Ethics committee blocks expulsion, urges Dedé suspension | OneFootball

São Paulo’s Ethics Committee has concluded the judgment of the disciplinary complaints filed against lifetime council member and former social director Antonio Donizeti Gonçalves, known as Dedé.

By majority vote, the panel dismissed the accusation of reckless management but found damage to the institution’s image. The body recommended a 120-day suspension, an opinion that will be forwarded to the Deliberative Council, which will make the final decision.

At the start of the session, the committee members unanimously rejected all preliminary arguments presented by the former executive’s defense. Requests to stay the proceedings were denied, as were claims that the judging body lacked jurisdiction and arguments alleging lack of just cause. On the merits, most council members concluded that there was not enough evidence to classify Dedé’s conduct as irregular or reckless management, which also removed any obligation for financial compensation to the club.

Damage to the image and calculation of the penalty

Despite the acquittal on the reckless management charge, the panel concluded that the former director harmed São Paulo’s image. This understanding was based on the fact that the council member had issued written statements that were later used by the company FGOAL in legal proceedings brought against the club itself. The violation was classified under article 10, item “q,” of the Internal Regulations, in conjunction with article 34, paragraph 4, of the Bylaws.

Given the lack of full consensus on the penalty calculation, the committee adopted the criterion of applying the less severe sanction to the defendant. A base penalty of a 90-day suspension was set, increased by one-third due to the aggravating factor that the accused is a member of one of the club’s governing bodies, bringing the total recommended suspension to 120 days.

Dissent prevented expulsion from membership

The partially dissenting vote of council member José Edgard Galvão Machado was decisive in ruling out the maximum penalty of expulsion from the membership rolls. In his opinion, Machado argued that although the body of evidence showed administrative irregularities and governance failures, it did not prove the existence of intent, personal gain, or direct financial loss that would justify expulsion. However, he noted that a formal warning would be insufficient, arguing for the need for suspension due to institutional damage.

The disciplinary case originated from two complaints filed with the Ethics Committee after documents concerning FGOAL’s activities in the Social Club became public. The complainants argued that Dedé had authorized commercial operations without the backing of a formal contract and later provided the service provider with statements favorable to the company in legal disputes against São Paulo.

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