What Milan risks with the investigation into Gazidis and Furlani: fines, penalties and exclusions from the cups

The investigation into Milan could cost the Rossoneri fines and penalties. And Europe is in danger for next year. Even if a possible UEFA file would only be opened after the FIGC's decision. According to the investigation by the Milan public prosecutor's office coordinated by Giovanni Polizzi and Giovanna Cavalleri, the Elliot fund currently maintains “substantial control of the Ac Milan company”. While the 2022 transfer in favor of Gerry Cardinale's Redbird fund was represented to the federation's supervisory authority. Former CEO Ivan Gazidis and current CEO Giorgio Furlani are under investigation for obstructing the exercise of the supervisory authority's functions. Because they would have “concealed facts which they should have communicated to the FIGC by fraudulent means”.

Articles 31 and 32 of the Sports Justice Code

But apart from criminal cases, the federation prosecutor's office will request the documents from Milan today. Violations could affect articles 31 and 32.5 of the Sports Justice Code. Article 31 talks about management and economic violations, while Article 32 describes “duties and prohibitions regarding memberships, transfers, sales and corporate controls.” According to paragraph 5, “the failure to produce, the alteration or the material or ideological falsification, even partial, of the documents requested by the sports justice authorities constitutes an administrative offense”. And it prescribes that the company which does not fulfill the communication and filing obligations within the established deadlines […] is punishable by the sanctions provided for, or, failing that, by those of a fine or a penalty of one or more points in the ranking”. The Rossoneri also risk seeing article 4 on sporting loyalty called into question.


Then there are the UEFA rules on timeshare. Any violation may result in exclusion from cups. But in this case, it must be shown that Elliott is the owner of Milan and that he was the owner of Lille. The prosecution is convinced that the transfer from Milan, which took place on August 31, 2022, was simulated and that the real ownership was hidden. Paolo Scaroni is not under investigation, despite being president of Milan, because responsibility for communicating ownership transfers lies with the CEO. Yesterday's research revealed a dispute between Blue Skye and Elliott over the sale of the club. The company of Salvatore Cerchione and Gianluca D'Avanzo has triggered a series of disputes in recent months between the United States, Luxembourg, Italy and Hong Kong. The key to control is found in the seller loan agreement. RedBird paid Milan 1.2 billion euros.


Cardinale bought with 600 million in cash and other amounts loaned by the seller. The imprint writes today that the Guardia di Finanza's investigative deduction on the Milan property comes from documentation acquired in Luxembourg a year ago during the searches of investigated advisors Jean Marc McLean and Daniela Italia of the RedBlack Project. That is to say the corporate vehicle that controlled Milan until the sale. Then there are rumors about the arrival of new partners, namely the Bahraini fund Investcorp and the Saudi Pif. An internal company document titled 'Ac Milan Investor Presentation' claims that the potential new investor would enter the club with 41.7% thanks to the purchase of 80% of Elliott's funding. This element, according to the Gdf, would confirm that the seller loan signed between RedBird and Elliott guarantees the latter control of part of the company.

Conflict of interest

This circumstance would therefore highlight the conflict of interests in Europe. Where the Singer fund seems to have a dominant influence on the French club Losc Lille. Double checking would violate Article 5 of the UEFA regulations. The one which prevents the same owner from having an influence on two or more clubs registered in the same European competitions. The checks began precisely after a complaint from Blue Skye, a minority shareholder. Who would have reported a loss of guarantees on the loan of more than 100 million euros. And he also supports the existence of “opacity in corporate transitions”.

Read also:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *