Board & Management (44 Viewers)
- Thread starter .zero
- Start date
What is this guy talking about?
Sports Justice is different than regular justice and it does not follow the normal juridical procedures. They need to be fast and Judge shall determine the offense/guilt and design a punishment suitable to it.
Am I getting it correctly?
Google translate - original below
Mario Luigi Torsello was one of the judges of the Federal Court of Appeal who judged Juve on the capital gains case. During an initiative at the University of Salento, he spoke like this: "First of all I say that I don't want to talk specifically about the case of capital gains. A judge speaks with sentences and does not comment on them, we will speak at a general level. We must take note of the negotiating nature of the rules governing sports justice (private and contractual, non-authoritative characteristics) which is an effect of the acceptance of federal regulations as a spontaneous act of joining the sports community. The interested party accepts subjection to the internal organs of justice. Alongside this, there is the bond of justice, which establishes the autonomy of the sports system both for the jurisdiction of the judge and to guarantee the speed of disputes. This bond is not contrary to the Constitution because it allows the parties to choose other subjects as arbitrators for controversies. It is necessary to distinguish the internal relevance from the external one, state jurisdictional competencies, and int sporting ernes".
Torsello on sports justice: "Sports justice specificity: the code of sports justice adapts to the general procedural principles, but not as an automatic transposition of these institutes otherwise it would lose its peculiarities, such as timeliness and speed co-essential to sports justice as the trials must be fast and immediate (certainty at championships, athletes' markets, enthusiasts). Timeliness pervades ordinary institutions: absolute certainty would lead to a slowdown in the sporting process, contrary to what the principle of timeliness provides. The main purpose of the sports judge is to affirm the principles of loyalty and transparency and therefore the bodies must consider the formal rules less stringent than the substantial ones that embody these values".
Torsello: "Our principles are loyalty, probity, and correctness: the judge has the power to identify and punish existing facts. Sports judges can fill this blank clause with content, configuring conduct as a violation of the principle of loyalty and correctness which does not appear independently as a case of a disciplinary offense. This institution can be explained in a private key by virtue of the contractual will of the associates".
Original
Mario Luigi Torsello è stato uno dei giudici della Corte Federale d’Appello che ha giudicato la Juve sul caso plusvalenze. Nel corso di un’iniziativa presso l’Università del Salento, ha parlato così: "Dico innanzitutto che non voglio parlare nello specifico del caso delle plusvalenze. Un giudice parla con le sentenze e non le commenta, parleremo a livello generale. Bisogna prendere atto della natura negoziale delle norme che disciplinano la giustizia sportiva (caratteri privatistici e contrattuali, non autoritativi) che è un effetto dell’accettazione dei regolamenti federali come atto spontaneo di adesione alla comunità sportiva. L’interessato accetta la soggezione agli organi interni di giustizia. Accanto a questo vi è il vincolo di giustizia, che fonda l’autonomia dell’ordinamento sportivo sia per la competenza del giudice che per garantire la rapidità delle controversie. Tale vincolo non è contrario alla Costituzione perché consente alle parti di scegliere altri soggetti Come arbitri per le controversie. Bisogna distinguere la rilevanza interna da quella esterna, competenze giurisdizionali statali e interne sportive".
Torsello sulla giustizia sportiva: "Specificità giustizia sportiva: il codice di giustizia sportiva si adegua ai principi processuali generali, ma non come automatica trasposizione di questi istituti altrimenti perderebbe di peculiarità, come tempestività e speditezza coessenziali alla giustizia sportiva in quanto i processi devono essere veloci e immediati (certezza ai campionati, mercati atleti, agli appassionati). La tempestività pervade gli istituti ordinari: la certezza assoluta comporterebbe un rallentamento del procedimento sportivo, diversamente da quanto prevede il principio di tempestività. Il fine principale del giudice sportivo è quello di affermare i principi di lealtà e trasparenza e quindi gli organi devono considerare meno stringenti le regole formali rispetto a quelli sostanziali che incarnano questi valori".
Torsello: "I nostri principi sono lealtà, probità e correttezza: al giudice va il potere di individuazione e punizione dei fatti in essere. I giudici sportivi possono riempire di contenuti questa clausola in bianco configurando come violazione del principio di lealtà e correttezza una condotta che non risulta autonomamente come fattispecie di illecito disciplinare. Questo istituto si spiega in chiave privatistica in virtù della volontà contrattuale degli associati".
Sports Justice is different than regular justice and it does not follow the normal juridical procedures. They need to be fast and Judge shall determine the offense/guilt and design a punishment suitable to it.
Am I getting it correctly?
Google translate - original below
Mario Luigi Torsello was one of the judges of the Federal Court of Appeal who judged Juve on the capital gains case. During an initiative at the University of Salento, he spoke like this: "First of all I say that I don't want to talk specifically about the case of capital gains. A judge speaks with sentences and does not comment on them, we will speak at a general level. We must take note of the negotiating nature of the rules governing sports justice (private and contractual, non-authoritative characteristics) which is an effect of the acceptance of federal regulations as a spontaneous act of joining the sports community. The interested party accepts subjection to the internal organs of justice. Alongside this, there is the bond of justice, which establishes the autonomy of the sports system both for the jurisdiction of the judge and to guarantee the speed of disputes. This bond is not contrary to the Constitution because it allows the parties to choose other subjects as arbitrators for controversies. It is necessary to distinguish the internal relevance from the external one, state jurisdictional competencies, and int sporting ernes". Torsello on sports justice: "Sports justice specificity: the code of sports justice adapts to the general procedural principles, but not as an automatic transposition of these institutes otherwise it would lose its peculiarities, such as timeliness and speed co-essential to sports justice as the trials must be fast and immediate (certainty at championships, athletes' markets, enthusiasts). Timeliness pervades ordinary institutions: absolute certainty would lead to a slowdown in the sporting process, contrary to what the principle of timeliness provides. The main purpose of the sports judge is to affirm the principles of loyalty and transparency and therefore the bodies must consider the formal rules less stringent than the substantial ones that embody these values". Torsello: "Our principles are loyalty, probity, and correctness: the judge has the power to identify and punish existing facts. Sports judges can fill this blank clause with content, configuring conduct as a violation of the principle of loyalty and correctness which does not appear independently as a case of a disciplinary offense. This institution can be explained in a private key by virtue of the contractual will of the associates".Original
Mario Luigi Torsello è stato uno dei giudici della Corte Federale d’Appello che ha giudicato la Juve sul caso plusvalenze. Nel corso di un’iniziativa presso l’Università del Salento, ha parlato così: "Dico innanzitutto che non voglio parlare nello specifico del caso delle plusvalenze. Un giudice parla con le sentenze e non le commenta, parleremo a livello generale. Bisogna prendere atto della natura negoziale delle norme che disciplinano la giustizia sportiva (caratteri privatistici e contrattuali, non autoritativi) che è un effetto dell’accettazione dei regolamenti federali come atto spontaneo di adesione alla comunità sportiva. L’interessato accetta la soggezione agli organi interni di giustizia. Accanto a questo vi è il vincolo di giustizia, che fonda l’autonomia dell’ordinamento sportivo sia per la competenza del giudice che per garantire la rapidità delle controversie. Tale vincolo non è contrario alla Costituzione perché consente alle parti di scegliere altri soggetti Come arbitri per le controversie. Bisogna distinguere la rilevanza interna da quella esterna, competenze giurisdizionali statali e interne sportive". Torsello sulla giustizia sportiva: "Specificità giustizia sportiva: il codice di giustizia sportiva si adegua ai principi processuali generali, ma non come automatica trasposizione di questi istituti altrimenti perderebbe di peculiarità, come tempestività e speditezza coessenziali alla giustizia sportiva in quanto i processi devono essere veloci e immediati (certezza ai campionati, mercati atleti, agli appassionati). La tempestività pervade gli istituti ordinari: la certezza assoluta comporterebbe un rallentamento del procedimento sportivo, diversamente da quanto prevede il principio di tempestività. Il fine principale del giudice sportivo è quello di affermare i principi di lealtà e trasparenza e quindi gli organi devono considerare meno stringenti le regole formali rispetto a quelli sostanziali che incarnano questi valori". Torsello: "I nostri principi sono lealtà, probità e correttezza: al giudice va il potere di individuazione e punizione dei fatti in essere. I giudici sportivi possono riempire di contenuti questa clausola in bianco configurando come violazione del principio di lealtà e correttezza una condotta che non risulta autonomamente come fattispecie di illecito disciplinare. Questo istituto si spiega in chiave privatistica in virtù della volontà contrattuale degli associati".
At least someone is attempting to explain the bullshit verdict. Doesnt come even close to sound convincing, but you get a sense on how they'll try to justify it if Juve ever counter sues them.
Basically:A club agrees on the very autonomous regulations by applying to the competition, but in case we cant find anything in the regulation either, theres also this blank clause which can be applied very freely because timeliness.
Basically:A club agrees on the very autonomous regulations by applying to the competition, but in case we cant find anything in the regulation either, theres also this blank clause which can be applied very freely because timeliness.
Last edited:
Lol.
Let me give you this quote:
"The story broke on the eve of the Europa League match against United: Barcelona had paid €1.4m to the vice-president of the Spanish referees’ committee, the CTA, between 2016 and 2018. That was just the start and it’s not finished yet. With every new revelation, with every new thing that was said – and not said – it got worse. In total, the Catalan referee José María Enríquez Negreira received €7m over 20 years. None of this is disputed.".
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...avi-hernandez-former-referee-payments-scandal
Barcelona have admitted to giving money to the referee comittee and to a particular ref. There is no way you can justify that. No way.
Let me give you this quote:
"The story broke on the eve of the Europa League match against United: Barcelona had paid €1.4m to the vice-president of the Spanish referees’ committee, the CTA, between 2016 and 2018. That was just the start and it’s not finished yet. With every new revelation, with every new thing that was said – and not said – it got worse. In total, the Catalan referee José María Enríquez Negreira received €7m over 20 years. None of this is disputed.".
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...avi-hernandez-former-referee-payments-scandal
Barcelona have admitted to giving money to the referee comittee and to a particular ref. There is no way you can justify that. No way.
Paulo Dybala was talked to by the Guardia di Finanza RE the Prisma inquiry. It relates to whether €3m was paid, a figure close to the €3.7m that Juve & Dybala had agreed to spread in 2021. Dybala risks a month of disqualification by the sports justice. Similar punishment can be given to other juve players. [La Repubblica)
The salary maneuvers represent the weak point of Juve in the Prisma investigation. They don’t affect the possibility of registering for the championships, but some violations appear obvious and the climate within the sporting justice system seems hostile.Another points deduction between 15-30 points is possible.[Tuttosport]
I read the article in Tuttosport and I could see why the messing about with salaries during Covid could be an issue.
We asked the players to postpone part of their salary until the league started again. When it did, we didn't register the part we still had to pay as debt and made our books look better. I have no idea if this is what we really did. But if it is, it is problematic.
However from a sporting point of view this can normally only result in fines, not point deductions. The only way they could deduct points is if they use article 4 again (sporting loyalty). The article itself really bothers me, because you could basically use it all the time for almost no reason. It's ridiculous.
I mean, Inter have been in debt for years now. You could just as easily say that holding onto huge amounts of debt is not "loyal" either.
- - - Updated - - -
Even if there was no payment, you'd still have to register it as debt. Unless Dybala explicitly agreed to forfeit his claim.
Last edited:
As had happened during Calciopoli you don't require breach of article for punishment in this kangaroo judiciary. Anyways if we want justice it won't happen in Italian courts maybe European Court of arbitration.
"Despite a lack of evidence regarding match fixing and no Article 6 violation, only Juventus was sentenced to be relegated to Serie B and stripped of their titles after taking into consideration the collective interests of the parties involved in the investigation. Serio added: "We tried to interpret a collective sentiment. We listened to ordinary people and tried to put ourselves on the wavelength." According to Serio one of the judges, while Juventus was relegated, the other clubs "were saved"; this happened "because people wanted it that way", referencing sentimento popolare ("people's feelings").
"Despite a lack of evidence regarding match fixing and no Article 6 violation, only Juventus was sentenced to be relegated to Serie B and stripped of their titles after taking into consideration the collective interests of the parties involved in the investigation. Serio added: "We tried to interpret a collective sentiment. We listened to ordinary people and tried to put ourselves on the wavelength." According to Serio one of the judges, while Juventus was relegated, the other clubs "were saved"; this happened "because people wanted it that way", referencing sentimento popolare ("people's feelings").
