[ad_1]
TORINO – It’s hard, actually very hard the judgment rejecting Napoli’s appeal. Without a doubt more severe than that of the first instance of sentence, because not only the Federal Court of Appeals reiterates 3-0 on the table against Napoli and the penalty spot, but the judge Piero Sandulli, sanctions all the conduct of the company of Aurelio De Laurentiis and condemns them harshly, with constant references to the fundamental rules of sport, which are quoted at the beginning of the sentence. “Preliminarily, we intend to reiterate, also here, a principle, repeatedly affirmed by the CONI Sports Guarantee Board (see, more recently, decision no. 56/2018), namely that” the ultimate goal of sport is promote sporting merit, loyalty, honesty and healthy competition “.
me the reference to a decision of the Coni Sports Guarantee Board is not accidental, given that it is precisely there that Napoli must resort to the next level of judgment.
THE PROTOCOL – On the other hand, all prayer, in addition to dismantle Napoli’s attempts point by point To prove his thesis, he is oriented to the defense of the FIGC-Government Protocol, of which it becomes a powerful legal bulwark. In the final part of the sentence, in fact, Sandulli writes:
In this sense, this Court cannot fail to highlight how any sharing of the thesis defended by the plaintiff company would inevitably lead to totally frustrating the motivation underlying the federal protocols on the management of competitions and the formation of professional teams. of football in the time of COVID-19, that is, to allow, although in the critical situation caused by the health emergency, to play and complete the Serie A football championship.
That is to say: If everyone interprets the protocol in their own way, the championship does not end, with all the consequences of the case. And again, always in the final part of the sentence, there is another slap to Napoli that ideally occurs on behalf of those who have always respected protocol, even playing with more than two positive players:
In addition, this Court cannot fail to emphasize that the behavior of the plaintiff club is not even respectful with the other associates of the sports system, more precisely with the other professional football clubs in Serie A, than in situations totally similar to the one in the that the company SSC NAPOLI SpA had come to meet in the days prior to the football match in which it takes place (but, in some cases, even more critical), they regularly played the matches in which they participated ”.
ASL – Regarding the specific issues of the appeal, then, the judge reiterated, with greater vehemence, what had been written in the first instance. I mean, that Napoli he did not want to play the game and that the club’s behavior was tense “So to speak, to create an” alibi “for not playing games”. In fact, it is highlighted how ASL1, in its first communication, explained that there was a protocol and it was up to Napoli to apply it. Therefore, the correspondence with the ASL, produced by the club in both first and second degree, turns against Naples. Sandulli comes in even stronger.
The reason why a professional football club, well aware of the content of the federal protocols on the management of matches and training in time of COVID-19, having applied them on several occasions, should ask the health authorities for guidance on their application . it is difficult to understand and this conduct cannot be attributed any other meaning than the wish of the applicant club to pre-arrange a justification for not playing a game that the applicant club had already decided not to play. “
How to say: you have the protocol, you know how to apply itWhy do you start talking to ASL this time if not to build an excuse not to show up in Turin?
FLIGHTS AND PADS CANCELED – In addition, it is clear from the ruling that Napoli not only had he canceled the letter to Turin in the day before, but also «The reservation of the buffers that should have been made, according to the provisions of the Protocol, on the day of the competition); behaviors, the latter, which, contrary to what the applicant company asserted, are in no way irrelevant “. Immediately afterwards, the judge dismisses the invoked force majeure: “The subject who voluntarily and pre-ordered the conditions of doing nothing, cannot then invoke, as an excuse, the occurrence of a subsequent cause, which is not at all autonomous with respect to the recurring conduct implemented by the Company.”.
LAST PALM – Speaking, then, of Napoli’s observations on the Protocol that would be drawn up when the pandemic experienced a less serious moment, the judge reminds the club very severely: Then argue, as does the applicant company, on the fact that these Protocols were drawn up at a time (last spring) when the spread of the COVID-19 virus appeared to be in sharp decline, while the football game of the which the procedure should have taken place at a time when the pandemic had resumed all its virulence, has no relevance since not even the subjects of the sports system, like all associates, have the right to “make the rules themselves” but they are obliged to comply with those established by the competent federal authorities that, by themselves, can modify them to the extent that the real situations that would have justified their adoption and their content change “. And with that «Create your own rules“It sounds very harsh in an exemplary sentence, because it had to be exemplary.
[ad_2]
