Several phrases used in the ruling from the Collegio di Garanzia present big problems for Juventus lawyers, particularly confirmation the capital gains were ‘systematically’ inflated with ‘clear effects on sporting fairness.’
The verdict was released on April 20, suspending the 15-point Serie A penalty and sending the situation back to the Federal Court for a new ruling that should now be made within 30 days.
The motivation for the verdict was released today and experts have been poring over the 75 pages of legal explanations to see what this could mean for Juventus going forward.
The general assumption is that Juve will still be docked points, but more likely nine rather than 15, which would still currently be enough to rule them out of the Champions League places.
Reading through the paperwork, there are some phrases that stand out and bode very ill for the Bianconeri lawyers.
The first is the confirmation that the Article 4 violation, therefore of fair play and probity, stands against the club and directors Andrea Agnelli, Fabio Paratici, Maurizio Arrivabene and Federico Cherubini.
A paragraph in the motivation explains that the previous decision to clear Juventus and other clubs of wrongdoing in April 2022 was changed by evidence showing “the existence of systematic and repeated behaviour, part of a preordained design to alter the transfer operations and their relative values, which produced clear effects (that were intended by the people involved) on documents and balance sheets of the club.
“Therefore, considering the relevance of the elements that emerged, also affected their fair participation in sporting competition.”
The appeal court therefore confirmed that Juventus were systematically inflating transfer fees in order to boost capital gains, therefore balancing the books and enabling them to put together a stronger squad than they otherwise would’ve done with more ‘regular’ accounting methods.
Juventus had hoped to dismantle the very basis of the accusation, arguing there is no way to independently verify the value of a player other than what two clubs decide on in their negotiations, but that approach was rejected.
It could also have a knock-on effect for any future trials that involve capital gains, as the investigations continue into other Juve deals, not to mention their agreements with several different clubs.
The only reason Juventus saw their original April 2022 verdict of innocence revoked on appeal was the addition of new evidence from the Prisma police investigation into their finances, including wiretaps and confiscated documents.
If the FIGC therefore views this sort of behaviour as illicit and enough to alter sporting results, the same approach could be used against other clubs and against Juventus again in future when the next trials are ready.
No worries, Agnelli will solve this as well.