Jump to content

Fabio Paratici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fabio Paratici
Personal information
Date of birth (1972-07-13) 13 July 1972 (age 52)
Place of birth Borgonovo Val Tidone, Italy
Position(s) Defender, midfielder
Youth career
Piacenza
Senior career*
Years Team Apps (Gls)
1989–1991 Piacenza 5 (0)
1991–1992 Palazzolo 11 (0)
1992–1994 Fiorenzuola 43 (0)
1994–1995 Sassuolo 5 (0)
1995–1996 Pavia 31 (1)
1996 Sassuolo 0 (0)
1997 Marsala 15 (0)
1997–1998 Novara 28 (1)
1998–1999 Palermo 16 (0)
1999–2000 Lecco 21 (0)
2000–2001 Savoia 27 (1)
2001 Giugliano 19 (0)
2002–2004 Brindisi 48 (2)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals

Fabio Paratici (born 13 July 1972) is an Italian association football director and former footballer. He made his professional debut as a footballer with Piacenza in 1989, playing in Serie C1, the third tier of Italian football at the time.[1] During his career, Paratici frequently moved throughout the lower divisions of Italian football, playing for various clubs in Serie C1 and Serie C2. He retired in 2004 at the age of 31, having played for 12 different clubs in 15 years. After his career ended, he remained involved in football through management. Paratici worked as chief observer and head of scouting of Italian club Sampdoria and established a successful partnership with Giuseppe Marotta that was repeated at Juventus, Italy's most renowned club, where he worked as chief football officer for about eleven years.[2] In June 2021, Paratici joined English club Tottenham Hotspur as managing director of football, resigning on 21 April 2023 after his conviction for financial malpractice in the Italian Football Federation Plusvalenze investigation. The Plusvalenze sports trial also carried a 30-month ban from football, which FIFA has extended worldwide. Paratici has also been indicted in an Italian criminal investigation into the same instances of financial malpractice and is currently awaiting trial.[3]

Early life and footballer career

[edit]
Paratici, the first squatting on the right, as a player for Fiorenzuola in the 1992–93 season

Born in Borgonovo Val Tidone, in the province of Piacenza, Emilia Romagna, on 13 July 1972, Paratici began playing in Borgonovese, a club in his native town with which he won several youth championships. He was a right-back defender and midfielder;[4] over the course of his career, he was deployed as a wild card in all roles in the defence and midfield.[5] In 1986, he moved to Piacenza, where he became captain of the Campionato Nazionale Primavera team coached by Natalino Gottardo [it] that included future star Filippo Inzaghi.[5] In the 1989–90 Serie C1 [it], he made his debut in the first team, playing 5 games in the season finale.[6] At Piacenza, Paratici won the 1990–91 Serie C1 [it]. In the following years, he was loaned to the lower divisions, first to Palazzolo and then to Fiorenzuola, where he remained for two seasons, and won a promotion to Serie C1.[5]

At the end of the 1993–94 Serie C1 season, Paratici was involved in a car accident; he suffered numerous fractures that left him injured for a year.[5] Paratici resumed activity in the 1995–96 Serie C2 [it] season as a starter with Pavia.[7] He was not confirmed and briefly joined the Serie D with Sassuolo,[5] and then played for Marsala.[8] In 1997, he was hired by Serie C2-demoted Novara,[9] and signaled himself as one of the best players of the 1997–98 Serie C2 [it].[10] At the end of the season, he joined the Palermo of Massimo Morgia, who had coached him in Marsala.[5] In 1998, he moved to Lecco for the 1998–99 Serie C1 [it] season. He then joined Savoia for the 2000–01 Serie C1 [it] season,[11] and then moved to Giugliano for the 2001–02 Serie C2 [it] season. In 2002, he moved to Brindisi,[12] with whom they won the Coppa Italia Serie C in 2003.[13] He remained there until he ended his 15-year career at the age of 32 in 2004. On five occasions, he unsuccessfully reached the playoff finals in both Serie C1 and Serie C2.[5]

Management

[edit]

Upon retiring, Paratici was hired as the chief observer and head of scouting for Sampdoria in 2004.[14][15] During his tenure at Sampdoria, Paratici worked closely with the club's sporting director and subsequently its CEO, Giuseppe Marotta; the press called him Marotta's "right-hand man".[16] During this management, Sampdoria achieved important goals, such as the 2010–11 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round with the first team and the first place for the youth team in the 2009–10 Campionato Primavera [it]. Paratici described their work as "complementary".[17] In August 2008, Paratici was allegedly approached by Urbano Cairo, owner and chairman of Torino, and offered the position of sporting director. Sampdoria and in particular Marotta were upset about these rumours, and accused Cairo of going behind their backs trying to lure Paratici, who was still under contract with Sampdoria until 2009.[16]

In May 2010, Paratici moved from Sampdoria to Juventus, along with Marotta and coach Luigi Delneri. At Juventus, Paratici was appointed head of technical affairs and sporting director by chairman Andrea Agnelli.[18] Sampdoria owner Riccardo Garrone was reported to be upset with Marotta for taking Paratici with him to Juventus, as Garrone had expected Paratici to inherit the role of director general at Sampdoria, and subsequently threatened to block any transfers to Juventus as retaliation.[19] At Juventus, Paratici is notable for his transfer moves that brought the club a cycle of successes, including the Italian defender Andrea Barzagli (2011), who formed along with Leonardo Bonucci and Giorgio Chiellini a top defensive lineup that came to be known as the BBC from their initials,[20][21][22] the Chilean midfielder Arturo Vidal (2011),[23] and the forwards Argentines Carlos Tévez (2013) and Paulo Dybala (2015).[24][25] In 2018, he played a key role in the purchase of the Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid, which remains the most expensive transfer in the history of Italian football.[26]

In November 2018, Paratici took over from Marotta as sporting director,[27] and then took on the role of managing director from October 2020.[28] On 26 May 2021, after eleven years with the club, Paratici's expiring contract was not renewed,[29] and he left Juventus;[30] his successor was Federico Cherubini [it], who was the sporting director of the club's youth teams and was promoted to technical director of the first team after Marotta's farewell.[31] Under his management, Juventus experienced one of the most victorious cycles in its history, with 19 total trophies, including an unprecedented, record-breaking nine consecutive Serie A (scudetto) titles,[32] along with four consecutive Serie A–Coppa Italia national doubles and one national treble (Serie A–Coppa Italia–Supercoppa Italiana), as well as one UEFA Europa League semifinal and two UEFA Champions League finals.[33]

On 12 June 2021, Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur announced that Paratici would be taking over as their managing director of football.[34] In his first season, Tottenham improved from the seventh place to the fourth place of the 2021–22 Premier League season. Among those who made significant contributions to the club's successful top four challenge in the season were several former Juventus players.[35] He signed former Juventus player and coach Antonio Conte and two players directly from his former club Juventus, Dejan Kulusevski and Rodrigo Bentancur, as well as former Juventus product Cristian Romero.[36][37] On 21 April 2023, Paratici resigned from his position at Tottenham after losing his appeal against a worldwide ban imposed by FIFA.[38]

Capital gains investigation

[edit]

On 20 January 2023, as part of the Plusvalenza reopening of the investigation and citing new facts,[39][40] the court of appeal of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) accepted in part the appeal of the Federal Prosecutor's Office on the partial revocation of the acquittal decision of the same court from May 2022.[41] Paratici was suspended for 30 months from holding office in Italian football as punishment for capital gain violations;[42] its former club was docked 15 points.[43][44] This was unprecedented for several reasons.[45] Firstly, past judgements mainly hit the clubs and were limited to fines,[46][47] not penalty points;[48][nb 1] secondly, capital gains are widespread not only in Italy but in the football world, are not illegal, and there is no law regulating them in football;[50][51] thirdly, the FIGC prosecution changed the charge of Article 31,[45] the one related to the budget that usually warrants fines, and added an Article 4 violation, which is related to loyalty,[52][53][54] after two past judgements acquitted Juventus and all other clubs involved.[55] Upon the publication of the court's motivations on 30 January 2023, the club and its involved directors, including Paratici,[56] immediately announced they would appeal to the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), which would rule on whether there were defects of form, not on the sentence's merit, and thus the club, which denied any wrongdoing,[57] focused on such issues;[58] the CONI appeal was officially deposited on 28 February 2023.[59] In March 2023, a preliminary hearing about the Prisma case is scheduled to be held and determinate whether the case would be closed or not.[60][61]

Alongside Federico Cherubini [it], the other Juventus director involved in the legal issue, Paratici filed an appeal to the Regional Administrative Tribunal [it] (TAR) of Lazio to have the FIGC release to the legal defence a note with Convisoc [it], named 10940 and dated to April 2021, which could show that other clubs and directors were involved or could not entered Serie A, and that the start of the investigation should be retrodated and thus the sentence annulled for having violated the proceeding's limit of time;[62] the FIGC denied several times the release of the document to the defences on the grounds that it was not relevant.[63] In its sentence on 8 March 2023, the TAR criticized the FIGC, which declined to be a party in the CONI appeal,[64] and ruled that the document must be sent to the defenses.[65][66] The FIGC appealed to Italy's Council of State to have the TAR's sentence revoked on the grounds that Juventus appealed to the TAR when this is available after the three instances of judgement are exhausted;[67][68] the appeal came from Paratici and Cherubini, not the club,[69] and the FIGC's appeal was rejected.[70] The same body announced that on 23 March it would rule on the merit of the FIGC's actions and whether the document can be used in the CONI appeal later in the month.[71][72] While the note did not name Juventus, it acknowledged the difficulty of an objective value in regards to capital gains;[73] some observers questioned why the defences were not given access if it was irrelevant.[74] Alongside the other parties, Paratici received the note preceding this document, dated 31 March 2021,[75] on 14 March 2023; this time, the FIGC made no appeal or opposition and delivered the document,[76] which did not name Juventus but discussed the difficulty of determining an objective value of traded players.[77] On 31 March 2023, Spurs announced that Paratici would take a leave of absence from his role as the managing director of football pending the outcome of an appeal filed after FIFA extended his ban over Juventus's dealings to apply worldwide.[78] Paratici resigned from Tottenham on 21 April 2023 after his appeal was rejected.[79]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ While the Plusvalenza case and its punishment is due to capital gains about footballers and their alleged inflated price, a widespread practice in the football world, the cases of Chievo and Cesena involved footballers that did not exist, which is not the case of Juventus, in the sense that the two clubs did not enter into any contract. Their punishments were 3 and 15 points docked, respectively; the two sentences were not final and did not pass judgement, as the two companies went bankrupt.[48] Additionally, the original requested punishment for Juventus was €800,000,[49] which was significantly higher than any past punishments but was in line in capital gains resulting in fines for the companies.[48]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Dopo 11 anni il piacentino Fabio Paratici lascia la Juventus" [After 11 years, Fabio Paratici from Piacenza leaves Juventus]. Libertà (in Italian). 26 May 2021. ISSN 1593-490X. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  2. ^ Stone, Simon (1 July 2021). "Nuno Espirito Santo: Can Tottenham manager give the club a new way forward?". BBC Sport. Archived from the original on 10 July 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  3. ^ "Fabio Paratici: Why Tottenham director has been banned by FIFA and what happens next". The Athletic. 29 March 2023.
  4. ^ Primon, Luigi (22 September 1997). "Il Novara è riabilitato" [Novara is rehabilitated]. La Stampa (in Italian). p. 36. ISSN 1122-1763. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Cagnani, Paolo (2 December 2010). "'Io, Borgonovese dell'anno: che grande soddisfazione'" [Me, Borgonovese of the year: what a great satisfaction] (PDF). Libertà (in Italian). p. 8. ISSN 1593-490X. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023 – via USD Borgonovese.
  6. ^ "La rosa 1989/1990" [The squad 1989/1990]. Storiapiacenza1919.it (in Italian). January 2014. Archived from the original on 13 January 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  7. ^ "Campionato Serie C2 1995-1996" [1995–1996 Serie C2 league]. TIFO-Net (in Italian). May 2006. Archived from the original on 10 May 2006. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  8. ^ "Speciali: Patrice Evra" [Specials: Patrice Evra]. Marsala Calcio (in Italian). Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  9. ^ "Arrivano i primi rinforzi per il Novara di Chierico" [The first reinforcements arrive for Chierico's Novara]. La Stampa (in Italian). 11 July 1997. p. 49. ISSN 1122-1763. Archived from the original on 27 May 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  10. ^ "Novara in cerca di più solidi assetti societari" [Novara in search of more solid corporate structures]. La Stampa (in Italian). 19 May 1998. p. 45. ISSN 1122-1763. Archived from the original on 19 May 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  11. ^ "La partita dei record" [The match of records]. La Repubblica (in Italian). 28 October 2000. ISSN 0390-1076. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  12. ^ "Fuochi d'artificio nella campagna acquisti Brindisi Calcio" [Fireworks in the Brindisi Calcio transfer campaign]. Brundisium.net (in Italian). January 2003. Archived from the original on 5 January 2003. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  13. ^ "Finale Coppa Italia serie C 2002/03" [2002–03 Serie C Italian Cup final]. Bustocco.it (in Italian). May 2006. Archived from the original on 13 August 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  14. ^ "Il piacentino Fabio Paratici nuovo ds della Juventus" [Fabio Paratici from Piacenza is the new director of Juventus]. SportPiacenza (in Italian). Archived from the original on 10 September 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  15. ^ "Fabio Paratici". Juventus FC. 1 July 2010. Archived from the original on 21 October 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  16. ^ a b Oddenino, Gianluca (8 June 2008). "Toro, è caos diesse. Samp furiosa con Cairo" [Torino, it's sports director chaos. Samp furious with Cairo]. La Stampa (in Italian). ISSN 1122-1763. Archived from the original on 11 June 2008. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  17. ^ Gentile, Marco (24 December 2018). "Juventus, Paratici svela: 'Marotta? I giocatori gli sceglievo io'" [Juventus, Paratici reveals: 'Marotta? I chose the players]. Il Giornale (in Italian). ISSN 1124-8831. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  18. ^ "Juve, parte la rifondazione bianconera" [Juve, the Black and White refoundation starts]. Tuttosport (in Italian). 18 May 2010. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 19 October 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  19. ^ "Garrone: 'Pazzini alla Juve? Nemmeno per 100 milioni'" [Garrone: 'Pazzini at Juve? Not even for 100 million']. Tuttosport (in Italian). 28 June 2010. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 19 October 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  20. ^ Turcato, Enrico (1 July 2016). "Euro 2016, Germania-Italia: le statistiche impressionanti di Barzagli, Bonucci e Chiellini, la BBC" [Euro 2016, Germany–Italy: the impressive statistics of Barzagli, Bonucci and Chiellini, the BBC]. Eurosport (in Italian). Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
  21. ^ "Barzagli e la sua avventura alla Juventus: 'Paratici mi ha cambiato la vita'" [Barzagli and his time at Juventus: 'Paratici changed my life']. Goal.com (in Italian). 14 June 2019. Archived from the original on 15 June 2019. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  22. ^ Della Valle, Fabiana (6 May 2020). "Dal primo scudetto alla rivoluzione di Sarri: Juve, l'eternità della BBC" [From the first championship to Sarri's revolution: Juve, the eternity of the BBC]. La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). ISSN 1120-5067. Archived from the original on 17 May 2020. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  23. ^ "Paratici sale in cattedra: a Piacenza il ds tricolore" [Paratici rises to the chair: the tricolour sports director in Piacenza]. Tuttosport (in Italian). 8 May 2014. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 9 May 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  24. ^ "Juventus, Paratici: 'Ronaldo voleva solo noi. Tevez trattativa logorante'" [Juventus, Paratici: 'Ronaldo wanted only us. Tevez an exhausting negotiation']. La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). 24 December 2018. ISSN 1120-5067. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  25. ^ "Paratici: 'Grazie Juventus'" [Paratici: 'Thanks Juventus'] (in Italian). Juventus FC. 4 June 2021. Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  26. ^ "Cristiano Ronaldo alla Juve, il ruolo centrale di Paratici: 'Era un sogno'" [Cristiano Ronaldo at Juve, Paratici's central role: 'It was a dream']. Sky Sport Italia (in Italian). 16 July 2018. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  27. ^ "Juventus, ufficializzata la nuova organizzazione aziendale: cambia il ruolo di Paratici" [Juventus, the new corporate organization made official: Paratici's role changes]. La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). 23 November 2018. ISSN 1120-5067. Archived from the original on 16 December 2018. Retrieved 13 March 2023 – via ItaSportPress.
  28. ^ "La Juve si riorganizza: Paratici resta, promosso Cherubini". La Stampa (in Italian). 15 October 2020. ISSN 1122-1763. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  29. ^ "Fabio Paratici lascerà la Juventus" [Fabio Paratici will leave Juventus] (in Italian). Juventus FC. 26 May 2021. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  30. ^ Horncastle, James (26 May 2021). "Juventus' chief football officer Fabio Paratici leaves club". The Athletic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  31. ^ "Federico Cherubini, il dirigente Juve subentrato a Paratici" [Federico Cherubini, the Juve director who took over from Paratici]. Virgilio.it (in Italian). 29 November 2021. Archived from the original on 29 November 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  32. ^ "Campioni d'Italia. Ancora. Stron9er" [Champions of Italy. Still. Stron9er] (in Italian). Juventus FC. 26 July 2020. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  33. ^ "Juve, Paratici: 'Si chiude un'epoca. Dybala colpo più rischioso'" [Juve, Paratici: 'An era ends. Dybala the riskier transfer']. Corriere dello Sport (in Italian). 4 June 2021. Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  34. ^ "Club Announcement − Appointment of Fabio Paratici, Managing Director, Football". Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 12 June 2021. Archived from the original on 30 June 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  35. ^ Eccleshare, Charlie; Pitt-Brooke, Jack (24 March 2023). "How Conte's Tottenham turned 'toxic': The tension he brought proved too much". The Athletic. Archived from the original on 24 March 2023. Retrieved 27 March 2023. Fabio Paratici became more important than ever as the only senior club figure with whom Conte was still close. ... Ultimately, it took the expertise of Paratici to bridge the two visions of Conte and Levy. At the end of the January window, he went back to Juventus and landed Dejan Kulusevski on an 18-month loan and Rodrigo Bentancur for just €19million (£16.7m; $20.2m), plus €6million in possible add-ons. These were Conte-ready players signed for Tottenham-friendly prices. Both came straight into the team and it was a turning point for the Conte era. The first game Bentancur and Kulusevski started together was the 3–2 win at Manchester City, which launched Spurs' big push for fourth.
  36. ^ "Tottenham sign Dejan Kulusevski and Rodrigo Bentancur from Juventus on Deadline Day". Sky Sports. 31 January 2022. Archived from the original on 13 December 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  37. ^ Bosher, Luke; Pitt-Brooke, Jack (30 August 2022). "Romero signs five-year Spurs deal as loan move made permanent". The Athletic. Archived from the original on 1 October 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  38. ^ "Fabio Paratici resigns as Tottenham managing director following ban from football". BBC SPORT. 21 April 2023. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
  39. ^ Corsa, Antonio (29 January 2023). "What's the deal with... the capital gains? 🇬🇧". AntonioCorsa.it. Archived from the original on 3 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Let's assume that there are these phone calls in which Juventus says: 'I'm inflating the price of a player', therefore 'confessing': is it false accounting? And how bad is it? In the words of ... lawyer Francesco Andrianopoli ... 'A clarification: Juventus did not engage in a false/fraudulent operation with these capital gains. In the field of financial statements, it is fraud when an entry that does not exist is entered in the financial statements. For example: I sell an asset for €100,000, but I don't actually own that asset. When, on the other hand, items are entered in the balance sheet that have been valued incorrectly, excessively, or in incorrect years, that is not a 'falsehood' but an 'incorrect entry', which is a balance sheet irregularity but not a crime or an offence. What we are talking about, in terms of capital gains, is not 'false' data, because there are two teams that exchange two players and say: 'mine is worth 20, yours is worth 20, let's make this exchange so you make a capital gain and I make a capital gain' whereas the 'real' value (which is impossible to determine for those players) is not 20 but something less. At this point, there is no falsehood: first of all because not the entire value is fictional: perhaps those players, instead of being worth 20 and 20, were worth (if anyone can ascertain it) 10 and 10, but certainly not 0 and 0. Secondly: on their balance sheets, each of the two teams put both the positive entry of +20 and the negative entry of -20. So it is not the situation mentioned above where a non-existent (false) asset is sold and an operation is carried out by introducing only a positive (fraudulent) component to the balance sheet. In addition to the immediate capital gain of 20 million, in subsequent years the team will find their costs increased by 20 million. So there is no positive result on the long-term financial statements; there is the problem that these items end up on different financial statements, but that is very different from saying that they are 'false'.
  40. ^ Salvetti, Marina (31 January 2023). "Plusvalenze Juventus, Santoro: 'La revocazione è illegittima! Intercettazioni? Non valgono'" [Capital gains Juventus, Santoro: 'The revocation is illegitimate! Wiretaps? They do not count']. Tuttosport (in Italian). ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 31 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Judge Santoro, former President of the Federal Court of Appeal of the FIGC and of the Council of State, as an expert in the field of sports justice ... 'The reasons for the sentence of the Federal Court of Appeal have increased the doubts that I had already raised previously on the legitimacy of the revocation: to justify the reopening of the trial, new facts must arise which the judges identified in the telephone interceptions transmitted by the Turin Public Prosecutor' ... 'First of all, the interceptions cannot be used to prove accounting offences: in this case, the judges consider the capital gains, with artificial values given to the players, accounting offenses with which Juventus allegedly distorted the balance sheets.' ... 'To prove an accounting offense, technical advice is needed, which I have not seen when reading the pages of the reasons, because the judges do not have the competence in the matter: the lack of technical advice has also prevented the defendants from the right of defense . And then there is a second aspect of wiretapping.' ... 'Interceptions are not admissible both in the first phase of the revocation, the rescission phase, which requests the annulment of the contested provision, as I explained earlier, but also in the second phase, the rescission phase, in which a new provision is issued intended to replace the first.'
  41. ^ "'Cambiate le accuse e le plusvalenze non alterano i risultati': i punti del ricorso Juve" ['Charges changed and capital gains do not alter the results': the points of Juve's appeal]. La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). 3 March 2023. ISSN 1120-5067. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Among the other elements that emerge from the 99 pages of the appeal, the fact that the sentence is linked to an 'uncontested infringement' ... which evaluates it as unfounded because 'the capital gains from so-called cross transactions lead to a purely financial benefit but they do not produce any liquidity, which can be used for example in a shopping campaign.' One of the key points of the appeal concerns the conviction for something of which Juventus had not been accused: 'The federal court of appeal used probative elements from the criminal investigation to actually create a new illegal act against the defendants', it is the excerpt from the appeal reported by ANSA. These new allegations, according to the defense, would have violated the principle of due process and the right of defense. The charges unrelated to the referral, according to the club, are the 'hidden' invoice at Olympique Marseille and the Arthur-Pjanic exchange with Barcelona.
  42. ^ "Inchiesta Plusvalenze: accolto il ricorso della Procura, 15 punti di penalizzazione alla Juventus" [Capital gains investigation: prosecutor's appeal accepted, Juventus penalized by 15 points] (in Italian). Italian Football Federation. 20 January 2023. Archived from the original on 24 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  43. ^ Porzio, Francesco (20 January 2023). "Juventus penalized 15 points from Serie A standings; 11 execs banned for mishandling transfer finances". CBS Sports. Archived from the original on 4 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Juventus have formally submitted an appeal to the penalty. The 15-point penalty is harsher than the nine-point deduction recommended by an FIGC prosecutor earlier in the day. This all comes after the club's recent financial statements were under scrutiny by prosecutors and Italian market regulator CONSOB in the past months for alleged false accounting and market manipulation. ... The investigation led to the board stepping down in November, which also marked the end of an era for Agnelli and Nedved. The club acknowledged the so-called 'salary maneuvers' from the 2019–20 and 2020–21 fiscal years, adding that 'the complexity of such profiles on valuation elements may be subject to different interpretations.'
  44. ^ "Why were Juventus docked points and what happens next?". Al Jazeera. 23 January 2023. Archived from the original on 8 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  45. ^ a b De Santis, Maurizio (31 January 2023). "I misteriosi messaggi di Lapo Elkann sulla Juventus: 'Al momento giusto parlerò'" [Lapo Elkann's mysterious messages about Juventus: 'I'll speak when the time is right']. Fanpage.it (in Italian). Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Why only Juventus? And why were they retried on a charge for which the same federal prosecutor's office acquitted them? Basically, how is it possible that they were tried and convicted of a crime (that of capital gains) that did not exist? How is it possible to arrive at an afflictive verdict without even indictment of the persons under investigation? And above all – this is the defensive thesis of the Juventus lawyers – the reasons for the sentence are 'tainted by illogicality and groundlessness'. Questions and statements that mix with feelings of anger and bewilderment that fuel the strong discontent of the community of tifosi. ... The sensation and fear ... fuel the idea that – as happened in 2006 – once again only one company was targeted.
  46. ^ Vaciago, Guido (26 November 2021). "Juve, inchiesta plusvalenze. Milan e Inter assolte nel 2008" [Juve, capital gains investigation. Milan and Inter acquitted in 2008]. Tuttosport (in Italian). ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 28 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Of course there is a precedent that is also quite close in time: Milan and Inter ended up on trial in 2008 for the 2004 budgets, which ended up in the sights of the Judiciary for the usual capital gains. But they were acquitted because 'the fact does not constitute a crime'. The problem is the scientific definition of the value of a player in the transfer market. In short, there are no exact parameters for deciding that an evaluation is 'false', given that the number of factors and conditions that can influence it. Thirteen years after the acquittal of the Milanese [clubs], the investigation brings back the age-old question of capital gains in the offices of a prosecutor, just as [FIFA president] Infantino, only a couple of weeks ago, hypothesized the introduction of a mathematical algorithm to decide the player rating.
  47. ^ Salvetti, Marina (31 January 2023). "Plusvalenze Juventus, Santoro: 'La revocazione è illegittima! Intercettazioni? Non valgono'" [Capital gains Juventus, Santoro: 'The revocation is illegitimate! Wiretaps? They do not count']. Tuttosport (in Italian). ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 31 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 'Bone-sack interceptions, as they say in jargon, that is, without comment, without legal qualifications, are a simple transcription of speeches: drawing a conclusion of imputability from this is not permitted.' ... 'No, they should have opened a new referral and proceeded with a new trial. There are 14,000 pages of interceptions: congratulations to the two judges who managed to read them all in the space of a few weeks...' The Federal Court has also changed the charge: from article 31, which only provides for a fine, in article 4, the one on loyalty, which instead provides for penalty points... 'The change of crime is another highly questionable element: having brought up loyalty is a consequence of the accounting offense but it can represent a procedural defect even stronger. This proceeding has already undergone two levels of judgment and it would have already been serious to change the charge in the appeal process, i.e. in the second level: here instead we are faced with a change even in the revocation phase, when the judges have a much more limited power. The federal judge must never overflow into an alternative reconstruction of the established and disputed facts. In any case, the 15-point penalty appears difficult to understand, if related to the violation of the principle of sporting loyalty.'
  48. ^ a b c Corsa, Antonio (15 February 2023). "Come sono state giudicate le plusvalenze fittizie finora?" [How have fictitious capital gains been judged so far?]. AntonioCorsa.it (in Italian). Archived from the original on 25 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Case #1 – Genoa, Udinese, Reggina (2008) ... Result? €400,000 fine for the companies. ... Case #2 – Sampdoria (2008) ... Result? Fine of €36,000 for the company. ... Case #3 – AC Milan and Inter (2008) ... Result? €90,000 fine for the companies. ... Case #4 – Chievo and Cesena (2018) ... Result? 3 penalty points for Chievo and 15 for Cesena. ... sentences not final as in the meantime the two companies went bankrupt.
  49. ^ Salvetti, Marina (31 January 2023). "Plusvalenze Juventus, Santoro: 'La revocazione è illegittima! Intercettazioni? Non valgono'" [Capital gains Juventus, Santoro: 'The revocation is illegitimate! Wiretaps? They do not count']. Tuttosport (in Italian). ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 31 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 'Consistently, the Federal Prosecutor in the hearing before the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal had requested the pecuniary sanction of the fine, of 800 thousand euros for Juventus and, gradually, for the other clubs. Requests then rejected in both levels of judgment.'
  50. ^ Doyle, Mark (22 January 2023). "The entire Juventus financial scandal explained: Why the Bianconeri have been docked 15 points". Goal.com. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. As the Gazzetta dello Sport has previously outlined, the practice of plusvalenza is undeniably of colossal importance in Italy. In 2018–19, the last season before Covid-19 hit, 20 Serie A clubs made a total of €699m in capital gains – more than any of the other 'Big Five' leagues. ... The difference is that while this affair does involve clubs in other countries, it is focused on Italy, and Juventus in particular.
  51. ^ Bava, Fabrizio (25 February 2023). "La Juve, le plusvalenze incrociate e la 'foglia di fico' del par. 45 dello IAS 38" [Juve, cross capital gains and the 'fig leaf' of Par. 45 of IAS 38]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 5 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. The capital gains theme has been 'talked about' for decades and it is not a lever to which only Juventus have resorted, recently sentenced in the sports process. It is therefore inevitable to ask a question: why have they not been defined in advance of the rules of clear conduct so as to be able, subsequently, to check and punish severely those who do not respect them? ... the previous jurisprudentials highlighting that these behaviors have almost never been punished, not so much because the values of the crossed players had not been inflated, but rather for the difficulty of demonstrating it (not existing something similar to a market value, above all for younger players). We get to the point. Those who follow the investigation will be thinking: 'And no, for Juventus it is different, because being listed they should have applied Par. 45 of IAS 38 and not to register the capital gain!' But this is just a fig leaf. The sporting sentence condemns Juventus for having concealed the exchange nature of the crossed operations in order to avoid the risk of not being able to enroll the capital gain. ... Can you punish for this reason, despite the fact that Juventus have declared that they have never applied this accounting policy in the past (and therefore never declared in public budgets)? Even though this accounting treatment would seem to be applied by very few football clubs in Europe (Consob says at least two)? Despite no control body of the world of football and non-internal and external, has it ever contested the failure to apply to the three (now two) listed companies? But above all, can a company be punished for the failure to apply an accounting policy which, if considered the rule to be applied ... it would concern ... all football teams?
  52. ^ Giannone, Giuseppe (21 January 2023). "Carlo Nesti: 'Juve, punizione inevitabile, ma gli altri club sono innocenti?'" [Carlo Nesti: 'Juve, inevitable punishment, but are the other clubs innocent?']. TuttoMercatoWeb (in Italian). Archived from the original on 25 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. The journalist Carlo Nesti has his opinion on the 15-point penalty imposed on Juventus for the capital gains case: 'It seems to relive the days of Calciopoli, with the same reasons of legitimacy, but also of persistence. Surely the punishment, inflicted on Juventus, is obvious, in the light of 2 articles: the 4, which obliges to observe the principles of sporting loyalty, and the 31, which condemns the management and economic violation. We can discuss, if anything, the proportions of the penalty, whether they are fair, limited or you exaggerate. As in 2006, in any case, an inconsistency already emerges. How is it possible that other companies have not been sanctioned, when the phenomenon of capital gains was, and is, very widespread? Is it possible to make capital gains on your own? The answer, of course, is 'no', but the verdict, at least so far, does not seem to take this into account. Therefore, perplexities emerge about the umpteenth fury, as in the days of Calciopoli, towards the Black and White club.'
  53. ^ "Lupi o Agnelli. Intervista a Sergio Santoro, ex presidente della Corte federale della Figc" [Wolves or Lambs. Interview with Sergio Santoro, former president of the FIGC federal court]. L'Identità (in Italian). 26 January 2023. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. ... and for this reason some hypothesize that the Court decided on the basis of art. 4, paragraph 1, of the sporting justice code, i.e. intended to sanction the behavior of Juventus managers as contrary to the principle of sporting loyalty to which every club and each member is bound. 'This, however, presupposes a modification, by the Federal Court, of the charge advanced, according to what is known from the news, by the Federal Prosecutor's Office. The Federal Judge has ample powers in matters of juridical qualification of the disputed fact, but this power must never overflow into an alternative reconstruction of the ascertained and disputed facts. In any case, the 15-point penalty would appear difficult to understand if related to the violation of the principle of sporting loyalty. Abnormal.'
  54. ^ "Plusvalenze, l'avvocato Spallone: 'Perché la Juve ha più di una freccia per il ricorso'" [Capital gains, the lawyer Spallone: 'Because Juve have more than one arrow for the appeal']. Tuttosport (in Italian). 21 February 2023. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 22 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  55. ^ Doyle, Mark (22 January 2023). "The entire Juventus financial scandal explained: Why the Bianconeri have been docked 15 points". Goal.com. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. The media have also been left in a state of shock by the FIGC ruling. It had been widely thought that Juve were in serious trouble – the resignation of the entire board was an ominous sign – but the severity of the sentence still took many by surprise. Indeed, it is worth noting that earlier on Friday Chine had only called for a nine-point penalty for Juve; instead, they were docked 15 points. ... They particularly wanted to know why only Juve had been punished, given it should, in theory, take two clubs to inflate a transfer fee. Remember, Sampdoria, Empoli, Genoa, Parma, Pisa, Pescara, Pro Vercelli and Novara were all absolved of any wrongdoing ... .
  56. ^ "Non solo Juve: anche Agnelli e i dirigenti ricorrono al Coni" [Not only Juve: Agnelli and the directors also resort to CONI]. Informazione.it (in Italian). 1 March 2023. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  57. ^ Horncastle, James; Spiers, Tim (22 January 2023). "Why Juventus were deducted points and impact on Italian football — and Tottenham". The Athletic. Archived from the original on 1 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  58. ^ "La Juventus fa ricorso al Coni: 'Documento viziato da evidente illogicità'" [Juventus appeal to CONI: 'Document vitiated by obvious illogicality']. Tuttosport (in Italian). 30 January 2023. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 'Juventus Football Club and its legal team have carefully read and will analyse thoroughly the reasons, published a little while ago, of the decision of the United Sections of the Federal Court of Appeal. It is a document, predictable in content, in the light of the weighty decision, but vitiated by obvious illogicality, lack of motivation and unfoundedness in point of law, which the Company and the individuals will oppose with an appeal to the Guarantee College at CONI within the set deadlines. The validity of Juventus' reasons will be asserted firmly, while respecting the institutions that issued it.'
  59. ^ "Juventus penalizzata di 15 punti: presentato il ricorso a Collegio di garanzia dello Sport" [Juventus penalized by 15 points: appeal presented to the Sports Guarantee College]. Sky Sport Italia (in Italian). 28 February 2023. Archived from the original on 1 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. Juventus ask, principally, to the Board of Guarantee to cancel the contested decision for the inadmissibility of the appeal for revocation of the Federal Prosecutor's Office without postponement, not constituting the investigation documents sent by the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Turin 'New facts' suitable for subverting the ratio decidendi of the revocated sentence. In the alternative, the club asks to cancel the decision for violation of the principles of the contradictory and the right trial sanctioned, as well as for violation of the right of defense. The appeal also proposes other reasons to request cancellation without postponement and also suggests 'canceling the sentence for violation of the principles of the right trial'. Regarding the sanction, Juve ask to cancel the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal for omitted motivation on the quantification of the penalties imposed in violation of Art. 12 CGS FIGC and in violation of the principle of proportionality in the sanctioning treatment. Finally, the Juventus club asks in the extreme subordinate to dispose of the postponement to the competent federal sports justice body, which will want — according to the principle of law sanctioned by the guarantee college — reforming the contested decision in favour of the applicant. In addition to that of the Juventus company, the Guarantee College of Guarantee received the appeals of the former Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli and the former sports director Fabio Paratici. CONI makes it official.
  60. ^ Dampf, Andrew (21 January 2023). "Juventus hit with 15-point penalty for false accounting". AP News. ISSN 0331-9474. Archived from the original on 26 February 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  61. ^ "Ricorso Juve, i tempi del processo. E sarà a porte aperte" [Juve appeal, the times of the trial. And it will be open door]. Tuttosport (in Italian). 1 March 2023. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 1 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 'Juventus Football Club and its legal team have carefully read and will analyse thoroughly the reasons, published a little while ago, of the decision of the United Sections of the Federal Court of Appeal. It is a document, predictable in content, in the light of the weighty decision, but vitiated by obvious illogicality, lack of motivation and unfoundedness in point of law, which the Company and the individuals will oppose with an appeal to the Guarantee College at CONI within the set deadlines. The validity of Juventus' reasons will be asserted firmly, while respecting the institutions that issued it.'
  62. ^ Pavan, Massimo (21 January 2023). "Tastiera Velenosa – Una nuova Calciopoli, ma forse pure peggio nei modi" [Tastiera Velenosa – A new Calciopoli, but perhaps even worse in the ways]. TuttoMercatoWeb (in Italian). Archived from the original on 22 January 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. During the exposition of his defensive line, the Juventus lawyer Nicola Apa asked that the revocation procedure be rejected for a formal question. The Public Prosecutor's Office allegedly exceeded the time limit for presenting the request. As emerged from press articles, the Public Prosecutor's Office had contacted the Turin prosecutors on 26 October and on 27 October the news of a visit to Turin by a prosecutor's envoy had spread. So the first new facts would have come into the possession of the prosecution at the end of October. And the sporting justice code prescribes a 30-day deadline for submitting the revocation request, which arrived, however, only on December 22, i.e. 56 days later.
  63. ^ Bellinazzo, Marco (11 March 2023). "Juve, la Figc deve consegnare la 'carta Covisoc': perché è importante per il caso plusvalenze" [Juve, the FIGC must deliver the 'Covisoc paper':  why it is important for the capital gains case]. Il Sole 24 Ore (in Italian). ISSN 0391-786X. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  64. ^ Chirico, Marcello (9 March 2023). "Juve, la carta del TAR toglie il velo all'ultima anomalia della giustizia sportiva" [Juve, the TAR card unveils the latest anomaly of sports justice]. Calciomercato.com (in Italian). Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  65. ^ Colombo, Monica (7 March 2023). "Juventus e carta Covisoc, il Tar dà ragione a Cherubini e Paratici" [Juventus and Covisoc paper, the TAR agrees with Cherubini and Paratici]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). ISSN 2499-0485. Archived from the original on 9 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  66. ^ Piccioni, Valerio (7 March 2023). "Il Tar dà ragione a Cherubini e Paratici: la 'carta Covisoc' va consegnata agli avvocati difensori" [The TAR agrees with Cherubini and Paratici: the 'Covisoc paper' must be handed over to the defence lawyers]. La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). ISSN 1120-5067. Archived from the original on 8 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  67. ^ "Plusvalenze Juve, la Figc fa ricorso al Consiglio di Stato: attesa la risposta" [Juve capital gains, the FIGC appeals to the Council of State: response awaited]. Calciomercato.com (in Italian). 11 March 2023. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  68. ^ Chirico, Marcello (11 March 2023). "Chirico: 'La carta Covisoc non sembra rilevante per la Juve. Allora perché tanta ostinazione e urgenza?'" [Chirico: 'The Covisoc paper doesn't seem relevant for Juve. So why such stubbornness and urgency?']. Calciomercato.com (in Italian). Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023 – via il BiancoNero.
  69. ^ Nicolino, Mirco (9 March 2023). "Avv. Spallone: 'FIGC al Consiglio di Stato? Aumenterebbe rilevanza documento'" [Lawyer Spallone: 'FIGC to [appeal] the Council of State? It would increase document relevance']. Bianconera News (in Italian). Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023. ... the lawyer Giorgio Spallone, who on the appeal to the TAR by Federico Cherubini and Fabio Paratici, and not by Juventus, confirms: 'It was a strategy.' In short, it was not the directly Black and White club that disapplied the sports prejudicial – i.e. compliance with the three levels of judgment – given that the TAR itself claims that 'the appeal is certainly admissible also in terms of the absence of prejudicial sports.'
  70. ^ Prisco, Antonio (11 March 2023). "Inchiesta Juve, il Consiglio di Stato respinge ricorso Figc sulla 'carta segreta'" [Juve investigation, the Council of State rejects the FIGC appeal on the 'secret paper']. Il Giornale (in Italian). ISSN 1124-8831. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  71. ^ "Consiglio di Stato e ricorso Figc, la decisione: niente sospensiva!" [Council of State and FIGC appeal, the decision: no suspension!]. Tuttosport (in Italian). 11 March 2023. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  72. ^ "Juve, respinto ricorso Figc al Consiglio di Stato: la 'carta Covisoc' va consegnata subito" [Juve, FIGC appeal to the Council of State rejected: the 'Covisoc paper' must be delivered immediately]. Sky TG24 (in Italian). 11 March 2023. Archived from the original on 11 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023.
  73. ^ "Plusvalenze, le sei pagine della 'carta Covisoc' consegnata alla Juventus: cos'è e cosa c'è scritto" [Capital gains, the six pages of the 'Covisoc paper' delivered to Juventus: what it is and what it says]. Open (in Italian). 11 March 2023. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. ... while accepting the defensive thesis according to which 'there are no uniform and objective evaluation criteria of the actual value of the player.'
  74. ^ "Caso Juve, l'avvocato Spallone: 'Nota Covisoc? Quante contraddizioni'" [Juve case, the lawyer Spallone: 'Covisoc note? How many contradictions']. Calciomercato.com (in Italian). 12 March 2023. Archived from the original on 13 March 2023. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 'How many contradictions in the margin of the note. At first glance, the irrelevance of this document with respect to the well-known sports dispute currently submitted to the judgment of the Collegio di Garanzia dello Sport at Coni is evident. In light of the above, two questions remain open. The first. The reason, increasingly due to the apparent irrelevance of the document, the persistent and repeated refusal to display it. ... The second consideration. This approach by the FIGC – rigorously defensive in relation to the refusal to display a document which, following an order from the TAR, later proved to be of little, if any, significance for the purposes of the dispute – is in clear contrast, if not contradiction, with the choice of the FIGC not to appear in the proceedings.'
  75. ^ "Plusvalenze Juventus, svelata la carta Figc-Covisoc: vi spieghiamo tutto" [Capital gains Juventus, the Figc-Covisoc card unveiled: we explain everything]. Tuttosport (in Italian). 12 March 2023. ISSN 0041-4441. Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
  76. ^ "Juventus contro il -15: la Figc invia la seconda 'carta Covisoc' agli ex dirigenti bianconeri" [Juventus against the -15 [penalty]: the FIGC sends the second 'Covisoc paper' to the former Juventus directors]. Rai News (in Italian). 14 March 2023. Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
  77. ^ "Anche la 'seconda carta Covisoc' non contiene riferimenti alla Juventus" [Even the 'second Covisoc card' does not contain references to Juventus]. Sky Sport Italia (in Italian). 14 March 2023. Archived from the original on 14 March 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2023. The control body underlines how 'although the trading of players has guaranteed copious capital gains, it has generated very little liquidity, and how this phenomenon makes it difficult to appreciate the real correspondence between the prices agreed for the individual transactions and the real market value of the athletes.'
  78. ^ "Spurs director Paratici takes leave of absence due to FIFA's worldwide ban". Reuters. 31 March 2023. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
  79. ^ "Club Statement - Fabio Paratici". Tottenham Hotspur. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabio_Paratici&oldid=1220845853"