Antonio Conte (162 Viewers)

[Xperd]

It's about law, do you realize it? There is a law in Italy - if you know that someone is matchfixing you should make a report on them, if you will not do it and then someone will announce that you knew about that matchfixing had a place you are in trouble, it's a L-A-W and you will take a responsibility for ur silence, is it $#@!ing hard to understand it?

Absolutely right..

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Klin]

Let me see if I get this straight, adn someone plese correct me if I am wrong.

The plea bargain that was agreed upon by Conte and the prosecutor was a 3 month ban and a 200,000 euro fine.

In the agreement, Conte would be able to train the players, organize a gameplan for the matches, and basically do everything except for being in the stadium on matchday.

This was summarily rejected by the judge.


Did I get this right?

That was too good to expect to get approved to be honest.

Nothing, really.

Negotiations are still ongoing regarding a possible plea bargain for Conte.

 

[Roman]

18:10 Palazzi: "Conte, Alessio e Garlini sono ancora posizioni pendenti, potrei formulare anche le richieste per tutte le altre posizioni omettendo queste tre, in attesa di un'eventuale richiesta di patteggiamento".

Can someone translate it ?
damn the google translator so bad.

 

[KB824]

yes

Ok.

If that is the case, then this isn't really a "ban" in the truest sense of the word, now is it? Basically what would happen is that whomever is standing in as coach is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Conte while he is banned.


I'm going to get flamed for this, but if that was the actual agreement, I can't blame them for rejecting it, to be honest.

A ban is supposed to be someone being banned for all activities prior to and up to the actual matches. In fact, a true ban would mean that the accused is barred from any activity at all to do with the team until that ban is over.

You, living in Brooklyn, I'm sure are aware of what happened with Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints. Now THAT was a ban.


And I'm not here to argue whether or not Conte is innocent or guilty, because none of us here knows what all thte evidence is that either side has.


But, in thinking about it, that really isn't much of a ban at all. The accused is supposed to be Persona Non Grata during his suspension

 

[Lapa]

I do, actually.

:wth:

Not one bit

 

[Red]

Does somebody actually even care if he has cheated in the past? Not that I would even believe it.

Not really, if it is 'just' a failure to report the wrongdoing of others.

Would be a different matter if he was actively fixing matches.

 

[swag]

It is less a ban than a restraining order.

 

[Klin]

Ok.

If that is the case, then this isn't really a "ban" in the truest sense of the word, now is it? Basically what would happen is that whomever is standing in as coach is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Conte while he is banned.


I'm going to get flamed for this, but if that was the actual agreement, I can't blame them for rejecting it, to be honest.

A ban is supposed to be someone being banned for all activities prior to and up to the actual matches. In fact, a true ban would mean that the accused is barred from any activity at all to do with the team until that ban is over.

You, living in Brooklyn, I'm sure are aware of what happened with Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints. Now THAT was a ban.


And I'm not here to argue whether or not Conte is innocent or guilty, because none of us here knows what all thte evidence is that either side has.


But, in thinking about it, that really isn't much of a ban at all. The accused is supposed to be Persona Non Grata during his suspension

Exactly.

 

[juve901]

Could some kind person explain this, please:

18.10 — La Commissione Disciplinare accetta le proposte di Palazzi, che non farà richieste di condanna per Conte (e anche Alessio e Garlini) per non inficiare un possibile patteggiamento.

http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Calci...ri-insulti-contro-palazzi--912066008377.shtml

I put it through a translator, but was still struggling to get my head round it.

My italian is rusty... but the report appears to be saying that Conte (and the others) will not have to plea "guilty" to the charges in a new plea bargain deal.

 

[Red]

My italian is rusty... but the report appears to be saying that Conte (and the others) will not have to plea "guilty" to the charges in a new plea bargain deal.

Thanks.

 

[Roman]

18:20- Accolte le richieste di Poloni (6 mesi), Savorani (5 mesi e 10 giorni), D'Urbano (5 mesi e 10 giorni), Passoni (6 mesi e 15 giorni), AlbinoLeffe (-1 e 30mila euro), Siena (-6 e 100mila euro)

From what i understand the new bargain deal accepted for these guys??

Poloni,Savorani,D'Urbano & Passoni were all given 4 months on previous deals.now they got 5-6.

I guess it means Conte will get 4-5 months.

 

[juve901]

Ok.

If that is the case, then this isn't really a "ban" in the truest sense of the word, now is it? Basically what would happen is that whomever is standing in as coach is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Conte while he is banned.


I'm going to get flamed for this, but if that was the actual agreement, I can't blame them for rejecting it, to be honest.

A ban is supposed to be someone being banned for all activities prior to and up to the actual matches. In fact, a true ban would mean that the accused is barred from any activity at all to do with the team until that ban is over.

You, living in Brooklyn, I'm sure are aware of what happened with Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints. Now THAT was a ban.


And I'm not here to argue whether or not Conte is innocent or guilty, because none of us here knows what all thte evidence is that either side has.


But, in thinking about it, that really isn't much of a ban at all. The accused is supposed to be Persona Non Grata during his suspension

Right , the plea bargain 3-month 'ban' is not a ban as defined by FIFA (and thus the FIGC) under the FIFA Code of Ethics. The charges are ethical ones, and so, unfortunately, fall under the 'harsher' footballing rules.

So I guess yes, we shouldn't be surprised they rejected it, but I, being a lawyer, though it was a fairly decent plea bargain and gets the point across that - in the future - if you hear talk of match-fixing... report it.

So yeah a ban is literally what the words mean - a ban. Which does not include allowing the coach to train players on a daily basis.

I don't follow the NFL at all, but I'll look up what happened to the saints.

 

[Stevie]

What are the chances of it going to to trial and Conte is proven innocent?

 

[swag]

35.245%, give or take 50%

 

[KB824]

Right , the plea bargain 3-month 'ban' is not a ban as defined by FIFA (and thus the FIGC) under the FIFA Code of Ethics. The charges are ethical ones, and so, unfortunately, fall under the 'harsher' footballing rules.

So I guess yes, we shouldn't be surprised they rejected it, but I, being a lawyer, though it was a fairly decent plea bargain and gets the point across that - in the future - if you hear talk of match-fixing... report it.

So yeah a ban is literally what the words mean - a ban. Which does not include allowing the coach to train players on a daily basis.

I don't follow the NFL at all, but I'll look up what happened to the saints.

Oh, you should read up on it. It was pretty disturbing, especially after the repeated warnings from the NFL to them to stop doing what they were doing

 

[Roman]

Slim i guess.

 

[Enron]

Right , the plea bargain 3-month 'ban' is not a ban as defined by FIFA (and thus the FIGC) under the FIFA Code of Ethics. The charges are ethical ones, and so, unfortunately, fall under the 'harsher' footballing rules.

So I guess yes, we shouldn't be surprised they rejected it, but I, being a lawyer, though it was a fairly decent plea bargain and gets the point across that - in the future - if you hear talk of match-fixing... report it.

So yeah a ban is literally what the words mean - a ban. Which does not include allowing the coach to train players on a daily basis.

I don't follow the NFL at all, but I'll look up what happened to the saints.

They got fucked.

 

[Red]

What are the chances of it going to to trial and Conte is proven innocent?

I'll say there's probably only about a 30% chance of it going to trial.

If it goes to trial, I'll say there is very little chance of Conte being acquitted.

 

[Nicholas]

I think it's clear Moratti and Berlu want Conte banned for our games against both.

 

[Lancelot]

What are the chances of it going to to trial and Conte is proven innocent?

Same as a Tornado going into a big pile of rubbish and making a Boing 747 out of it.