Paqueta

[LeroysBoots]

"85 million !?! Lol, if we get that I'd piss myself Bloke was fucking terrible today, showboating twat"

[Russ of the BML]

Its got nothing to do with what he made moneywise. He never did it for him. He (allegedly) did it for a family syndicate so they could make money. 

[Ron Eff]

That might be true, but that opens them up for a hell of a counter case in the event of lack of evidence, surely? He’s not just going to accept his career and potential earnings being ended on circumstantial evidence, much like the club aren’t going to accept an asset being liquidised without hard evidence of something that he would be found guilty of in a criminal case. 

On the balance of probability, I’d guess that they’d like to avoid that, and therefore predict a ban in line with other betting cases recently, and I’d wager all on his side will take it on the chin. 

All opinions though, innit. 

[stubbo-admin]

Exactly.  They don't need to prove he did it.  Just to demonstrate that it's more likely that he did it than that he didn't do it...so strong circumstantial evidence will be enough.

His only defence would be not knowing anything about it and them doing it without his involvement at any level (so leaving the outcomes to chance).

If they have any communications to demonstrate he had any inkling that these bets were taking place, irrespective if it shows he was complicit or not, he'll be done for.

[Full Rug]

"How can him being a multi millionaire not be relevant to him committing a crime worth a few grand?"

It is so monumentally thick to suggest that, that it's a struggle to even reply to you.

You really can't seem to grasp the difference between a court of law, and the court of arbitration, just like that prat coma.

In a court of arbitration, how much he is worth and how much the bet was for is completely irrelevant, as is proving specifically he got a card on purpose in isolation. That would be for a criminal case. This is a spot fixing case, IN THE COURT OF ARBITRATION (just in case you need that explaining AGAIN) and the balance of probability rests on this; people he knows, family, in his hometown, allegedly opening betting accounts, putting bets on him and his mate to get booked, the bets being successful. And now allegedly there has been money exchanged between a family member and the other player. 

That is what balance of probability will be based on IN THE COURT OF ARBITRATION.  Not the fact he's a millionaire and doesn't need the money (like millionaires have never done anything of the sort ffs). You might not like it, but that is completely fucking irrelevant.

[threesixty]

If they have evidence if can’t be at “smoking gun” level otherwise they would have presented it to Paquetas team by now and they would be looking at settling somehow. 

apparently they just need “balance of probability” level evidence but I think that the fact it was a few grand and he’s a multi millionaire footballer would kind of look improbable in court. 

so they need an email/text or phone call to tie this up I’d imagine and they just don’t have one. Or some kind of mafia thing where he was forced to do it (which is a bit mad because why dick around gambling when you can just extort someone personally, it is South America after all!) 

this guy gets so many yellows he probably just said yeah I’d probably get one on Saturday and they bet on it





 

I'm not sure how many times it needs explaining for fuck sake.

There's no 'apparently' about the balance of probability. This is not about proving something in a court of law, not at this juncture anyway, so your point about him being a multi millionaire is completely irrelevant (as much as it is a ridiculous defence). It will be the court of arbitration, where he is likely to be found guilty on the balance of probability. Not 100%, but given everything we have heard, he needs a pretty miraculous defence.

Not sure what it is that people don't understand about it. Whether you agree with it or not is neither here nor there.

 

 

How can him being a multi millionaire not be relevant to him committing a crime worth a few grand?
Please!
That is exactly what the balance of probability is about. They would have to come up with a sufficient reason why someone who is in no need of that type of money would risk millions of pounds and his whole career for a few grand. Which is why I said is it mafia related. 

In any case, the PL can rule how they want as it is a private organisation. What they cant do is circumvent the law of the land and of other countries. They will ask Fifa for a worldwide ban on Paq with what amounts to a civil ruling based on probability. They will be essentially banning someone from being able to work in their trade which I assume will be challengable in court. 

They will also be making the club take a loss of a potential 100m asset if they are not insured for stuff like this. I really dont think this is straightforward without concrete evidence. It's going to run and run this one.

Which is why a deal is normally made if they have someone bang to rights to lessen the ban etc. But I dont hear of anything yet. So makes me thing they dont have much more than the probability bit.

So let's see. I wouldn't put money on the PL / betting companies winning this.

[,]

Let’s not miss the point here discussing how much Paqueta made from this deal because it’s irrelevant.

The case to prove is simply did he deliberately get a card.

The fact that others in a tight community thousands of miles away backed him getting carded is circumstantial. 

[Hammer and Pickle]

Looks like the correspondence they have is not enough of a “smoking gun” for the arbitration verdict to hold water in public. Not yet. So they are waiting for the right conditions, like a new witness coming forward or the right media climate. 

We need to stand firmly on our player’s side and can’t blink.

[Russ of the BML]

If they have evidence if can’t be at “smoking gun” level otherwise they would have presented it to Paquetas team by now and they would be looking at settling somehow. 

apparently they just need “balance of probability” level evidence but I think that the fact it was a few grand and he’s a multi millionaire footballer would kind of look improbable in court. 

so they need an email/text or phone call to tie this up I’d imagine and they just don’t have one. Or some kind of mafia thing where he was forced to do it (which is a bit mad because why dick around gambling when you can just extort someone personally, it is South America after all!) 

this guy gets so many yellows he probably just said yeah I’d probably get one on Saturday and they bet on it

 

I heard from several people at the weekend that they do have correspondence and it is enough to find him guilty. But, again, just what I heard. 

[Full Rug]

If they have evidence if can’t be at “smoking gun” level otherwise they would have presented it to Paquetas team by now and they would be looking at settling somehow. 

apparently they just need “balance of probability” level evidence but I think that the fact it was a few grand and he’s a multi millionaire footballer would kind of look improbable in court. 

so they need an email/text or phone call to tie this up I’d imagine and they just don’t have one. Or some kind of mafia thing where he was forced to do it (which is a bit mad because why dick around gambling when you can just extort someone personally, it is South America after all!) 

this guy gets so many yellows he probably just said yeah I’d probably get one on Saturday and they bet on it



 

I'm not sure how many times it needs explaining for fuck sake.

There's no 'apparently' about the balance of probability. This is not about proving something in a court of law, not at this juncture anyway, so your point about him being a multi millionaire is completely irrelevant (as much as it is a ridiculous defence). It will be the court of arbitration, where he is likely to be found guilty on the balance of probability. Not 100%, but given everything we have heard, he needs a pretty miraculous defence.

Not sure what it is that people don't understand about it. Whether you agree with it or not is neither here nor there.

[Hammer and Pickle]

360

Another reason for stalling is to create such a toxic atmosphere around him in the media space that public opinion will swallow the low-level stuff they have on him. Remember, the FA "authorities" are not a court of law and if they want to ban a player, they can basically make up the rules if they feel they can get away with it. That's why they aren't going after City - even the FA don't have the clout to do that.

[threesixty]

If they have evidence if can’t be at “smoking gun” level otherwise they would have presented it to Paquetas team by now and they would be looking at settling somehow. 

apparently they just need “balance of probability” level evidence but I think that the fact it was a few grand and he’s a multi millionaire footballer would kind of look improbable in court. 

so they need an email/text or phone call to tie this up I’d imagine and they just don’t have one. Or some kind of mafia thing where he was forced to do it (which is a bit mad because why dick around gambling when you can just extort someone personally, it is South America after all!) 

this guy gets so many yellows he probably just said yeah I’d probably get one on Saturday and they bet on it
 

[Russ of the BML]

BML Russ

If the authorities have the evidence all they need to do is present it. On the other hand, they will stall if they don’t because the matter has now been hyperinflated by the media and they would lose massive face to admit it.

Yeah, as I said, if they had it then why has it not yet been fully presented? But, I have been told only this weekend, they do have it and Paqueta has been told it will be presented in due course. Why they have taken so long I don't know. I still live in hope that the evidence is over-inflated and it all just disappears. 

[Hammer and Pickle]

BML Russ

If the authorities have the evidence all they need to do is present it. On the other hand, they will stall if they don’t because the matter has now been hyperinflated by the media and they would lose massive face to admit it.

[Russ of the BML]

I just dont understand why someone who is a multi millionaire would risk that for a few grand? Was there some mafia thing going on or something?
It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. He could have just given the family members that cash. Its nothing.

Apparently a family syndicate that runs quite deep. Brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins.... I have heard there's clear evidence of correspondence connecting bets from  numerous family members for the same bets. One of them being him getting booked. 

My argument is the same as it was before. If there was such clear evidence then why has it not yet come. I doubted it and believed the evidence was circumstantial. I said this to the sources that told me the above info and they said because the authorities had the evidence they are taking their time to get the case bang to rights. 

[Hammer and Pickle]

How would we get the best out of him if he's banned?

If there's any way we can get anything back for him after he's banned, then we should be all over it.

At the moment he is being investigated for links to spot-betting by people on “Paqueta Island”. No links have thus far been presented so any talk of a ban is the last thing we need at this stage. It’s also highly embarrassing. 

[Lee Trundle]

How would we get the best out of him if he's banned?

If there's any way we can get anything back for him after he's banned, then we should be all over it.

[Hammer and Pickle]

Do you really think the suggestion the club is going to sue him is going to get what we need out of him, which is, presumably, his best football?

His behaviour is entirely consistent with that of a man whose family and social circle have been engaged in spot betting. This has put him under immense pressure but if he is guilty of anything it’s having shit family and friends. At West Ham, I thought we took care of our own.

[stubbo-admin]

Don't think you can get insurance against something like this.  Only option (with respect recompense) will be to sue the player for breach of contract.

[threesixty]

I just dont understand why someone who is a multi millionaire would risk that for a few grand? Was there some mafia thing going on or something?
It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. He could have just given the family members that cash. Its nothing.

[Manuel]

I have heard from a few sources that he knows evidence is due to come out soon that 100% proves he is guilty of spot fixing. Apparently case is just being finalised. From what I hear, he is toast. He knows it and is just playing for the sake of it. Dead man walking is what I have been told. 

Regardless if he did wrong or not that's all pretty sad and a big shame. just hope we have some kind of insurance for this, if true, which does look likely at this point.

[Russ of the BML]

I have heard from a few sources that he knows evidence is due to come out soon that 100% proves he is guilty of spot fixing. Apparently case is just being finalised. From what I hear, he is toast. He knows it and is just playing for the sake of it. Dead man walking is what I have been told. 

[kylay]

I said when City was after him that I didn't understand how Pep would have someone who gave the ball away as much as he did on his team. Possession is everything at Man City and Pep just wouldn't have it. 

We either coach it out of him or have others in midfield that mitigate for him. But we cant carry on like this really. 

 

Guardiola must have seen something the led him to believe he could coach it out of him. Paquetta could be an elite number 8, but he has gone backwards over the last 6-9 months. Whether the investigation has anything to do with that is anyone's guess. Regardless of the result of that, he's running out of time to make that step in his career.

[RBshorty]

The guy most likely knows he's about to get hit HARD. He certainly looks like one.

[threesixty]

I said when City was after him that I didn't understand how Pep would have someone who gave the ball away as much as he did on his team. Possession is everything at Man City and Pep just wouldn't have it. 

We either coach it out of him or have others in midfield that mitigate for him. But we cant carry on like this really. 
 

[Lee Trundle]

He was involved with our goal at the weekend.  I think he passed to Bowen in a dangerous position before Bowen passed it to the 2 pinball boys in Antonio and Soucek.

I don't think he's playing too well, but I'd have preferred if we kept him on as he can do that sort of thing.

Ask yourself this.  Last minutes of the game and you're attacking.  Who do you want on the ball, Paqueta or Andy Irving?