what did Juventus gain and what did Figc-Corriere.it gain

what did Juventus gain and what did Figc-Corriere.it gain


Of Ariadne Ravelli

The company is punished with a 718 thousand euro fine for salary maneuvers without penalty points, but renounces to appeal. Agnelli will seek an agreement,

Let's start with the good news: in 2040 there will be no hearings in the Council of State to discuss an appeal on Juventus' capital gainsas instead happened, after 17 years, on 4 May for Calciopoli.

However, this judicial case involving Juventus ends here: the Federal Court has ratified the agreement reached by the club and the public prosecutor's office, i.e. a fine, not even a maxi one, of 718 thousand and 240 euros (with the fines of individual executives it reaches about one million) for the trend that concerned salary maneuvers, exchanges with other clubs and irregular relationships with agents. The condition was the waiver of appealing to the guarantee college (which would have paved the way for administrative justice) for the investigation of capital gains. And it is clear that the two events have been considered a unicum: the fine for private agreements, on the basis of which the players recovered the waived monthly salaries, without having them entered in the balance sheet, joins the -10. Which now goes on file, the crystallized ranking, the top managers considered guilty by sports justice. Among them, Fabio Paratici and Federico Cherubini negotiated, but not (yet?) Andrea Agnelli who did not want to guarantee the waiver of the appeal to the TAR. For now, therefore, he will go to trial on June 15, even if the conversation between his lawyer Sangiorgio and the prosecutor Chin only started yesterday morning, the parties will talk to each other again and there is a willingness to find an agreement. For the capital gains, Maurizio Arrivabene will go to the TAR, who was not among the managers involved in the salary maneuvers.

By the way: yesterday, shortly before the Court's ratification of the plea deal, I am the reasons for the -10 of the Court of Appeal have arrivedwhich in addition to reiterating that the sentences for Agnelli, Arrivabene, Paratici and Cherubini are definitive and therefore also the assessment of Juve's responsibility is definitive, indicates how many points are inflicted for each of the convicted: Paratici 4, Agnelli 3, Arrivabene 2, Cherubini 1.

But in short, who made the best deal with this agreement? If a few days ago the justicialism of the sports courts was yelled at (to be reformed on the spot), now is the moment of indignation over the Papocchio agreement (Minister Abodi: Don't get the message across, but I'm sure it's not like that, that the plea agreement and a lowering of attention levels with respect to inappropriate management behaviours).

Plea bargaining is a tool provided for by the code under certain conditions and it is clear that both parties give up something. Juve, as mentioned, in the appeals, the FIGC prosecutor to another possible penalty in points which, probably, would have been calculated on next season, with the dragging on of disputes and penalties that could have changed during the season, in a replays this year. Therefore the president of the FIGC Gabriele Gravina applauds the newfound serenity, the most beautiful result: There is a moment for verification, assessments and judgments but also one for deciding and looking to the future, in compliance with the rules.

On the other hand, Juventus could not have thought of closing it better: it is true that the plea agreement is often perceived as an admission of guilt (even if the club reiterates the correctness of its actions) but another penalty would have forced it to leave to handicap next season or not to qualify for the Cups this year with the result that the very probable exclusion of UEFA would have taken place next time. Here, UEFA: only the pronouncement of Nyon is missing, which should be satisfied with a year of exclusion. And then it will really be possible to put a full stop. Each with their own complaints.

May 31, 2023 (change May 31, 2023 | 07:25)



Source link