Consob’s intervention changed the scenarios –

Consob’s intervention changed the scenarios –
Consob’s intervention changed the scenarios –
from Stefano Agresti

“Creative finance” was a consolidated practice of the Juventus club and other clubs. But many clubs have stayed away from this method and recently someone, like the president of Fiorentina Commisso, protested: “There should be transparency in the accounts, but Juve did not respect them”

There are those who called it “creative finance”. And there are those who, tapping Fabio Paratici on the shoulder (who smiled pleased), called the Juve manager “The wizard of capital gains”. In fact, dozens of rabbits have come out of his cylinder over the years: from the famous Pjanic, sold to Barcelona for 61 million while Arthur did the reverse path for 72, to the exchange of unknown kids with Marseille, Tongya for Marley , valued at 8 million each. Budget make-up operations that allowed – not only at Juventus – to settle the accounts without spending money and which, in essence, consisted in the attribution of evaluations evidently out of the market to the players. In this way the accounts immediately appeared in order, because the sales ended in the active part, while the (presumed) expense for the players purchased was spread over the years of the player’s contract. An extreme, emergency solution, which had already created great financial problems for our clubs at the beginning of the millennium when Inter and Milan were also tried by the ordinary judiciary and then acquitted because the fact did not constitute a crime. A habit that has been revived in recent seasons.

Consob’s intervention

But why has the situation changed now? The reason is simple: Consob moved. Until a few months ago, sporting justice had dealt with fictitious capital gains – every now and then, when he couldn’t help it. Which, however, started from a concept that effectively nullified any possibility of condemnation: the subjectivity of the evaluation of the players. According to the organs of the FIGC (and also according to the ordinary magistrates who in the past have reasoned in the same way), no one was able to establish whether the costs of the transfers were artfully inflated, even in the face of fairly clear cases such as exchanges of no-value players at sky-high and curiously identical prices. “Who can prove that these are not market errors?” Was the thesis. Only two clubs have been condemned by the football courts: Chievo and Cesena. Why do they do and the others don’t? Because in that case there was the “smoking gun”, irrefutable proof of the crime: a Cesena manager at the time was intercepted by the ordinary judiciary for other reasons and, in those phone calls, while he was settling other matters, he agreed with Chievo the fictitious capital gains then actually realized and budgeted. The acts of the investigation, sent to sports justice, led to the penalization of the two clubs (never put into practice for the Romagna company, which in the meantime had gone bankrupt).

Hyper rated players

Now that Consob has taken action, the scenarios obviously change also at a sporting level, so much so that Covisoc – the supervisory body of the FIGC – has reported 62 market transactions that deserve attention to the federal prosecutor. Of these, 42 concern Juve: there are with Manchester City and Pro Vercelli, with Barcelona and Lugano, with Sampdoria and Genoa, and then with Empoli, Parma, Pescara, Pisa, Novara. , Amiens, Basel. But Napoli also ended up in the sights for the Osimhen operation bought from Lille for 71.2 million.
The problem is that, while the Nigerian champion was leaving France, four players of questionable level valued very high figures arrived from Naples: the old goalkeeper Karnezis over 5 million, the kids Palmieri, Manzi and Liguori between 4 and 7 million. The extent of the operations carried out through Juventus is also striking team B, enrolled in the Serie C championship: in the 2019-2020 season it moved 39 million for that formation while the other 59 companies registered in that same tournament, put together, reached a tenth of that figure. And all this to get to the middle of the table.

The differences

In recent seasons, there has also been talk of capital gains for other clubs, for example for Inter, which often sold most of the young players of their Primavera at very high prices (among which some jewels were still hidden, such as Zaniolo, who ended up in Rome. in the Nainggolan operation for a figure that appeared exaggerated at the time). But this does not mean that everyone does. Many clubs have stayed away from this method, and recently some have even begun to protest. As Commisso, president of Fiorentina: «There should be transparency in the accounts, but Juve did not respect them. And it was not penalized, neither in the standings nor on the market ».

November 27, 2021 (change November 27, 2021 | 16:47)


PREV 2288 new cases and 9 deaths in the bulletin
NEXT Betty White, the ‘Golden girl’ actress of American TV, was about to turn 100