The Negreira case

[Hardy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1699198640898617759

 

[ajnotkeith]

You can't say something LIKELY lead to something, that stuff is for twitter, not court of law. It either did, and you prove it, or most likely DIDN'T. Investigators have all the tools to prove referees got bought. If they can't find any solid evidence, that's probably because it doesn't exist.

So far, I don't see any real evidence. If we did pay refs or used Negreira to intimidate them, and there is real proof of that, then the club should get relegated for sure. There's a long road until that point though.

I didn't see this before but no this is utterly wrong.

They are investigating the case on the basis of the functions that Negreira carried out as vice president of the CTA, which has been confirmed to have carried out important roles such as rating the referees. There isnt an investigation into if Barca paid field referees the whole point has been from the start that Negreira himself was a high ranking official within the referees committee.

There is also a suggestion that his son pressured referees using the influence of Negreira Sr.

 

[ajnotkeith]

So the judge has officially charged us with bribery of a public official, that is Negreira, and the CTA/RFEF have been deemed to be public bodies due to the service they out in regulating the sport of football.

They ordered a search of the RFEF offices today under the powers of the new charge.
The crime of bribery carries a higher sentence than the crime of sport corruption and UEFA specifically state in their guidelines that bribery of officials can lead to a ban.

So basically, the long and short is we are fucked. Laporta will have to resign in 1 or 2 years when the case is closed and we will be banned from CL for a year at that time.
Domestic consequences I'm not sure, I don't believe there will be any, because relegation of Barcelona would be unprecedented and too politically charged.

Imo there is not a chance we are found not guilty of this crime specifically.


Some key quotes : "Judge Aguirre recalls that Negreira, after being dismissed in mid-2018 as vice president of the referees, sent an intimidating letter to former president Bartomeu indicating that "if they did not continue paying him he would reveal a series of facts that could seriously harm the club." The magistrate states that "from this it follows that Enríquez Negreira was aware that quite serious illicit acts had occurred in favor of Barça."

"The judge affirms that the Federation, which controls the referees, has the status of a public-legal entity for criminal purposes and that for this reason its directors, including those who are part of technical commissions, must be considered public officials . for criminal purposes . To reach this conclusion, Aguirre relies on an important ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a conflict that occurred in the Italian Football Federation."

 

[ajnotkeith]

The investors in the Camp Nou have a buyout clause saying that if Barcelona receive criminal convictions linked to the Negreira situation, they can demand immediate early repayment.

This is really more serious than the media or Laporta has led people to believe.

 

[JamDav1982]

Two of the individuals in charge of the new Camp Nou have resigned in the last few weeks... could be linked.

Folk resign from the club right left and centre.

 

[ajnotkeith]

Two of the individuals in charge of the new Camp Nou have resigned in the last few weeks... could be linked.

Folk resign from the club right left and centre.

Could well be because club is bang to rights on these new charges if im honest.

As they have determined Negreira is a public official all they have to do is prove we attempted to bribe him and not that we even gained anything from it. The club itself in its statements to the Tax Agency said they couldn't explain the payments or why they weren't picked up by yearly audits.

Fans deserve an explanation of what is truly going on from Laporta at this stage because everything could be in jeopardy.

 

[JamDav1982]

If they are saying that the referees etc are public officials then how can it be that Real and other clubs can provide 'gifts' to those referees etc?

Is that not seen as bribery also and towards those with direct decision making capabilities in games?

This ruling to it being a 'public' office could open up many others to forms of bribery also.

 

[Barcelonista001]

In other word, the worst has come…. Right?
Fuck this
Fuck madrid
Fuck everything

 

[ajnotkeith]

If they are saying that the referees etc are public officials then how can it be that Real and other clubs can provide 'gifts' to those referees etc?

Is that not seen as bribery also and towards those with direct decision making capabilities in games?

This ruling to it being a 'public' office could open up many others to forms of bribery also.

The law states that the payment has to be with the understanding that you get something back, I believe, so influence in your favour or something. The context of the gifts would need to be analysed, in general I agree. Gifts and receptions of referees should really be completely banned in general. No reason to allow it anyway as they are paid well and just opens the door to influence.

 

[JamDav1982]

Basically they are arguing the fact that Barca paid a 'public official' shows an attempt at bribery even if there were no sporting advantages or referees paid to influence games.

Effectively they have changed it to Barca having to prove no attempt to gain an unfair advantage rather than them having to prove they did get it.

 

[JamDav1982]

The law states that the payment has to be with the understanding that you get something back, I believe, so influence in your favour or something. The context of the gifts would need to be analysed, in general I agree. Gifts and receptions of referees should really be completely banned in general. No reason to allow it anyway as they are paid well and just opens the door to influence.

It is same as their argument for Barca though.. they are saying Barca 'got something back' otherwise why do it.

Same applies on smaller scales to gifts to referees and liasing with them before after games etc.

I think Barca will argue that the goal posts have been changed and he was not seen as a public official at the time and cant be seen as that now. While they also bring up the threatening letter to Barca saying he could expose them etc as evidence... well is it not evidence that Barca also rejected that threat? Why would a threat count as evidence of wrong doing when Barca ignored it?

 

[ajnotkeith]

Basically they are arguing the fact that Barca paid a 'public official' shows an attempt at bribery even if there were no sporting advantages or referees paid to influence games.

Effectively they have changed it to Barca having to prove no attempt to gain an unfair advantage rather than them having to prove they did get it.

Yes. A difficult charge to fight.

However, I can only blame the club for this one, they walked themselves into that paying 8 million to a referee official with no invoices or record of services rendered.

It naturally follows that in the absence of Barca being able to prove he was paid 8 million for business reasons that it was likely related to his role.

 

[Barcelonista001]

More analysis please, whats next gonna happen

 

[Barcelonista001]

Are they gonna let jury decide as I understand

 

[JamDav1982]

Yes. A difficult charge to fight.

However, I can only blame the club for this one, they walked themselves into that paying 8 million to a referee official with no invoices or record of services rendered.

It naturally follows that in the absence of Barca being able to prove he was paid 8 million for business reasons that it was likely related to his role.

There are invoices and it was found through an audit.

That is part of the clubs argument. They paid him through the club when otherwise could have paid him in some far off account that couldnt be tied back.