Xtratime Community banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

· Registered
Valencia CF
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Fotmob has them 10th. Juve no marks in the CL so guess overall no effect really they'll just be replaced some other silly Italian team.

Doubt it's that big a deal.
 

· Second Place Winner, December 2011 Photo Contest
Colo Colo
Joined
·
98,677 Posts
Fotmob has them 10th. Juve no marks in the CL so guess overall no effect really they'll just be replaced some other silly Italian team.

Doubt it's that big a deal.
It actually IS for their TIFOSIS. Heck your Team is Your Religion, If not . . . do not be a Fan or one that comes around when the Cups are WON and look the other way when they are down !!!
 

· MVP
Joined
·
9,170 Posts
It's really become beyond farcical, at this point. You've got the Chelseas, Man U's, Barca's(weren't they declared broke btw?), Liverpool's, Man City's, PSG's, heck the CHinese Super League teams (most of which have folded and don't exist any more lol) spending obscene amounts of money, and yet here we are suddenly Juventus are the club that's punished?

By the way, I don't deny any of this, I'm not part of the deluded fan base and what not (though I love the boycott lol), but this really is ridiculous. FFP means nothing in the grand scheme of things?

Forget law degree's or whatever, I don't have one, but Party J and Party X agreed on a transaction of $N amount, yet suddenly a "panel" decide that Party J are the guilty party? What about the other parties involved?

Genuinely asking here for a casual...or even meaningful discussion that's all. As if I needed any more reason to be disillusioned with Juventus (cough*cough Allegriball cough*cough)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25,009 Posts
@Rhizoid While I agree that FFP is a joke and only applies to a few clubs, with most doing whatever they want without consequence, this is not about that.

To make matters worse, in the other case (under the table wages) there is no verdict yet.
 

· *the drum drum*
Joined
·
44,165 Posts
Forget law degree's or whatever, I don't have one, but Party J and Party X agreed on a transaction of $N amount, yet suddenly a "panel" decide that Party J are the guilty party? What about the other parties involved?
Party J have been judged to have cooked the books into a favourable position, without which their books wouldn't be in a favourable position.

Party X might've gone along with it because it doesn't change their financial position, or try mightn't have gone along with it at all and have very different reporting of the exact same transfer dealings.

Either way, "what about other clubs" is not an argument, it's an admission of fault and an attempt to drag others down with you.
 

· MVP
Joined
·
9,170 Posts
Party J have been judged to have cooked the books into a favourable position, without which their books wouldn't be in a favourable position.

Party X might've gone along with it because it doesn't change their financial position, or try mightn't have gone along with it at all and have very different reporting of the exact same transfer dealings.

Either way, "what about other clubs" is not an argument, it's an admission of fault and an attempt to drag others down with you.
I still think there are few things that are worth explicitly clarifying.

It is very important to understand there are two “justice” systems at work here. The first one is the civil investigation which is conducted under civil law by the Turin prosecutor’s office. Apparently that’s the one with the wiretappings and evidence which is called Prisma.

The second is what is called “giustizia sportiva” and is a supposedly this "judicial" (" " because treat this word lightly) system set up of the Italian FA. I think it would be sort of the equivalent of English FA disciplinary panels. Unlike the civil justice system, this system is not really well known for being the expertise or best practice of serving "justice" or due process. (i.e. both the prosecutor and the “judges” are nominated by the FA)

Also, aren't there two distinct accusations against Juve: one on allegedly “inflated” transfer fees and one on how Juventus has accounted for Covid salary deferrals? Is this how I understood it?

As for my "whataboutism" it isn't whataboutism bro. There literally is party x, y, z, a, b, c, etc. The Prisma investigation is only focused on Juve, despite the Italian FA investigation being interested in 8 other clubs. This means there is only wiretap evidence for Juve. I still haven’t found a good reason for this. I listened to Gabriel Marcotti on ESPN talk about it. The argument that it’s because Juve is the only listed company doesn’t carry that much weight for me. Everybody is like, ohhh they're a public limited company. Ok but isn't “false accounting” is also a crime for privately-held companies???

I can go on and on...maybe later.

Again, not saying Juve didn't do anything wrong, not denying annnny of this. My point of suspicion is at the punishment dished out on Juve "only. That's all.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
49,744 Posts
You're right in that, if the Arthur transaction is in question, then something should be said about Barça as well.
 

· *the drum drum*
Joined
·
44,165 Posts
It’s pure whataboutism, and your explanation as to why it isn’t only made it clearer.

Multiple Italian clubs were investigated and all were acquitted. On further evidence, most of them were re-investigated, and in the end all were acquitted, apart from Juventus.

Barcelona is shady as ****, but they aren’t an Italian club being investigated by the Italians.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top