Paqueta

[LeroysBoots]

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

[Hammer and Pickle]

Must say the way the so-called West Ham You Tubers have been cranking up the hate on him is utterly disgraceful. 

They are twats, and totally discredited in my eyes.

[Mike Oxsaw]

..."It's just the English FA that get into all this."

Probably at the behest of one or more of the media favourites agreed during a "friendly"  off-radar round of golf somewhere.

I got the impression that with the acquisition of Paqueta, we really had the potential (if not the manager & playing style) to push on and replace one of the elites, at least occasionally.

[Mex Martillo]

Have I missed something?  The West Ham You Tubers are almost writing his football career obituary.

Alfs, my poor understanding of that is someone said Paqueta career is dead and a load of people liked that and it became real news.

[Mex Martillo]

Can anyone explain to me why they do not go after the people that actually placed the bets?


 

I think it would be because "technically" they haven't done anything wrong. They have walked into a betting shop or gone online and placed a bet for Paqueta to get booked in a game. That's not against the law. Where it gets murky is when you are ask the question "Why did they place the bet?" which then leads to what information they had to place that bet. So, for example, if you have, say, 200 people who placed the same bet, how do you get to each of them? And if you were able to, how do you prove they had any information that led to them placing that bet? How do you prove that one individual bet was placed as part of a betting syndicate? What do you say to a person that says 'my friend told me that Paqueta getting booked is a good bet'? Because that is no different to me saying to you "Mex - 'Come on You Irons' in the 2.50 at Utoxeter. Nailed on". You go and place a bet on it.

I think its plain as day what has gone on. Proving Paq was involved is hard. Proving all the betters knew is impossible. 

It's a bit different, but not completely. I once read about some insider trading and it came down to someone overhearing a conversation and buying a load of shares as from the overheard conversation they knew the share price would go up. The crime was not hearing the conversation it was buy the shares based on the that information. Does the crime in this betting thing not have to be placing the bet based on information that they should not have?

Another angle on all this is Luis Henrique has more evidence against him then Paqueta as not only was there suspicious betting, but the people placing the suspicious bets paid Luis Henrique a load of money. However, Spanish FA didn't make charges based on this information. It's just the Engliah FA that get into all this.

[Alfs]

Have I missed something?  The West Ham You Tubers are almost writing his football career obituary.

[Russ of the BML]

Can anyone explain to me why they do not go after the people that actually placed the bets?

 

I think it would be because "technically" they haven't done anything wrong. They have walked into a betting shop or gone online and placed a bet for Paqueta to get booked in a game. That's not against the law. Where it gets murky is when you are ask the question "Why did they place the bet?" which then leads to what information they had to place that bet. So, for example, if you have, say, 200 people who placed the same bet, how do you get to each of them? And if you were able to, how do you prove they had any information that led to them placing that bet? How do you prove that one individual bet was placed as part of a betting syndicate? What do you say to a person that says 'my friend told me that Paqueta getting booked is a good bet'? Because that is no different to me saying to you "Mex - 'Come on You Irons' in the 2.50 at Utoxeter. Nailed on". You go and place a bet on it.

I think its plain as day what has gone on. Proving Paq was involved is hard. Proving all the betters knew is impossible. 

[Hammer and Pickle]

"In regards to that opening day at Bournemouth I understood we had accepted Man City’s bid for him & he didn’t want to play"

• This is important because it allows us to tell the difference between a deliberate foul to gain a card and get hooked because you don't want to play

and

• Being the on-pitch element of a betting syndicate deliberately getting carded to rig the system.

I say that even if Paqueta is guilty of the first breach of FA rules, he needs to get our full support while he wears the jersey. If the FA decide to discipline him for that, it's no problem as long as there is no double standard for other players who don't want to be on the pitch for any given reason. 

Also, we need to expect the FA to come up with caste iron, highly convincing evidence of the latter, much more serious rule-breaking. We're West Ham supporters not some tramps demanding the thrill of seeing a high-flyer brought down to something approaching tramp level. 

 

[Lee Trundle]

Classic Pickle.

Gets his pants pulled down and then talks shit to try & move the conversation away from his idiocy.

And he came back again and again!

[Ron Eff]

I’m not saying it is the same as Toney or Tonali. I’m saying in absence of hard evidence, which they had on both those two, if that is the case here, it’s quite the risk if they hand him a ten year or lifetime ban and essentially end his career IF he is able to take it higher and someone adjudicates that the decision was made on entirely circumstantial evidence that is not worthy of the severity of the punishment. It benefits nobody for this to be dragged through courts, and my opinion based on not a lot is they may apply short ban and hope it nips it in the bud. 

Given the values of asset and earnings here, it’s very much not the same as a non-league player. The FA will not want a counter claim for significant millions, you would expect, so they would want a water tight case. 

As I say, it’s just an opinion. It’s nothing to do with not understanding the difference between a court of law and court of arbitration. 

[Fauxstralian]

In regards to that opening day at Bournemouth I understood we had accepted Man City’s bid for him & he didn’t want to play
Was convinced to with some sort of understanding that he would be subbed before the end
Yet he waited till injury time to get booked when an early booking would have probably seen him subbed
Seems a bit unlikely 

[Fauxstralian]

In regards to the Premier league or FA going to the people placing the bets what power would they have to compel Paquetas relatives and friends to engage with them & answer questions etc?
What do they do then?
Fuck all seems to be answer

[goose]

Because there were no suspicious betting patterns you dribbling spastic.

[Hammer and Pickle]

Oh and the games under scrutiny seem to be the 2022-2023 season, with last season’s opening game being the last. 

Hold on - how many times has he been carded since then and why have there been no claims each card was deliberate?

[Jasnik]

What are the odds on Alverez getting a yellow card in the next game he plays? 

[goose]

Why would the ref need to testify? They’ve not received any money and aren’t under any investigation.

Your desperation to be right’ in this is laughable.

[Hammer and Pickle]

I wonder if there are any reports of referees stating under oath they believe Paqueta was trying to get carded - especially the games under scrutiny at least.

[Mex Martillo]

Also, Fauxstralian, a thing that struck me the other day on how ludicrous this all is, was that the legal bill for the FA has gone through the roof, because of City and others. These teams get the best lawers in the land, so the FA does as well. Thousand pounds an hour apparently. All that means is that a good percentage of the massive revenues generated by the premier league now goes to lawers and the TV money paid to the clubs will have to go down.
Great system they have, fucking morons.

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

Work it out for yourself. The fact is, if they were really going after spot betting, they’d be working on the referees responsible for making the decisions being betted on.

Laughable.
Have you ever watched a game of football?
You DO know what a foul is, don't you?
I'm reasoanbly certain that a professional footballer would be able to get booked intentionally at some point during a game if they so wished. Fuck all to do with the officials.

[Mex Martillo]

I wasn't meaning particularly the FA. Just seems odd to me that the establishment or whoever that what to stop this crime do not go straight to the people placing the bets. To me that's obvious and I think easier. That should also give light on Paquetas involvement. I think there needs to coordination between the FA and other parties to get the full picture and prosecutions. I don't think they should be able to go for one small part of it all, just because the betting appeared suspicious or whatever it was. They need to do the whole thing or nothing. I think if I had known Paqueta since he was a kid and watched every game he has played, I could see him getting wound up for a yellow card and place a bet. I've just watched a few seasons of him and I think I could give it a good go.

[Fauxstralian]

Ludicrous that this thing has dragged on so long
Suspect the Premier league can’t prove breaches & are too embarrassed to close it down
Have always said the club should sue the Premier league for the £85m fee from Man City that this pissing about has cost us.

Bit like the Man City 115 charges but at least the hearing for that has started.
The one I don’t understand is where the new Chelsea owners found that while doing their due diligence on the purchase that the previous owner had been paying Chelsea costs outside the books to avoid FFP breaches.
Quite rightly reported this to the Premier league who have done nothing 

[Hammer and Pickle]

Work it out for yourself. The fact is, if they were really going after spot betting, they’d be working on the referees responsible for making the decisions being betted on.

[goose]

Good question Mex. 

Because the FA is not really interested in the spot betting at all?


 

Tell me how the FA would pursue to Brazilians who have nothing to do with professional football in this country.

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

Good question Mex. 

Because the FA is not really interested in the spot betting at all?


 

So riddle me this.
If the FA aren't interested in the allegations of spot betting/fixing, WHY do they seem so determined in going after him?

[Hammer and Pickle]

Good question Mex. 

Because the FA is not really interested in the spot betting at all?

 

[goose]

Because “they” are the FA not the Police.

As of now Paqueta is only being investigated by the footballing governing bodies.