Firm disappointment «in the face of the darkest page of Italian sporting justice»: with these words the lawyer Flavia Tortorella speaks of the absurd 20-point penalty that hit Messina: «The subjects involved in the Tfn proceedings on 30 October have no type of connection with the current ownership of Messina – she explained speaking to “Antenna Giallorossa” -. Today’s club has been called to answer for offenses committed by the previous governance of the club, from which we inherited, through a judicially administered procedure, the sporting title. Essentially there was a break between the new one and the old one who would have committed the offence, a mandatory condition given that the assessment conducted by the Court is not definitive. While the new entity was not even affiliated with the FIGC at the time of the events. The disputed facts are not the purchase of the title and the affiliation, but even the parenthesis of the judicial liquidation. We found ourselves faced with a blame that we did not share not only in quantity, but in quality. Here there is precisely no reason to establish disciplinary responsibility even “from covert entrapment”, because no one was aware of these facts.”
In fact, the “signatures case”, dating back to 2025, emerged from subsequent complaints from other teams, informed by an anonymous source…
«If the new ownership had become aware of these or other problems, it probably would not have bothered to acquire the sports branch, spending a lot of energy, including economic ones, in a project that is still being vigorously attempted to be “transferred” to the federal justice bodies».
Now waiting for the reasons for the first degree, to go to the appeal. The aim is for a reduction in the sentence or even the cancellation of the penalty.
«We aim for the recognition of government principles regarding disciplinary responsibility. Which is personal. Those who are called to respond must have actually committed the offense or respond through organic identification. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that in September 2026 there was a ruling from the same Court which put in writing that the revocation of the sporting title of a club that enters into judicial liquidation effectively ceases to be effective in the sporting system and in other legal areas. The same Court made a decision of this magnitude a few days later.”
What timeframe will there be, considering that the ACR will subsequently be able to appeal to CONI and then possibly access ordinary justice?
«Within 10 days from October 30, the judge of first instance will have to file the sentence, following which we will have seven days to define the appeal. The date of the hearing must be indicated within 15 days and the appeal procedure will be celebrated. The second degree should be completed by the first ten days of December. After that there could be the guarantee panel, should the federal court not accept our reasons. For the college the times are extended but only slightly, so the last sports grade should also be celebrated in a couple of months. The outcome of which will then be to evaluate any appeal before the administrative judge.”
What will be contested in the possible appeal?
«Both the sanctioning “quantity” of those who committed the offense with respect to the players who agreed to a settlement, but also of a third-party company which only inherited those acts, without operational continuity. The civil lawyers are also studying the aspect regarding the procedure being carried out by the FIGC, validating the registration also by the supervisory bodies which are of federal origin. Someone will have to explain to me and to my colleague Vizzino, who is part of the Messina defense, how it is possible that the right hand and the left hand do not converge on the same outcome. Thus we risk a paralysis of sports titles, that no entrepreneur will ever get closer to sports titles, because they would take on a responsibility in the dark and forever. In the case of the ACR, in addition to the technical reasons, there are also logical and reasonable ones.”
Would a plea deal have been possible?
«As a plea agreement we know the one following the referral or we have the one in the form of an agreement with the prosecutor’s office, which precedes the trial. In this case, the prosecutor’s office had asked for a penalty of 34 points, so if Messina had intended to reach an agreement, they would have had to accept a 17-point penalty. Honestly, regardless of the quantum, the subjects are strangers to the scenario. And if I have to accept 17 points for an admission of responsibility that I don’t have, I’ll go to trial. On the other hand, from 34 points we have already dropped to 20.”