The Negreira case

[delancey]

Then the question also becomes whether it is merely enough to prove bribery (that is, that Barcelona paid off official(s) without having to really focus on what Barcelona received in return).

However, as it stands, the logical conclusion boils down to one thing, and that is that Barcelona paid an awful lot of money to official(s) in return for something.

FC Barcelona says it was for “reports” but hasn’t handed over these reports. Fishy as fuck. If I’m not mistaken?

 

[Loki]

They bring up the same story every 2 weeks again and again and again. And they will continue to bring it up until the case is closed because it gives today's "journalists" easy klicks and content. Nothing changed so far from the start of the charge, they still searching for evidence. Nothing changes, if Tebas's outlet find a new useful idiot to speak against barca every 2 weeks. Keep calm.

 

[ajnotkeith]

The circumstantial evidence certainly insinuates wrongdoing. One must, however, wonder why the the prosecution would bring charges if it cannot prove how Barcelona benefited.

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.

If Barca had evidence of corruption, the right thing was to take it publicly and not commit a crime in retaliation in order to ensure fairness.

I think it is true the club felt prejudiced, we can clearly see that even by public statements of people linked to the club and its directors, however, it seems to me that it is only suspicion that Madrid get favoured not backed up by real facts or examples of where rules were broken in favour of Madrid.

 

[ajnotkeith]

Then the question also becomes whether it is merely enough to prove bribery (that is, that Barcelona paid off official(s) without having to really focus on what Barcelona received in return).

However, as it stands, the logical conclusion boils down to one thing, and that is that Barcelona paid an awful lot of money to official(s) in return for something.

FC Barcelona says it was for “reports” but hasn’t handed over these reports. Fishy as fuck. If I’m not mistaken?

Legally it makes sense for them to focus on the attempt and not the result for a number of reasons.
The first one being that bribery as a crime carries a much larger prison sentence. The second being that sports corruption historically is so difficult to prove even when it has taken place.
So bribery is much easier to show, AND it carries a much bigger sentence, so they really have no reason to go after the sporting corruption charges.

Not withstanding, the charge of bribery was added to the list of charges, not solely present with no others, that is to say that they are still going to try Barca on the sports corruption charges as well as other things like false accounting/unfair administration.

 

[JamDav1982]

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.

The charge of 'corruption' they would have to show that Barca paid for and received an advantage.

With bribery that is not the case and intent enough.

That has been clarified constantly.

They would be hard placed to argue Barca received no advantage but paid continously as they believed they had received one. That is almost impossible angle to take and very hard to back up at all.

The argument from Barca initially will most likely be he wasnt a public official.

 

[JamDav1982]

They bring up the same story every 2 weeks again and again and again. And they will continue to bring it up until the case is closed because it gives today's "journalists" easy klicks and content. Nothing changed so far from the start of the charge, they still searching for evidence. Nothing changes, if Tebas's outlet find a new useful idiot to speak against barca every 2 weeks. Keep calm.

The charge has changed.

They have decided he is a public official and the charge of bribery has been applied.

 

[ajnotkeith]

The charge of 'corruption' they would have to show that Barca paid for and received an advantage.

With bribery that is not the case and intent enough.

That has been clarified constantly.

They would be hard placed to argue Barca received no advantage but paid continously as they believed they had received one. That is almost impossible angle to take and very hard to back up at all.

I agree that bribery is much easier to show and that is why they have gone for it. It is important to remember as well that it also carries a larger sentence therefore it makes sense all around.

I don't agree at all with part bolded. It is a legal principle used often. As long as Barcelona on their end thought that paying Negreira could corrupt the competition and actively tried to do so it can be enough to convict them of a crime even if they didn't see benefits on the field. Sting operations are carried out by police in similar fashion in many different criminal cases.

The charge of bribery is consummated when the payment is made to a 'public official', that is to say that subsequent successes or failures of the attempted corruption don't matter.

 

[JamDav1982]

I agree that bribery is much easier to show and that is why they have gone for it. It is important to remember as well that it also carries a larger sentence therefore it makes sense all around.

I don't agree at all with part bolded. It is a legal principle used often. As long as Barcelona on their end thought that paying Negreira could corrupt the competition and actively tried to do so it can be enough to convict them of a crime even if they didn't see benefits on the field. Sting operations are carried out by police in similar fashion in many different criminal cases.

The charge of bribery is consummated when the payment is made to a 'public official', that is to say that subsequent successes or failures of the attempted corruption don't matter.

So the argument is Barca believed they were 'corrupting' the competition even if the corruption charge is dismissed?

Well prove what you claim Barca thought they were getting that was unlawful.

Cant just make that claim if have nothing to back it up. It is not 'legal principle' to claim what Barca were thinking without any evidence of it.

They still need to prove the intent was there and Barca continuing to pay him is just circle logic that never ends. All they have done for now is apply 'logic' with no evidence to allow themselves to investigate further and charge those involved.

That 'logic' alone wont be enough if dont find anything to prove intent.

You are repeating the same thing as I just said... it is intent at 'bribery' that matters. The point remains.

 

[ajnotkeith]

So the argument is Barca believed they were 'corrupting' the competition even if the corruption charge is dismissed?

Well prove what you claim Barca thought they were getting that was unlawful.

Cant just make that claim if have nothing to back it up. It is not 'legal principle' to claim what Barca were thinking without any evidence of it.

They still need to prove the intent was there and Barca continuing to pay him is just circle logic that never ends. All they have done for now is apply 'logic' with no evidence to allow themselves to investigate further and charge those involved.

That 'logic' alone wont be enough if dont find anything to prove intent.

You are repeating the same thing as I just said... it is intent at 'bribery' that matters. The point remains.

There is little hard evidence that Barca definitely agreed this with him, but you would expect that, the club has said it was a completely verbal contract with no records of what was agreed.

Circumstantial evidence is also admissible. That is, the amounts of money paid, the threatening letters, the fact Barca stopped paying him as soon as he wasn't Vice President, the alibi about reports being weak and apparently these reports by Enriquez Negreira Sr not actually existing (the reports Laporta showed are produced by his son Javier Negreira, not Negreira Sr).

Valverde stating that he was unaware that these refereeing reports even existed (who commissions incredibly expensive refereeing reports and doesn't show them to the technical staff?) Negreira himself stating that the payments were related to his role as VP and not the reports.

There is nothing in writing or undisputably proving that Barca agreed to corrupt the competition with him, but there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, this can also convince a jury.

 

[delancey]

If Barca had evidence of corruption, the right thing was to take it publicly and not commit a crime in retaliation in order to ensure fairness.

I think it is true the club felt prejudiced, we can clearly see that even by public statements of people linked to the club and its directors, however, it seems to me that it is only suspicion that Madrid get favoured not backed up by real facts or examples of where rules were broken in favour of Madrid.

I would say that it is more subtle bias in favor of Real Madrid that is insinuated when criticism is directed at La Liga or RFEF. Some examples include a lack of goal line technology (it’s a goal when the referee says it is) or how VAR is sometimes implemented (interpretation of the rules). Should we have had a penalty against Mallorca? Personally, I don’t think it was a penalty, but Mallorca’s very own manager thinks it was. That begs the question, had it been another referee in charge, would it have been given? What if RM was the team playing? Ambiguity results in the possible bias against clubs (not just Barcelona). Of course, a majority of Spanish referees aren’t Barcelona supporters (making it less necessary for RM to bribe officials).

What is so comical is also how La Liga doesn’t even hide its bias, in that its own President is a RM supporter. He implements strict FFP rules during a Covid pandemic, leading to essentially every single La Liga club struggling except for… Real Madrid. The only club that hasn’t been hurt by Tebas is the club that he openly supports. It doesn’t help that sports in Spain are highly politicized. So corruption nowadays is very subtle.

One thing that is strange is why Barcelona would leave an indirect trail proving that it paid off officials (for unknown services).

 

[JamDav1982]

There is little hard evidence that Barca definitely agreed this with him, but you would expect that, the club has said it was a completely verbal contract with no records of what was agreed.

Circumstantial evidence is also admissible. That is, the amounts of money paid, the threatening letters, the fact Barca stopped paying him as soon as he wasn't Vice President, the alibi about reports being weak and apparently these reports by Enriquez Negreira Sr not actually existing (the reports Laporta showed are produced by his son Javier Negreira, not Negreira Sr).

Valverde stating that he was unaware that these refereeing reports even existed (who commissions incredibly expensive refereeing reports and doesn't show them to the technical staff?) Negreira himself stating that the payments were related to his role as VP and not the reports.

There is nothing in writing or undisputably proving that Barca agreed to corrupt the competition with him, but there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, this can also convince a jury.

Not what has been reported. It has been reported that they have enough circumstancial evidence to charge but need a lot more to convict.

A 'threatening letter' is evidence of what? A threatening letter Barca ignored....

Why would Valverde be aware of referee reports? What if some other coach says they were? It makes no real difference.

Circumstancial evidence wont be enough and there is barely any of that at all. That is very different from them applying their own 'logic' to situations as has been the case to this point.

 

[delancey]

In order for the bribery charge to stick in Spain, must the prosecutor prove what Barcelona received in return for the bribe? Or is it enough to merely prove that Barcelona is guilty of giving money to an official?

It just seems so reckless to pay an official, leaving an indirect digital trail of the payment when Barcelona could have just bumped up a few salaries, withdrawn the cash and paid him through an intermediary. I mean… did they think that no one would discover it?

 

[ajnotkeith]

Not what has been reported. It has been reported that they have enough circumstancial evidence to charge but need a lot more to convict.

A 'threatening letter' is evidence of what? A threatening letter Barca ignored....

Why would Valverde be aware of referee reports? What if some other coach says they were? It makes no real difference.

Circumstancial evidence wont be enough and there is barely any of that at all. That is very different from them applying their own 'logic' to situations as has been the case to this point.

Referee reports is technical advice. The content of reports was allegedly things like 'X referee is very strict on diving' 'X referee is lenient on small fouls and lets them play' the nature of it is technical advice which would need to be implemented by the technical staff to have any effect.

No point making referee reports on how to behave with certain referees if coaches and players don't even know it existed? What would be the point of that?

There is also Negreira's testimony and the testimony of a secretary stating Negreira's contact point with the club (in his last years of payment) was Bartomeu, not any of the coaches. If he is giving TECHNICAL advice that will be given to the coaches he wouldn't be having discussions with the club president solely and his reports don't even make their way to the coaches.

 

[ajnotkeith]

In order for the bribery charge to stick in Spain, must the prosecutor prove what Barcelona received in return for the bribe? Or is it enough to merely prove that Barcelona is guilty of giving money to an official?

It just seems so reckless to pay an official, leaving an indirect digital trail of the payment when Barcelona could have just bumped up a few salaries, withdrawn the cash and paid him through an intermediary. I mean… did they think that no one would discover it?

They dont have to prove that it actually worked but they have to prove the intention of the payments was to corrupt him and cause him to favour them in decisions.

 

[JamDav1982]

Referee reports is technical advice. The content of reports was allegedly things like 'X referee is very strict on diving' 'X referee is lenient on small fouls and lets them play' the nature of it is technical advice which would need to be implemented by the technical staff to have any effect.

No point making referee reports on how to behave with certain referees if coaches and players don't even know it existed? What would be the point of that?

There is also Negreira's testimony and the testimony of a secretary stating Negreira's contact point with the club (in his last years of payment) was Bartomeu, not any of the coaches. If he is giving TECHNICAL advice that will be given to the coaches he wouldn't be having discussions with the club president solely and his reports don't even make their way to the coaches.

Yes but it doesnt mean the coach wants those reports or the club thinks he needs them.

Barca can have those reports to try and can keep track of referees behaviour across different teams etc. Or even be happy those reports are being made with anything relevant to be highlighted further.

Valverde not seeing them wont add much. Nor would a coach claiming they had really as would all be claimed to be a facade regardless.

No.. him meeting with Bartomeu will not be evidence of much at all that can be used against Barca... again if anything it is not some great way to hide wrong doing by meeting the President and others knowing about it. If going down road of logic it can be applied both ways.

Meeting Barto doesnt prove any wrong doing. Cant just decide who he should meet then apply 'circumstancial evidence' to that.

So far you have claimed there are no invoices, no audits picked up the payments and that Negreira had a lot of influence over referees. Lets see.

If Barca are guilty they need to find a lot more than have.

Can 100% guarantee if coach comes out and said the reports were passed to him folk would just put that down as more of the facacde and reports not worth it anyway.