What's new

Fabio Paratici Sanctioned For 2.5 Years

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
If everybody is going to take the moral high ground then Conte should go he has got previous, pity he can't fix a few results in our favour , Man C coming up soon would be be a good start.

2 things there, firstly ban is spent, and secondly there is nothing there to say he was complicit it in at all, just didn’t report anything to authorities.

My morals on all this - Paratici should be suspended (pending investigation) as currently he is not allowed to do the job he is employed to do and is front and centre of the Juventus issue, and is currently a guilty man of fraud and banned.
Lloris should never have continued as our captain after drink driving (but should have continued as a player, captain needs to be above that)
Conte - no issue with that ban affecting
his job now, and nothing suggests he has ever been complicit in any match fixing. (Doesn’t mean I don’t want him gone mind you, but that is for what has happened this season, not 12 years back)
And on others Levy - needs to go
Qatar - no issue with their investment if it happens
 
Last edited:

Spursmatty87

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2016
1,918
5,046
Cherubini was aware of it according to this article , was he the one that spilled the beans , he is still with Juve but seemed to know what was going on.
Scandals in Italian football are nothing new , been going on for years..

PS The real disgrace is that Levy and the club have made no public announcement on this matter, another reason for the Governments aim to get fan representation on the board of directors at football clubs to be implemented as soon as possible.
Not really a lot Levy can say it’s going to the Italian courts. So I’m guessing Spurs Lawyers have told the club that it’s best to keep quiet at this point.
 

Duke of Northumberland

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2019
675
1,219
When Harry Redknapp had his tax case as I remember the club didn't make any public position, even after the verdict?

It did sack him a few months later and I suspect it might have been a contributing factor, despite the verdict.
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,157
7,699
When Harry Redknapp had his tax case as I remember the club didn't make any public position, even after the verdict?

It did sack him a few months later and I suspect it might have been a contributing factor, despite the verdict.
Mirror says club did make announcement on Redknapp...

 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,157
7,699
Thanks- so no statement as such but some supportive briefings to one journalist at least...different to now....
I do seem to remember that statement about it being pre-dating Redknapp's employment and as I do not read The Mirror must have seen it somewhere else or maybe it was the same article.
Would have thought some sort of statement would be made on Paratici , the usual stuff that most accused say "He denies any wrongdoing and will fight to clear his name blah blah blah"
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,263
47,342
If we didn't sack him because of N'Dombele I doubt a tiny bit of massive (alleged) corruption is going to change our minds
 

whitesocks

The past means nothing. This is a message for life
Jan 16, 2014
4,652
5,738
Very well. Thanks.

"It is these inflated transfer values [arthur/Pjanic] which are being investigated with "capital gains" being noted as the reasons for the higher costs involved.
The term "capital gains" refers to the profit earned on the sale of an asset, which describes the difference between its higher selling price and lower cost price.

But this is not the case, because for accounting purposes, a player arriving at a club sees their transfer fee spread out over the length of their new contract. Meanwhile, the fee for a player being sold is known as immediate income.

Forbes calculated if a club buys a player for $80 million and signs him to a four-year contract, the outgoing fee becomes an $80 million asset on the books.
That value then decreases by $20 million per season, so if they then sell that player for $50 million after three years, they generate a $30 million profit.

So, despite there being just a €12 million ($13.54m) difference in the values of Pjanic and Arthur, the deal with Barca generated Juventus a capital gains of €41.8 million ($47.26m)."
........................................

So it is a failure of accountancy rules really, when it comes to swaps. Any idiot can see that if the value of the assets are comparable, then neither side has made a gain. But accountants see it differently.

But how common are swaps? And how often does Paratici actually sell a player?
If he is working scams at tottenham too, then he has found a different loophole!
 

VancouverSpurs

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
355
798
I don't know if this is a stupid question or if it's been asked and answered already, but what practical effect does his ban have on his work? Will he be banned from attending games? Scouting? Making phone calls to agents? Signing contract documents? Being on the premises of any football club?

I wonder if we can just have Paratici in the background doing all the grunt-work (scouting, negotiating, etc) and then let someone else do the official bits?
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
I don't know if this is a stupid question or if it's been asked and answered already, but what practical effect does his ban have on his work? Will he be banned from attending games? Scouting? Making phone calls to agents? Signing contract documents? Being on the premises of any football club?

I wonder if we can just have Paratici in the background doing all the grunt-work (scouting, negotiating, etc) and then let someone else do the official bits?
In England, suspension from all football related activity means amongst other things he cannot attend any matches, play in any matches, attend any training sessions or be involved in any administrative duties involving any football club or player. If we were to use him even at arms length we would be in serious trouble ourselves.
Basically if ban is in force over here, he cannot work for Tottenham, any other club or independently in the industry at all. He technically cannot go to the local park and watch an under 8s match.
Basically similar to Blatter, Platini , Valcke or just last week Yems the Crawley manager received ban from all activities.
 
Last edited:

Gassin's finest

C'est diabolique
May 12, 2010
37,607
88,459
When Harry Redknapp had his tax case as I remember the club didn't make any public position, even after the verdict?

It did sack him a few months later and I suspect it might have been a contributing factor, despite the verdict.
The club publically stood by him during the court case and his heart(?) surgery, and Redknapp showed his appreciation by demanding a pay rise while Levy's wife was being admitted to hospital(iirc). That's why Levy sacked him, so the stories go.
 
Top