As the Negreira case rumbles on, a judge has ratified the right of other La Liga clubs to be part of the legal proceedings as injured parties.
After El Mundo published alleged reports that the Spanish Civil Police believe that refereeing was not impartial during the time that Barcelona were paying Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, they also suspect that the services Barcelona claim they paid for were not genuine.
Now, El Confidencial say that the Magistrate Joaquin Aguirre has emitted a series of resolutions so that the case can continue. Former Barcelona President Josep Maria Bartomeu had made a complaint to get Real Madrid removed from the case, but the judge has declared that if indeed ‘systemic corruption’ is proven, then all La Liga clubs could consider themselves injured parties, ratifying their right to be part of the case.
The judge will also not pursue money laundering through deceased Barcelona Director Josep Contreras as a line of investigation, as it would ‘without reason block the principal investigation’, noting that it could be a long and drawn out investigation.
The RFEF have been excluded from the case, with the judge deciding that they are private entity that carries out public functions by delegation, rather than an individual or company.
The judge has instructed that a separate team should be dedicated exclusively to exploring the potential legal consequences for Barcelona.
Further to the investigation itself, the judge wants to explore whether the payments to Negreira can be considered a crime even if there is no evidence of particular referees being paid to alter particular games. So far they are yet to find any evidence of that.
The court is also keen to find out whether a system of promotion and relegation was installed at the Referees Committee (CTA) that meant Negreira could influence matters, and thus have a say in the financial remuneration of referees, who earned more based on international competitions.
To that end, the courts have requested further documentation from Barcelona, the RFEF and the Catalan Football Federation about their due diligence systems. None of the three picked up the payments to Negreira as potentially fraudulent.
Aguirre has also ruled out the CTA’s claim that Negreira’s role was purely decorative, as had been claimed by head of the organisation currently Luis Medina Cantalejo.
The investigation will continue for some time yet, with no sign of the matter being brought to trial. It should be noted that all of these are reports from El Confidencial and El Mundo, and have not been confirmed by any of the parties involved.
Were there any doubts?
Corrupt presidents, corrupt club and morally corrupt fanbase can only amount to corrupt actions.
What gladdens me is that this will tarnish the image of this clu… criminal cartel forever.
“The judge has instructed that a separate team should be dedicated exclusively to exploring the potential legal consequences for Barcelona.”
Music to my ears!
Pitiful madrid man
Suffer, cockroach.
I’d encourage you to read the article again, carefully.
1. The headline is misleading, as the magistrate is misquoted.
2. The magistrate is asking for more information and hasn’t charged anyone with anything.
3. Negreira also received payments from other La Liga clubs, probably engaged in money laundering, and Barca won’t be the only club contacted if that’s looked into.
There may indeed be malfeasance, and I’ve said on here before that the guilty should be punished, no matter who they are, but all we have here is a judge asking for more information and a misleading headline about unconfirmed reports from El Confidential and El Mundo. Does it look bad? Yes, it LOOKS terrible, but let’s wait for the facts. Remember when everyone jumped the gun and was convinced Barca were paying referees? Well, that was investigated multiple times by multiple entities and, once the facts were in, determined to be false. Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.
1. I urge you to do the same, but click on the link to Spanish article. “Judge Joaquin Aguirre maintains that payments from brokelona to former VP of the CTA Negreira allegedly caused systematic corruption…” and so on. Noone is misquoting anything, its your wishful thinking. No evidence can be found unless president amigos are sat down in court under oath and risk of perjury, laporta knows this and thats why hasnt brought Negreira to justice for slandering him and the club by his allegations. After all, laportas presidency is included in report years and it would be logical to sue him if he was lying when he mentioned that he could help them with VAR and their liga loss at the time.
2. The magistrate has decided that there is evidence enough to open a separate piece that will focus exclusively on Negreira. If there was no foul play – he wouldnt have made that call, which goes against bribELona. Sufficient to say, the body of evidence is strong enough to proceed with an investigation.
3. Provide us with the amounts of money other teams have paid so we can compare the sums of money paid. I can bet you that bribELona will be on top of money paid list. Wanna take that bet?
Of course it looks bad, mostly because it is bad. Your club arent strangers, especially laporta, to malfeasance (google laporta Uzbekistan) needless to even mention bartomeu whom even you alluded to as a money launderer, rosell arrested in another corruption inquiry (and ofc included in Negreira scandal). Lets face it, your entire roster of presidents since 2000s (except gaspart) have been in court in one way or another. That says something. And youre saying to everyone that reads this that “theyd never”? Please. Embarrassing.
“Remember when everyone jumped the gun and was convinced Barca were paying referees? Well, that was investigated multiple times by multiple entities and, once the facts were in, determined to be false.”
No, not really, in law a case can be reopened if sufficient evidence emerge which voids the original “determinations” as you put it. Just because one court hasnt found them guilty doesnt mean they arent, nor that another court wont. As it is now. Oh btw, bribery and payment = corruption.
Have you read the judges statement “Its presumed that bribelona wouldnt pay VP Negreira around 7 mil euros since 2001 if it doesn’t benefit him”. I did, it was beautifully poignant.
Tabes system
Wishful thinking doesn’t enter into it for me. I’ve said may times now that the guilty should be punished, no matter who they are. You, on the other hand, are projecting based on unconfirmed media articles, which is interesting because you decry those as sources when Madrid are mentioned in a less than positive light.
Again, the judge is asking for more information, and you glossed over the “allegedly” part the of the “systemic corruption” quote. This means, as you know, that the judge has no facts to state a conclusion. If he did, he would have said so.
Investigating Negreira separately may have tangenital reference to Barca, but I suspect it’s more about his own business practices relative to money laundering and tax evasion. Time will tell.
There have also been (at least) three separate investigations into payments to referees (including FIFA’s), and all of them have concluded that no evidence exists to support those accusations.
It doesn’t look good, and I’ve said that, but breathless speculation, unconfirmed reports and misleading headlines don’t count a bit. Only the facts count, and we don’t yet have them.
Thats great. You have also ignored to adress the established malfeasance culture in your club which of course, never goes in advantage of someone who is suspected of fraud. Would a shyster commit fraud? Ill let everyone else decide.
Unconfirmed media articles, are you saying they invented judges words that I quoted? Ahaha. This has been known for a week or so now, and since laporta didnt sue the paper for slander we can all agree that it is true. Especially since he already mentioned that he will sue every paper that slanders club. Logic isnt your strong suite.
We both know that “allegedly” is a get out of jail card to avoid lawsuit trigger-happy club presidents. There is nothing alleged about him finding irregularities and enough evidence to set another investigation in motion, which is indeed something that shows foul play being involved. The corruption is alleged and that will eventually be proven. And that brings me to later paragraph about three investigations. I dont remember anyone clearing them completely – merely not “finding evidence” which id a day and night difference. There are countless examples in law where verdicts were overturned. What doesnt go in advantage of bribELona is that there is enough evidence to start another round of investigation- that never happens without squeaky clean clubs. Who by the way (it should be repeated over and over again) have a presidential history of arrests, scandals, corruption and so on.
I
snt it peculiar how some people always happen to be center of juridical attention? Must be a coinkydink.
Headline wasnt misleading as Spanish article confirms that, you are free to repeat is as many time you want it but it doesnt make it true.
Lets see the money paid data. I was expecting you to ignore that, so Ill repeat it again.
Its highly relevant.
Cool 7 mill arent pocket money.
“Its presumed that bribelona wouldnt pay VP Negreira around 7 mil euros since 2001 if it doesn’t benefit him”
Everything is presumption without facts.
I didn’t address the money because I don’t know the amounts. I would imagine Barca paid more because Negreira couldn’t get the same money from other clubs, but I don’t know that for sure so I’m only speculating.
Once again, I am and have been advocating that the guilty should be punished. However, anybody can allege anything and it means absolutely squat without facts. Feel free to insinuate and project all you want to, but I think I’ll wait for the facts and the legal results before coming to any conclusions.
You dont know the amounts but yet youre talking about the money?
Are you even sure other teams paid them?
Why this is relevant is because your whole argument falls flat (and bribELonas guilt becomes even clearer) if it turns out that Levante paid them 1000 euro and bribELona 7 mil. “Other clubs paid them too” is convenient but paying millions and paying thousands is a whole different story.
If a person alleges something about someone totally presumably innocent its a whole different story.
Here we are talking about repeated offenders, very shady ways of depositing money (six different accounts) statements from Negreira himself that he could help them with VAR and ligas that went on unpunished and unadressed, as well as almost two seasons without a penalty despite situations that screamed for one (plenty of compilations on Youtube). This all adds up.
Also, this should be noted “La Guardia Civil concluye que con Negreira el arbitraje en España no fue “imparcial”
Civil guard conclude that refereeing under Negreira wasnt impartial article. It seems like we are pretending that didnt happen either.
And just to address your comment about the articles;
“It should be noted that all of these are reports from El Confidencial and El Mundo, and have not been confirmed by any of the parties involved.”
And Im repeating once again since it didnt reach you – if the judges words were fabricated there would be no end to it in media. There would be lawsuits to left and right. In a truly democratical fashion, laporta threatened to sue any journalist who would slander him while curiously enough, not suing Negreira himself for him implying that he “could help” with ligas and var. 1+1=?
In any case, Im not familiar with an instance where three different papers were allowed to make up quotes and legal procedures. Let me know if you are.
There have been no conclusions yes – but there has indeed been evidence enough to conduct another investigation despite “finding no evidence” from other parties (without anyone actually clearing them) and Civil Guard found enough evidence to believe refereeing wasnt impartial during Negreiras haydays. Maybe someone pointed out 72 games without a penalty and at the same time, record amount of penalties for?