Figc and Report, question and answer on capital gains and investigations

The Federcalcio wrote a letter to ‘Report’ in reference to the episode of Monday 6 December, in particular to the service signed by Daniele Autieri “Fever at 90”, making some clarifications with an explicit request for rectification in the next episode. From the Covisoc ‘confidential letter’, to the late payments of the Serie A clubs, to Luca Campedelli’s Chievo and the repeated references of alleged delays in the action of the FIGC Federal Prosecutor. “So much had to be done to restore the correct information and the complete exposition of facts which, as reported in the aforementioned episode of 6 December, have damaged the image and distorted the work of the Italian Football Federation. In the absence of appropriate rectification, the FIGC reserves the right to protect its integrity in the appropriate places “, concludes the letter. In particular, the FIGC refers to “a ‘confidential letter’ from Covisoc dated 30 June in which requests are reported regarding the recapitalization of the Club’s losses, suggesting allusively that the FIGC deliberately did not want to maintain a strict regime in the National Licenses for admission to the championships. In this regard, it is appropriate to underline in the introduction the profitable dialogue between the FIGC and Covisoc, based on respect for the roles, one political and the other our offices by any member of your editorial team) that the matter later covered by the letter had already been discussed in the May meeting of the Federal Council, during the approval of the National Licenses “, explains the FIGC which underlines how on that occasion” it was clarified how it was not possible to foresee any ‘specialty’ for football clubs with respect to what is recognized by the normat emergency VAT to all corporations “. The broadcast published the responses to the letter from the FIGC on social media and on the question of the letter sent by Covisoc, ‘Report’ reminds “that Covisoc is the technical control body, mandated by statute to monitor the economic and financial situation of the It is therefore the most authoritative of the sources in terms of financial sustainability of clubs. It is clear that Covisoc itself has a different interpretation from that of the political body of the Football Association. With respect to the question of the veracity of the financial statements, it is true that there are state rules governing the matter, but it is also obvious that the interest pursued by the state is different and distinct from that which should inspire the work of the FIGC. The interest of the state is to ensure the correctness of relations as much as possible between private individuals …. The interest of the FIGC is different and special. This body is called upon to guarantee, first of all, the value of regularity of the championships and of the so-called sporting merit “, replies the broadcast. The FIGC then in the letter refers to delays in the payment of the salaries of the members of an unspecified number of Serie A clubs:” this reconstruction is without foundation because, on the basis at the federal deadlines, all the Clubs have complied with the payment of salaries within the established terms, both if we take into consideration the registration to the championship, and if we take into account the other months to be paid by 30 September “, underlines the Federation. While Report replies that “on late payments we never indicated that the practice was illegal, but we limited ourselves to photographing the phenomenon. A phenomenon regulated by the Football Federation in agreement with the clubs, as confirmed by Umberto Calcagno himself (president of the Aic ) who stated that almost all Serie A clubs did not pay at least one month’s salary in the last year “. Also in the interview with former Chievo president Luca Campedelli,” the same states that for endofederal sports justice ‘the rules for enemies they apply and for friends they are interpreted ‘without the author of the report contradicting him or the conductor himself specifying how, in the judgment on admission to the championship, the Chievo Club was not judged by the federal justice, but was judged 15 times only by exofederal judicial bodies (College of Guarantee of Sport, Administrative Court of Lazio and Council of State) “, underlines the FIGC. The broadcast broadcast on Rai 3 replies that “within the investigation we recognized and underlined the responsibilities of Chievo and Luca Campedelli, also reiterating during the interview the considerable amount of accumulated VAT debts. We also recalled the role of Chievo in the capital gains affair that involved him in 2018 and the activities of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the ordinary judiciary “. Finally in relation” to the very serious and repeated references of alleged delays in the action of the Federal Prosecutor of the FIGC “on the subject matter of the report , the Federation reports the replies sent by e-mail from the Federal Prosecutor Giuseppe Chinè and that, taking into account the omission in the edited aired on 6 December last, we ask you to quote in full and from which it is clear the correct action of the same Prosecutor “, explains the Figc. At this last point, ‘Report’ replies that “as regards the activities of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office regarding the pl usvalenze, we limited ourselves to reporting the facts, namely that the same Prosecutor had been informed by Covisov of the anomalies on 62 suspicious transfers and that to date no sporting measures against the teams involved in those transfers were soon. And in fact the Prosecutor itself confirms in its replies that, in the face of the Covisoc reports dated April 2021, the investigation was opened only on October 26, 2021, or in conjunction with the press releases on the Covisoc investigation “.