Board & Management (15 Viewers)

[U Picciriddu]

Its published in a newspaper today

Oh wow in 3 newspapers. Someone is angry. Lapo?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Osman]

That seems like a Lapo thing to do. Doubt the suits in the family did it lol.

 

[Badass J Elkann]

Oh wow in 3 newspapers. Someone is angry. Lapo?

Why red and white?? Looks like a coca cola advert

 

[DAiDEViL]

Why red and white?? Looks like a coca cola advert

Your eyes automatically gonna look at that signal red as you walk by. Not so much if it was in B&W.

 

[SaJuve]

Piero Sandulli, ex presidente della Corte federale d’Appello, si è espresso sulla penalizzazione di 15 punti in classifica inflitta alla Juventus.
PAROLE – «Da tempo, al pari di diversi altri colleghi, sostengo che il contenitore delle società quotate in Borsa mal si sposi con le società sportive. E la fattispecie attuale della Juventus, una volta di più, lo testimonia. Nel senso che la revocazione prima e la sentenza poi si sono basati sugli elementi emersi nel corso degli accertamenti prodotti dalla Consob, che per definizione può naturalmente vigilare sui soli club presenti a Piazza Affari. A tal proposito, in tutta sincerità, mi sarei aspettato delle evoluzioni sull’argomento. Confidavo che la recente riforma dello sport si occupasse di questo tema, che al momento invece rimane come vulnus al sistema. Da qui nasce la sanzione ai danni della Juventus e la mancata sanzione nei confronti di tutte le altre società coinvolte. Non la reputo una disparità, ma un trattamento diverso sulla base di scelte pregresse diverse. Questa condizione, di fatto, viene accettata dal club nel momento in cui entra in Borsa. E infatti si è arrivati alla sentenza attuale proprio sulla base dell’indagine Consob, che ha portato alla sussistenza di fatti inediti rispetto allo scorso mese di aprile, quando la Juventus era stata assolta».

 

[Juventinoo]

Piero Sandulli, ex presidente della Corte federale d’Appello, si è espresso sulla penalizzazione di 15 punti in classifica inflitta alla Juventus.
PAROLE – «Da tempo, al pari di diversi altri colleghi, sostengo che il contenitore delle società quotate in Borsa mal si sposi con le società sportive. E la fattispecie attuale della Juventus, una volta di più, lo testimonia. Nel senso che la revocazione prima e la sentenza poi si sono basati sugli elementi emersi nel corso degli accertamenti prodotti dalla Consob, che per definizione può naturalmente vigilare sui soli club presenti a Piazza Affari. A tal proposito, in tutta sincerità, mi sarei aspettato delle evoluzioni sull’argomento. Confidavo che la recente riforma dello sport si occupasse di questo tema, che al momento invece rimane come vulnus al sistema. Da qui nasce la sanzione ai danni della Juventus e la mancata sanzione nei confronti di tutte le altre società coinvolte. Non la reputo una disparità, ma un trattamento diverso sulla base di scelte pregresse diverse. Questa condizione, di fatto, viene accettata dal club nel momento in cui entra in Borsa. E infatti si è arrivati alla sentenza attuale proprio sulla base dell’indagine Consob, che ha portato alla sussistenza di fatti inediti rispetto allo scorso mese di aprile, quando la Juventus era stata assolta».

 

[Stevie]

 

[SaJuve]

U can use Google translate when you don´t understand Italian you lazy mtf

 

[kronos]

This.

 

[Stevie]

U can use Google translate when you don´t understand Italian you lazy mtf

If I wanted to read Italian I'd go join VS

 

[Mark]

let's wait for football-italia to translate a positive article about Juve.

 

[Knowah]

I think the distinction they're trying to make is between:

Scenario A:
- I offer my underwear for 60 mill and you're willing to pay it because you think thats its value to you and is reflective of market prices for such item. And I am willing to pay 50 mill for yours because thats its value for me and its reflective of market prices for such item. We exchange underwears and you pay me 10 mill net difference in cash. Two weirdos who highly value underwear buy something from each other at a high price.

Scenario B:
- We are both in financial trouble and are wasteful spenders who constantly spend well above our means. No one is going to lend us any money because our income is so low and expenditure so high, we are on our way to bankrupcy. So you and I sit down for a beer to vent and forget the world. You and I have no need nor want nor use each other's underwear. We actually find the thought of it both hilarious and disgusting. In normal circumstances you couldn't pay me to even touch your underwear. But we need our income to look better this year to get accepted for that new loan. So we both agree to artificially inflate the price of our unwanted boxers and trade them with one another 50 mill each. Now we both can record an instant 50 mill revenue and spread the 50 mill spend over the next 5 years. Bam 40 mill profits this year! Now we can both get that sweet loan money.

One is a normal buying and selling activity, the other is 2 parties in cahoots artificially inflating the value of two transactions to make each other's books look better. I don't know if that's illegal but there's clearly a difference between both scenarios. High Valuation vs Artificially Inflated valuation

From the "Reasons"

If anything, with a distinctive aggravating factor with respect to any precedent: specifically with regard to FC Juventus, the pervasiveness at every level of the awareness of the artificiality of the modus operandi of the club itself is striking. From the then sports director Paratici to his immediate manager Cherubini. From board chairman Agnelli to the entire board itself, cited as aware by Agnelli himself. All the way down to the major shareholder and CEO Arrivabene and again through all the key executives, including those with financial and legal expertise. In some cases, with an all-round awareness of the artificiality of the operations conducted. In other cases, with a more superficial or perhaps even bona fide awareness - we are also referring to the team's coach -, but nevertheless capable of suggesting that everyone was directly or indirectly aware of a condition that was now out of control."

Okay, I understand your point but again... what is illegal about the behavior?

Again, to reiterate. These are normal accounting practices YES being used for nefarious means. And AGAIN: there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Problematic, sure. It's a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be corrected in the football system.

However, you do NOT correct the problem by convicting a club for doing something that is (and was at the time) not illegal and say "this is a gray area so we're going after you on it because you did it the most."

It's not illegal.

So if they want to rule on it and control how often it is done, YOU MUST MAKE RULES. And those rules are effective from that day forward. First off, no rules have been made on this. It's still business as usual as far as plusvalenza. And second, they're going BACKWARDS in time and ruling on a legal practice before even changing the rules.

"But beware, at some point it enters a gray area. We can't tell you where that gray area starts, we can't tell you when that process turns "wrong" but we know it when we see it and looking back you've been in the gray area (that we can't define or explain) and so we're going to punish you for that."

You don't see how that makes no sense?

It's highly irregular to say the least.

 

[rainhard]

Okay, I understand your point but again... what is illegal about the behavior?

Again, to reiterate. These are normal accounting practices YES being used for nefarious means. And AGAIN: there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Problematic, sure. It's a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be corrected in the football system.

However, you do NOT correct the problem but convicting a club for doing something that is (and was at the time) not illegal and say "this is a gray area so we're going after you on it because you did it the most."

It's not illegal.

So if they want to rule on it and control how often it is done, YOU MUST MAKE RULES. And those rules are effective from that day forward. First off, no rules have been made on this. It's still business as usual as far as plusvalenza. And second, they're going BACKWARDS in time and ruling on a legal practice before even changing the rules.

"But beware, at some point it enters a gray area. We can't tell you where that gray area starts, we can't tell you when that process turns "wrong" but we know it when we see it and looking back you've been in the gray area (that we can't define or explain) and so we're going to punish you for that."

You don't see how that makes no sense?

It's highly irregular to say the least.

Nothing illegal there, the only illegal thing if you dont pay the tax. So with that inflated prices, both club will actually pay higher taxes.

 

[juve123]

Okay, I understand your point but again... what is illegal about the behavior?

Again, to reiterate. These are normal accounting practices YES being used for nefarious means. And AGAIN: there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Problematic, sure. It's a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be corrected in the football system.

However, you do NOT correct the problem by convicting a club for doing something that is (and was at the time) not illegal and say "this is a gray area so we're going after you on it because you did it the most."

It's not illegal.

So if they want to rule on it and control how often it is done, YOU MUST MAKE RULES. And those rules are effective from that day forward. First off, no rules have been made on this. It's still business as usual as far as plusvalenza. And second, they're going BACKWARDS in time and ruling on a legal practice before even changing the rules.

"But beware, at some point it enters a gray area. We can't tell you where that gray area starts, we can't tell you when that process turns "wrong" but we know it when we see it and looking back you've been in the gray area (that we can't define or explain) and so we're going to punish you for that."

You don't see how that makes no sense?

It's highly irregular to say the least.

Again who decides the economic value of players if the kangaroo judiciary wants to determine the economic value of players then it must make specific laws on it. There is no law no punishment except in a banana republic like Italy.

 

[Hist]

Okay, I understand your point but again... what is illegal about the behavior?

Again, to reiterate. These are normal accounting practices YES being used for nefarious means. And AGAIN: there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Problematic, sure. It's a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be corrected in the football system.

However, you do NOT correct the problem by convicting a club for doing something that is (and was at the time) not illegal and say "this is a gray area so we're going after you on it because you did it the most."

It's not illegal.

So if they want to rule on it and control how often it is done, YOU MUST MAKE RULES. And those rules are effective from that day forward. First off, no rules have been made on this. It's still business as usual as far as plusvalenza. And second, they're going BACKWARDS in time and ruling on a legal practice before even changing the rules.

"But beware, at some point it enters a gray area. We can't tell you where that gray area starts, we can't tell you when that process turns "wrong" but we know it when we see it and looking back you've been in the gray area (that we can't define or explain) and so we're going to punish you for that."

You don't see how that makes no sense?

It's highly irregular to say the least.

Dude I agree with you. I don't know if it's legal or illegal I said that already.

If it is illegal and this does amount to fraud then we cannot be the only ones punished since the whole premise involve 2 clubs with intentionality artificially inflating values in 2 transfers. If its not illegal then its not illegal.

Personally I lean towards this judgment wont stand but Prisma will come up with a different judgment.

- - - Updated - - -

guy did some maths: we're talking about ~80m of plusvalenza in 3 years, when the total revenue of the club was around 1700m and the owners raised the capital with 700m. but the prosecutors talk about unfair advantage and virtual money lol

https://m.tuttojuve.com/primo-piano...ra-non-conosce-e-che-assolvono-la-juve-631161

So Agnelli Tici and Cherubini were doing it and in-fighting for pocket change and peanuts? This is a potentially worse reflection on them

 

[Vlad]

Imagine a company thinking they should earn upon sale. Even planning and keeping track of it. Bad intention right there. Shocking.

 

[U Picciriddu]

That’s my point. If it was released to the press from the streaming provider then they are loading the pistol for its shareholders handing it to them. While the reported amount of cancellations is large, I am skeptical about the actual denominator of total subs DAZN has. I have experience working on several OTT providers and the subscribers game is juiced just like everything else.

You could be right. At the other side they might have a insider.

For context though it has been trending on Twitter for 12 days straight while having 8m fans in Italy. And it still is

Lets just hope that it will apply massive presure on the right people. If the 500k are true its obviously a huge problem

Last weekend 300k less people watched Serie A compared to the weekend before btw

 

[Valerio.]

You could be right. At the other side they might have a insider.

For context though it has been trending on Twitter for 12 days straight while having 8m fans in Italy. And it still is

Lets just hope that it will apply massive presure on the right people. If the 500k are true its obviously a huge problem

Last weekend 300k less people watched Serie A compared to the weekend before btw

the real numbers of loss watchers will be seen in 3weeks.
Many unsubscribed but still had 1month of watching time before going out of "business"

 

[Vlad]

Okay, I understand your point but again... what is illegal about the behavior?

Again, to reiterate. These are normal accounting practices YES being used for nefarious means. And AGAIN: there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Problematic, sure. It's a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be corrected in the football system.

However, you do NOT correct the problem by convicting a club for doing something that is (and was at the time) not illegal and say "this is a gray area so we're going after you on it because you did it the most."

It's not illegal.

So if they want to rule on it and control how often it is done, YOU MUST MAKE RULES. And those rules are effective from that day forward. First off, no rules have been made on this. It's still business as usual as far as plusvalenza. And second, they're going BACKWARDS in time and ruling on a legal practice before even changing the rules.

"But beware, at some point it enters a gray area. We can't tell you where that gray area starts, we can't tell you when that process turns "wrong" but we know it when we see it and looking back you've been in the gray area (that we can't define or explain) and so we're going to punish you for that."

You don't see how that makes no sense?

It's highly irregular to say the least.

It corrects itself. Any reasonable director will look a bit further than 1 year and realize while you might gain profit in the 1st year, starting with 2 year you will be hit with depreciation costs in addition to having a useless asset in the books.

 

[Raphaël]

why does he keep opening his cakehole ?


----

Grande Salvini

ABODI AND SALVINI: ‘CAPITAL GAINS NOT JUST A JUVENTUS PROBLEM’
Feb 1, 2023 16:57 - by Susy Campanale - Leave a Comment

Minister for Sport Andrea Abodi and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini both warn the 15-point penalty for Juventus cannot be the only repercussion for the abuse of inflated capital gains in Italian football.
The Bianconeri were docked 15 points for artificially inflating transfer fees and therefore boosting their capital gains to balance the books, making it look as if more assets were being moved around between various clubs.
Juve were the only club penalised due to new evidence provided by the Prisma inquiry, including wiretapped conversations, but more could follow if there are new charges.
“The issue is not Juventus, it is the whole football system in its entirety that needs to have a profound look at itself,” said Minister for Sport Abodi at an event in Cesena.
“I have always been very cautious, as it seems people believe the Minister for Sport can control and decide everything, but there are roles to be respected.
“What is happening is far more than a game of football. Some things cannot be done alone. The technicalities used in these deals need to be explained to the general public so they can understand.”
Deputy Prime Minister Salvini also commented on the situation to news agency Adnkronos and outlined his credentials as a lifelong passionate Milan supporter.
“As a Milan fan, I am no defender of Juventus, but it seemed strange to me that a system where lots if not all clubs used certain methods, only Juve were truly tackled.
“They acted as if it was purely a Juventus problem and that seemed strange. If someone did wrong, then they should pay, but you need two clubs to falsify the value of a transfer, you can’t do it with just one.
“So if only one gets punished, either the system is cross-eyed or Juve are irritating someone.”
Juventus have lodged an appeal to the CONI court of appeal and hope to make these points, whereas the reasoning given by the FIGC judge was that while many clubs do these deals, the Bianconeri made a real system of it.