JamDav1982
Senior Member
Iturralde González: “Real Madrid did not want me to be the referee in their Copa del Rey final against Barça.”
Much easier when dont have to pay for it.
Much easier when dont have to pay for it.
The Negreira case
- Thread starter Luftstalag14
- Start date
ajnotkeith
Senior Member
That would make more sense. The money laundering angle seems illogical.
The trial will explain his role in a lot more detail with the investigatory powers I imagine. Could be years from now though.
You make it sound as if Madrid dominated domestically for two decades +, while paying official millions.
ajnotkeith
Senior Member
'Caso Negreira': El juez extiende la operación a la antigua cúpula arbitral y confisca documentos de Sánchez Arminio y su equipo
El Juzgado de Instrucción número uno de Barcelona ordenó intervenir en la Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) toda la documentación vinculada con el caso Negreira que...
www.elmundo.es
New article.
In summary, the RFEF offices are being searched today to determine exactly the extent of Negreira's role and what decisions he did or didn't take.
The judge and the police think he had important influence and could have used that to favour Barca. However, the current president of the CTA (Medina Cantalejo) says Negreira didn't make important decisions and was more symbolic than anything.
In any case, the prosecution are arguing just paying him the money constituted a bribe, but no doubt the fallout will be less if it's proven Negreira did not have any opportunities to influence things in favour of Barca.
Don Juan Laporta Estruch
Well-known member
No, I've just stated absolute facts, not innuendo and suspicion ( Read the Negreira case it you want a bit of that ) that are impossible for Madrid fans like yourself to refute. Unsurprisingly, no Madrid fan tried to do so.
Forgive me, if I find Real Madrid fans getting on their high horse and pointing the finger a little difficult to stomach, given the 'facts'.
When your case of sports corruption in case of Madrid rests on gift bags or even better You dont even need to pay for it, muh duh Franco, or Itturalde saying Madrid did not want him to officiate a match; you de facto dont have a case.
Paying millions to CTA official is slam dunk. But still, i predict points deduction and a season without CL, at best. Simply to much political pull to fail.
Gnidrologist
Senior Member
Who the fuck are you?
vuji_31
Senior Member
ajnotkeith
Senior Member
Barcelona remain 'calm' over latest developments in the Negreira case
The Catalan club are not concerned by Thursday's bribery accusations
www.sport.es
The judge specifies that the reason for the change of the charge from sports corruption to bribery is that he considers sports corruption is a crime between private individuals (a player, a coach, a chairman etc), and as per a European ruling on the Italian FA, an official working in the regulation of football is not a private individual. He says the charge of sports corruption has only been applied in cases of outright match fixing and not for payments to regulating officials, nor over such a long period of time.
(Convienient that it just so happens to be much easier to prove also). With that said, the charge of bribery also carries more significant punishments.
They have no real proof yet that Barcelona gained anything from the payments. Their evidence gathering up to now has been verifying that Barca made the payments to Negreira Sr specifically and forming the charge based off that.
The judge hypothesises that Barca gained in a sporting way based on these key facts :
1- 8 million would not have been paid for nothing
2- The payments gradually got bigger and bigger, implying Barca were convinced they continued to gain something. They went from just 70k to 700k at their highest. The judge says this is because Barca likely believed the payments were having a desired effect and they were getting something for the money
3- Negreira's threatening letters to Bartomeu where he said that he would expose 'favours' he had done for the club and things which could damage the club's reputation. The judge believes the threat from Negreira to be real and that he would not have said this if he did not either carry out himself or had a close connection to those who carried out said favours.
4 - That the payments ceased immediately as Negreira stepped down from his role as Vice President of the CTA, with Negreira also stating this is why payments were stopped, showing they referred to his role as Vice President and not any reports that were being made for the club.
So, the judge's words at the moment about Barca gaining sportively are the result of his logical inferences from circumstantial evidence, but there is no hypothesis or facts about actually how Negreira could have favoured Barca (that is what they are trying to find now).
delancey
Senior Member
The circumstantial evidence certainly insinuates wrongdoing. One must, however, wonder why the the prosecution would bring charges if it cannot prove how Barcelona benefited.The full judgement is readable here.Barcelona remain 'calm' over latest developments in the Negreira case
The Catalan club are not concerned by Thursday's bribery accusations
The judge specifies that the reason for the change of the charge from sports corruption to bribery is that he considers sports corruption is a crime between private individuals (a player, a coach, a chairman etc), and as per a European ruling on the Italian FA, an official working in the regulation of football is not a private individual. He says the charge of sports corruption has only been applied in cases of outright match fixing and not for payments to regulating officials, nor over such a long period of time.
(Convienient that it just so happens to be much easier to prove also). With that said, the charge of bribery also carries more significant punishments.
They have no real proof yet that Barcelona gained anything from the payments. Their evidence gathering up to now has been verifying that Barca made the payments to Negreira Sr specifically and forming the charge based off that.
The judge hypothesises that Barca gained in a sporting way based on these key facts :
1- 8 million would not have been paid for nothing
2- The payments gradually got bigger and bigger, implying Barca were convinced they continued to gain something. They went from just 70k to 700k at their highest. The judge says this is because Barca likely believed the payments were having a desired effect and they were getting something for the money
3- Negreira's threatening letters to Bartomeu where he said that he would expose 'favours' he had done for the club and things which could damage the club's reputation. The judge believes the threat from Negreira to be real and that he would not have said this if he did not either carry out himself or had a close connection to those who carried out said favours.
4 - That the payments ceased immediately as Negreira stepped down from his role as Vice President of the CTA, with Negreira also stating this is why payments were stopped, showing they referred to his role as Vice President and not any reports that were being made for the club.
So, the judge's words at the moment about Barca gaining sportively are the result of his logical inferences from circumstantial evidence, but there is no hypothesis or facts about actually how Negreira could have favoured Barca (that is what they are trying to find now).
Another important element which hasn’t been discussed is the “why?,” namely political tension and bias against Catalonia by the central government of Spain. Most Spaniards abhor the mere thought of Catalonian independence, so it isn’t far fetched to insinuate that referees and La Liga (and RFEF) making decisions against our club. Point is, paying someone to ensure fairness is not far-fetched.
Just look at what is happening with Tebas right now. Hell, I, too, wouldn’t be opposed to having someone on my payroll in La Liga to ensure that decisions that may harm my club aren’t taken.
So the “why?” makes a lot of sense.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
The idea of referees being paid off is going to vanish most likely.
Both because they cant find evidence of any direct influence on referees and because it protects the 'integrity' of the competition and would open up a whole new can of worms for Spanish football.
It is going down road of 'intent' to gain an advantage through bribery even if did not receive it.
Which then puts the charge in a difficult place as they have said Barca continued to pay for it as 'evidence' they recieved a service... well if there was no corruption then they are contradciting themselves to say Barca paid for it continously or Barca thought they were getting unfair advantage.
Left with prosecution trying to argue Barca paid for 18 years for something they did not receive which contradicts the idea that they paid for 18 years as happy with what paid for.
Both because they cant find evidence of any direct influence on referees and because it protects the 'integrity' of the competition and would open up a whole new can of worms for Spanish football.
It is going down road of 'intent' to gain an advantage through bribery even if did not receive it.
Which then puts the charge in a difficult place as they have said Barca continued to pay for it as 'evidence' they recieved a service... well if there was no corruption then they are contradciting themselves to say Barca paid for it continously or Barca thought they were getting unfair advantage.
Left with prosecution trying to argue Barca paid for 18 years for something they did not receive which contradicts the idea that they paid for 18 years as happy with what paid for.
Last edited:
delancey
Senior Member
Maybe I’m wrong but that seems to be a very American concept. Get Poncho the criminal to testify in exchange for immunity… in order to get at the even bigger fish.
Last edited:
ajnotkeith
Senior Member
Well it is the same legal principle as always, attempting to commit a crime doesn't require the success of it to incur punishments.
It could very well be that Barcelona believed paying Negreira brought them advantage, or as a matter of fact its clear they did, but it doesn't mean Negreira actually had that power. A lot of former referees have claimed he is a conman who bragged about being able to influence referees but in actual fact couldnt do it.
So if they can't show the advantage on the field, it will be just fine for them to still show that Barcelona tried to corrupt the refereeing, even though they weren't successful.
Home of Barca Fans
