The sentence of -15 to Juve for capital gains is "lacking" in its explanation "where the Federal Court referred to a generic, but unproven, 'widespread awareness'" of directors without delegation. It is one of the points of the 77 pages of reasons for the ruling of the Collegio di Garanzia on the Juve appeal, published today. The College "censured a ruling on the merits, accepting the ground of appeal", and referred to the FIGC for a new formulation. "The failure, due to motivational defect, of the sanction for the latter is also reflected in the overall sanction" Juve.
"From the new elements that emerged that justified the revocation" of the process, "it was possible to detect the existence of 'systematic and repeated' incorrect behavior". It is one of the passages of the motivations of the ruling of the Collegio di Garanzia on the Juve appeal against the -15 for capital gains, which rejected the appeals of four managers with delegation and accepted those of nine without delegation. For the College, those behaviors of Juve managers are "the result of a preordained design of alteration of transfer operations", with "clear effects .. also on his loyal participation in sports competitions".
"The judgment under appeal - underlines the College in another point - is based on a solid overall motivational system and there is no evident misrepresentation of reality, regardless of the assessments that can be made on individual points of the motivation that are not in any case decisive on the outcome of the judgment". Moreover, the application of Article 4 is correct, for violation of sporting loyalty. "Art. 4 of the code of sports justice of the FIGC is a general rule in which the Federal Court of Appeal correctly reports the behavior of the deferred ".
Therefore, for the college, "without prejudice to what has been observed" on the deficiencies in the motivations of the nine managers without delegation for whom the appeal was accepted, "it is noted that the judgment under appeal is amply motivated also on the need to impose a severe sanction due to the seriousness of the facts that emerged and that the penalization in the ranking is among the sanctions envisaged". Finally, as for the position of the former president, Andrea Agnelli and his appeal, rejected, "in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, the events that gave rise to the responsibility of the applicant, president of the company, are widely and extensively described, with ample description and motivation of the value for disciplinary purposes of the conduct ascribed".