[DOCUMENTI] Capital gains, here are the cards on Juve in the hands of the FIGC Prosecutor

Tomorrow the first hearing will take place before the Federal Court for the case of capital gains, in which eleven clubs are involved: Juventus, Napoli, Sampdoria, Pro Vercelli, Genoa, Parma, Pisa, Empoli, Chievo, Novara and Pescara (in the first tranche of accusations, while a second line of investigation concerns Inter). Football and Finance was able to view, in particular, the FIGC Public Prosecutor’s file concerning the Juventus club, which revolves around a particular passage: “From the comparison between the fees recognized in the transactions – we read in the deed of the Prosecutor’s Office -, considerations actually paid since these are not cross transactions, with those of the transactions reported by Covisoc it can be noted that, when the clubs have to incur actual financial disbursements, they attribute to the players’ rights to performance values ​​lower than those agreed in the cross transactions, even though they are – in the latter case – of players with a less important sporting career and a lesser technical profile. Comparable transactions therefore demonstrate that the values ​​attributed to the rights to be exchanged without transfers of money or with adjustments of a limited amount do not correspond to market values ​​”.

According to official documents that Football and Finance was able to see, the investigation by the Federal Prosecutor was born following the receipt of the note from the president of Covisoc on suspicious transactions related to the transfer market. Thus, the investigation by the FIGC Prosecutor begins, which begins by explaining how “The investigations carried out and which will be discussed below were limited to the cross operations reported by Covisoc to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office; it is not excluded that there are also other transactions of the same type involving the same companies or other clubs “.

The investigation therefore concerned in particular the cross operations, that is to say those affairs “almost contextual involving the same two companies and whose purchase and sale prices are equal or almost equal, thus generating credits and debts of the same amount that are extinguished by compensation without generating either collections or payments, therefore without or almost without financial movements. Such cross exchanges thus generate patrimonial effects (purchases of rights) and economic effects (sales of rights) but without engaging the companies from a financial point of view “.

The Prosecutor then moved by submitting “To verify the adequacy of the values ​​attributed by the transferring and transferee companies to each right”. “The market value of a player’s registration rights represents the value paid by the acquiring club, at the end of a free, real and effective negotiation of that right on the reference market”, federal prosecutors explain. The issue of capital gains remains a particularly delicate issue to be evaluated in the football system: on the other hand, and the FIGC Prosecutor explains it, we speak of “peculiarities of the football market”, where giving a correct evaluation for a player is still complicated (not there would not even be the classic “bins” or the underestimation of highly valued players “).

“While considering the peculiarity of the” football market “, the sales under investigation present” anomalous “aspects that make it likely that the negotiation conducted was influenced by reasons beyond the technical / sporting sphere to encroach on” budget policies ” “. Also because, continues the Prosecutor, market operations have thus become “A tool used by companies to account for revenues higher than those actually realized as well as to record higher than real values ​​of intangible fixed assets in the assets, with a consequent improvement effect on shareholders’ equity”.

Among the clubs that have ended up in the crosshairs, the Prosecutor’s Office starts from Juventus, analyzing all the capital gains and purchases made in these transactions: overall, the sales were worth 216.3 million for a total of 152.2 million in capital gains, while the purchases resulted in an outlay of 207.2 million. However, some operations (such as the swap Cancelo-Danilo or that Pjanic-Arthur) were considered carried out at the right values: according to Power of attorneytherefore, the operations under investigation involved 90.5 million sales for 80.8 million capital gains recorded in the financial statements. The accusation, however, speaks of “real” capital gains of 28.2 million, with capital gains therefore considered fictitious for 60.3 million.

Operations which thus had a direct effect on the net assets of the club:

  • quarterly financial statements at March 31, 2019: adjusted shareholders’ equity from € 64.0 to € 54.4 million;
  • annual financial statements at 30 June 2019: adjusted shareholders’ equity from 31.2 to 18.2 million;
  • half-year financial statements at 31 December 2019: adjusted shareholders’ equity from € 275.5 to € 260.3 million;
  • quarterly financial statements at March 31, 2020: adjusted shareholders’ equity from 244.7 to 203.9 million;
  • annual financial statements at 30 June 2020: adjusted shareholders’ equity from € 239.2 million to € 169.6 million;
  • half-year financial statements as at 31 December 2020: adjusted shareholders’ equity from € 125.4 to € 59.6 million;
  • quarterly financial statements at March 31, 2021: adjusted shareholders’ equity from 100.4 to -12.0 million.

Overall, the impact on equity according to the Prosecutor FIGC is 111.6 million euros. Figures which, however, according to the indictment did not have an impact on the club’s ability to register or not to register for the championship or to respect the other posts: reason why the referral to the Juventus it only concerns the administrative offense that can lead to a maximum penalty.

As for the managers, 13 managers of the Juventus club were referred by the FIGC Prosecutor:

  1. AGNELLI Andrea (President);
  2. NEDVED Pavel (Vice President);
  3. VELLANO Enrico (director);
  4. GARIMBERTI Paolo (director);
  5. GRAZIOLI-VENIER Assia (director);
  6. ARRIVABENE Maurizio (councilor);
  7. HUGHES – Caitlin Mary (councilor);
  8. MARILUNGO Daniela (director);
  9. RONCAGLIO Francesco (Director);
  10. BERTOLA Stefano (Chief Financial Officer);
  11. RE Marco (Chief Financial Officer);
  12. PARATICI Fabio (Chief Football Officier);
  13. CHERUBINI Federico (Head of Football Team.

Image credit: Depositphotos


Leave a Comment