Gustavo Cunha

Gustavo Tutinha stated that Vasco and a new investor should expand the competition for Maracanã after the Deliberative Council approved Admiral's proposal. According to him, President Pedrinho had signaled this intention on the day of the approval. Tutinha said that questions about possible irregularities and alleged violations of the bidding document, as well as the involvement of the Public Ministry, the Attorney General's Office, and the State Government, had put the concession under greater scrutiny. He predicted that the bidding process, the obligations of the bidding document, and the decisions of the Fla-Flu Consortium would be closely monitored. The author attributed the change in scenario to the posture he characterized as arrogant from BAP and Frederico Nantes. He also stated that the competition for the use of the stadium could turn into a broader debate about the concession and management of Maracanã, which he described as a public asset, not property of the consortium. Tutinha said that the confrontation that began around a semifinal could be the start of a larger dispute. #Maracanã #Vasco #Licitação (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha stated that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) did not acknowledge the request from the Fla-Flu Consortium in process SS nº 3678/RJ, related to the legal dispute over Maracanã. According to him, the decision, recorded at 1 PM this Thursday (15), did not analyze the merits and represented a procedural setback for the consortium. Tutinha said that the decision in favor of Vasco, issued by Judge Marco Antonio Ibrahim, continued to serve as the basis for holding the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana between Vasco and Boca Juniors at Maracanã, as long as there was no other court order suspending its effects. He stated that the publication of the STJ decision was scheduled for October 19 and that the full text still needed to be analyzed to confirm its foundations and effects. #STJ #CopaSulAmericana #Maracanã (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha argued that Vasco should terminate its contract with Greenleaf. He claimed that the company had produced controversial reports and opinions in the legal dispute over Maracanã, used against the club's interests. Tutinha also requested that the MPRJ, PGE, and control bodies investigate the stadium's concession contract and compliance with the notice, especially in the application of technical and equitable criteria. According to him, the concessionaire managed a public asset and should be accountable for its decisions. Finally, he requested an investigation into the actions of the vice-president of TJRJ, Suely Lopes Magalhães, including the circumstances and competence of her decision, the compliance with the rules of the judicial planton, and the contradictions that, according to him, were pointed out in the decision that subsequently reconsidered its effects. #Vasco #Maracanã #Justiça (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha wrote that Judge Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto reinstated the injunction that required the Fla-Flu Consortium to make the Maracanã available for Vasco vs. Boca Juniors on October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to Tutinha, the magistrate considered that moving the match could pose public safety risks and disrupt the planning already in place, giving weight to the opinions of the Public Ministry and security agencies. Tutinha stated that the judge rejected the consortium's arguments regarding the preservation of the field, believing that any material damage could be compensated for as loss and damages. He also noted that the judge deemed the sale of 46,014 tickets to be significant and dismissed the claim that Vasco's request had become irrelevant with the end of the CONMEBOL deadline. According to the author, the magistrate recorded that the entity had set the new deadline for selecting the stadium as October 13 at 12 PM, Brasília time. Still according to Tutinha, the decision mandated that the basketball game between Flamengo and Botafogo, scheduled for the Maracanãzinho on the same day, be transferred or rescheduled for a time that did not coincide with the flow of fans. He added that the case would be analyzed by the Special Body of TJRJ in the first in-person session, scheduled for October 19, the eve of the match. #Maracanã #Vasco #SegurançaPública (translated)

Gustavo Tutinha stated that Suely Lopes Magalhães, vice president of TJRJ, was in the Netherlands and was not part of the judiciary's on-call service when she made a decision that he considered disconnected in a writ of security. According to him, the judge responsible for the appeal later overturned the decision. Tutinha also asked if they could talk about her calmly. #Justiça #TJRJ #MandadoDeSegurança (translated)

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)