the motivations of Coni. Compulsiveness of the decisive terms
ROME – DAfter bringing forward the hearings to July 17, yesterday afternoon the Coni Guarantee Board presented the reasons for the decisions taken regarding the appeals of Reggina, Perugia, Siena and Foggia. As is well known, the highest Italian sports court has confirmed the exclusions of Reggina and Siena ordered by the Federal Council on July 7th. On the other hand, the requests of Perugia were accepted, which had contested the admission of Lecco to the Series B championship, despite the late submission of the documents relating to the infrastructural criteria in the choice of sports facility, established as an exception in the Euganeo of Padua.
THE REGINA CASE. As for Reggina (which changed hands yesterday), the Coni judges dismissed all of the arguments put forward by the company, essentially focusing on failure to meet the mandatory June 20, 2023 deadline for Covisoc obligations. However, as regards the request for authorization from the Court of Reggio Calabria, the non-finality of the provision was contested, but disputed by the Revenue Agency and the INPS. The thesis of the alleged primacy of civil law over sports law was rejected by the Guarantee Committee, even though Saladini’s club had ensured that salaries and withholdings of around 6 million euros were covered. The Amaranth executives would have had to pay the Revenue Agency an additional €700,000 in order to be able to restructure the debt inherited from the previous management. An amount that was not transferred to the beneficiaries until July 5th, well beyond the June 20th deadline. So, again, compulsiveness becomes crucial.
PERUGIA AND LECCO. This concept was the main reason for accepting Perugia’s appeal and the exclusion of Lecco, initially rejected by the technical bodies and then included in B by the Federal Council, considering the postponement of the playoff final close to the deadlines for issuing the national licenses. President Tammaro Maiello and rapporteur Guido Cecinelli affirmed, without the possibility of derogation, that once the conditions for registering for the championships have been established, they must be respected.
TEARLESS FIGHT. As for Foggia, who lost to Foschi’s Manzoni players in the final of the Serie C playoffs, the appeal was ruled inadmissible for “lack of direct and immediate interest in acting”. While recognizing the active legitimacy of President Nicola Canonico, the judges held that Article 49 of the Noif precludes any immediate possibility of inclusion in Lecco’s place, since the ranking of those relegated from Serie B is decisive. These are Brescia, Perugia, Spal and Benevento, all of whom, not coincidentally, have made the appropriate request for re-entry into Serie B. Even if the position of the Umbrian club is still in charge of adapting the Curi stadium. There is no escape for Siena, many failures recognized by Covisoc and confirmed by Coni.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENTS. Once the reasons are known, the companies can appeal to the Lazio Tar, which will comment on August 2nd. The hearing in the State Council is already scheduled for August 29. Meanwhile, on July 24, the Federal Council will consider applications for resumption or repechage for next season, but still awaiting administrative decisions on staffing levels. The FIGC does not intend to change the format. However, it seems inevitable that the start of the two championships scheduled for August 19th and 26th will be postponed and for B there is already a published calendar, but it needs to be corrected.
© Reproduction reserved
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
