Paratici is alleged to have paid over the odds to sign Cristian Romero from Atalanta to solve a problem for Juventus

[mawspurs]

Fabio Paratici's future at Tottenham is under increasing scrutiny after allegations he offered to pay over the odds to sign Cristian Romero from Atalanta to solve a problem for his former club Juventus.

Paratici was hit with a 30-month ban by the Italian FA on Friday for his part in financial irregularities at Juve, where he worked for more than a decade.

Source: Daily Mail

 

[Japhet]

I presume Chelsea will be in the shit too for paying 63m for Cucurella and various other ridiculous deals (97m for Lukaku anyone?). Who the fuck determines if a club has paid 'over the odds' FFS?

 

[Dennism]

Do we as a club really want to be involved with somebody like Paratici? Levy has some serious thinking to do. There is also the issue that Conte seems to want to return to Italy for personal reasons. Such a shame after the progress last season.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Do we as a club really want to be involved with somebody like Paratici? Levy has some serious thinking to do. There is also the issue that Conte seems to want to return to Italy for personal reasons. Such a shame after the progress last season.

I think most clubs employ "somebody like Paratici". The difference is that Juventus is currently being scrutinised more than any other club in world football. Do you really think Arneson, Comolli, Harry etc. were all squeaky clean? I'd much prefer that rules and legislation were fully enforced against every club equally, so that everything was fair, equitable and by the book. As all clubs currently operate in a "grey area", our choice is to either do this ourselves or to choose not to be effective or competitive in the transfer market.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Haven't read the article, but the headline has confused me. Am I mistaken, or did Juventus sign Romero from Genoa and then sell him to Atalanta, rather than "sign Cristian Romero from Atalanta"?

Also, how can it be determined that Juventus paid "over the odds" when his current value + most recent transfer fee both exceed what Juventus paid by circa 100%? The evidence suggests that they sold him far too cheaply to Atalanta, not that they overpaid for him.

Genoa to Juventus - €31.5m
Juventus to Atalanta - €17m
Atalanta to Tottenham - €55m
Current value - €60m (according to Transfermarkt)

 

[Japhet]

Do we as a club really want to be involved with somebody like Paratici? Levy has some serious thinking to do. There is also the issue that Conte seems to want to return to Italy for personal reasons. Such a shame after the progress last season.

Depends what he's done doesn't it? At this moment in time I don't know what he's actually been found guilty of. Seems to me like it's more likely to be something done in the accounting department, not acquisitions and sales.

 

[Rob]

Haven't read the article, but the headline has confused me. Am I mistaken, or did Juventus sign Romero from Genoa and then sell him to Atalanta, rather than "sign Cristian Romero from Atalanta"?

Also, how can it be determined that Juventus paid "over the odds" when his current value + most recent transfer fee both exceed what Juventus paid by circa 100%? The evidence suggests that they sold him far too cheaply to Atalanta, not that they overpaid for him.

Genoa to Juventus - €31.5m
Juventus to Atalanta - €17m
Atalanta to Tottenham - €55m
Current value - €60m (according to Transfermarkt)

The article means while at Spurs (to help his former club, Juve). That's a much bigger deal than stuff he did while employed elsewhere.

It also sounds like bollocks. We got Romero cheaply.

 

[McFlash]

Yeah, sounds like bollocks.
Romero was actually a bit of a bargain imo.

 

[Dennism]

I think most clubs employ "somebody like Paratici". The difference is that Juventus is currently being scrutinised more than any other club in world football. Do you really think Arneson, Comolli, Harry etc. were all squeaky clean? I'd much prefer that rules and legislation were fully enforced against every club equally, so that everything was fair, equitable and by the book. As all clubs currently operate in a "grey area", our choice is to either do this ourselves or to choose not to be effective or competitive in the transfer market.

Probably they we not. However, we are currently the only English club faced with losing our director of football for 30 months. In what universe is that not a bad thing? Personally I wonder about the transfer dealings we had with Juventus that were handled by Paratici. I hope he was working purely in our interests and not covering his own back.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Probably they we not. However, we are currently the only English club faced with losing our director of football for 30 months. In what universe is that not a bad thing? Personally I wonder about the transfer dealings we had with Juventus that were handled by Paratici. I hope he was working purely in our interests and not covering his own back.

Of course it's bad, but we're simply unlucky that he's being scrutinised for something that happened with a past employer (while other equally/more guilty DoFs at rival clubs are getting away with it), rather than at fault for employing him in the first place.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

The article means while at Spurs (to help his former club, Juve). That's a much bigger deal than stuff he did while employed elsewhere.

It also sounds like bollocks. We got Romero cheaply.

Serie A 'defender of the year' and was a key player for a World Cup winning side only a year after the transfer deal, but €55m is overpaying...while Man Utd paying £85m for Maguire (currently a bench-warmer), Juventus paying €85.5m for De Ligt and Chelsea paying €80.4m for Wesley Fofana (not deemed good enough for the side that Romero beat in the World Cup final) was more reasonable? It will be interesting to see on what grounds Paratici could lose an appeal.

 

[worcestersauce]

It wasn't over the odds.

 

[Dennism]

Of course it's bad, but we're simply unlucky that he's being scrutinised for something that happened with a past employer (while other equally/more guilty DoFs at rival clubs are getting away with it), rather than at fault for employing him in the first place.

I’m not criticising Spurs, who employed him in good faith. However, we shouldn’t defend what Paratici has done at Juventus. Spurs do not deserve to be embroiled in this crap.
Other clubs are a million times worse than us. Chelsea and Newcastle have been in bed with the worst sort of people and are coming up smelling of roses. Sickening.

 

[newbie]

Actually ive watched Romero play and i would say whoever brought Sanchez, should be investigated Romero looks a bargain!

 

[14/04/91]

Actually ive watched Romero play and i would say whoever brought Sanchez, should be investigated Romero looks a bargain!

And 24m to Barca for Mr E Royal looks decidedly dodgy!!

 

[chrissivad]

I can just see the court case.

Tottenham's defence that we didn't over pay, we call Daniel Levy....

 

[Neon_Knight_]

I’m not criticising Spurs, who employed him in good faith. However, we shouldn’t defend what Paratici has done at Juventus. Spurs do not deserve to be embroiled in this crap.
Other clubs are a million times worse than us. Chelsea and Newcastle have been in bed with the worst sort of people and are coming up smelling of roses. Sickening.

I anticipate Levy waiting to see how the appeal goes, and most likely helping out with some legal support (like with Harry's tax avoidance lawsuit).

Even if FIFA and UEFA choose not to enforce the ban outside of Italy, I presume he'd be unable to negotiate any deals with Italian clubs (his primary network) for the duration of the Italian ban, rather than only unable to be employed by an Italian club. Even if this isn't the case, Italian clubs and agents are likely to be put off doing business with him, to avoid the extra scrutiny it's likely to bring from the Italian FA / authorities.

 

[Johnny J]

I mean, of ALL the players, Romero is hardly the one we overpaid for lmao

 

[newbie]

And 24m to Barca for Mr E Royal looks decidedly dodgy!!

That one does look criminal

 

[Neon_Knight_]

The article means while at Spurs (to help his former club, Juve). That's a much bigger deal than stuff he did while employed elsewhere.

It also sounds like bollocks. We got Romero cheaply.

So how could us paying Atalanta have benefited Juventus? Sell-on clause? If so, us signing Romero was a short-term benefit for Juventus, irrespective of how much we paid, but there's no way anyone could prove Paratici gave any consideration to his past employer (Romero is one of the first names on our teamsheet after all).

Unless we subsequently got another player for a cut price (presumably once Juve's cash-flow was healthier), I'm struggling to see how our club hierarchy would have signed off on us overpaying for Romero (obviously they didn't).

It all seems too far-fetched for Paratici to have been charged. If the initial Italian ruling isn't overturned following apeal, there must be a bit more to it.