Calciopoli or Morattopoli.. inter fake orgasm (50 Viewers)

AngelaL

Jinx Minx
Aug 25, 2006
10,215
Yeah, but the FIGC prosecutor's report (the latest one incriminating Inter and Milan for serious breaches) actually reaffirmed Juventus' supposed guilt - as baseless as it is. So, the scenario would be, a thief stole a painting and in turn was robbed of it himself. When the second thief is caught, does the first thief have a right to demand its return? Not really.
It would not be polite to say what I think of moRATti's lapdog's report. I watched every Serie A game I could in 2005/6 season, not just Juve. Juve did not cheat! They won that Scudetti on the field, as they did the 2004/5 one.

Which ever stance nets them the most money.
:lol: That's probably true!

It's nothing to do with them because no aspect of EU is involved in this.
Sorry Andy, I'm no lawyer! Your answer is too succinct for me. I think from Juve's point of view, there is more than just the Scudetti involved. The kangaroo court Rossi conducted, violated the defendants rights to defend themselves properly, they were not allowed to examine the 'evidence', other evidence was deliberately withheld that could have affected the case, & there was a conflict of interest. Juventus lost their Scudetti, were demoted, lost their good name and a whole lot of revenue, because of this farce.

I do understand that they would have to go through the Italian courts first, but assuming that they exhaust those options, are you saying that Juve cannot take any aspect of Farsiopoli that affected them to the EU court or just the titles?

And I'm curious. Re the example 'Picasso painting' theft: - would the thief get to keep the painting or would the 'rightful owner' get their property back? (Assuming no insurance pay out)
 

Max

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2003
4,828
Were you really expecting anything of substance? How many times have you heard the same shit over and over: "...big revelation...change the perspective of Calciopoli...big repercussions..." and then we find out on revealing day that it has been pushed to a date six months later. Yawn.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
74,994
It hasn't happened yet, just saying...

Let's judge on the 27th. Moggi didn't say 'I've got some big news which will break on the 27th, but you'll probably hear it beforehand despite this being part of a judicial process'.
 
OP
gsol

gsol

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2007
1,448
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #13,493
    Indeed it was reaffirmed. The entire accusation of a "Moggi system" (as contradictory as the claim is in light of those made against the other teams by him), in fact, remains in his report.

    -edit.

    http://media2.gazzetta.it/gazzetta/content/2011/pdf/Palazzi_su_scudetto_06.pdf

    Skip down to page 13.
    I read this, in fact I posted it here. Don't be tricked by their ability to spin shit into gold. The fact that other teams were discovered killed the exclusivity claim that founded the initial sentence. They can't say that though for one simple reason. They had (mere weeks before) announced that Moggi and Giraudo were banned for life and have since made it clear that they do not intend on changing that. If they came out and admitted that Moggi’s ban was a mistake he could request reinstatement etc. etc.

    The revelations did not confirm Moggi’s guilt, at least not by any logical standard. They may have tried to salvage the theory to appear as though they nonetheless made the right decisions but it is all counterintuitive.
     

    Mark

    The Informer
    Administrator
    Dec 19, 2003
    97,671
    November 28th 2004.

    Bergamo(ref designator) to Rodomonti(ref). 3 hours before inter-Juve.

    "There is a difference of 15pts between the leader Juve and inter so when in doubt think about the club that's far instead of the one on top."

    Game would end 2-2.



    That's a clear signal to help inter and breaks article 6 right?(not sure cause it's coming from the ref designator and not Moratti and cie) Another one form the honest club? Impossible! :sigh:
     

    Fake Melo

    Ghost Division
    Sep 3, 2010
    37,077
    I read this, in fact I posted it here. Don't be tricked by their ability to spin shit into gold. The fact that other teams were discovered killed the exclusivity claim that founded the initial sentence. They can't say that though for one simple reason. They had (mere weeks before) announced that Moggi and Giraudo were banned for life and have since made it clear that they do not intend on changing that. If they came out and admitted that Moggi’s ban was a mistake he could request reinstatement etc. etc.

    The revelations did not confirm Moggi’s guilt, at least not by any logical standard. They may have tried to salvage the theory to appear as though they nonetheless made the right decisions but it is all counterintuitive.
    I can't believe people like Marcotti are saying that Moggi controlled all but Moratti and co just played along :lol:
     

    Hust

    Senior Member
    Hustini
    May 29, 2005
    93,703
    November 28th 2004.

    Bergamo(ref designator) to Rodomonti(ref). 3 hours before inter-Juve.

    "There is a difference of 15pts between the leader Juve and inter so when in doubt think about the club that's far instead of the one on top."
    Game would end 2-2.



    That's a clear signal to help inter and breaks article 6 right?(not sure cause it's coming from the ref designator and not Moratti and cie) Another one form the honest club? Impossible! :sigh:
    THOSE MOTHERFuCKERS! :(
     
    OP
    gsol

    gsol

    Senior Member
    Oct 14, 2007
    1,448
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #13,497
    It's article 6 alright. It is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the impartiality of the referee. Tying it back to Inter might be an issue though. That is Bergamo's violation and Carraro's as well since he gave similar advice to Bergamo. If they can link a Facchetti/Moratti discussion to Carraro, Bergamo, or Rodomonti it would be their violation as well but we already saw Facchetti violate that so it would make little difference.

    What this really does is prove that Inter were not getting the short end of the stick from referees and Juventus were definitely not being favored. If Moggi ran the league through his system, that discussion between a referee and high ranking officials would not have occurred. What this also does in my view is show that Bergamo was just shining Moggi on in their discussions. All Bergamo ever did with Moggi was promise that all would be fair but this call proves otherwise.
     

    Mark

    The Informer
    Administrator
    Dec 19, 2003
    97,671
    He(Bergamo) even adds something like this, do that because it'll be good for you career.


    meaning helping inter would benefit him(the ref).

    but like Auricchio said, no inter calls, not important...yeah right!!!
     

    Hust

    Senior Member
    Hustini
    May 29, 2005
    93,703
    It's article 6 alright. It is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the impartiality of the referee. Tying it back to Inter might be an issue though. That is Bergamo's violation and Carraro's as well since he gave similar advice to Bergamo. If they can link a Facchetti/Moratti discussion to Carraro, Bergamo, or Rodomonti it would be their violation as well but we already saw Facchetti violate that so it would make little difference.

    What this really does is prove that Inter were not getting the short end of the stick from referees and Juventus were definitely not being favored. If Moggi ran the league through his system, that discussion between a referee and high ranking officials would not have occurred. What this also does in my view is show that Bergamo was just shining Moggi on in their discussions. All Bergamo ever did with Moggi was promise that all would be fair but this call proves otherwise.
    I could kill right now.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 46)