Olten Ayres updates on São Paulo VIP scandal, defends Casares changes | OneFootball

Olten Ayres de Abreu, president of the São Paulo Deliberative Council, gave a press conference on the afternoon of this Friday (9th) at the Barra Funda Training Center to try to clarify some of the many controversies the club has been involved in at the start of the year.

One of them is the VIP Box Scandal, where tickets for concerts in the exclusive and reserved areas of Morumbi were illegally sold by club directors. Olten detailed the current status of the case.

“It’s a point that I consider a trigger point; from the VIP box case, all of this that we’re discussing ended up being revealed. Without a doubt, as soon as we became aware of the VIP box issue, I myself filed a complaint with the Ethics Council. The Ethics Council acted very quickly and appointed one of its members as rapporteur.”

“The investigation is already complete. It was added to the Ethics Council’s case, but it cannot be disclosed yet because it is still confidential. It’s a very thorough investigation. And I hope that soon we will have the result of this investigation. Obviously, the accused are being given the opportunity to defend themselves. And as soon as this happens, you will know, because once the Ethics Council points out what the punishment will be, if any, and what it would be, this punishment will be brought to the plenary of the Deliberative Council.”

Changes that Favor Casares

“This is already an answer to some of the questions being raised about why this meeting is being held in January, which is an unusual month, a vacation month, when many council members are not here. This request was filed around December 20th, so I would have until January 20th to put this request to a vote. So, this is already an important point in the matter.”

“Second aspect, once the Advisory Council meeting is held, it votes on whether it thinks the request for removal is prudent or not, or whether it has a basis or not. It does not issue a binding opinion; it issues an opinion. This opinion is then forwarded to the Deliberative Council, and the Deliberative Council calls a new meeting.”

“That’s how it happened: the Deliberative Council received it from the Advisory Council, the Advisory Council forwarded it, if I’m not mistaken, on the 8th to the Deliberative Council, we called this meeting immediately, and the eight days fell on the 14th.”

“Then, after the request to change the basis for the removal request, we changed this basis, redid the call, and that’s when the eight days fell on the 16th. That being said, there will be a vote; whether this vote will be successful or not, we’ll only know on the 16th. If the vote is successful, the vice president takes over.”

“So, whether the vice president will resign or not, I’ve never talked to him about it. I don’t know what his stance will be. But, hypothetically, if he doesn’t take over—which I don’t think will happen—but let’s suppose he doesn’t want to, then new elections would be called within 30 days.”

Contradiction in Quorum Benefits the President

“Regarding the change in quorum, this is a relevant issue. There are, surprisingly, two articles in the Statute that address the same topic, articles 58 and 112. Article 58 establishes a quorum of 75% of council members for approval, including the removal of the president. Article 112, however, requires two-thirds. So, 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 is more beneficial is applied. It was based on this that the change was made, with no relation to personal interests linked to my position.”

No Political Side

“As president of the Deliberative Council, I need to perform my role without political alignment, acting on behalf of São Paulo, without identifying whether I’m on side A or B. That’s what has guided the handling of this matter. You can imagine that I have faced pressure from all sides. In moments like this, it would even be easy to back down.”

“There was pressure for us to withdraw or give support to this or that person, but we support no one. Our role is to organize, manage, and comply with what the Statute determines. That 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 himself.”

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