Here is the second Covisoc card: Juve is not mentioned

This time no appeals were needed. The FIGC immediately complied with the requests received yesterday evening from the lawyers of Fabio Paratici and Federico Cherubini, both deferred in the sporting trial against Juve which led to 15 penalty points in the second instance, delivering the so-called “second Covisoc card” of the 31 March 2021. This is the communication from the president of Covisoc Paolo Boccardelli to the federal prosecutor Giuseppe Chiné which preceded the one that had led to the appeal to the TAR and which according to the Juventus lawyers could have anticipated the procedural times with the risk of dropping the entire procedural process with annexed sentence in the hearing before the Coni guarantee college. Also in this case, as with the card delivered on Saturday, Juventus was never named and we limited ourselves to talking about “management situations that deserve careful monitoring” in view of “potential institutional initiatives”. So there doesn’t seem to be there crime news that Juve are looking for.

Monitoring

—

In these two pages sent to Chiné and for information to Federal President Gravina, Boccardelli writes: “In carrying out its institutional activities, Covisoc has recently identified management situations which, in its opinion, deserve careful monitoring and this also in view of the adoption of potential institutional initiatives by the competent bodies of the FIGC. In fact, these are situations that present conceptual and operational traits suitable for affecting the fundamentals of the financial statements of professional sports clubs (and therefore indirectly on their economic and financial equilibrium) and which are beginning to appear with significant statistical frequency and in a sufficiently generalized manner. often the mutual positions credit and debit tions are settled by the clubs by means of clearing. It is certainly not the recourse ex se to the institution governed by art. 1241 et seq. of the civil code to arouse Covisoc’s attention: on the contrary, it is the possibility of resorting to compensation in order to minimize (if not eliminate) the reciprocal financial flows by fixing, at the same time, the purchase and sale prices of the single assets on economic bases of which the corporate fundamentals do not always transpire in a clear and intelligible way. Which, of course, determines a certain (undesirable) information opacity which risks becoming increasingly significant in the presence of any transactions between related parties”.

Attention

—

And again: “With this in mind, Covisoc has carried out an analysis (referring to the last two years) on the effects on the financial statements of the clubs of certain transactions for the sale of players. The analysis therefore shows (in general terms) how the the so-called trading of players carried out by professional sports clubs – despite having guaranteed copious capital gains suitable for supporting the balance sheet aggregates – has generated very little liquidity. This phenomenon, in the Commission’s opinion, can only arouse attention because it makes it difficult to appreciate the real correspondence between the agreed for individual transactions, on the one hand, and the real market value of the athletes, on the other hand”.

Planning

—

Covisoc also asks to analyze “the revaluation of the so-called pool of players who make up the typical fixed assets of professional sports clubs” and concludes by hoping “that a common working table can be quickly planned in order to share the terms of the analyzes conducted so far and to evaluate the adoption of appropriate strategic initiatives regarding the aforementioned phenomena”. The lawyers of the two managers had also requested the minutes of this working table, which was held on April 7, 2021, minutes that do not exist because the meeting was informal in nature.