Investigation in progress cannot be considered a “capital gains” for Sampdoria, Atalanta, Sassuolo, Empoli and Udinese. It is the same file as the Juve salary maneuver
There is great expectation for the reasons for the minus 15 for Juve that the Federal Court of Appeal will have to publish by Monday. That text, objectively, will also condition the subsequent chapters of this “hot” winter of football justice, in particular the “partnership” relationships of the Juventus club “above all” with some clubs and their “opacity” in debt/credit relationships. Another risk for Juve, but also the possibility of other clubs being involved. However, other companies that the federal prosecutor has never officially mentioned. The press release dated December 22 said only that “the federal prosecutor’s office has taken action in the context of a new sporting disciplinary procedure, against the Juventus club and other professional clubs for further and new disciplinary conduct relevant to those for which it has already exercised disciplinary action”. In short, no name other than Juve. At least for now.
Above all, it is part of the papers sent by the Turin prosecutor’s office to the Football Federation and concerns five teams: Sampdoria, Empoli, Udinese, Atalanta and Sassuolo. This list then expands to another group of clubs with more discontinuous relationships: Grosseto, Parma, Pisa, Monza, Cosenza, Pescara, Lugano, Basel. The question is: do the partnership relationships mentioned by the Turin prosecutors take the form of a violation of fair competition or could this type of episode be approved by the position of the clubs acquitted even on Friday on the day of the Sting against Juve?
The federal prosecutor’s office is concluding its investigation work on the Turin papers. The prosecutors write that the partnership relationships “besides endangering the loyalty of the sporting competition” highlight “opacity” and “favorable conditions” for some clubs. Out of the rules? Several interceptions are then mentioned. One from Fabio Paratici with a Pisa manager on the possible signing of Lorenzo Lucca: «You just have to give me the lines, I’ll put the rest in order, I’ve done it for Genoa all my life, I’ve done it for Atalanta all my life, I’ve done it for Sassuolo all my life (…) when I have the parameters after that I fix everything (…) So how should I do it? I give him a fixed, I give him a bonus that stays at Genoa, I give him a bonus when he joins Juve; if all goes well, too much money for everyone!’
The cases are different. There is, for example, that of the Turkish Demiral, Federico Cherubini says that the “loan is only formally onerous”: a circumstance that for the investigators means a free loan, officially onerous. Another chapter is that of the signing of Manuel Locatelli, from Sassuolo to Juventus. According to the investigators, the valuation of 25 million hid a purchase at higher prices not recorded in the financial statements through the “too simple” bonus system, prosecutors say and quoting Paratici: “Maybe we’ll give it half a valuation…”
However, there is something new, rather than an interpretative clarification that is filtering in these hours: there is a single file (end of the investigation, unless extended, on February 22) including salary maneuvers and “opaque” partnerships. Therefore, let us no longer call it «capital gains bis».
January 24 – 11:52
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
