Josep Maria Bartomeu

[Flavia]

I understand they paid more for him as a year early but the issue is not how much was paid it is how it was paid.

The judge will want every reason for bringing Neymar in and they includes the footballing reasons. Which if Tito did ask for him then it is relevant.

Should Barto never have mentioned the manager wanting Neymar?

It's not relevant. And you just contradicted yourself: "the issue is not how much was paid it is how it was paid". That's why bringing Tito's into this had no place. It doesn't matter why the price higher, just how they did it.
Why does it matter if Tito requested him, or Rosell? We all know it was rosell. But what Barto did today, was to try to justify his actions. That's he's innocent because he was under pressure to sign the contracts, thus signing them without reading them.

I really don't get why you still defend these crooks.

 

[JamDav1982]

This is a criminal proceeding for tax fraud. That Tito wanted reinforcements to the frontline and even if we assume for the sake of argument he wanted Neymar specifically, has absolutely ZERO bearing in this criminal proceeding for fraud, none whatsoever. Wanting a player and committing money fraud are nowhere near in the same ballpark. Nevermind that Tito is not alive to deny or verify these statements.

There is no reason to bring Tito into this. This is at best a lack of awareness, tact and respect by Bartomeu, at worst and most despicable, an attempt to deflect blame.

In any case, neither Rosell nor Bartomeu really deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point.

If the judge asks the question 'why was the decision to sign Neymar a year early taken'?

Should he refuse to answer or give a full answer covering both footballing and economic reasons?

The judge is trying to get a full picture of the transfer I would guess. So it's all relevant.

If it turns out he's trying to pass the blame its despicable and hope he rots in jail.

 

[Flavia]

If the judge asks the question 'why was the decision to sign Neymar a year early taken'?

Should he refuse to answer or give a full answer covering both footballing and economic reasons?

The judge is trying to get a full picture of the transfer I would guess. So it's all relevant.

If it turns out he's trying to pass the blame its despicable and hope he rots in jail.

He should had told the truth, then. That rosell wanted neymar more than anything, a nike player, to be the club's star. And also that rm was trying to get him. And that because of that stupid pre-contract, the cost of bringing him earlier arose.
He shouldn't had brought Tito into this, to try to justify his actions.

 

[Sumlit]

If the judge asks the question 'why was the decision to sign Neymar a year early taken'?

Should he refuse to answer or give a full answer covering both footballing and economic reasons?

The judge is trying to get a full picture of the transfer I would guess. So it's all relevant.

If it turns out he's trying to pass the blame its despicable and hope he rots in jail.

There's a million ways he could have answered that question, conveying the same message, without singling out Tito Villanova.

"We felt the team needed reinforcements sooner than anticipated, so we had to accelerate our timeline"
"Demand for the player skyrocketed, so we felt we had to accelerate his signing or risk losing him"

Singling out Tito specifically was totally unnecessary and, again, in poor taste and lacking awareness and tact at best, a despicable attempt to deflect some blame at worst.

 

[Kohe321]

I understand they paid more for him as a year early but the issue is not how much was paid it is how it was paid.

The judge will want every reason for bringing Neymar in and they includes the footballing reasons. Which if Tito did ask for him then it is relevant.

Should Barto never have mentioned the manager wanting Neymar?

If asked to tell the story from the beginning, then yes it's not inappropriate to mention that Tito (the coach) wanted him, as one of the reasons they went for him.

But, if what the article that Pacp_96 links to is correct in that Bartomeu "said up to three times that it was Tito Vilanova's decision to bring in Neymar a year earlier, which made signing him €42m more expensive", then that's just tasteless and wrong. Firstly, it wasn't just Tito who wanted Neymar early, so already at point one he's putting blame on Tito for forcing Barca to move for Neymar in a way that made him more expensive.

Secondly, if he then proceeds to insinuate that this increased price of signing Neymar is also the reason why Barca is being charged for tax-fraud in the first place (as if the problem was the price alone, and not the way the contracts and payments were handled), then that quickly begins to smack of wanting to level out the blame to remove pressure from himself. And doing it using a completely innocent man who has passed away and can't defend himself. Tasteless and wrong.

Now, I haven't read any direct quotes and don't know exactly what was said, so all of this hinges on Bartomeus exact wording to be honest. I agree, there is nothing wrong in mentioning Tito as one of the reasons the club wanted to go for Neymar in the first place. But it has to stop there, completely.

 

[Kohe321]

Man, I write too slowly, you guys have moved on before my reply comes into the mix

 

[pacp_96]

Man, I write too slowly, you guys have moved on before my reply comes into the mix

That's what I always find happens to me

 

[Chong Li]

 

[Flavia]

This is Barto's excuse, after his testimony:
“en ningún caso Tito es responsable de nada más que de haberlo traído y creo que Tito no se equivocó. En la Audiencia lo único que hice fue decir la verdad, no hay que elogiarme a mi ni a Rosell , fue un acierto de Tito”

"Tito is responsible for bringing Neymar, nothing more, and I believe he got it right. I just told the truth in the audience, no one should compliment me or rosell, it was something Tito got right"

If it was unclear before, now it's obvious he is saying Neymar came earlier only because of Tito. Seriously, this guy... now let's wait for jamdav excuses for him.

 

[JamDav1982]

If asked to tell the story from the beginning, then yes it's not inappropriate to mention that Tito (the coach) wanted him, as one of the reasons they went for him.

But, if what the article that Pacp_96 links to is correct in that Bartomeu "said up to three times that it was Tito Vilanova's decision to bring in Neymar a year earlier, which made signing him €42m more expensive", then that's just tasteless and wrong. Firstly, it wasn't just Tito who wanted Neymar early, so already at point one he's putting blame on Tito for forcing Barca to move for Neymar in a way that made him more expensive.

Secondly, if he then proceeds to insinuate that this increased price of signing Neymar is also the reason why Barca is being charged for tax-fraud in the first place (as if the problem was the price alone, and not the way the contracts and payments were handled), then that quickly begins to smack of wanting to level out the blame to remove pressure from himself. And doing it using a completely innocent man who has passed away and can't defend himself. Tasteless and wrong.

Now, I haven't read any direct quotes and don't know exactly what was said, so all of this hinges on Bartomeus exact wording to be honest. I agree, there is nothing wrong in mentioning Tito as one of the reasons the club wanted to go for Neymar in the first place. But it has to stop there, completely.

The press are saying Barto called it Titos decision but the quotes from Barto said Tito 'asked' for the transfer and was happy for Villa to continue if couldnt. Also saying Tito had idea of economics involved.

This is being spun as if Barto made out Tito demanded Neymar and they could do nothing but oblige.

 

[Flavia]

This is being spun as if Barto made out Tito demanded Neymar and they could do nothing but oblige.

That's what he said. And did it again, when seemingly upset his words were being "twisted". After all, he keeps saying they did nothing wrong. He's just using Tito as a shield now.

 

[Sumlit]

This is Barto's excuse, after his testimony:
“en ningún caso Tito es responsable de nada más que de haberlo traído y creo que Tito no se equivocó. En la Audiencia lo único que hice fue decir la verdad, no hay que elogiarme a mi ni a Rosell , fue un acierto de Tito”

"Tito is responsible for bringing Neymar, nothing more, and I believe he got it right. I just told the truth in the audience, no one should compliment me or rosell, it was something Tito got right"

If it was unclear before, now it's obvious he is saying Neymar came earlier only because of Tito. Seriously, this guy... now let's wait for jamdav excuses for him.

Your translation needs a tweak.

“en ningún caso Tito es responsable de nada más que de haberlo traído y creo que Tito no se equivocó.."

this translates better into

"in no other way was Tito responsible for anything other than bringing Neymar and I believe he got it right."

 

[JamDav1982]

That's what he said. And did it again, when seemingly upset his words were being "twisted". After all, he keeps saying they did nothing wrong. He's just using Tito as a shield now.

All he has said is that Tito asked for them to bring Neymar in and understood if they couldn't and would carry on with Villa.

He then went on to distance Tito from economic side of deal saying he had no idea of figures involved.

 

[Flavia]

All he has said is that Tito asked for them to bring Neymar in and understood if they couldn't and would carry on with Villa.

He then went on to distance Tito from economic side of deal saying he had no idea of figures involved.

No, he said all the praise from signing Neymar should go to Tito, not to him or rosell. But keep on going defending these crooks.

 

[JamDav1982]

No, he said all the praise from signing Neymar should go to Tito, not to him or rosell. But keep on going defending these crooks.

Before saying that he made point of saying in no wat is he blaming Tito for anything that had gone wrong.

He is praising Tito for making the choice to go for Neymar the player and completely distancing him from the economic aspect.

He did that in court and done it again in statement today.