Board & Management (68 Viewers)
- Thread starter .zero
- Start date
plusvalenza isn't illegal, swap deals aren't illegal.
inflating the value of assets is illegal. it's borderline impossible to prove though. since there's no objective way to calculate players' value, it requires to prove the bad intent first. in juve's case, the number of the swap deals and the difference between the supposed value (ehh...), plus the added wiretaps were the key to prove the bad intent. not that i agree, i think the case should have been dismissed and never reopened, but that's probably how they figured out how to fuck with us. we'll have to wait until the official explanation though.
here's a long ass thread on the case. it's pretty well put together at first sight:
also, the mofo prosecutor (chiné) allegedly said that juve used swap deals to create virtual money (not my words, alleged quote i read) to buy players. this is the result of spending virtual money within the league:
and let's not forget the 700m of definitely not virtual money exor recently raised the capital with.
inflating the value of assets is illegal. it's borderline impossible to prove though. since there's no objective way to calculate players' value, it requires to prove the bad intent first. in juve's case, the number of the swap deals and the difference between the supposed value (ehh...), plus the added wiretaps were the key to prove the bad intent. not that i agree, i think the case should have been dismissed and never reopened, but that's probably how they figured out how to fuck with us. we'll have to wait until the official explanation though.
here's a long ass thread on the case. it's pretty well put together at first sight:
also, the mofo prosecutor (chiné) allegedly said that juve used swap deals to create virtual money (not my words, alleged quote i read) to buy players. this is the result of spending virtual money within the league:
and let's not forget the 700m of definitely not virtual money exor recently raised the capital with.
Fair enough, we fucked up and did dodgy shit in a clear pattern and knowing it’s dodgy. Let’s take that as truth for argument sake. We all see the pattern.
Now where this argument falls is the details. Which individual transactions within that pattern are the fraudulent ones? For it to be fraudulent (as opposed to bad pricing that merely "appears" suspicious at surface) they should prove that specific deals within that pattern where in fact done with agreement between both clubs that they’ll rig the numbers together to help each other out. Can they prove that?
From what I’ve seen they’re going just by the suspicious pattern but aren’t listing the deals where they have proof the clubs were in cahoots. If they did then both clubs in these transactions were engaged in fraud and both should be punished.if we did it more than we get bigger punishment but still others should be punished too.
If they can’t prove it on specific trades then the argument fails. How can a pattern be fraudulent if the specific deals that comprise this pattern are not?
At minimum if they at the very least prove one or two cases then they may have grounds to generalize to the rest of the trades. But if they can’t prove it on any individual case then that pattern just seems suspicious at the surface but not upon closer inspection.
Prosecutor: we see the prices listed in these 20 deals to be anomalous and showing a pattern that makes us suspect fraud is in play. On aggregate they look fishy.
Juve: okay point to which ones of these 20 deals do you have proof they were indeed fraud?
Prosecutor: I don’t have anything about a specific deal. It’s just aggregating them together do they look dodgy, and there's wiretaps from your management team saying they are dodgy.
Juve: so taken individually they’re kosher trades. But putting them together is fraud? If none of them individually are fraud then collectively they can’t be fraud. If collectively they are fraud, then individually some or most of them must be fraud too which necessarily involves other clubs and requires evidence. Otherwise, this entails that Juve committed fraud alone when the fraudulent practice must involve 2 parties being in cahoots.
Last edited:
Are you referring to this
Juve preparing appeal to CONI. According to lawyers, the FIGC prosecutor exceeded the deadlines for presenting his request. Documents received on 27 Oct, not on 24 Nov. Chinè signed the request on 22 Dec. Beyond the 30 days established by Code of Justice.
[GdS via @MatthijsPog)
I agree it is major legal technicality being violated but then Coni judges are mostly from Naples so no hope.
Juve preparing appeal to CONI. According to lawyers, the FIGC prosecutor exceeded the deadlines for presenting his request. Documents received on 27 Oct, not on 24 Nov. Chinè signed the request on 22 Dec. Beyond the 30 days established by Code of Justice.
[GdS via @MatthijsPog)
I agree it is major legal technicality being violated but then Coni judges are mostly from Naples so no hope.
