Ron Eff
5:48 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
I agree, threesixty. The fact the player and the club are denying it and committing to fighting the accusation suggests there is highly unlikely to be any “hard” evidence. Otherwise, like you say, he’d admit it and probably create a sob story (threatened, addicted, whatever) to try and reduce any punishment as Tonali did.
Sure, the balance of probability suggests something might have happened given the location of the bets, but it doesn’t feel right that you can end a man’s career on that assumption alone without any actual evidence. In fact, to base that sort of decision and punishment on a 51% chance is plain wrong.
If that happens, he will obviously counter claim given the severity of the punishment vs the lack of any real evidence. Clearly if there is an audit trail he’s both an idiot and fucked.
It’s not really fixed a result has it since it hasn’t had any real impact on it. It’s defrauded the (salt of the earth) bookmakers and cost them cash. On the basis it’s fraud, it should be a criminal case and they would be required to find him guilty with 99% certainty. Truth is though, absent of hard evidence it wouldn’t even get to court.
|
nychammer
4:43 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
In 2017, Joey Barton was banned for 18 months for placing 1,260 bets on matches between 2006 and 2016, which included at least five matches in which he was a player.
Now, can the FA actually prove Paqueta did anything approaching that, and if so why would the punishment be any more severe?
|
Far Cough
4:12 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
The original football betting scandal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_British_football_match-fixing_scandal
|
w4hammer
4:04 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
martin samuels article in the paper today highlights if he's banned it potetially fucks our FFp status up as we have to write-off £40 M or whatever he's valued at on the books... this is one of the things that fucked up evertons books and the difference in the value- on the books of gilfy sigerson after they sacked him for nonecing
I cant think they will be able to find evidence of an email or an ext that they can tie to him...if they can, he's a fukn idiot
|
threesixty
3:37 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
I feel like if they had anything concrete Paqueta would have pleaded guilty by now. I think thats what generally happens.
If its just that he probably did it because of the suspicion, but there is no actual evidence, then they ban him for 10yrs... well thats another court case I imagine because what they are accusing him of is criminal activity.
So he would want to clear his name, and it just goes right back to they dont have the evidence to say he really did something. So any ban will get overturned.
I feel like they dont want to look like mugs by accusing him so they charging him. And maybe hope him having to testify gives them the evidence somehow.
But British authorities ALWAYS double down even if they're wrong on something or cant prove it. Look at the post office shit. It's just in our culture.
|
twoleftfeet
3:16 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Some of you lot have clearly been listening to those twats at C & B, they love a bit of West Ham gloom.
I’m pretty sure Lopetegui and Steidten have a war chest that doesn’t include any money from selling Paqueta.
|
goose
2:03 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
If someone loves a pound note, then borrowing £85m plus interest against £85m which will be paid in a couple of months is completely counterintuitive.
|
brundal
1:59 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
The other problem with this Paqueta betting charge , is that we all know Sullivan likes a pound note and has probably already borrowed the money City were going to pay bit similar to what he did with the Rice deal , so he will now be looking to finance that loan so I would not be surprised if is looking at selling Kudus or possibly Bowen.
|
Fauxstralian
1:37 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
The initial claim was that there were a series of bets from relatives on Paqueta Island for him and his Brazilian mate in a European league to get booked on the same day.
Bizarre oddball bets & the connection with him is obvious
Has the mate been charged?
|
Hammer and Pickle
1:28 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
They need to produce evidence Paqueta was placing bets himself or instructing 3rd parties how to bet. But that’s in a court of law. This is an FA “investigation” and all they need is suspicion.
|
happygilmore
1:20 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Factual evidence of suspicious betting activity linked to Paqueta and spot fixing.
I'm sure you are familiar with it in cricket.
Not treated lightly.
I'm not sure where you are getting the fiction angle from
|
Hammer and Pickle
1:04 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
happygilmore 12:57 Sun May 26
No but you won’t be unfamiliar with the phrase “life is stranger than fiction”. We are dealing with the FA here so all you need to do is join the dots and you’ve got a proper humdinger.
|
Hammer and Pickle
12:57 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Yes Dancer - that’s definitely one way of looking at it.
|
happygilmore
12:57 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Hammer and Pickle 11:45 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
Pickle,
Are you working on a fiction novel?
|
goose
12:35 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Aside from the fact Pickle clearly has no grasp of how accounting works in football……. The rest is just a load of nonsense and bullshit.
Standard stuff from the Polish tramp.
|
Manuel
12:11 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Hammer and Pickle 11:45 Sun May 26
What a crock of shit.
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:45 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Why?
Paqueta has extraordinary talent, knows it and thinks the officials are there on the pitch to prevent him from getting fouled out of the game. But the officials a playing to a different hymn-sheet, he gets frustrated, reacts and starts picking up cards. Add the bookies, the global media and our penny-wise board to the picture and you have the following scenario.
FA handler gets on the blower to Brady “Nice little set-up you got going here. Aspiring. Only your £85 million asset here seems to be attracting all the wrong sort of attention here. Shame if anything were to happen to your £85 million asset - you know what to do Karen”
Brady: “Who are you and what are you on about…”
Next thing we know, Paqueta is under the bus and the club can write off its £85 million asset.
|
Coffee
10:17 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
I can't get this out of my head. It's beyond stupid by Paqueta. Why, why, why?
|
Mex Martillo
9:29 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
Very interesting perspective easthammer 4:09 Sat May 25
Gives me a lot of hope that Paqueta will not be found guilty.
|
Mex Martillo
9:18 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
|
How do these things work for the people that placed the bets. Are they also accused and taken to court?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
11:36 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
|
Stubbo 4:28 Sat May 25
'Trouble is Shorty that "proof" only needs to be that it's more likely that he didn't than didn't. The threshold for success is only balance of probability.'
I suspect you might have to be a bit more certain than 'on the balance of probabilities' if you are going to take away the right for someone to pursue their trade for several years.
|
| 
