São Paulo board president: “Crime pages worry us” amid crisis | OneFootball

Olten Ayres de Abreu, president of the São Paulo Deliberative Council, held a press conference on the afternoon of this Friday (9) at the Barra Funda Training Center to provide explanations about the impeachment voting process of Julio Casares, which had its date changed, and to discuss the many other controversial issues that have plagued the club in recent weeks.

The situation started off poorly when the club did not broadcast the live press conference link on its YouTube channel, as it usually does with all others. São Paulo will later release the recorded interview. The club justified that Olten requested to speak in the morning, and due to technical reasons, it was not possible to broadcast live.

However, some media outlets present at the location managed to hastily and improvisationally broadcast Olten's statements live, and we were able to follow the main points discussed in the conversation, which had the councilor somewhat nervous when answering some questions. In many cases, he was brief and did not clarify the doubts asked.

Olten Ayres spoke about how he thinks São Paulo fans must be feeling and also revealed the great sense of internal concern within the club.

“I see the fans looking very worried, like any of us, we are concerned. It is not an environment, it is not the type of journalistic page that a football club should frequent, but, anyway, being on the police pages today is a worrying thing,” he admitted.

“I was born in São Paulo, my father was already a São Paulo fan, he was an athlete for São Paulo, so I have a history in football, a São Paulo fan since before I was born, so I am quite sad, quite upset with what is happening.”

“What is happening is very bad for São Paulo. It is very bad for the image of São Paulo and even for football, we are about to start a Paulista Championship with this type of discussion. So, somehow, I think the fans should indeed be worried and I hope we resolve all this as quickly as possible so that we can erase these episodes that have been happening at São Paulo.”

See the main responses from the president of the tricolor Council:

Why was the impeachment date changed?

“I am serving the interests of São Paulo. None of the decisions made violate the club's Statute. The voting date was changed because the basis of the vote itself changed. According to the Statute, notices need to be published eight days in advance and, when the regulation is changed, it becomes mandatory to set a new date.”

And the contradiction in the quorum that favors Casares?

“Regarding the change in quorum, it is a relevant issue. Surprisingly, there are two articles in the Statute that address the same topic, 58 and 112. Article 58 establishes a quorum of 75% of the councilors for approval, including the removal of the president. Article 112, however, requires two-thirds. Therefore, there is a contradiction.”

“In such situations, the more favorable rule prevails, according to the legal principle of in dubio pro reo. Whenever there are two rules on the same subject, the one that benefits more is applied. It was based on this that the change was made, without any relation to personal interests linked to my role.”

No political side

“As president of the Deliberative Council, I need to perform my function without political alignment, acting on behalf of São Paulo, without identifying whether I am on side A or B. This has guided the handling of this issue. You can imagine that I faced pressures of all kinds. In such moments, it would even be easy to back down.”

“There were pressures to withdraw or support this or that, but we do not support anyone. Our role is to organize, manage, and comply with what the Statute determines. This is our position and the way we have managed São Paulo, sometimes more assertively, sometimes less, including in relation to the president of the Board itself.”

The controversy of the in-person vote

“The in-person vote is the way we exercise our right to vote and there is no possibility that this can be contested in any sphere. It is not a personal decision or based on individual understanding, but something provided for in São Paulo's rules. The chance of successful judicialization is zero, there is no possibility of that happening.”

“As for the responsibilities for the actions taken, I assume them all. Everything was thought out, analyzed, and based on legal opinions that support the decisions. Therefore, we are calm regarding the process.”

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.