Gustavo Tutinha stated that the vice president of the TJ, whom he referred to as Dona Suely, decided during the judicial shift on Saturday afternoon that the internal regulations of the court itself were not valid. He reacted with irony and said he believed the situation was clear. #justiça #TJ #direito (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha stated that when the Law conflicted with Justice, the fight for Justice should prevail. He criticized those who, as he wrote, forgot the oath and said that he remembered it even though he had not taken it. He also expressed indignation at the situation. #Direito #Justiça #Luta (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha requested that Almirantes S.A. terminate the contract with Greenleaf on the first day of his management, regardless of the cost. He stated that the company had produced evidence and reports against Vasco, with conclusions he considered controversial, during the legal dispute over Maracanã. He also blamed Greenleaf for the maintenance of the pitches at São Januário and Maracanã, which he evaluated negatively. #ForaGreenleaf #Vasco #GestãoTransparente (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha reported that Judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, from the 23rd Chamber of Private Law of the TJRJ, ordered the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors to be held at Maracanã and took into account the history of conflicts between Vasco and the concessionaire Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. Tutinha stated that the magistrate pointed out that the club had already sought justice to use the stadium and that the concessionaire had repeated justifications related to the condition of the pitch, which could indicate a "personal issue" between the parties. According to Tutinha, Ibrahim also considered a Memorandum of Understanding between Vasco and the concessionaire. The club argued that the document guaranteed it four matches per season at Maracanã, excluding classics against Flamengo and Fluminense, and that any refusals should be based on objective technical and operational criteria. Tutinha added that Vasco pointed out a contradiction in how the concessionaire invoked the memorandum to restrict access but contested its binding force when it provided rights to the club. Ibrahim considered the document in his reasoning but did not make a definitive decision on the enforceability of all clauses. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha wrote that the judge Marco Antônio Ibrahim, president of the 23rd Chamber of Private Law of TJRJ, granted a preliminary injunction requested by Vasco and ordered the concessionaire Fla-Flu to make Maracanã available for the semifinal of the South American Cup on 10/20, between Vasco and Boca. According to Tutinha, the magistrate prioritized public safety over the conditions of the pitch, mentioned statements from the Military Police and the Public Prosecutor's Office, and stated that the history of conflicts between Vasco and the concessionaire seemed to indicate a "personal issue." The decision would also guarantee the club equal commercial and operational conditions to those of Flamengo and Fluminense, with immediate compliance, including by a court official on duty. #Vasco #Maracanã #SulAmericana (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha stated that the news was positive for both Bruno and Vasco and said that losing the player at that moment would be very bad. He also highlighted the work of the club's Scout and Football departments. According to Tutinha, Bruno was hired for 1.5 million and was 1.80 m tall, was at the peak of physical condition, and was fast and intense. The author pointed out that the player had scored two goals and provided two assists in the previous four games and was a key player in Pedro Emanuel's scheme. He classified the signing as a great success. #Vasco #Futebol #Contratação (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha wrote that the information presented in the follow-up of the Judicial Recovery detailed the financial situation of Vasco and the SAF in 2026. According to him, the updated balance of loans was R$ 287.9 million: R$ 282.4 million in principal and R$ 5.5 million in interest and adjustment. Of this total, R$ 84 million corresponded to Crefisa and R$ 203.9 million to Almirante. Tutinha reported that the loan from Crefisa had a yield of CDI + 7% per year and quarterly amortizations until September 2028. Of the contracts with Almirante, R$ 156.5 million were updated by the CDI, maturing in December 2027, and R$ 47.4 million by the INPC, with maturities in July and August 2027. In July and August, according to him, two loans were contracted with Almirante Participações, of R$ 40 million and R$ 5.6 million, both with a single payment due in 2027. The operation of R$ 40 million also provided for a fiduciary assignment of part of the LFU receivables linked to the commercial appeal criterion. The consolidated tax debt of the recovering companies was approximately R$ 271 million and reached R$ 334 million with adjustments, fines, and interest, wrote Tutinha. During negotiations with the PGFN, Vasco and the Prosecutor's Office supposedly agreed to temporarily reduce the installments of the installments to R$ 580 thousand monthly until the consolidation of a new transaction. The cash balance reported on August 31 was R$ 5.6 million. Between January and August, the cash flow recorded R$ 201.4 million in receipts related to economic rights of athletes, according to Tutinha. Rayan accounted for R$ 171.9 million; Leandrinho was also mentioned with R$ 9.3 million; João Victor, with R$ 5.6 million; Luiz Gustavo, with R$ 5.3 million; Loide, with R$ 2.1 million; and Galarza, with R$ 2 million. Tutinha attributed the increase in marketing revenues in June to the receipt, in a single installment, of R$ 25 million from the master sponsorship contract with SportingBet. The SAF reported, according to Tutinha's account, that cash outflows in August were lower because R$ 46.6 million in payments were deferred to September: R$ 32.6 million in transfer fees, R$ 5.5 million in commissions, R$ 4.5 million in signing bonuses, R$ 3.4 million in taxes, and R$ 630 thousand in TEF. The cash flow recorded R$ 56.8 million in restructuring disbursements between January and August. The breakdown presented by the SAF, however, totaled R$ 59.1 million: R$ 21.9 million for the CNRD, R$ 19.5 million for tax installment plans, R$ 6.8 million related to Judicial Recovery, R$ 5.3 million for the Judicial Administrator and legal and financial advisors, R$ 4.3 million in transfers to the CRVG and R$ 1.3 million for BACEN. Tutinha observed that the itemized amounts did not match the total recorded in the cash flow. According to the numbers disclosed by him, the SAF had 46,347 active clients in the supporter program in January and 35,790 in August, a reduction of approximately 10.5 thousand. Of the clients registered in August, 35,214 were up to date with their payments. Tutinha also wrote that Vasco claimed to be meeting its obligations under the Judicial Recovery Plan on time and settling debts incurred after the recovery request and extrajudicial credits. In the CNRD, the club was to allocate R$ 15 million per year for the payment of three plans; the credits were adjusted by the IPCA and were not subject to discounts. Regarding the agreement concluded in September, Tutinha reported that 777 declared it did not oppose the establishment of the New SAF, the creation of the UPI Equity, the judicial sale of 90% of the shares, nor the transfer of the shares to the winner of the competitive process. The former controller also reportedly stated that it would withdraw from incidents and appeals related to Judicial Recovery and relinquish respective claims. Tutinha affirmed that the numbers outlined the financial operation of Vasco as the club moved towards a new phase of restructuring and the completion of the sale of the New SAF. #Vasco #Futebol #Finanças (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha stated that Judge Adriana Marques had denied Vasco's request based on technical criteria related to the Maracanã's pitch and suggested Nilton Santos as an alternative. He said that the Public Prosecutor's Office recommended Maracanã, based on a statement from the Military Police regarding public safety, and argued that the bid allowed for refusals based on technical criteria without limiting them to the pitch. According to Tutinha, the recommendation did not annul the first-instance decision but could be presented to the Court in a potential new appeal. He questioned which criterion should prevail: the state of the pitch, associated with GreenLeaf, or public safety. #SegurançaPública #Vasco #Maracanã (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha wrote that the judge Rose Marie Pimentel Martins, from the 5th Public Law Chamber, denied the urgent request presented by Vasco's partner Marcus Vinicius de Menezes Reis in a popular action. According to Tutinha, the magistrate recognized the urgency related to the proximity of the match between Vasco and Boca, but deemed the elements insufficient to grant the measure. He stated that the decision treated the popular action and the case filed by Vasco as distinct actions, with their own foundations and legal relations, and dismissed any potential connection or prevention between them. Tutinha added that the denial to the partner did not represent a defeat for the club nor did it mean that the right discussed by Vasco did not exist. In the publication, he also mentioned the profile Naosoujornal. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha wrote that Vasco filed an appeal on Friday (02) at the TJRJ against the decision of the 2nd Civil Court that did not analyze its urgent request to use Maracanã against Boca Juniors and suspended the process for 20 days, after a statement from Fla-Flu Serviços in 48 hours. According to Tutinha, Vasco argued that it needs to indicate the stadium to CONMEBOL by 10/05 for the match on 10/20 at 21:30, and that the suspension could make a subsequent decision pointless. The club requested that Judge Rose Marie Pimentel Martins, from the 5th Chamber of Public Law, grant the request directly for Maracanã to be made available. As an alternative, it requested the end of the suspension and that the first-instance judge analyze the preliminary injunction without waiting for the appeal related to the popular action. Tutinha reported that Vasco also contested the technical criteria used to deny the stadium and claimed a contradiction in the concessionaire's position on the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Vasco, Flamengo, and Fluminense. The club stated that the restrictions should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and cited ten official matches held at Maracanã in May 2026, nine of them between the 9th and 30th, including games on consecutive days: Fluminense x Bolívar on 05/19, and Flamengo x Estudiantes on 05/20; Flamengo x Cusco on 05/26, and Fluminense x Deportivo La Guaira on 05/27. According to Tutinha, Vasco also mentioned the indication of Maracanã by PMERJ as the most suitable option for security planning. Among the requests, it included non-discriminatory commercial and operational conditions, a maximum ticket load according to the authorized capacity, and a daily fine of R$ 1 million in case of non-compliance. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)
Gustavo Tutinha stated that GREANLEAF had produced a distorted technical note in favor of the consortium and against Vasco. He said that the club's management needed to immediately review the contract with the company and argued that it should not provide services to Vasco if it presented evidence against the club. #Vasco #Futebol #Justiça (translated)
🚨 VASCO CONTESTS TECHNICAL CRITERIA OF FLA-FLU, POINTS OUT VIOLATION OF CONCESSION RULES AND CITES DECISION FROM TJRJ IN ACTION FOR MARACANÃ Vasco filed an obligation lawsuit on Wednesday (1st) with a request for urgent protective measures to try to secure the Maracanã against Boca Juniors on October 20, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. In the action, the club directly questions the technical criteria used by Fla-Flu to deny the stadium, points out unequal treatment, supports violations of concession rules, and also explores a contradiction involving the Memorandum of Understanding. 📌 WHAT FLA-FLU ALLEGED In response to Vasco, the concessionaire pointed to the accumulated wear of the lawn, the climatic conditions of July and August, and the need to preserve the intervals designated for field maintenance. For 10/20, Fla-Flu specifically mentioned games of Fluminense on 10/18 and Flamengo on 10/22. With Vasco x Boca between these matches, there would be three games in five days. According to the concessionaire, this sequence would prevent procedures such as helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and repair of damage to the lawn. 📌 VASCO QUESTIONS THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION The first counterpoint is the lawn itself. Vasco highlights that, three days after the denial, it was announced that the existing field would be removed and new Bermuda Celebration rolls would be placed, with the return of football scheduled for 10/08. Vasco x Boca will be on 10/20. The club's thesis is that it would not be possible to use the accumulated wear of the old lawn as justification for a match that will take place 12 days after the return of football to the renewed field. 📌 GREENLEAF DOCUMENT IS USED BY VASCO Vasco also retrieves the technical planning prepared by Greenleaf, the company responsible for lawn maintenance, in August. According to the action, the document shows that the same procedures cited by Fla-Flu to deny Vasco x Boca have already been carried out in a concentrated manner between matches. The petition states that helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and damage repair have even been grouped in a single day after a match, even in a winter scenario and lawn wear. The question posed by Vasco is direct: if this work could be done in August to accommodate the sequence of games from Flamengo and Fluminense, why couldn't it be repeated in October, after the complete lawn replacement? 📌 INTERVAL BETWEEN GAMES Vasco also contests the argument of three games in five days by comparing the situation with the recent calendar of the Maracanã. The action argues that sequences with reduced intervals for Flamengo and Fluminense matches have already been admitted. For Vasco, if the necessary interval for lawn recovery is decisive for denying a match, that criterion must be applied equally to all clubs. 📌 SHOWS AND OTHER EVENTS The action also points out that the Maracanã hosts shows, religious gatherings, and events from other sports, including the installation of structures and occupancy of the field area. Vasco questions how the administration can reconcile these events with lawn preservation, yet considers it technically unfeasible to host a semifinal of CONMEBOL. According to the data presented in the action, at least seven extraordinary events unrelated to official football were held between 2025 and 09/30/2026. 📌 CONCESSION NOTICE Vasco cites item 3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which gives priority to football events from the official calendars of FIFA, CONMEBOL, CBF, and FERJ over other events. Vasco x Boca is an official semifinal of CONMEBOL. The action argues that there would be an "inversion of this priority" by accommodating shows and other events and denying the stadium for a match that, under the concession rules cited by the club, should have priority. The petition mentions "distortion of the concessionaire's obligations" and "violation of the equal treatment required by the Concession Notice." 📌 UNEQUAL TREATMENT Vasco summarizes its challenge in four points: • the lawn replacement would change the premise of accumulated wear; • Greenleaf's own planning would demonstrate that maintenance could be carried out between matches; • the calendar would show reduced intervals that have already been admitted for Flamengo and Fluminense; • other events are reconciled with the necessary care for field preservation. As a result, Vasco asserts that restrictions are being applied selectively. The action further cites clause 13.2 of the Concession Contract, which prohibits favoritism and unjustifiably different, discriminatory treatment, or "without technical criteria" that results in restricted access to the Complex. 📌 THE CONTRADICTION POINTED OUT BY VASCO Fla-Flu claims not to recognize the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025. At the same time, according to Vasco, it uses the document itself—especially the provision for four matches conditioned on availability and operational conditions—to justify the denial. Vasco points out contradictory behavior and invokes the principle of good faith. 📌 PREVIOUS DECISION OF TJRJ The action also cites the Instrument Appeal No. 3023517-70.2026.8.19.0000. On that occasion, Justice Alexandre Freitas Câmara analyzed the discussion regarding the absence of Fla-Flu's signature on the Memorandum. The magistrate stated that Flamengo and Fluminense, members of the concessionaire, had signed the document and pointed out that disregarding it later could represent contradictory behavior contrary to good faith. 📌 RECOMMENDATION FROM BEPE The issue of public safety also appears as an argument for the use of the Maracanã. According to the action, BEPE (Specialized Battalion for Policing in Stadiums) recommended holding the match at the Maracanã due to the magnitude of the confrontation and the expected public turnout. Vasco uses this recommendation to argue that the Maracanã is not just a preference of the club. The petition points to the stadium as the option that best meets capacity, location, structure, security, and operational conditions to host the match against Boca. 📌 SÃO JANUÁRIO IS NOT AN OPTION Vasco also differentiates the situation from the previous process involving Vasco x Vitória, when it did not obtain a preliminary injunction to use the Maracanã. This time, according to the action, São Januário cannot host the semifinal. The South American Manual requires a minimum capacity of 30,000 spectators starting from the semifinals, while the petition indicates São Januário has approximately 21,880 seats. Vasco acknowledges the Nilton Santos Stadium as an alternative but argues that having another stadium does not resolve the issue brought to Justice: is there legitimate technical and contractual basis for Fla-Flu to deny Maracanã? 📌 WHAT VASCO SEEKS Vasco is seeking a preliminary injunction requiring Fla-Flu to make the Maracanã available for Vasco x Boca on 10/20 at 9:30 PM. The request includes the maximum ticket allocation corresponding to the authorized capacity, the use of necessary facilities for organizing the match, the implementation of a mosaic, and temporary installation of banners in the same manner allowed for the clubs that are members of the concessionaire. In case of non-compliance, Vasco requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million. Vasco must inform CONMEBOL by October 5 where it will hold the return match of the semifinal. #Vasco #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)
VASCO REJECTED €12 MILLION FOR ANDRÉS GÓMEZ AND IS SET TO INCREASE THEIR STAKE IN THE COLOMBIAN’S RIGHTS Andrés Gómez is another recent example of Vasco's stance in the market. During the last transfer window, according to reports, Vasco received a European proposal of approximately €12 million for the Colombian and decided not to negotiate. In addition to seeing potential for appreciation, the club understood that the striker still had much to offer on the field. Vasco has a contract option to acquire an additional percentage of Andrés Gómez's rights, and the tendency is that this option will be exercised. Andrés is adapted to Rio de Janeiro and is not in a hurry to return to European football. The Colombian is comfortable at Vasco, and at this moment, a new transfer to Europe is not a priority for the player. #Vasco #AndrésGómez #MercadoFutebolístico (translated)
Just one more here... Vasco will take legal action to play at Maracanã against Boca. And, if successful, the game will be there. #Vasco #Maracanã #BocaJuniors (translated)
🚨 EXCLUSIVE: CHELSEA, ARSENAL, AND MANCHESTER CITY EYEING BRENO SALES; VASCO REJECTS €10 MILLION OFFER One of the main gems from Vasco's youth academy is already catching the attention of giants from the Premier League. Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester City have shown interest in Breno Sales, a left-footed defender who is only 16 years old. In addition to inquiries, Vasco has already received a €10 million offer for the player and has rejected it. Breno Sales turns 17 in November. A left-footer, he started his training as a forward, moved to left-back, and currently plays as a defender. Even at just 16 years old, he had significant playing time during much of the season in the Under-20 league and is also a regular presence in the youth categories of the Brazilian National Team. The defender was a champion of the Under-17 Brazil Cup in 2025 and was part of the squad that won the Under-20 Brazilian Championship in 2026, playing above his age group. Breno already has a professional contract with Vasco, which reportedly runs until the end of 2028. Breno was also a starter for the Brazilian Under-17 team at the South American Championship, and expectations are that he will be with Brazil in the World Cup for his category in November. The competition could further increase the player’s exposure in the international market. Vasco's stance also reflects the new phase experienced by its SAF. With Marcos Lamacchia in control and greater financial stability, the club believes it is better positioned to protect its key assets and does not need to negotiate its young talents simply to raise cash. The intention is to sell when the values are deemed appropriate, without giving up the sporting returns these players can provide. Andrés Gómez is another recent example. During the last transfer window, Vasco reportedly received a European offer of approximately €12 million for the Colombian and decided not to negotiate. In addition to seeing the potential for appreciation, the club felt that the forward still had much to deliver on the field. Even with €10 million on the table and Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester City interested, Vasco decided to hold onto one of its main gems. Photo: Dikran Sahagian/Vasco da Gama. #Vasco #Futebol #Transferências (translated)
🚨 ALMIRANTE APRESENTA FIANÇA BANCÁRIA DE R$ 324 MILHÕES PARA O LEILÃO DA VASCO SAF Às vésperas da abertura das propostas para a venda da Vasco SAF, a Almirante Participações protocolou na Recuperação Judicial a documentação referente às salvaguardas exigidas pelo edital. A empresa apresentou uma fiança bancária de R$ 324 milhões emitida pelo Banco Crefisa, além de comprovar o depósito judicial de R$ 27 milhões referente ao biênio. A carta estabelece que a Crefisa será principal pagadora e responsável solidária com a Almirante pela obrigação garantida. A garantia é irrevogável e irretratável. Em caso de inadimplemento do Auxílio Financeiro destinado ao pagamento dos credores da Recuperação Judicial, o banco deverá pagar o valor devido, dentro do limite da garantia, em até cinco dias úteis após a notificação prevista no documento. Importante: os R$ 324 milhões não foram depositados em juízo. Trata-se de uma garantia bancária. Já os R$ 27 milhões foram efetivamente depositados judicialmente. A Almirante, de Marcos Lamacchia, é o stalking horse do processo competitivo. A abertura das propostas está marcada para amanhã (25), às 14h. Agora, além do depósito dos R$ 27 milhões, a garantia de R$ 324 milhões também está formalmente protocolada nos autos. #VascoSAF #Leilão #RecuperaçãoJudicial
🚨 URGENTE: CAMPOS MELLO DESISTE DE AÇÃO CONTRA A 777 O escritório Campos Mello e Campos Mello Sociedade de Advogados protocolou, nesta quinta-feira (24), pedido de desistência da ação movida contra a 777 Carioca LLC. A movimentação acontece um dia após o escritório recorrer à segunda instância buscando a indisponibilidade das ações da 777 Carioca na Vasco SAF. No novo documento, o Campos Mello pede formalmente a extinção do processo sem resolução do mérito. 🚨 A desistência ocorre às vésperas do leilão da Vasco SAF, marcado para esta sexta-feira (25), às 14h. #Justiça #Vasco #Direito
Facundo Colidio não é ponta, não é 9, não é meia. O cara é jogador de futebol, simples assim. E dos BONS. Santiago Sosa é chover no molhado. Leitura, intensidade, entrega, volume. Lescano simplifica o jogo. Jogador normal precisa de três toques na bola, Pipa resolve com um só. DIFERENTE. Bruno Duarte dá opção o jogo TODO. Não para de se movimentar, atacar espaços, brigar com os zagueiros. E crava. Essa janela aqui da basicamente 20M de dólares. Excelente trabalho da diretoria e do departamento de futebol. #Futebol #Jogadores #MercadoDaBola
🚨 VASCO APRESENTA O EDITAL PARA A VENDA DA NOVA SAF ATUALIZADO DE ACORDO COM AS SUGESTÕES DOS FISCAIS E COM AS DETERMINAÇÕES DA JUSTIÇA 🚨 O novo edital da UPI Equity detalha como funcionará o processo competitivo para definição do futuro controlador da Nova SAF do Vasco. E atenção: 25 de setembro será uma data importantíssima, mas a venda não necessariamente estará definitivamente concluída nesse dia. Separei os principais pontos: ⚫⚪ O QUE ESTÁ SENDO VENDIDO? O processo prevê a alienação judicial da UPI Equity, correspondente a 90% do capital social total e votante da Nova SAF que será constituída pela Vasco SAF. Essa Nova SAF receberá a operação relacionada ao futebol, incluindo ativos esportivos, direitos federativos, contratos de atletas e comissão técnica, contratos comerciais, patrocínios, propriedade intelectual ligada ao futebol e direito de uso dos centros de treinamento. Ou seja: não são 90% do Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama. São 90% da Nova SAF. 🏟️ SÃO JANUÁRIO A Nova SAF terá direito de utilização de São Januário nos jogos de futebol profissional em que atuar como mandante, com prioridade absoluta e exclusividade até 31 de dezembro de 2030. Em contrapartida, o vencedor deverá pagar ao CRVG: ➡️ R$ 3 milhões por ano; ➡️ R$ 2 milhões por ano caso uma reforma impossibilite a utilização do estádio. 💢 PROPRIEDADE INTELECTUAL O edital prevê a cessão definitiva à Nova SAF dos bens, ativos e direitos de propriedade intelectual. O CRVG terá licença para utilização dessa propriedade intelectual nas modalidades esportivas diferentes do futebol e para fins associativos. 💰 R$ 500 MILHÕES PARA O FUTEBOL A obrigação financeira central estabelece R$ 500 milhões em aportes, com previsão de R$ 100 milhões por ano entre 2026 e 2030, atualizados pelo INPC. E existe uma determinação importante: esses R$ 500 milhões deverão ser utilizados exclusivamente na operação do departamento de futebol. Não poderão ser utilizados para pagamento de dívidas ou outras obrigações da Nova SAF perante as Recuperandas. 🏗️ MAIS R$ 150 MILHÕES EM INFRAESTRUTURA Além dos R$ 500 milhões: ➡️ R$ 120 milhões em até 10 anos para o CT da equipe profissional masculina; ➡️ R$ 30 milhões em até 2 anos para melhorias na infraestrutura das categorias de base. A compra de terrenos não entra nessa conta. 💵 ATÉ R$ 150 MILHÕES EM INCENTIVOS FISCAIS O vencedor também deverá se comprometer a estruturar e conduzir projetos de incentivo fiscal em benefício do CRVG, podendo chegar a R$ 150 milhões ao longo de 10 anos. A eventual não obtenção das aprovações, quando provocada por fatores fora do controle do investidor, não será considerada inadimplência. 📊 E SE A NOVA SAF PRECISAR DE MAIS DINHEIRO? Outro ponto muito relevante: Se a Nova SAF não possuir recursos suficientes para cumprir determinadas obrigações relacionadas à Recuperação Judicial, dívidas tributárias e extraconcursais, fluxo de caixa e investimentos em infraestrutura, o vencedor deverá realizar aportes adicionais. Esses aportes extras não aumentarão sua participação societária e não provocarão diluição da participação da Vasco SAF. Além disso, durante cinco anos após o fechamento, deverá ser assegurado fluxo de caixa equilibrado para que as receitas operacionais cubram despesas e investimentos ordinários. 🔒 10 ANOS SEM VENDER E SEM DIVIDENDOS O vencedor não poderá alienar as novas ações da Nova SAF durante 10 anos. A Nova SAF também ficará 10 anos sem poder distribuir dividendos. 🏦 DIP CREFISA Caso o Primeiro Proponente seja o vencedor, está prevista a conversão em capital social do crédito referente ao financiamento DIP concedido pelo Banco Crefisa à Vasco SAF, no valor líquido aproximado de R$ 80 milhões, com a consequente quitação dessa dívida. 🐎 QUEM É O STALKING HORSE? A Almirante Participações e Empreendimentos S.A. é identificada no edital como o Primeiro Proponente — stalking horse. Sua proposta vinculante funciona como parâmetro mínimo do processo competitivo. A Almirante já está automaticamente habilitada para participar do certame e não precisa apresentar uma nova proposta fechada para estar na disputa, embora tenha de cumprir as salvaguardas exigidas pelo edital. 💣 AS GARANTIAS PARA ENTRAR NA DISPUTA SÃO PESADAS Um interessado não poderá simplesmente chegar no dia 25 e oferecer mais dinheiro. Entre as exigências estão: ➡️ R$ 150 milhões em depósito judicial para o Proponente Habilitado, antes da abertura dos envelopes; ➡️ R$ 324 milhões em garantia bancária, exigida tanto do Primeiro Proponente quanto dos demais participantes; ➡️ R$ 27 milhões em depósito judicial, correspondente aos créditos concursais que vencerão durante o período de supervisão judicial. Além disso, existem outras garantias previstas no edital, incluindo conta vinculada e garantidores com capacidade financeira comprovada. Na prática, isso cria um filtro financeiro muito forte para quem realmente quiser disputar a SAF. 📑 COMO UM INTERESSADO ENTRA NA DISPUTA? Após a publicação do edital no Diário de Justiça, os interessados terão 5 dias corridos para manifestar formalmente interesse e apresentar sua qualificação. Será necessário comprovar, entre outros requisitos: ➡️ regularidade jurídica; ➡️ estrutura societária; ➡️ poderes dos representantes; ➡️ capacidade de cumprir as obrigações financeiras; ➡️ capacidade de apresentar as garantias; ➡️ cumprimento das salvaguardas; ➡️ assinatura de acordo de confidencialidade. Depois de habilitado, o interessado terá acesso à Sala de Informação, onde poderá realizar a auditoria da UPI Equity. 📅 E O QUE ACONTECE DIA 25 DE SETEMBRO? A audiência de abertura das propostas fechadas está marcada para: 📆 25 de setembro de 2026 ⏰ 14h 📍 4ª Vara Empresarial do Rio de Janeiro Os envelopes serão entregues lacrados e as propostas serão abertas durante a audiência. Se existir proposta concorrente válida superior à proposta vinculante, o Juízo deverá apurar e declarar na audiência qual considera a Melhor Proposta. ⚠️ MAS ISSO AINDA NÃO SIGNIFICA QUE O CONCORRENTE VENCEU DEFINITIVAMENTE. 🔄 ALMIRANTE TERÁ DIREITO DE COBRIR A MELHOR PROPOSTA Como stalking horse, a Almirante possui o chamado right to match. Caso apareça uma proposta melhor, ela terá 3 dias úteis para igualar essa proposta. Se exercer esse direito corretamente, a proposta da Almirante será considerada vencedora. Caso não exerça, prevalecerá a melhor proposta concorrente escolhida pelo Juízo. ❌ E SE NÃO APARECER NINGUÉM? O edital também responde isso: Na ausência de propostas válidas superiores à proposta vinculante, o Primeiro Proponente será considerado vencedor, desde que cumpridos os demais requisitos. 💰 R$ 25 MILHÕES DE BREAK-UP FEE Se outro investidor vencer e a Almirante não exercer o direito de igualar a proposta, será devida ao Primeiro Proponente uma compensação de R$ 25 milhões. E atenção: quem paga é o proponente declarado vencedor, após a homologação judicial e como condição anterior à transferência das novas ações. ⚖️ A SAF SERÁ VENDIDA SEM AS DÍVIDAS ANTIGAS? O edital estabelece que a UPI Equity será alienada livre de ônus e sem sucessão do comprador nas dívidas e contingências das Recuperandas, nos termos previstos na legislação de Recuperação Judicial. Essa proteção abrange obrigações de diversas naturezas, como tributárias, trabalhistas, cíveis, comerciais, previdenciárias, administrativas e outras previstas no documento. 🏁 DIA 25 NÃO É NECESSARIAMENTE O FIM Essa parte é fundamental. A audiência pode definir a Melhor Proposta, mas, havendo concorrente, ainda haverá o prazo de três dias úteis para a Almirante exercer o right to match. Somente depois desse prazo será definida a Proposta Vencedora. Depois disso, o Juízo ainda deverá homologar judicialmente a alienação. E ainda existirão condições necessárias para o fechamento definitivo da operação e transferência das ações. 📌 RESUMINDO O Vasco entrou formalmente em um processo competitivo para alienação de 90% da Nova SAF. A Almirante começa como stalking horse e estabelece o parâmetro mínimo da disputa. O investidor que quiser superá-la precisará não apenas apresentar uma proposta financeiramente melhor, mas também demonstrar enorme capacidade financeira e cumprir todas as garantias e salvaguardas estabelecidas. 25 de setembro será o grande dia para descobrirmos se existe uma proposta concorrente válida e, existindo, quanto o mercado está disposto a oferecer pela Nova SAF do Vasco. Depois disso, ainda poderá existir um último movimento da Almirante. A disputa pela SAF do Vasco entrou definitivamente em uma nova fase. #Vasco #SAF #Futebol
Claim it. Contact us at [email protected]