Juve, the month of truth: two intertwined processes and the unknown Uefa

One year and three days. A long time has passed since the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the acquittal of all in the capital gains case of the first verdict of the Federal Court. The 11 clubs, Juve in the lead, and the 59 managers were all exonerated and the story ended up in the great and unique cauldron of jurisprudence on the subject: it is not possible to estimate the objective value of a player to be entered in the financial statements. In four words: I would like to but I can’t. Indeed, hurry up – this the judges said – to approve a specific rule on the subject. After a year and three days, in fact, everything has changed. A reversal that has become a cyclone on Juventus sparing all the other managers and clubs, even if the investigations underway in various public prosecutors are pending on the latter positions.

1. Perhaps we can start from here. Why this total reversal: from the acquittal to the maxi inhibitions of Agnelli, Paratici, Cherubini and Arrivabene, and above all to minus 15 which will be the subject of a new intervention on Monday by the Federal Court of Appeal?

Everything has changed since the Prisma papers of Turin, 14,000 pages of investigation with numerous environmental and telephone interceptions, were sent to the federal prosecutor’s office. Chinè and his collaborators read and studied them and asked for and obtained the reopening of the trial and Juve’s conviction.

2. But did the investigation into the salary maneuver that led to yesterday’s referrals also arise from the Turin papers?

Exact. Except that while the case had to be reopened in the case of capital gains, in the case of salaries we started from scratch. Thus the two stories developed along at least formally different paths. Even if the sporting accusation is always the same: “lack of loyalty”.

3. Let us then come to this famous second trend. First he had been bogeyman number 1, then the convictions for capital gains had put him aside a bit, as if there were a weakening of the charges.

Perhaps it was the possible plea deal that created this kind of narrative.

4. Let’s face it: this story of the referral catches everyone a bit off guard. Why didn’t the plea deal go through?

Because for now an agreement has not been found. Attention: for now. Because the Sports Justice Code allows you to follow this path even after the referral, but of course before the start of the first degree trial.

5. So let’s go in order, what went wrong on the road to negotiating?

First, a premise. We are not dealing with a report or a formal passage. We operate in the field of hypotheses. The most accredited: Juve, it is the person accused who must formulate the proposal, would have made a request that was not judged appropriate by the federal prosecutor. For the prosecution – we recall that also the president and the Federal Council and the Attorney General of Sport must give the go-ahead to the agreement – ​​a fine is not enough, penalty points are needed given the seriousness of the charges.

We do not know. We can slip into the folds of the famous article 31 and find the paragraph, number 3, on agreements “in violation of the federal provisions in force” which speaks of a fine equal to three times the “amount illegally agreed and paid” and possibly of the “penalty of one or more points in the standings”. Given that the irregular use of relations with agents and suspicious partnerships is combined with the salary maneuvers, at least 3-5 penalty points can be hypothesized, but without the plea bargain the level of the proposed sanction would be raised.

7. Can we explain this post-referral plea deal thing?

It is a case envisaged by article 127 of the Sports Justice Code: “Following the notification of the referral deed and in any case before the first hearing before the Federal Court, the defendant may agree with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office to ask the body judging the application of a reduced or commuted sanction, indicating its type and extent”.

8. On Monday there is the capital gains process, then the one on salary maneuvers and a possible UEFA appendix. When will this story end?

Inevitably these are intertwined paths. The capital gains chapter is played out almost entirely in Monday’s hearing. In the same motivations of the Guarantee College, it is clearly stated that it is up to the Federal Court of Appeal to quantify the sanctions. Therefore, a new appeal to the last degree is possible (but now only for violation of the rules of law), but the chances of acceptance are very limited. If a plea bargain is not reached, a double trial is envisaged (with possible encroachment on the guarantee board) with shortened times and a possible pronouncement around June 20, in any case before the end of the competitive season on June 30.

UEFA could judge the Italian penalties to be fair and perhaps limit themselves to a fine. There could be two European charges: unsporting behavior and violation of financial fair play. Otherwise, a European front would also open up always with the same risk: exclusion from the cups, at which point all the cups.

10. But how will Juve defend itself in these various judicial “matches” that await it?

The attempt will be to find the gaps left open by the sentence of the guarantee college. Then there’s the issue of affliction: there could be a request to move the penalty to next year. The Code provides for it and the rule establishes that the penalty must first be fixed, x points for example, then see if it manages to be afflicting on the current ranking or if it should be moved to the following competitive season. However this could even be a double-edged sword because it would expose the club’s position to a “deprived cup” intervention by UEFA.