In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <8008a7f3-c923-47bb-b1fe-1de135d5aae2n@googlegroups.com>, Futbolmetrix <daniele.paserman@gmail.com> wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams
involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in identical >shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

Anyone else in Serie A?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware https://mindspring.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:32:45 PM UTC, Futbolmetrix wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

What exactly were the allegations?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Doctor wrote:

In article <8008a7f3-c923-47bb-b1fe-1de135d5aae2n@googlegroups.com>, Futbolmetrix <daniele.paserman@gmail.com> wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in
identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

Anyone else in Serie A?

Not enough!

I find it hard to believe that only one club behaves like that. Serie A
is notorious for corrupt practices.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 8:59:21 AM UTC-8, Blueshirt wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

In article <8008a7f3-c923-47bb...@googlegroups.com>,
Futbolmetrix <daniele....@gmail.com> wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in
identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

Anyone else in Serie A?

Not enough!

I find it hard to believe that only one club behaves like that. Serie A
is notorious for corrupt practices.

Since the prosecutors only wanted 9, I'm not sure a full demotion to B was not in order.

It is an effective expulsion for Juventus from 23-24 Europe, though.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:34:01 AM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:

Since the prosecutors only wanted 9, I'm not sure a full demotion to B was not in order.

You may still get your wish: there are two additional investigations going on, one for inflating transfer fees, and one for paying players under the table. I don't think the Juve management were saints, but it's hard to stomach the one-way traffic of all
of this, while others have gotten away with slaps on the wrist or less.

It is an effective expulsion for Juventus from 23-24 Europe, though.

There is still the Coppa Italia (and the Europa League, albeit quite unlikely)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:12:43 PM UTC-8, Futbolmetrix wrote:

It is an effective expulsion for Juventus from 23-24 Europe, though.

There is still the Coppa Italia (and the Europa League, albeit quite unlikely)

Point made. But, from the table, they're done.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-5, Futbolmetrix wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

15 points penalty temporarily removed. There will be a retrial. Usual Italian-style compromise, we'll see what comes out.

Current Serie A table:

Napoli 75
Lazio 61
Juventus 59
Roma 56
---------------
Milan 53
Inter 51

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:42:51 PM UTC+1, Futbolmetrix wrote:

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-5, Futbolmetrix wrote:

In relationship to their shady accounting practices. All other teams involved received no point penalty. All other teams engaged in identical shady accounting practices were not even investigated.

That's Serie A for you...

15 points penalty temporarily removed. There will be a retrial. Usual Italian-style compromise, we'll see what comes out.

Current Serie A table:

Napoli 75
Lazio 61
Juventus 59
Roma 56
---------------
Milan 53
Inter 51

What exactly are the allegations?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:

What exactly are the allegations?

Inflating the values of players that they traded with other teams. In Italian it's called "plusvalenze".

If I sell player X for 10M, that counts as an immediate gain of 10M on my balance sheet.
But if I buy player Y for 10M, with a 5 year contract, I can spread out the cost (and the hit to my balance sheet) over 5 years. The immediate hit to my balance sheet is 2M.

Now suppose that you and I trade players X and Y, two young unproven youth who in reality are worth only 1M, but we value them at 10M. Just like that, we both register an 8M gain on our balance sheet this year (we will have additional costs in future
years, but then we can do the trick again -- basically it's a Ponzi scheme)

Now, it turns out that: a) this is a very common practice; b) you need two clubs to play this game, but only Juve was penalized; c) a previous court had established that this practice, however shady, did not represent a financial irregularity punishable
with a point penalty.

Yesterday's verdict established that there were some irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and basically ordered a retrial. The somewhat paranoid feeling among many Juve fans is that they will find a way to penalize Juve by
exactly the number of points necessary to have them out of Europe next year. But it's also possible that the point penalty will be applied next year.

Juve is also on the hook for apparently paying some players under the table during COVID, and it's possible that the two cases will be merged into one.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 8:52:13 PM UTC+2, Futbolmetrix wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:

What exactly are the allegations?

Inflating the values of players that they traded with other teams. In Italian it's called "plusvalenze".

If I sell player X for 10M, that counts as an immediate gain of 10M on my balance sheet.
But if I buy player Y for 10M, with a 5 year contract, I can spread out the cost (and the hit to my balance sheet) over 5 years.
The immediate hit to my balance sheet is 2M.

Now suppose that you and I trade players X and Y, two young unproven youth who in reality are worth only 1M, but we value
them at 10M. Just like that, we both register an 8M gain on our balance sheet this year (we will have additional costs in
future years, but then we can do the trick again -- basically it's a Ponzi scheme)

Now, it turns out that: a) this is a very common practice; b) you need two clubs to play this game, but only Juve was
penalized; c) a previous court had established that this practice, however shady, did not represent a financial irregularity
punishable with a point penalty.

Recently the Guardian put it quite succinctly:
“It wasn’t only Juventus,” said a fan, referring to the plusvalenze scandal.
“No,” his friend replied. “But it is always Juventus.”

Yesterday's verdict established that there were some irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and
basically ordered a retrial. The somewhat paranoid feeling among many Juve fans is that they will find a way to penalize
Juve by exactly the number of points necessary to have them out of Europe next year. But it's also possible that the point
penalty will be applied next year.

So they settled on minus 10, and Juve obliged further by losing against Empoli.

Juve is also on the hook for apparently paying some players under the table during COVID, and it's possible that the two
cases will be merged into one.

Has that happened? I guess we'll see another round of appeals anyway.


Ciao,
Werner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, Werner Pichler wrote:

Recently the Guardian put it quite succinctly:
“It wasn’t only Juventus,” said a fan, referring to the plusvalenze scandal.
“No,” his friend replied. “But it is always Juventus.”

Well, no. If Juve is being punished for shady maneuvers that altered the balance of the sporting competition, then the key ingredient is that it actually was the *only one* doing these shady maneuvers. Of course one could say that the sporting justice
is hitting Juve so as to make it an example for everybody else (haha, good one). The more realistic explanation is that prosecutors derive benefits from going after the big fish, and Juve is (by far) the biggest fish in the pond.

Yesterday's verdict established that there were some irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and
basically ordered a retrial. The somewhat paranoid feeling among many Juve fans is that they will find a way to penalize
Juve by exactly the number of points necessary to have them out of Europe next year. But it's also possible that the point
penalty will be applied next year.

So they settled on minus 10, and Juve obliged further by losing against Empoli.

If Juve had taken care of business against Empoli, its top-4 place would have still been entirely in its own hands (assuming no further deductions). Now they have to hope that others will lose points along the way.

Juve is also on the hook for apparently paying some players under the table during COVID, and it's possible that the two
cases will be merged into one.

Has that happened? I guess we'll see another round of appeals anyway.

That case will be debated on June 15. Gazzetta dello Sport, who has a good track record of "predicting" what the outcomes will be (to be precise: of reminding the sporting justices what "popular sentiment" wants the outcome to be), came out with a piece
today suggesting that Juve and FIGC will settle this one out of court: Juve agrees to not appeal the current ruling and stay out of European competition for a year, UEFA (who still wants to punish Juve because of the Super League affront) backs off, no
further penalties in the 2023-2024 season, and we put all of this behind us.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 3:55:51 PM UTC+2, Futbolmetrix wrote:

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, Werner Pichler wrote:

Juve is also on the hook for apparently paying some players under the table during COVID, and it's possible that the two
cases will be merged into one.

Has that happened? I guess we'll see another round of appeals anyway.

That case will be debated on June 15. Gazzetta dello Sport, who has a good track record of "predicting" what the outcomes
will be (to be precise: of reminding the sporting justices what "popular sentiment" wants the outcome to be), came out with a
piece today suggesting that Juve and FIGC will settle this one out of court: Juve agrees to not appeal the current ruling and
stay out of European competition for a year, UEFA (who still wants to punish Juve because of the Super League affront)
backs off, no further penalties in the 2023-2024 season, and we put all of this behind us.

That's basically what Milan have done in 2019. Perhaps you're more alike than you pretend? :)

Ciao,
Werner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 11:35:26 AM UTC-4, Werner Pichler wrote:

That case will be debated on June 15. Gazzetta dello Sport, who has a good track record of "predicting" what the outcomes
will be (to be precise: of reminding the sporting justices what "popular sentiment" wants the outcome to be), came out with a
piece today suggesting that Juve and FIGC will settle this one out of court: Juve agrees to not appeal the current ruling and
stay out of European competition for a year, UEFA (who still wants to punish Juve because of the Super League affront)
backs off, no further penalties in the 2023-2024 season, and we put all of this behind us.

That's basically what Milan have done in 2019. Perhaps you're more alike than you pretend? :)

"Patteggiamento" (out of court settlement) confirmed: the 10 point penalty is final, Juve agrees not to appeal and to pay a hefty fine, there will be no additional penalties for the second part of the investigation (under the table salary payments). UEFA
could still decide to ban Juve from European competitions for a year or more. If it's the former, I'm not sure too many Juve fans will be devastated by the prospect of not having to spend Thursday evenings next fall between Baku and Trondheim...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)