented by intangibles (including the player pool) whose fair value not easy to identify. Also on this specific issue, the Commission believes it is necessary to undertake a path of shared analysis.

Therefore it is proposed a common work table. The defense had therefore also requested the report documenting the so-called working table that took place on April 7: minutes that, however, the answer does not exist because the meeting was informal, further indication that we would be outside a disciplinary proceeding.

March 14, 2023 (change March 14, 2023 | 14:24)

Source link