Calciopoli/Farsopoli

[JuveSissoko]

Juventini , ko zna engleski jezik, Gsol se vratio na forum juventuz.com, malo otidjite na temu calciopoli, taj lik ubada sve gotivno, vec godinama povremeno se javi, sjajan je, jedini koji je detaljno to sve razradio, mnogo toga otkriva i rezonuje sjajno, eto pa pratite njegove postove, jasno ce mnogima a meni odavno jeste, sta su nam uradili

[JuveSissoko]

Gsol, evo jedan zavrsni post o njeogovm misljenju u vezi ishoda svega ovoga, realno, nista specijalno se nece desit,sve ce to da se odradi iza zatvorenih vrata,u zavisnosti hoce li Moggi biti dovoljno jak da se suprostavi danas mnogo jacim

"This takes me to the last point. What is the most likely outcome?

There are those here who say nothing will happen. There are those who say that the team will receive hundreds of millions in damages, 2 titles, Inter in B, and an apology. Both are extremes and I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

If Moggi is unsuccessful he will make an appeal to the next highest court and the process will repeat itself all over again leaving us to debate for another couple of years. If Moggi is successful he and Juventus will hold cards in their hands that will carry some weight and the FIGC are aware of that.

A few years ago financial restitution and Inter relegation were possibilities because Telecom’s sponsorship was expiring. The FIGC would have been held liable and would have made the claim that they were swindled by Telecom and Auricchio who obstructed justice passing liability to them putting the onus on them to pay. They have since renewed the sponsorship so that ship has sailed.

Inter will not be relegated in my opinion. No matter what they did the team’s directors are the same directors at Telecom that keep the league afloat so they are protected.

Suing the media may be a possibility for Moggi but would be counterproductive for Juve now considering the sponsorships that exist between them and the RCS Media Group.

In the end, this scandal will likely end the same way it started, behind closed doors with suits, wine, and cigars. If Moggi is successful a compromise will likely be reached allowing all parties to save face. Some lucrative sponsorship deals may come our way, maybe some titles will go back to where they belong, and an apology is not at all unrealistic. Hundreds of millions in damages won’t be in the cards though. No one will bankrupt themselves for us.

This is Italy we are talking about. I am proud of my heritage but I am not blind. Heroes founded the country, heroes liberated the country, but criminals run it now and that will not change for football."

[amell]

zivi bili i vidjeli uskoro kako nam vracaju nazad titule

Valja se nadati , al' veca je sansa da ce vam oduzeti i onu iz 2007., nego vam vratiti ove sto ste pokrali.

Nek je oduzmu i tako nismo tu trebali igrati:D Al vratit ce nam nesikiram se ja,, ima jos da se izvinu da cijeli svijet vidi

a imas li ti i tvoj babo i mama i brat i seka neke koristi od toga ako se juventusu vrate titule

[SoloJuve26]

Valja se nadati , al' veca je sansa da ce vam oduzeti i onu iz 2007., nego vam vratiti ove sto ste pokrali. [/quote]

Nek je oduzmu i tako nismo tu trebali igrati:D Al vratit ce nam nesikiram se ja,, ima jos da se izvinu da cijeli svijet vidi [/quote]
a imas li ti i tvoj babo i mama i brat i seka neke koristi od toga ako se juventusu vrate titule [/quote]


Koji si ti lik bog ti pomogo,,, ljeci se

[JuveSissoko]

http://forum.giulemanidallajuve.com/for ... =1266&st=0

[Rosas7]

sta ce im vratit lopovi jedni,nije im trebalo dat da uopce igraju
nikad mi nisu bili dragi

[JuveSissoko]

Borrelli admits Calciopoli was a farce.

- I couldn't ask for the phone calls/transcripts.
- They sent some to me after they showed up in the papers.
- I got only the ones to penalize Juve.
- If I had the ones from other clubs then it would have been a whole new story.
- I was deprived of all the facts.
- It was embarrassing using only certain calls/transcripts and not allowing the defense to defend itself to the Sporting Court.

evo izjave onog lika sto je olaksao dusu neki dan

[sarajlija89]

"Ten reasons why Calciopoli still keeps not convince me" di Antonio Corsa

10) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

I am a defender of civil rights and I respect the statute of limitations which is a cornerstone of our legal system, a fundamental defence for every defendant. It holds good for everyone, including Inter. And it lasts for four years, not eight (as after the modification of the sport codes in July 2007). It could be bypassed with a “political” action, but that is another issue, and I do not care. Let us stick to the rules and to the interpretation “of law”: it does exist.

Is that it? No, it is not.

What has happened since 2006 onwards cannot be trivialized so easily. The Office of the Public Prosecutor in Naples officially closed the investigation on the 7th of April 2007. In a reasonable Country, nothing should have been known before that day. Wiretap transcriptions were not supposed to appear on the newspapers, gallows were not needed, no media driven trials had to be initiated, and, let alone, no sports trials. The statutory waiting period, to which the “Honest ones” (the Inter people –Ed.) are now clinging, would have been widely expired for Juventus as well. But it did not happen. Why? Because, in May 2006, someone thought to “freeze” it, pushing a whole library of wiretap transcriptions (along with some audio files) to several national newspapers which, in the rush to publish everything, even forgot to delete a few phone numbers. A race to the scoop that swept away some teams and interrupted the statute of limitations. Moggi was the monster and, for Juventus (as for the other subjects involved in Calciopoli 1), the statute of limitations hasn’t elapsed only because someone illegally slipped the documentation to the newspapers. The phone calls involving Inter, instead, were not there (in May 2006) for various reasons (i.e.: partiality of the investigations made by the chief inquirer Auricchio, inactivity of the FIGC, the italian football federation, which – although they questioned the referee De Santis as well as the referees chiefs Bergamo and Pairetto, and although all of them confirmed to the Chief Prosecutor Borrelli to have been in contact, by phone and personally, with Inter managers – never wanted to investigate this track, deferring the opening of a new inquiry to April 2010, when the statutory waiting period had elapsed). This is the reason why the nerazzurri are now able to bring up the statute of limitations.

That can not be fair.

And it cannot be fair because, in the case of Juventus (not elapsed) waiting period, something illegal happened – a news leak – to freeze the time. On the contrary, for Inter the time elapsed only because the FIGC, although they already held all the official deeds from the prosecutor as well as the confessions from the questioned people, and although they even had the documentation regarding the Telecom illegal shadowing and wiretapping campaign against some affiliated subjects (Moggi, Fabiani etc.), “forgot” (let us be diplomatic) to open a new investigation involving the nerazzurri. Therefore, it is acceptable, and I said it in the introduction, asserting that the statutory waiting period has elapsed for Inter. But, for intellectual honesty, it should be mentioned and explained why.

9) THE DE GREGORIO’S AND THE POLICE INFORMATIVE REPORTS MISTAKES


There is really plenty of them. Mistakes of every nature: disallowed goals never actually scored, falsified scores, supposed fraudulent bookings for players who were not cautioned before, false sending-offs, “fraudulent” sending-offs for a punch in the face. A compilation of horrors that makes quite unstable the entire investigation and, unfortunately, the judge De Gregorio’s abbreviated trial sentence as well. In particular, there is an episode that grabbed my attention and involves the former referee Paolo Dondarini, convicted to two years in jail. I will report what is mostly worryingly, and that is about one of the two allegations he has been charged with.

I am refferring to the match Chievo-Fiorentina 1-2.

Following is what the Federal Court of Appeal (CAF – first stage of the sporting trial) presided by Cesare Ruperto declared in relation to the match refereed by Dondarini who intentionally helped Fiorentina, denying a penalty to Chievo in the injury time (obviously everything has to be inserted in the context of saving Fiorentina from relegation, with involvement of Della Valle, Lanese and clearly Moggi and Bergamo. I am going to save you that chapter.); according to the Court, this is a sport offence, a cheat punished by the Article 6 of the code of sport conduct.

Due to Mazzini’s persistent action, it was possible to obtain referee Dondarini’s appointment which was communicated from Mazzini to Mencucci (phone conversation on the 5th of May 2005, 13:26, prog:12528), taking also credits for Fiorentina’s win as well as the decisive cooperation of Dondarini who, as a matter of fact, denied Chievo a clear penalty in the injury time of the second half for a foul on the Verona’s player Cossato (phone conversation on the 9th of May 2005, 16:59 – prog.12779).

For the records, the foul was committed by Ujfalusi, and, to be honest, was worth the penalty (my personal judgement).

But here is the interpretation of the Federal Court (second stage of the sport trial – Ed) presided by Sandulli who reduced the charge regarding the misconduct of the subjects involved in the phone calls “surrounding” the game to a mere violation of the Art.1, and also acquitted Dondarini, being impossible to prove that the offence was done intentionally (and, in short, that the error was not only an error).

The CAF has considered as proved the charges formulated in relation to the match Chievo Verona – Fiorentina played on the 8th of May 2005 and involving, as previously mentioned, Diego Della Valle, Andrea Della Valle, Sandro Mencucci, Innocenzo Mazzini and ACF Fiorentina for their misconduct aiming to fix the match and the referee Paolo Dondarini for receiving and accepting from Bergamo indications and specific instructions about the attitude to assume in order to guarantee a well-disposed refereeing for the Tuscan team. The first judges assigned a substantial gravity to the phone calls existing between the suspects (apart from Dondarini), which would have been effective as a preliminary act to realize the expected illegal outcome, and to a phone conversation, occurred shortly after the game, between the President Lanese and a journalist, with a negative comment on the performance of the referee, to whom, according to the same journalist, “were sent signals”. At this point, the Court believes, granted the appeal of the suspects, that the necessary evidence to prove the perpetration of the considered offence is missing, without prejudice to the following clarifications, relative to the expectation of punishable misconducts as from Art.1. of the code of sport conduct. In particular, the assessment of probationary insufficiency issues, preponderantly, from the impossibility to consider established the existence of the technical segment. And in fact, nothing proves, nor allows for the suspicion, that the referee Dondarini was aware of someone else’s criminal plan, nor that he would have part, in whatsoever way, in it, nor that he would shape his refereeing to advantage Fiorentina, nor that the alleged (just like the malicious phone conversation between a third party) technical error was maliciously biased, nor that he was reached by whatsoever “signal”. Lacking, for the just explained arguments, the umpire’s segment – which implies, obviously, the Dondarini’s acquittal on the charges for which he was remitted, with resulting correction of the subject of the contested decision – is, as a natural effect, irreparably flawed the outlined structure of the offence the other remitted subjects have been charged with, subjects for whom the causal efficacy needed to accomplish the task has to be rejected. Indeed, the several phone conversations occurred the days before the match had, once more, a generic character and always alluded to the need for Fiorentina to escape from the impending danger of relegation. But in none of them it was discussed an intervention aiming to influence the referees appointments; nor there are, in the proceedings official documents, conversations about an appointment concretely occurred or evidence of pressure put on a referee. Likewise generic is the phone call, after the match, between Mazzini and Mencucci in which it seemingly is defined as “foul of confusion” the one which the referee did not sanctioned inside the Fiorentina penalty box: nothing proves that such allusion implied Dondarini’s bad faith or connivance, being reasonably possible to assume that the statement was due to the excitement for the victory of Mencucci’s team. Nevertheless, the Court believes, conforming to a reasoning already set to support decisions dealing with analogous cases present in this trial, that the misconducts of every suspect (with exception, clearly, of Dondarini, whose position seems absolutely clear and free of any dark spots), revealing improper, inapt and excessively familiar phone relationships of club members and executives with the Federal Vice President (who should have been warrantor of the neutrality of the federation, rather than an active supporter of an affiliated team and a promoter of further contacts between Diego Della Valle and one of the referee’s chiefs), stand out, in the perspective of the Art.1, for their deal unsportsmanship and unfairness.

Personally, according to the available documentation, this seems to me more like a rational and respectful of the civil rights interpretation. Making such judgement is not up to me, but giving an opinion is licit.

Finally, the judge De Gregorio (judge of the preliminary hearing and of the abbreviated trial) reports the motivation for the prison sentence for Dondarini in the first instance of the abbreviated trial. I will show you only an abstract (p.157).

On the other hand, in this case it has to be highlighted that Dondarini, disallowing a goal for Chievo for unclear reasons and even in the injury time, made a decision which determined the final score as beneficial to Fiorentina and consistent with his partisanship.

A disallowed goal never scored!!! Even this is, if you like, Calciopoli. And this is exactly the reason why it is so unconvincing.

8) THE SCUDETTO AWARDED BY NOBODY


Who awarded the 2005/06 Scudetto? Let us go through a few declarations by the people directly involved.

Cesare Ruperto, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court and former president of the FIGC Federal Commission of Appeal (CAF) during Calciopoli. He pronounced the first harsh sentence on the 14th of July 2006.

“Try to read my sentence once more: revocation of the title of champions of Italy 2004/05; non-assignment of the title of champions of Italy for the 2005/06 season”

Piero Sandulli, former President of the FIGC Federal Court during Calciopoli. He pronounced the

second sentence on the 25th of July 2006.

“Back then I expressed an adverse opinion about awarding the 2006 Scudetto to Inter because the Scudetti must be won on the pitch and not by forfeit. Unawarding, as for the previous season championship, would have been more appropriate. I am not aware of pressures from UEFA aiming to award the title in any case but our own decision let intend that awarding that Scudetto was not appropriate. Our decision was an ethical sentence due to a persistent violation of the Art.1 of the code, the article about sport loyalty.”

Luca Pancalli, President of the paralympic committee and former FIGC Special Commissioner right after Calciopoli.

“Rush to award the Scudetto to Inter? At that time the former commissioner Guido Rossi relied on the opinion of a panel made by “the three sages” who clarified the situation explaining that the Scudetto could or could not be awarded. In light of that decision Rossi decided to award Inter. I have always asserted it could have been left unawarded.”

Gerhard Aigner, former UEFA general secretary, one of the “three sages” chosen by Guido Rossi to verify the existence of the essential requirements to award Inter the Scudetto (as requested by Massimo Moratti).

“It was Rossi and not myself to award Inter the Scudetto. I only received a positive opinion, based on the statute, about the generic possibility to re-award the title after the revocation to Juventus”.

Roberto Pardolesi, full professor of private comparative law at the Luiss Guido Carli and one of the “three sages” appointed by Guido Rossi:

“If new elements arose, a new prosecution would be necessary. Obviously, if new elements come out with respect to the ones we were given to formulate our evaluation, the latter should be done ex novo or at least reinstated. If the material at our disposal was not complete, our evaluation would be surpassed by the events, but this is something I do not know. If new facts arose, they could be analyzed; it would be necessary starting a new trial and therefore, from this point of view, the statutory waiting time has not elapsed yet.”

UEFA has its own regulations. In particular, on the basis of art 1.02 of the competition rules the nerazzurri would have been anyway considered “winner of the top domestic league championship”, even without being awarded with the title of champions of Italy. And they would have regularly taken part in the next Champions League without going through the preliminary round.

Franco Carraro, president of FIGC who resigned immediately after the eruption of Calciopoli.

“A serious mistake of sport policy was made by the commissioner Guido Rossi. I read on the newspapers that the reason was the pressure put from UEFA and from IOC. I rule out any type of pressure.”

Only Guido Rossi is left, but he – we are still in Italy – rejected the allegation claiming that Luciano Moggi and Franco Carraro, with their behaviour, awarded Inter the Scudetto.

A paltry buck passing. One thing is for sure: it was requested and obtained by Massimo Moratti.

And this is what Moratti said on the 16th of July 2006: “We deserve the Scudetto because a subtle distinction must be made between those who carried on a certain system and those who have always respected the rules: between who cheated and who is honest. Yes – he goes on – it would be a wrong message not to award the Scudetto. A bad sign not only to the italian sporting scene, but to the whole world. Something that would allow to think that really everyone was cheating. We are not, we raise our hands and shout: “We are not. We have nothing to do with this corrupt system”. I would say the same things if an other team was in the third place. Scudetto is a right for those who behaved, the title must be given to those who stood out from the others”. Pathetic.

7) GALDI’S AND GAZZETTA DELLO SPORT ROLE


Here is a brilliant article by Enzo Ricchiuti:

I met Galdi. The Gazzetta correspondent in Naples. He is a placid and silent man. Often in the last row. Few notes, the mobile, some newspapers. The lowest profile of all, almost down to the ground. He looks uncomfortable. In a different dimension. As if he was counting, idle and hopeful, only the days passing by. As if he was attending a formal visit so not to be bothered. Lifted out of the hectic background. Halfway between being lost in his thoughts and feeling upset. No cross-examinations could change a thing. In that crowd of doubtful and curious people from everywhere, the only constant is his indifference. In that blessed hearing room everything could change, but not Galdi. And the fact that he moves like an ornament: motionless. Well. A security. The only doubt was if this was awkwardness or simply tediousness. But on that as well we put a full stop.

In the transcripts concerning the acceptance of the police informative reports by the Public Prosecutor of Rome, there are interesting statements about the information leakage during the Calciopoli investigation.

Major Auricchio’s statement:

“Galdi was a useful **** to investigate the football scene. Contacts with him began at the end of 2003. We are friends and I used him to learn investigative news as a part of the football inquiry. He used to call me often to keep me informed on all the events coming to his knowledge inside the sport scene. He was doing it because he felt rewarded by cooperating with the detectives…”

Marshal Di Laroni’s statement:

“During the investigation for the Prosecutor of Naples we used Galdi to learn information on football, usually to help us finding useful website for the investigation as well as for general information. He was in touch with major Auricchio and myself; the contacts were occasional, sometimes in person some other times on the phone. The contacts were mostly made at the beginning of the investigation, late 2004; he used to call me often to grab some news about the investigation; I used to call him to find out news I was interested in… During the drafting of the second informative report, we were trying to understand how the random draw to pick the referees was held, I asked Galdi for some news and he sent me back, through the department institutional mailbox, a message with the rules the referees chiefs had agreed to use to hold the draw. Then, I politely lodged for him a petition against a fine he had received for violating the traffic regulation”.

“…Furthermore, after the leak, Galdi complained with me and with major Auricchio about the fact that he had provided his contribution receiving nothing in exchange, unlike some other of his colleagues.”

Chart of duties of a journalist:

Principles: “…a journalist cannot accept advantages, favours or duties which can affect his independence and professional credibility. The journalist must not omit facts or details essential to a complete reconstruction of the events…”

Presumption of innocence: ”For every investigation or trial, the journalist must always remember that every person accused of a crime is innocent until the final conviction has been pronounced and he must not report the news so to present as guilty whoever has not been sentenced as such in a trial…”

Incompatibility:”…The journalist must not undertake any duties or responsibilities in contrast with the independent practice of the profession”.

6) COLLINA WAS NEVER PUNISHED, NOR INVESTIGATED. WHY?


As we recently found out by listening to the “like it or not” phone calls, the former referee and current referees’ chief Collina had a very friendly and close relationship with Leonardo Meani (AC Milan employee – Ed), and used to approach the AC Milan executive and President of the Football League Adriano Galliani (and Fazi?) in order to sponsor his nomination as future referees’ chief. An inadmissible position (just imagine if Moggi had held a relationship with De Santis, and if the latter, once retired, had contacted Bettega to build his career…). On the 10th of April 2010 we found out through the words of “the idiot that counts”, Giancarlo Abete, that “the wiretap between Collina and Meani come out in the past few days and published as new is actually old, well-known and already assessed by the body of the sporting justice”.

Assessed? And how? Let us delve into it.

The phone call between Collina and Meani was assessed, analyzed and judged by Marcello Cardona, national referee prosecutor, and already resulted in the referral of Pierluigi Collina “for maintaining during the 2004-05 season and in any case until the end of August 2005, illicit contacts with subjects affiliated to A.C.Milan dealing with issues regarding the referee business; with particular regard to the contacts with the affiliated Leonardo Meani. It is disputed the aggravating circumstance about the prejudice caused to the reputation of AIA (the italian referee association – Ed), due to notoriety of the facts.” The act of the referral submitted from Marcello Cardona to the italian federation FIGC, stigmatized the behaviour of the former referee: ”Collina’s misconduct appears significant on a disciplinary level due to the clear inconvenience of the contacts made with Meani the day after a Milan match refereed by him, characterised by a violent controversy originated by some of the referee’s decisions. Such behaviour has been without any doubts untimely and clashing with the position of impartiality and independence which, even in terms of image, characterize the essence of the referee figure. It should be stressed that the relationship with the President of the League (Galliani – Ed) turned out to be inconvenient as well, in fact, as Collina admitted, Galliani was able to complain for what happened during the match Siena-Milan”. And Cardona also considered unacceptable the justifications Collina brought up for contacting Meani as a link to Galliani.

Now it is time to explain why and in the name of what, in 2006, while sorting among facts, phone calls, bans and referrals, someone decided that Collina’s referral, signed by the prosecutor Marcello Cardona, had to end up forgotten in a drawer of the FIGC instead of landing on the table of the sporting justice. The referee Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the report to the Investigation Office and the prosecutor Marcello Cardona clearly asked for disciplinary measures in the act of referral. That act ended up in a drawer of the FIGC and Collina became referees’ chief. Who decided to close that drawer? That year the whole referee class paid heavily, while Collina was rewarded with a promotion to referees’ chief.

5) THE WIRETAPS THAT FIGC LOST (OR NEVER HAD).


The FIGC general director Antonello Valentini said on the 16th of April:”For every case of legal nature we follow the judiciary Bench. We verified with the FIGC federal prosecutor (Palazzi, since 2007) that we never had those CD’s (containing the wiretaps – Ed). On the 15th of December 2007, in Naples, Palazzi asked for the documents and three large folders, concerning facts and events for which the statute of limitation had elapsed for three months, were delivered to us on Christmas Eve”. Translated: FIGC never had the CD’s with the audio files of the phone calls, wiretapped by the police. How did they collect the evidence for Calciopoli? Reading the Gazzetta?

4) THE NEWS LEAK: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY?

In 2007 the then-major Auricchio (the police officer in charge of the investigation – Ed) said, before the Public Prosecutor of the Tribunal of Rome, that the three summary informative reports drafted by his unit on “Calciopoli” were protected by a password shared with the colleagues who where working with him on the same investigation. The password was also known by his superior Colonel Arcangioli (try to google him, just out of curiosity) who requested and obtained to learn it. On the 13th of May 2006, Saturday, major Auricchio questions the referee Gianluca Paparesta who issues “statements of particular interest from the point of view of the investigation”. A few days later, undisclosed news leak to the TV programme “Matrix” and, afterwards, to the newspaper “Corriere della Sera” revealing statements released during the examination. At that stage Auricchio and his colleagues try to reconstruct the events. The Sunday following the questioning, still Arcangioli asks for and obtains by his colleagues, Di Laroni and Vucetic, a printout of the minutes of the examination. Auricchio sees Arcangioli with the journalist Sarzanini, and Galdi tells him to have glimpsed a dossier on the journalist’s desk, probably about Paparesta.

As for the police informative reports themselves, although the magazine “L’Espresso” was the first one to publish the news regarding the investigation in Naples, their articles, according to Auricchio, were based only on the informative report of the Turin investigation and not on their reports. The so-called “Black Book of Soccer” (published later on by “L’Espresso” – Ed) was instead, still according to him, simply bought from another magazine when the informative reports were already “on the market” (proved by the fact that they were also offered to a second magazine, “Panorama”).

The first magazine to publish news from their informative reports was “Il Romanista”, directed by Riccardo Luna. According to Auricchio, Luna used to have several “institutional” links.

“I do not think the news disclosure was driven by business reasons because this would require a criminal mentality; but I think there has been an accumulation of interests, as the one to jeopardize the investigations”. This is how Auricchio concluded his statement. Hard to believe.

A question is still left: why did the leak happen, if it could have jeopardized the investigations? Probably, excluding the “Auricchiese” interpretation, pretty much nothing in it had a crime potential, but from a sport-related point of view there was enough material to start a trial against the soccer scene (which “like it or not”, did not involve Inter). Without that news leak, in fact, it is worth reminding, the statute of limitations would have applied to every subject involved, including Juventus. And, for the same reason, the fact that, at that time, the phone call wiretaps involving Inter did not leak out allowed for the same calls to enter the statute of limitations date.

Who had an interest in leaking these news to the newspapers? Why? The answer to this question would probably unveil many of the current mysteries of Calciopoli.

3) THE STRANGE TANGLES INTER-TELECOM-FIGC-FIAT


Dangerous plots, those occurring on the axis FIGC-Telecom-FIAT. Let us reorganize the ideas step-by-step.

2006: Giuliano Tavaroli, former security chief of Pirelli before and Telecom afterwards, during the examination, confesses to the Public Prosecutor of Milan that Massimo Moratti organized an investigation on Calciopoli over two years earlier than the major Attilio Auricchio, arranging an investigation on the fringe of legality against referees, referees’ chiefs and Juventus. Since 2002, therefore, an investigation – illegal – begun against some of the defendants of Calciopoli. Obviously the **** of these information is Giuliano Tavaroli, and the responsibility for such statements belongs to him.

May 16, 2006: Guido Rossi, former President of Telecom, becomes Special Commissioner for the italian football federation FIGC. Gianni Petrucci (president of the italian olympic committee, CONI – Ed) announces him with these words: ”We needed to pick a person outside of our world, as we said, and the professor is a person about whom nobody can say ‘he is a friend of…he is not a friend of…’”. An arguable statement, if nothing else, considering he has unquestionably been, among other things, a financial executive of Inter and member of the Board of Directors of nerazzurri. As if this was not enough, one of his deputies, Paolo Nicoletti, is the lawyer Francesco Nicoletti’s son, from Calabria, who has defended the Moratti family for decades.

May 23, 2006: Guido Rossi appoints Francesco Saverio Borrelli as the new Chief of the FIGC Federal Investigation office, replacing the discouraged Pappa. One of the two deputies is Federico Maurizio D’Andrea, Lieutenant Colonel of the Guardia di Finanza (a body of the police responsible for custom and investigating fraud - Ed) in Bergamo.

September 15, 2006: After Marco Tronchetti Provera’s resignation, Guido Rossi is appointed again President of Telecom Italy.

September 20, 2006: As soon as Calciopoli is over, Saverio Borrelli and his deputies, D’Andrea and Falcicchia, resign from the Investigation Office. Later, D’Andrea will be hired by Telecom replacing Tavaroli in the security unit. De facto, he will become recognized as the number 3 in Telecom.

September 21, 2006: The FIGC Special Commissioner Guido Rossi, new President of Telecom, gives up his mandate followed by his Deputy Commissioners, Vito Gamberale and Paolo Nicoletti. He is replaced by Luca Pancalli.

September 27, 2006: After talking to the new FIGC Special Commissioner Luca Pancalli, Francesco Saverio Borrelli changes his mind and withdraw his resignation.

March 2007: The Public Prosecutor of Milan sends to the FIGC a file containing, among other things, the aforementioned Giuliano Tavaroli’s statement on the shadowing activity arranged by Telecom.

April 2007: The former referee Massimo De Santis accuses Telecom of illegal telephone tapping ans tailing. The same fate happens, among others, to Bobo Vieri and Fabiani (former executive of Messina). Have a look to what Silvia Morescanti, Fabiani’s and Bergamo’s lawyer, has to say in this respect in a TV programme about Calciopoli aired on SportItalia last April 6, 2006:

“During the Telecom trial in Milan, it has come to the light, although it was already present in the official acts since 2006, that some of the referees and some of the team executives, including Fabiani, were tailed. All these documents came into the hands of Borrelli in April 2007. In 2007 the italian federation was well aware of what had happened. What did they do against Inter considering that, from that investigation, it clearly comes out that the instigators of tailing some people in the world of football were Moratti and Facchetti? The Federation has these documents, I have evidence, I have the documentation and I took it to CONI (the olympic italian committee – Ed) when I defended Fabiani and I even sent it to them in order to start a trial against Inter. The Federation has been silent and reckoned that starting such a crucial proceedings was not necessary.”

Here is, instead, what Emanuele Cipriani, the man of the Telecom dossiers, says in an interview with the TV programme “Report” aired on RaiTre, May 16, 2010:

Q. Some of your dossiers concern Inter players, the referee De Santis…

A. Yes.

Q. …later involved in Calciopoli, right?

A. Yeah, right!

Q. Who instructed you to do it?

A. The activity on the referee De Santis was requested and paid for by Pirelli, while the inspection of the behaviours – because there were rumors that these players had rather unorthodox rendez-vous and they could not properly perform on the pitch – was requested by Pirelli but billed to Inter.

Q. Was Tronchetti Provera aware of these activities, as far as you know?

A. In my presence several times Mr Tavaroli lifted the phone, touched on something and, automatically, very often – given that those were the most delicate files – Tavaroli used to stand up and walk away, leaving me there, heading for Dr.Tronchetti’s office.

April 2, 2007: Giancarlo Abete is appointed as new President of the FIGC replacing the Special Commissioner Luca Pancalli.

April 6, 2007: Guido Rossi resigns as President and member of the Board of Directors of Telecom.

June 2007: Francesco Saverio Borrelli resigns again.

June 23, 2007: The FIGC officially closes the proceedings against Inter for the “Telecom case” due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

July 1, 2007: The new “Code of Sports Justice” comes into force.

March 8, 2008: The journalist Fabio Tamburini writes on the newspaper “Il Sole 24 Ore” that Guido Rossi has been a consultant for FIAT for the last few weeks.

March 10, 2008: The lawyer Berardino Libonati is appointed President of Telecom Italia Media. Among other things, he is Gabetti’s (President of Exor) legal advisor in the lawsuit brought up by Margherita Agnelli to clarify the issues regarding Gianni Agnelli’s inheritance.

This is how probably the high finance works, and presumably all the appointed people are estimated professionals with irreproachable morals. For sure, some of the designations are, it can be said, a bit inappropriate.

2) “LIKE IT OR NOT”, INTER WAS IGNORED


Here is an article published by ANSA (italian news agency) on October 27, 2008:

Naples, October 27 – “The defendants might like it or not but phone calls between Bergamo or Pairetto (the two referees’chiefs – Ed) and Mister Moratti, Mister Sensi (at that time President of Rome – Ed) or Mister Campedelli, President of Chievo, do not exist…”. With these words the Prosecutor Giuseppe Narducci settles the theory according to which, within the sphere of all the illicit contacts between managers, referees and referees’ chiefs emerged in the Calciopoli investigation, it would simply be an “everyone-solicits-everyone-for-benefits” world. A theory supported by some defendants only to, according to the investigators, downsize the position and the responsibilities of those involved in the judicial proceedings. To disprove this version, suggested several times in interviews and comments, it was the Prosecutor Narducci’s final speech, before the preliminary hearing judge Eduardo De Gregorio, at the opening of the first hearing of the trial against the eleven defendants who requested the shortened trial. A final speech that will require Narducci and his fellow colleague Filippo Beatrice at least two more hearings, beginning next 12th of December. According to the Neapolitan Prosecutor, the theory of a widespread system where everyone had close contacts with everyone is “rubbish proved wrong by the evidence”. In thousands of wiretaps, pointed out the Prosecutor, “only those people (the current defendants – Ed) are present because they only had contacts with the football authorities”. ”Mobile phones were tapped 24/7: the evidence proves that it is untrue that all the team executives used to call Bergamo, Pairetto, Mazzini (FIGC Vice President) or Lanese (President of italian referee association, AIA): the people who established a relationship with them are Moggi, Giraudo, Foti, Lotito, Andrea Della Valle and Diego Della Valle”. And this is also true for the “occult” SIM cards, a bunch of SIMs that Moggi would have given to referees and referees’ chiefs. “There are not SIMs belonging to Mr.Moratti or Mr.Sensi, there are instead the SIMs we already mentioned”, said Narducci.

Two years later, there is no need to add more. Or maybe there is.

Here is Bergamo’s (former referees’ chief – Ed) interview with the newspaper “Repubblica” on the 8th of June 2006:

Q. Did you or did you not use to talk on the phone with Moggi?

A. With Moggi? Sure, with him and with everyone else. As it had to be. I used to talk with Capello, Sacchi…normal, perfectly normal.

Q. The police claim there has been a secret lunch in your house, in Collesalvetti, with the Juventus executives.

A. Nonsense! The championship was almost over, Juventus was playing in Livorno and they had already won the Scudetto. Yes, Moggi and Giraudo came to dinner at my house, so what?

Q. The policemen were posted at the gate…

A. At the gate, down the road, wherever they were…In the past I had invited for dinner also Galliani and managers of Inter as well as other clubs. I am sorry, but what is wrong with it?

On the same day, Borrelli’s (federal prosecutor – Ed) team questions Bergamo from 9.10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Bergamo immediately confesses to the deputies of the Investigation Office, D’Andrea and De Feo, that he was in contact with many other executives. As it can be read in examination report, this is what Bergamo said: “I never refused to talk about the probable grid composition (the grid used to randomly draw the referees and assign them to the different matches – Ed), which anyway needed to be discussed with Pairetto (the referees’ co-chief along with Bergamo – Ed), with all the other executives who made request. The habit of talking about the grid or about the referees to insert in the grid, I confirm once more, involved other team executives as well (among the others Facchetti, Meani, Capello and Sacchi). I am not aware if Pairetto used to talk with others about this matter. And I point out that the grid composition was an “open secret” because the referees were certainly identifiable by the experts”.

The day ends with Bergamo as a guest of the TV programme “Matrix”. “In the TV programme hosted by Enrico Mentana, Paolo Bergamo said that phone calls to him and his colleague Pierluigi Pairetto made by executives of several clubs were very frequent. Bergamo has frankly revealed that he used to talk to everyone and welcome to his house, even for the night, the President of Inter Giacinto Facchetti. In particular, he said he used to receive often phone calls from Inter managers, the team later awarded with the Scudetto 2005-2006. Also in the interview, the former referees’ chief, said that during the 2003-2004 football season he has spoken several times to the former Roma coach, Fabio Capello”.

Let us talk about the former referee Massimo De Santis: this is what he said in a TV programme aired on Antenna3, on the 30th of April 2007.

“I declare that I have never, and I mean never, talked on the phone with Luciano Moggi and that I have never received an international SIM card from him. I am going to say more. I used to talk regularly with other football team executives. I was in contact with Facchetti and Meani. With Giacinto Facchetti I had an excellent relationship and I have to admit that in many circumstances he was very obsessive (…). Moratti is well aware of this. I am sorry I have to mention a person who passed away. I am available to make all my phone records public so that everyone will know that these contacts were real. Meani? We got in touch very often and it makes me laugh when he is treated as a delivery boy or a caregiver.”

Finally, here is Rosario Coppola, former Serie A linesman, interviewed by “calciomercato.com” on the 6th of April 2020, who confirms a deposition in the Naples trial:

Q. First you told the FIGC everything and then, after Calciopoli erupted, you communicated it to the police.

A. “When I met the police officers, I was surprise from their attitude: it seemed like they were not interested in the subject, maybe because what I was saying was not following the direction they had taken. They were very hasty, saying they did not have wiretapping on Inter”.

Q. Now there are.

A. “I am not surprised. Now we talk about Inter, but everyone was involved”.

Q. Why were you the only one to speak out?

A. “Because I have stopped being a linesman”.

Finally, I remind you, thanks to the help of my friend Gabriele Capasso, I realized a dossier to compare the phone calls “nailing down” Luciano Moggi reported in the CAF (the sport federal court – Ed) verdict, with the ones regarding Giacinto Facchetti, at that time President of Inter. Is everyone sure they were not “relevant”?

1) THE APPEALABLE “MORAL” SENTENCE


Juventus was relegated to Serie B with a heavy points penalty, losing two Scudetti with no proof of actually fixing (or attempting to) a single match. No violation of Article 6 of the code of sport conduct (which refers to a sport offence – Ed), but few violations of the Article 1 (unsportsmanlike conduct – Ed) which pooled together formed a new infraction corresponding to a violation of the Article 6. A “structured offence”, as it was named, specifically designed to justify the harshness of the punishment which had to meet the common sentiment, impatient for a general cleaning. No need to say more. The previous nine points are all relevant, but the truth is that even the new strand of wiretaps was not needed in order to ask for the re-opening of the sporting trial. Striving for it would have been enough.

Antonio Corsa

[JuveSissoko]

izgleda nista vise nije cisto, pa ni nakon Farsopolia, eto jos utakmica pod upitnikom, ovo ce se zataskat, jer nije u interesu nikom, al bili su upravu neki, Moggia su se rijesili a dosli su novi i ostalo je sve isto, fuj,popisam se na FIGC

da ne bude zabune da ja sad nesto ovdje maksuz protiv intera itd itd, ali izgleda da ce ova utakmica takodje bit pod istragom, ako se naravno krene sa tim,kako se prica, mada ce to kako rece Lippi neki dan na pitanje novinara oko ovog skandala sa Signoriem, "pustite to vise na miru", valjda lik skontao da ce totalno urusit se fudbal u Italiji ako se ovako nastavi, a vec je srusen do bola, nista, Italijani sami pali sami se ubili

[youtube][/youtube]

[Saurman]

I ova sezona ne može proći bez skandala u Italiji u liku Signoria pa zar i ti sine Brute..teško će se Seria A podići na stare staze slave..

[JuveSissoko]

slazem se, tesko, sami sebi su krivi, a mozda se to moze i s druge strane gledat, mozda zapravo u Italiji je policija na visokom nivou i radi svoj posao,kako ko uzme.

citat :"La Republica and Gazzetta claims that Massimo Erodiani(main man in the scandal) told the authorities that he had contact with Chievo players who convinced Milan players to let them score once and in return for Milan to score three. A lot of money was betted on this result and it payed out"

[JuveSissoko]

evo citam Moggia su oslobodili ili ce ga oslobodit zbog nedostatka dokaza(slabo mi ide ovaj google translate ) u vezi slucaja GEA, naravno to nema ni u jednim novinama, nije "narodu" interesantno

[SoloJuve26]

evo citam Moggia su oslobodili ili ce ga oslobodit zbog nedostatka dokaza(slabo mi ide ovaj google translate ) u vezi slucaja GEA, naravno to nema ni u jednim novinama, nije "narodu" interesantno

i kad bi to trebalo biti? Jel ze zna datum

[JuveSissoko]

evo citam Moggia su oslobodili ili ce ga oslobodit zbog nedostatka dokaza(slabo mi ide ovaj google translate ) u vezi slucaja GEA, naravno to nema ni u jednim novinama, nije "narodu" interesantno

i kad bi to trebalo biti? Jel ze zna datum

mislim da je to vec donesena odluka, to je proces u vezi njegove menadzerske agencije i navodnog pritiska na 4 igraca da izvrse transfere ,a evo i ova je utakmica sumnjiva u ovom friskom skandalu, posebno je gotivan ovaj treci gol, kad stoper Chieva "gleda" Robinha kako suta prema golu a vala nije se nesto "oznojio" da loptu zaustavi, kako god, mozda sam pod uticajem vijesti pa nerealno gledam taj treci gol Milana,ma ko ce znat, sve mi se ovo gadi ,jbo ovo, ovo Italiji nije trebalo,al ce se sve to smirit i zataskat,mada bolje je da ociste to do kraja, kad su Moggia "ocistili" nek ciste dalje,samo vise ne znam ko koga cisti,ko je tu cist,ko nije, mozda na kraju je zapravo sve cisto,istraga je u toku, i bilo bi vala za sve bolje da je sve cisto

citat:
La Republica and Gazzetta claims that Massimo Erodiani(main man in the scandal) told the authorities that he had contact with Chievo players who convinced Milan players to let them score once and in return for Milan to score three. A lot of money was betted on this result and it payed out.

[youtube][/youtube]

[baresi#6]

nema mnogo smisla da štimaju protiv slabašnog chieva. lako su dobili glavne konkurente napolija i intera sa gol razlikom 9-1 i sad da moraju štimati da pobijede chievo kući? mislim sve je moguće ali zaista nema smisla niti logike. i onaj gol chieva odbila se lopta od 2-3 igrača čista sreća nema govora o namjernom puštanju. naravno ako postoji istraga treba da se bez ikakvih pritisaka završi i da se donese ispravna presuda za dobrobit italijanskog fudbala. svima kojima se dokaže bilo kakvo štimanje treba drakonski kazniti, 0-ta tolerancija prema namještanju rezultata.

[JuveSissoko]

nema mnogo smisla da štimaju protiv slabašnog chieva. lako su dobili glavne konkurente napolija i intera sa gol razlikom 9-1 i sad da moraju štimati da pobijede chievo kući? mislim sve je moguće ali zaista nema smisla niti logike. i onaj gol chieva odbila se lopta od 2-3 igrača čista sreća nema govora o namjernom puštanju. naravno ako postoji istraga treba da se bez ikakvih pritisaka završi i da se donese ispravna presuda za dobrobit italijanskog fudbala. svima kojima se dokaže bilo kakvo štimanje treba drakonski kazniti, 0-ta tolerancija prema namještanju rezultata.

ne znam sta da ti kazem, eto kao nesto istrazuju, a ovdje valjda nije se uplacivalo na pobijedu jedne ili druge ekipe, znalo se da Milan to moze dobit i sa rezervnim sastavom,nego je abnormalan broj uplata bio na tacan rezultat od 3:1, evo citam valjda je , naravno ne provjereno jos uvijek,sve u domenu rekla-kazala, Signori uplatio 150 000 na inter-lecce rezultat 1:0, tamo negdje u Japanu ili gdje vec, ko ce ti ga znat, jedno je sigurno Atalanta je glavna tu i oni su najebali

[JuveSissoko]

jbte clanovi Camorre uplacivali opasne pare na poluvremenu utakmice Napoli-Parma, opasno se pare vrtile, samo da kazem zvanicno, popisam se na italijanski fudbal,al moja ljubav prema istom je opet veca , pa moram ovo citat i pratit, sraaaaanjeee

[baresi#6]

sramota je da se ponovo priča o seriji a u ovom kontekstu. treba što prije istjerati pravdu i maksimalno kazniti kome se god dokaže krivica. sramota.

[JuveSissoko]

kad guza radi sad svi traze ostetu, cak i RAI smijesna je Italija zemlja postala, jedan post gsol-a sa juventuz.com sumira sve ukratko

"People claiming money for damages? No one will get a dime including us.

Betting scandal? A few scapegoats will be found and destroyed like Moggi was while the majority of the league remains protected.

GEA trial? He had been found innocent there a long time ago. A new court confirmed it. He is still considered guilty for having “threatened” Blasi into accepting terms but Blasi already admitted that he made that up in court so I’m sure another appeal will fully clear both Moggis.

The FIGC not wanting to acknowledge the new wiretaps which would clear Juve and Moggi? Are you guys seriously surprised? They didn’t consider them the first time around when Bergamo stated continuously that everyone called him and that calls were missing and you think that they will look at them now? So that they could admit that they screwed up and then have to pay us compensatory damages? Guys they are crooked not stupid."

[JuveSissoko]

zbog ovakvih "namjestanja" Juve je otisao u Serie B, a sada imaju i transakcijske racune i uplate,ovogodisnja namjestanja su ofirna, pa da vidimo hocel neko ici u Serie B ili C, hoce hoce

Game 1: Lecce-Parma – yes you read right. The game has nothing at all to do with Juventus but this game allowed Fiorentina to survive Serie A in 2005. The ccusation is that the Moggi controlled referee De Santis fixed the match at the request of Moggi after Della Valle (Fiorentina owner) asked Moggi for help. Moggi actually can’t stand De Santis and De Santis can’t stand Juventus. It was De Santis (admitted Interista) that disallowed a legitimate Juventus goal in the Italian Supercup costing Juve the trophy and handing it to Inter wrongfully. All intercepted phone calls regarding this game showed Della Valle contacting Bergamo (referee designer) and Carraro (FIGC president) and Mazzei (FIGC Vice President) directly with no mention of Luciano Moggi.

Game 2: Juventus-Udinese – the actual “fixed” game was Udinese-Bologna the week before. The idea was for the Moggi controlled referee to give yellow cards to Udinese players that were already carrying yellow cards so that they couldn’t play against Juventus. The players handed yellow cards that day were Pinzi and Di Michele. In actual fact neither was carrying yellows and both were on the field against Juventus the following match day.


Game 3: Juventus-Sampdoria – here the accusation was that the Moggi controlled referee allowed an offside goal to stand granting Juventus a 1-0 win over Sampdoria. The game actually ended 0-1 for Sampdoria with Aimo Diana scoring an offside goal. The result can be found on espn.com still today.




sentences from the Commissione d’Appello Federale (CAF) and Corte Federale (CF). The key points are:

- Pg 74-75 CAF claims that there was no “cupola” or “Moggi System” contrary to the Gazzetta

- Pg 76 claims no article 6 violations against Juventus and therefore introduces the structured article violation (much disputed by many legal entities) The reason this is so scandalous is because it attempts to convince the reader that a team (Juventus) was capable of obtaining a favorable position in the standings without fixing the results of a single game. My question is how? The only way to acquire points in the standings is by winning or drawing matches. If Juve didn’t fix any matches then the standings were legit right?

- Pg 83 CAF states that referee selections were done in accordance with the rules of the FIGC therefore all the phone calls made by Moggi to designer Bergamo were legal and altered no referee selections.

- Pg 101 CAF I’m sure you heard of Moggi’s yellow card system to ensure key players were suspended for upcoming matches against Juve. On this page the sentence declares that the yellow cards were not organized.

- Pg 65 CF claims that Moggi and Giraudo operated independently of Juventus and its owners. In other words the team should have been off the hook regarding relegation and only the two directors should have been on trial (that’s the little loophole that kept Milan in the CL)
- Pg 61 CF states that Juventus was not responsible for the salvation of Fiorentina after the De Santis influenced game between Lecce and Parma that finished in a tie allowing the Viola to survive Serie A

- Pg 66 CF states that though Moggi didn’t exercise his ability to condition games, he still possessed the ability. So since you have a car and a bottle of wine you could be tried for having the ability to drink and drive?

- Pg 74 CF admits that no proof of match fixing (article 6) exists.

ovo stavljam nako,kad mi neko na forumu kaze da smo mi namjestali, da mu corave oci vide