Former undercover policeman Jose Manuel Villarejo has accused Real Madrid of being involved in ‘Caso Negreira‘, claiming that the Spanish Government knew about the case over a decade ago.
Villarejo, who himself has been accused of a number of crimes himself including money laundering, espionage and involvement in criminal activity, claims that he became aware of ‘the buying of referees’ in 2012. On two occasions, the later in 2014, he communicated this to the government at the time, but the case was not pursued.
He admitted to spying on former Barcelona President Sandro Rosell, and the Board of Directors at Barcelona, as part of his mission to spy on, and create false evidence in smear campaigns against pro-independence Catalan political factions. Cronica Libre had access to some of his testimony.
“There are two informative notes of mine, two intelligence notes that we are going to see. One is from more or less the end of 2012 and another from 2014, where I state that it is a football issue, I even mention some trouble with referees and such, but as I had previously said that Real Madrid were also involved, apparently, someone was not interested in continuing in that line [of investigation].”
The espionage operation, carried out on various Catalan figures, was allegedly mounted by the sitting government at the time, the right-wing Partido Popular. Real Madrid President Florentino Perez has close links to the party, and has been seen associating with various members of the party over the years.
Whether Villarejo’s testament is true or not, remains to be proven. He has been accused of deception in the past, but equally is responsible for uncovering a number of scandals. As this is a leaked tape of his testimony, it is not yet clear whether these comments will go any further.
“said that Real Madrid were also involved, apparently”
Apparently? Ooh, that weighs so much more than clear black on white receipts.
Why dont you write about what Marca reported about instead, here for your convenience – “The two UEFA inspectors believe Barcelona should be banned from the Champions League”.
“…but as I had previously said that Real Madrid were also involved, apparently, someone was not interested in continuing in that line [of investigation].”
Way to twist it, lol. He’s saying that apparently, someone was not interested in continuing that line of investigation because it involved Madrid.
You also misquoted the FIFA investigators, but I suspect that you already know that. Here is the actual wording from Marca, as well as a contradiction of their reporting from MD;
As per ABC (via Marca), the two lawyers carrying out that investigation Mirjam Koller and Jean-Samuel Leuba, have found indications that they tried to do so. They will present their evidence to the UEFA Ethics Committee.
However MD contradict this report, and say that the investigation is yet to come to any conclusions, with 11 days remaining before they will submit their report.
Im not twisting anything, if you put a comma sign after apparently, it suggests that Real Madrid were “apparently” involved. The correct way to write it (to suggest that someone wasnt interested and so on) would be “apparently someone was not interested in continuing in that line”.
“You also misquoted the FIFA investigators”
I suspected many times before that you are somewhere on the spectrum and you time after time, insist on proving that and making a complete fooI of yourself.
I didnt quote anyone. I merely copied the headline. Im (not really) amazed that you didnt realize that when you browsed for the article (which you obviously did, since youre quoting it) I can only laugh at your thickness, honestly.
Rest of your drivel is therefore moot.
BrokELonas fanbase sports the densest fanbase, I swear.
What I did do is actually read beyond the sensational headline, which you clearly didn’t. Marca created the headline misquoting them, but you lapped it up and passed it on without question.
That’s what you do though. You pick a few words out that suit you and attempt to create a narrative that doesn’t represent the entire content of a piece. The article about Caso Negreria is a perfect example; if one reads the entire article it’s very clear what Villarejo was saying. Instead, you’re arguing about a comma that you think might be incorrectly applied and ignoring the rest of the piece to suit your narrative. It’s pathetic.
I actually didnt say nor do anything lmaoo.
Thats your voices in your head speaking and your mentaII iIIness flaring up. I merely linked to the headline and asked why they dont write an article about themselves. The rest of your rant is moot since its your strawmen, and I really dont feel like arguing with a mentaI iII persons interpretation of reality.
Imagine arguing about semantic while you got when you cant even tell a headline and a quote apart. Dont stop writing, youre my favorite victim to pick apart.
You got corrected*