Juve capital gains: hunt for the new document linked to the “Covisoc card”

If it all happened within a football match, we would already be impatient with the continuation of the interruption of the game. Juve may have scored a goal, but the lead hasn’t been validated yet, for now there’s nothing to cheer about. Following an appeal by Cherubini and the former Paratici, the club ideally managed to get the Var to review the episode: in the first review, however, there is nothing relevant, even if a new shot appears and… yes, if were that Juve-Salernitana (where the last goal was canceled “it was a mistake but we are not responsible”), Allegri would still have the hope of adding two more points to the 50 he remembers having won on the pitch. Here, however, we are in courtrooms and the matter becomes more complicated because there are 15 points – on the table – and the Juventus club would like to recover them all.

THE COVISOC LETTER

—

The famous “Covisoc card” would be almost harmless, for the purposes of the capital gains investigation which currently forces Juve to travel in the championship with only 35 points due to the penalty. But then why did the FIGC even want to appeal to the Council of State to rebut the sentence of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court which forced the “interpretative clarifications” of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office contained in a note dated April 14, 2021 to be handed over to the defense lawyers? The Football Federation, which would have liked to defend the independence of its judicial body in this way, has always indicated it as an internal act: but the Administrative Court established that it was to be considered an “at least implicit provisional content”. It turns out that in the six pages the federal prosecutor, Giuseppe Chiné, writes to the Covisoc president on the subject of capital gains citing the cases of Chievo, Cesena, Perugia and Atalanta again, himself posing a question of method in identifying a possible fraud on the altered valuations of football players.

THE NEW CARD

—

Juve in that document, which could have invalidated the entire process due to a natural shift of the investigation start date (consequently making the acts carried out after 17 July 2021 unusable), is never mentioned. Why then can’t we restart the game and are we still at the Var? The answer lies in a new detail that emerges precisely from the content of the document just revealed: the subject of the communication refers to the “Acknowledgement of the Covisoc note dated 31 March 2021”. Here too we are not aware of what that correspondence will contain, but we are potentially again facing a scenario which – in the case of reference to Juve – would risk blowing everything up, anticipating the start of the procedure even more. Cherubini and Paratici’s lawyers will continue on this front. While Juve awaits the pronouncement of the Coni guarantee board, which is examining the club’s one hundred pages of appeal, divided into ten points.

THE OTHER DATES

—

The answer on the 15 penalty points is expected between 31 March and 3 April at the latest: from that moment Allegri and his players will understand if they really can count on all the points won on the pitch (which would be worth second place in the standings today) or no. By the end of the month, Chiné will also have to conclude the investigations into the parallel trend to the capital gains investigation, i.e. the one that puts the lens on the two salary maneuvers carried out by Juve in the Covid period and on suspicious partnerships – due to agreements contained in some “side letters” – that the Juventus club would have held with other Serie A clubs. The federal prosecutor has requested a second extension of forty days, after the first of twenty: while the Turin prosecutor, who on March 27 will decide whether to indict the twelve executives of Juve investigated together with the club, sent to other prosecutors (according to the territorial jurisdiction over the other companies that interfaced in the negotiations) the documentation collected on the various agreements that ended up under the lens of the prosecutors.