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?
The court formally requested Barca provide the documents as part of the investigation and that if they didn't the court would order a search of the Barcelona offices to get them by force.
Barca still have not provided the documents despite being asked to do so by a court. It is likely that the police will search FCB offices soon as part of the new charge to try and obtain these documents.
So Barca were obliged to provide it under threat of police raiding the FCB offices (a huge embarrassment) and didn't do so which to me says a lot. The directors are making the police have to come and tear up the FCB buildings to get them instead of just cooperating which would be less embarrassing than a full search. This says to me whatever it is damages their defense somehow.
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.
I don't think directly any referees are paid off nor was that the plan. In his role as vice president he had say in some decisions that were made about Spanish refereeing in general, that is to say, he could directly influence refereeing in Spain through his function as vice president of the CTA. He stated that his role included rating referees after games, which is something that can lead to the promotion or demotion of a referee, essentially meaning he had a large say in which referees were gotten rid of and which weren't, that is clearly a direct way he could influence and favour teams in Spanish refereeing. An example would be him rating referees favourable to Barca's style of play highly and therefore ensuring they were promoted or remained in LaLiga, or getting rid of referees who favour Madrid (not that it did or didn't happen, but that is an example to say he himself had power to influence refereeing).
It is clear that someone with such a power cannot work for any club in the league because they are required to be impartial in their duties. Whatever the work consists of (even if Barca are somehow telling the truth about paying 8 million for reports) this still wouldnt be allowed. This is why the charge of bribery is a given.
However, Negreira goes on to say in those declarations that he is referring particularly to his role as Vice President of the CTA and not about referee reports or incorrect decisions being highlighted in games :
Investigator : Is there any document, report or similar that includes the conclusions of the refereeing advice provided through DASNIL to Fútbol Club Barcelona?
Negreira : No (So he doesn't have any records of these reports either... notice a pattern??)
Investigator: So if you only met at most 6 times a year and there were no written reports, why were they paying the amounts invoiced by DASNIL, which are as follows? (Table of payments is shown for Negreira)
EN : "Porque así estaban tranquilos de que en el comité arbitral no había decisiones en contra del Fútbol Club Barcelona, que todo era neutral"
"Because in this way, they could be sure that in the arbitration committee (the CTA) there were not decisions made against Barcelona, that everything was neutral".
You can see, he specifically says,
"en el comité arbitral" (the CTA). This is to say, that his version of events is that Barca paid him to influence CTA decisions in his role as Vice President of the CTA, something which would constitute corruption.
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?
He said that directly, he said Barca paid him to influence decisions in the refereeing committee (as quoted there above).
I think Barca were paying him as a 'man on the inside' to use his influence to lobby for Barca's interests. That is not paying off a field referee directly to fix one or two games, or key games, but to try and make sure that decisions taken about Spanish refereeing in general would favour Barca or, as Negreira puts it 'to ensure everything was neutral'.
This is later discussed in the same Treasury documents where they questioned him - he says, amongst other tasks, that Barcelona asked him to try and make sure that the Competition Committee was not made up of judges from Madrid (the Competition Committee decides sanctions, suspension lengths, scheduling of fixtures... things that can be used to favour a club). If his version of events is true, it would clearly show an attempt by Barca to try and indirectly swing arbitration decisions in their favour, such as those of deciding suspension lengths, when certain fixtures are scheduled, etc.
www.sport.es
