First of all, I agree completely, Seven. This post is merely to clarify why I do.
At base level, Badass is correct in saying that there is no legal connection between Moggi and Juventus anymore (in the sense that one's legal fate shouldn't affect the other's). The reason for this is that Juventus was found not guilty of objective liability for Moggi's actions in the Naples ruling of 2011, where the court found that Moggi had gone so far beyond his powers as a GM that Juventus could not be held liable for his actions: http://www.juventus.com/juve/en/news/8nov2011_notadellasocieta
So, the fundamentals here, is that Juventus and Moggi began sailing their own seas from that moment on. For Juventus, the outcome of the 2011 trial was very positive, as it opened up a legal pathway for damages claims. For Moggi, however, the ruling was a disaster, as the 2011 verdict stated that he was guilty of sporting fraud.
This time, Moggi has been found not guilty of sporting fraud. Let's also hypothetically say that Moggi will win in the ECHR. The question is whether all of this could impact Juventus' future civil law case positively.
Formally, it should not have an impact, seeing as Juve has already been cleared of objective liability. That is sufficient grounds on it's own. However, it's naive to think that any positive outcome for Moggi, who was part of Juventus at the time, couldn't affect the reasonings of judges in Juve's future civil law case. Judges are also people, and even though they try to stay objective at all times and despite them insisting that they didn't put any consideration on this or that fact, the truth is that they do. They always do.
Formally, Badass is correct, but in practice, any positive outcome for Moggi will further undermine FIGC's past decision to relegate Juventus.
I therefore agree with Seven.
Just wanted to draw up a clearer divide between the formal and the practical, because it just shows how complex law can be and that there's a huge difference between "law in action and law in books".
Formally, Juventus and Moggi couldn't be more separate at the moment, but Juve's strategy in a potential civil law trial must be to make the FIGC look like absolute amateurs. Moggi being cleared of sporting fraud by the highest italian court (and hopefully also the ECHR if he's allowed to take it there), would go a long way in doing so.
At base level, Badass is correct in saying that there is no legal connection between Moggi and Juventus anymore (in the sense that one's legal fate shouldn't affect the other's). The reason for this is that Juventus was found not guilty of objective liability for Moggi's actions in the Naples ruling of 2011, where the court found that Moggi had gone so far beyond his powers as a GM that Juventus could not be held liable for his actions: http://www.juventus.com/juve/en/news/8nov2011_notadellasocieta
So, the fundamentals here, is that Juventus and Moggi began sailing their own seas from that moment on. For Juventus, the outcome of the 2011 trial was very positive, as it opened up a legal pathway for damages claims. For Moggi, however, the ruling was a disaster, as the 2011 verdict stated that he was guilty of sporting fraud.
This time, Moggi has been found not guilty of sporting fraud. Let's also hypothetically say that Moggi will win in the ECHR. The question is whether all of this could impact Juventus' future civil law case positively.
Formally, it should not have an impact, seeing as Juve has already been cleared of objective liability. That is sufficient grounds on it's own. However, it's naive to think that any positive outcome for Moggi, who was part of Juventus at the time, couldn't affect the reasonings of judges in Juve's future civil law case. Judges are also people, and even though they try to stay objective at all times and despite them insisting that they didn't put any consideration on this or that fact, the truth is that they do. They always do.
Formally, Badass is correct, but in practice, any positive outcome for Moggi will further undermine FIGC's past decision to relegate Juventus.
I therefore agree with Seven.
Just wanted to draw up a clearer divide between the formal and the practical, because it just shows how complex law can be and that there's a huge difference between "law in action and law in books".
Formally, Juventus and Moggi couldn't be more separate at the moment, but Juve's strategy in a potential civil law trial must be to make the FIGC look like absolute amateurs. Moggi being cleared of sporting fraud by the highest italian court (and hopefully also the ECHR if he's allowed to take it there), would go a long way in doing so.
I also think that it would be easy for a civil court to deny Juventus damages, if Moggi is convicted for either conspiracy or sporting fraud (although the latter would have made it easier). For example one could claim Juventus were also at fault for not controlling Moggi. While they may not be legally responsible for his actions, one could see that as negligence on part of Juventus. Therefore they are themselves responsible for the damage they suffered. Another thing to consider is that the court might say Juventus have to sue Moggi, not the FIGC.
In any case, it would suit us far better if Moggi's name is completely cleared.
