Juventus, Andrea Agnelli: sentence reduced to ten months, reasons

The FIGC Court of Appeal reduced the sanctions against the former Juventus president Andrea Agnelli: suspension of 10 months and no more than 16, fine of 40 thousand euros and not 60. The reasons explain how “first , the mentioned historical context during which the alleged facts occurred: in 2020, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and in a period of total lock down and, in 2021, with the recovery of the pandemic not at the levels of the previous year, but, still with worrying characteristics. This has therefore led to a drastic reduction in revenues, while maintaining high costs, which have led the Lega Calcio Serie A and all sports clubs to take measures relating to the players’ salaries” . The Court of Appeal continues: “This certainly does not mean that the first salary adjustment and the second salary adjustment can be justified, given the clear violations ascertained and confirmed with this decision, but only that they were not adopted in a ordinary context to meet foreseeable budgetary needs (which could even have led to an aggravating circumstance), but in a situation of systemic crisis deriving largely from the ongoing health emergency”.

reasons

—

Again in the dispositive of the Court of Appeal it is explained that “however serious and significant the two maneuvers were on an economic level, they did not affect the level of compliance with the company’s financial commitments, since the expenses (even the costs generated again before of the closure of the financial statements as a result of the supplementary agreements) appear to have been incurred by the company in execution of the agreements stipulated with the players and the coach. Finally, it must be assessed, on a substantial level, that the violations of the accounting accrual principle, […] have had a limited duration in time, with consequent mitigation of possible prejudices for the outside world”. This leads to the remodulation of the sanction, which “also appears more balanced compared to what was agreed by the defenses with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in the plea bargains of the company and the others managers”, since “having included in the budget, even among the events subsequent to 30 June, the stipulation of the supplementary agreements, although not a correct and loyal practice from the point of view of the formation and drafting of the budget, has nevertheless put the third party in a position to have an overall picture of the company’s financial situation at the time of approval of the financial statements (although, we repeat, with costs that were carried forward to the financial year and not to the post-financial period).