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

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.

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

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...