Didn't emmet write for that nazi website? Or is he busy writing liverpool stuff now?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Last edited:
Board & Management (56 Viewers)
- Thread starter .zero
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
lengthy thread on the plusvalenza case, not necessarily in line with the obvious "juve cheated, it's obvious" opinions, putting some emphasis on the administrational controversies too. again, in a functional juridical system the case should have not stood and the appeal should be accepted. then again, it's italy, so we'll see.
I guess we disagree here, there's gazillion things out there that are obvious, yet can't be easily proved. F.e. (and this is completely unrelated) Al Capone being a crime boss - obvious to everyone at the time, yet not easy to prove. Those transfer values to me seem inflated and I'm very certain that without the exchange elements (either straight up or in a 3+ team scheme or over multiple years) they'd be different, but we can agree to disagree if you think they're not.
How well they've proven the fictitious valuation with wiretaps and whatnot - as I said I'm not sure how well it was done, you'd have to be familiar with Italian law and have a larger access to their case files. Whether it's illegal or not - pretty sure it's illegal, otherwise there wouldn't be a case in FIGC and an attempt to open a case in standard courts, no?
But as stated before, the -15 is a joke and FIGC not going after the counterparties is just as much of a joke.
How well they've proven the fictitious valuation with wiretaps and whatnot - as I said I'm not sure how well it was done, you'd have to be familiar with Italian law and have a larger access to their case files. Whether it's illegal or not - pretty sure it's illegal, otherwise there wouldn't be a case in FIGC and an attempt to open a case in standard courts, no?
But as stated before, the -15 is a joke and FIGC not going after the counterparties is just as much of a joke.
Last edited:
you're not reading my posts which is fine but why even bother talking then
i asked you to prove that the books were not representative. the fact that prices were inflated is only natural with swaps: you don't get the same amount of cash compared to a straight sale, your choices become more limited, you agree on a different valuation. it's the same on the used market of cars, watches, hifi stuff, it works the same way on the food market, it's the same with services, etc. the fact that the figc judges noted it as a proof of criminal activity only proves that they never left their offices for decades and forgot how the world works.
again, the question was how the books were not representative. the fact that prices were inflated with swaps is natural. the books still represented the reality of the contracts (if the club accounted the amounts on the contracts and invoices - and nothing indicates that they did account different amounts).
i asked you to prove that the books were not representative. the fact that prices were inflated is only natural with swaps: you don't get the same amount of cash compared to a straight sale, your choices become more limited, you agree on a different valuation. it's the same on the used market of cars, watches, hifi stuff, it works the same way on the food market, it's the same with services, etc. the fact that the figc judges noted it as a proof of criminal activity only proves that they never left their offices for decades and forgot how the world works.
again, the question was how the books were not representative. the fact that prices were inflated with swaps is natural. the books still represented the reality of the contracts (if the club accounted the amounts on the contracts and invoices - and nothing indicates that they did account different amounts).
