The Negreira case

[ajnotkeith]

I actually welcome this. Great chance to finally open up the can of worms that this corrupt league is. If Barca are smart, then their main defence will focus solely on the corruption of Madrid and the hypocrisy systemic in the Franco state.

If the burden of proof is on Barca, then the burden of proof is on Madrid for no getting an advantage due to giving gifts to referees after they make controversial decisions in their favour to win games like that infamous game Vs Villarreal.

Or how about the Malaga player that jumped over the ball so Ronaldo could score in the title decider. Was he given gifts? Make him testify.

Or how about the linesman in 2017 who came out and said he was told to favour Madrid in the Classico . Make him testify.

Or how a Real Madrid fanatic la Liga president is making decisions based solely on what is beneficial for Real Madrid.

Or prove to us that Carlos Megia Davila who would ' receive ' referees at the Bernabeu , didn't influence them or attempt to influence them. And if this was so innocent why they stopped doing it when questioned on it by opposition fans.

If Barca goes down it must take Madrid with it. Burn the league down to dust. It deserves nothing less.

I don't think refereeing is corrupted to Madrid or Barca. There used to be corruption in La Liga a long time ago as you mention but we're in the modern day, that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more, there has been no evidence to suggest adulteration of games since the 2000s.

 

[JamDav1982]

The club didnt conspire to hide it.. they took invoices and paid out the clubs accounts.

Where he wants to the money to be paid is another matter.

The payments were not hidden... you dont hide payments by paying invoices out of club accounts.

No once claims '8m for no services'.

You seem to think you know what these invoices state when an hour back didnt even know they existed.

If they wanted to hide these payments there are far more ways to go about it than paying invoices from club accounts.

The issue is going to be 'what did Barca pay for'.

 

[ajnotkeith]

In the ruling today they mention Negreiras 'threats' to Barca about exposing them as some kind of evidence.

Not sure how that can stand up if Barca then ignore that threat and dont pay him... does that not then mean the threat at least from Barcas side was a hollow one?

That point seems a fairly easy one for club to counter.

Caso Negreira: el Barcelona consiguió "los efectos arbitrales deseados"

El juez del 'caso Negreira' ha concluido que el Barcelona consiguió lo que buscaba con sus pagos millonarios a Enríquez Negreira

okdiario.com

More detail about that.


Judge is strongly stating that he believes acts were carried out to favour Barcelona, so at least the argument is going down that route to an extent where club can respond and burden of proof is somewhat on the prosecutors.

"From the latter (the burofax sent by Negreira)it is clear that EN was aware that quite serious illicit acts had occurred in favor of FC Barcelona. This direct knowledge by EN implied either his participation in the commission of said acts in favor of FC Barcelona, or a very close knowledge of the people who would have committed them. In short, EN was aware, to a greater or lesser extent, of the illegality of his actions and, even, of other acts unknown until now," Aguirre continues in his report, where he strongly attacks the former leader of the referees."

"By logical deduction the payments made by FC Barcelona satisfied the interests of the club in attention to its duration and the annual increase. From this it is also deduced that the payments produced the arbitration effects desired by FC Barcelona, in such a way that there must have been inequality in the treatment with other teams and the consequent systemic corruption in the Spanish arbitration as a whole. However, the investigations of the Civil Guard will be able to confirm these extremes obtained by logical inference, "argues the magistrate in his text."

 

[ajnotkeith]

The club didnt conspire to hide it.. they took invoices and paid out the clubs accounts.

Where he wants to the money to be paid is another matter.

The payments were not hidden... you dont hide payments by paying invoices out of club accounts.

No once claims '8m for no services'.

You need to stop making things up but invoices are in themselves not always as detailed as you make out.

If they wanted to hide these payments there are far more ways to go about it than paying invoices from club accounts.

It actually isn't that easy to take money out of a club like Barcelona because it has to be budgeted to something for them to remove it from the accounts.

The money has to initially leave the club somehow because its coming from the clubs coffers. You can hardly withdraw 100 or 200k a year without questions being asked so it seems natural that the payments had to be recorded to some extent and a false premise formed for them. You can't just take out 100 or 200k and not record it, its impossible.

And no services were provided, at this point that is just a fact, because the club itself cant explain why payments were made and cant provide the reports that were allegedly produced despite Laporta showing them at a press conference.

 

[JamDav1982]

Have read all that already and point remains.. if there is a threat used as 'evidence' then Barca ignoring the threat should be taken into account also.

 

[JamDav1982]

It actually isn't that easy to take money out of a club like Barcelona because it has to be budgeted to something for them to remove it from the accounts.

The money has to initially leave the club somehow because its coming from the clubs coffers. You can hardly withdraw 100 or 200k a year without questions being asked so it seems natural that the payments had to be recorded to some extent and a false premise formed for them.

And no services were provided, at this point that is just a fact, because the club itself cant explain why payments were made and cant provide the reports that were allegedly produced despite Laporta showing them at a press conference.

No you are changing point from 'no invoices and not picked up in audit' to I am not quite sure.

How easy or difficult it is has no relevance.. it is not as difficult as you make out to take 70-700k out of the club in terms of commissions/expenses etc to then make its way to Negreira and would make more sense than trying to hide payments through paid invoices from club accounts.

Neither side is claiming no services were provided.

How does it makse sense to say 'club cant provide reports'? You claiming Barca lied and fabricated the reports Laporta referred to?

 

[ajnotkeith]

No you are changing point from 'no invoices and not picked up in audit' to I am not quite sure.

How easy or difficult it is has no relevance.. it is not as difficult as you make out to take 70-700k out of the club in terms of commissions/expenses etc to then make its way to Negreira and would make more sense than trying to hide payments through paid invoices from club accounts.

Neither side is claiming no services were provided.

How does it makse sense to say 'club cant provide reports'? You claiming Barca lied and fabricated the reports Laporta referred to?

Yes they are, its not a claim, its just a fact. I pasted the information above.
The police said that when asked Barca couldnt provide these reports or CDs they claimed Negreira provided and couldnt provide names of people who might have assisted with the creation of the reports or made these reports.

So that's not my guess that's established at this point.

 

[JamDav1982]

Yes they are, its not a claim, its just a fact. I pasted the information above.
The police said that when asked Barca couldnt provide these reports or CDs they claimed Negreira provided and couldnt provide names of people who might have assisted or made these reports.

No they arent... no side is claiming no service provided.

Either the money was paid for services that were not designed to get an unfair advantage or they were.

So you are saying Laporta lied about the reports Barca had and he showed at press conference?

Whether they have a full catalogue of reports across 18 years is a different matter. Also much of the back and forth could well have been verbal as they said what evidence are they expecting for that?

 

[ajnotkeith]

No they arent... no side is claiming no service provided.

Either the money was paid for services that were not designed to get an advantage or they were.

So you are saying Laporta lied about the reports Barca had and he showed at press conference?

Whether they have a full catalogue of reports across 18 years is a different matter. Also much of the back and forth could well have been verbal as they said what evidence are they expecting for that?

I am saying that. I refer you to this :

The police said that when asked Barca couldnt provide these reports or CDs they claimed Negreira provided and couldnt provide names of people who might have assisted with the creation of the reports or made these reports.

So the premise established for the invoices, which is the reports, would appear to be false. As such they don't correspond to any real economic services rendered.

Negreira for his part claims the payments were to influence refereeing decisions.

 

[JamDav1982]

Your point is Laporta lied about the reports and CDs? Are you saying police have said these have never been handed over as required?

You have a link to when Police have said this?

Laporta claimed that they were provided by Negreiras son.. what do you want? Who helped the son put them together?

Negreira for his part claims the payments were to influence refereeing decisions.

Where has this been claimed?

And yes.. why payments were made is whole crux of the issue and one side v the other. Neither side believes Barca were intending to pay for no service.

 

[FC B]

The money was paid in an overt manner. The accusation must prove what Barca has illigally gained from making those payments. Since referees didn't seem to favor Barca as a result to the payments, imo, what is all the case about after all?

 

[ajnotkeith]

Your point is Laporta lied about the reports and CDs? Are you saying police have said these have never been handed over as required?

You have a link to when Police have said this?

Laporta claimed that they were provided by Negreiras son.. what do you want? Who helped the son put them together?

Negreira for his part claims the payments were to influence refereeing decisions.

Where has this been claimed?

And yes.. why payments were made is whole crux of the issue and one side v the other. Neither side believes Barca were intending to pay for no service.

https://archive.ph/IUUa9

"Their services are not supported by documented evidence beyond the invoices".
"Barca have not provided any copies of the alleged reports or CDs to us that Negreira's company would have provided".
"Barca have not provided the identity of the professionals or of the people who developed such services".

Report of the Civil Guard (Spanish police), traduced by El Mundo. So yes the reports he showed have not been turned over for examination by the police.

Negreira in statements to the Tax Agency : 'Barcelona paid me to ensure that refereeing was neutral and that controversial decisions would not be taken against them'.

Therefore paying in relation to refereeing decisions and to swing the balance towards Barcelona with money.

I think it was clear that when I said no services rendered related to the invoices, that I was referring to the fact the stated alibi was false and that Barca can't explain what lawful services were provided.

My belief is Barca paid him for influence in a belief it would benefit them sportingly. I doubt it actually has, however I believe it was intended.

 

[JamDav1982]

Yes but should Barca have provided those CDs/Reports by now? Is that legally what should have happend?

Or could it be that Barca have been told to hold tight on the evidence they have for now as on other side to prove it and not Barca prove their innocence?

If Laporta lied or is ileegally holding back the evidence he has then I agree that is obviously a huge red flag but is that the case?

Paying to make sure things are neutral does not always mean 'paying to influence the decisions of referees' though and likely does not come down that far as league will protect themselves saying there was no influence but attempt at 'bribery' was there.

Paying to make sure things are nuetral can be in form of referee reports across all the games etc and making sure other clubs not getting more incorrect decsions in their favour and if are then club need to highlight it etc.

Big leap to make out Negreira has said 'Barca paid to influence referee decisions' directly through money paid.

What do you think Barca were paying him to do and how?

 

[iniestaGOAT]

JUST IN: Barça is not concerned about the new bribery charges that have come out regarding the Negreira case. They know they never purchased referees or influenced decisions that benefited Barça in any way. [@ferrancorreas] #fcblive

Daddy laporta says calma. And I trust that man with my life.

Nothing will happen. Enough said.

Listen to your daddy.

 

[Don Juan Laporta Estruch]

I don't think refereeing is corrupted to Madrid or Barca. There used to be corruption in La Liga a long time ago as you mention but we're in the modern day, that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more, there has been no evidence to suggest adulteration of games since the 2000s.

Just because money hasn't exchanged hands that doesn't mean the referreeing isn't corrupted.

When you have a system in place where the La Liga president always supports Madrid and you make sure the vast majority of referees support Madrid, there's no real need for Madrid to dip in to their pockets is there? The corruption and bias in their favour has been implemented for them, from the very beginning, FOR FREE.

Those that think that a referee that supports Real Madrid won't subconsciously benefit them in a profession that is so largely reliant on interpretation are wildly wrong. Anyone that has an emotional attachment to anything will subconsciously be favourable to that thing. That's a human fact. These referees are not able to defy the laws of nature.

And if you think Tebas is bad, there was a Real Madrid supporting La Liga president who openly said " AS LONG AS I AM PRESIDENT, I WILL MAKE SURE BARCELONA DOES NOT WIN A TROPHY. " That is outright, undeniable evidence of a system put in to place to favour Real Madrid and hurt Barcelona. Where was the court case for that one? Yet another one who needs to testify in court now, it seems.

And then you have the Classico as early as 5 years ago when a linesman came out and said he was asked to favour Real Madrid. But Franco's club gets that completely washed away. Where is the criminal trial for that one???? Seems to have been buried away. Contrast it to the reaction to the Negreira case and you realise that nothing has changed today from the 2000s or even Francos time himself.