Paqueta - Latest news

[Alan]

"Sport Bible New report on Lucas Paqueta's spot-fixing charges reveals how much of next season West Ham star can play There has been an update on Paqueta's case. Alex Brotherton Lucas Paqueta will be free to play for West Ham for most of next season despite facing spot-fixing charges. Paqueta has been charged by the Football Association with four separate instances of spot-fixing. The 28-year-old stands accused of deliberately getting himself booked during four Premier League matches. It is one of the most serious cases of spot-fixing involving a top-flight player in England, and could land Paqueta with a lengthy ban. However, the Brazil international can continue to play until the disciplinary process has been completed. According to The Times, the outcome of the process could be delayed until the end of the 2024-25 season or beyond. That is due to the complexity of the case; Paqueta's lawyers say it will take many months to secure all the witness statements and relevant information they need for their defence. That's because the case spans three countries - England, Brazil and Spain - and involves a large number of people. The charges allege that Paqueta got himself booked during matches against Leicester City, Aston Villa, Leeds United and Bournemouth over the past two seasons so that “one or more persons” could profit financially. The investigation that preceded the charges took eight months. In September 2023, Brazilian outlet Globo reported that suspicious gambling patterns were identified in Brazil relating to Paqueta being booked against Aston Villa in March that year. The bets were reportedly made using West Ham's shirt sponsor Betway, via accounts belonging to people linked to Paqueta. The FA initially gave the player until June 3 to respond to the charges, but his lawyers were granted an extension. English football's governing body has refused to put a timescale on the case. Paqueta has been linked with a move to Brazilian giants Flamengo this summer, but this latest development will give encouragement to new West Ham boss Julen Lopetegui that he can use the midfielder this season."

[Pub Bigot]

Not condoning what Paqueta may or may not have done (innocent until proven guilty etc) but society in general is very unforgiving especially when it comes to young multi-millionaires?  

The Irony is that often those who want Paqueta banned for life, never be allowed to play again etc etc are the same type of people that go on about being kind, being nice to each other, making society more equal and tolerant.

Not saying if found guilty he shouldn't be punished but at 27 is banning him for LIFE from anything to do with football the answer? A ban is going to be appropriate for his charges but lets not destroy him in the process and give him some way back, mind you im all for giving people a second chance, Look how Mason Greenwood turned his life around, sure he was a cսnt for what he did and got a lucky break when the woman in question refused to cooperate so charges dropped, but he's made a life with her and they recently had a second child, got his career back on track, and i bet the same people wanting Paqueta banned for life, ridiculed and demonized are the same who wanted Greenwood treated likewise!

If Paqueta is found guilty he needs to face his punishment i just hope they don't try and destroy his life at the same time, sure he won't be short of money from his career to date but reckon a lot of those wanting his life destroyed are doing so more out on envy and the fact he's a young rich bloke than moral values or anything remotely to do with the "good of the game"  

Expect plenty will disagree with me though, but hey each to their own opinion!

I agreed with all of that until you mentioned Greenwood. Second child on not, she’s not gone back for love. 

Mason Greenwood is a wrong’un and always will be. 

[SurfaceAgentX2Zero]

we wouldn't have £30m more on the balance sheet, but i not gonna waste my time.

 

From the guardian article:

“ For all his employers’ frustration at the case, and the potential erosion of an £80m asset on their balance sheet, Paquetá remains a hugely popular figure at West Ham, where there will be surprise and devastation if he is found guilty.”

and 

“West Ham have taken a huge financial hit because of the case. An £80m transfer to Manchester City for Paquetá had been agreed before the FA emailed West Ham on 16 August 2023 to inform them it had opened an investigation into suspicious betting patterns surrounding bookings the player had received in the previous nine months. West Ham passed the information to City, who pulled out of the transfer without giving a public explanation, the real reason emerging two days later.“

I rest my case…

Aside from the fact he isn’t an £80m on the balance sheet. Guessing some financial illiterate wrote that because it’s simply not true.

The fee was undisclosed but is thought to be £50mish. In which case he is on the books at £30m and will drop to £20 at the end of the season.

And there is no way an English court will allow the FA to ban him for life and take away his livelihood on 'the balance of probabilities'. So, if convicted the legal case will carry on until he is well and truly retired

[Sydney_Iron]

Not condoning what Paqueta may or may not have done (innocent until proven guilty etc) but society in general is very unforgiving especially when it comes to young multi-millionaires?  

The Irony is that often those who want Paqueta banned for life, never be allowed to play again etc etc are the same type of people that go on about being kind, being nice to each other, making society more equal and tolerant.

Not saying if found guilty he shouldn't be punished but at 27 is banning him for LIFE from anything to do with football the answer? A ban is going to be appropriate for his charges but lets not destroy him in the process and give him some way back, mind you im all for giving people a second chance, Look how Mason Greenwood turned his life around, sure he was a cսnt for what he did and got a lucky break when the woman in question refused to cooperate so charges dropped, but he's made a life with her and they recently had a second child, got his career back on track, and i bet the same people wanting Paqueta banned for life, ridiculed and demonized are the same who wanted Greenwood treated likewise!

If Paqueta is found guilty he needs to face his punishment i just hope they don't try and destroy his life at the same time, sure he won't be short of money from his career to date but reckon a lot of those wanting his life destroyed are doing so more out on envy and the fact he's a young rich bloke than moral values or anything remotely to do with the "good of the game"  

Expect plenty will disagree with me though, but hey each to their own opinion!

[Manuel]

Why do some feel need to say he deserves everything he gets (if guilty) Yea, thanks for the insight.

[nychammer]

Started today.
The Guardians take on it, long read.
ATHammer gives a good summary.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -under-way

The article states that a Panel will convict if they think "on the balance of probabilities" that he is guilty rather than the more rigorous "Beyond all Reasonable doubt" requirement for a criminal trial. This is bad news as its far more open to interpretation and opinion,  and god knows whos is on that panel and what preconceptions they may have about this.
' 

[goose]

 

 

I’m not talking about “balancing the books”. I’m literally saying our balance sheet would have had 30m more on it of the sale has gone through. And if in court they can say they have been harmed by the FA’s process and if there were any holes in the carrying out of that process they may have a case.

it will be for the courts to decide if WHU decide they should be compensated.

Courts deal with hypothetical arrangements all the time. I.e. the loss of earnings for a wife who gave up their job as a lawyer to be a housewife and have kids etc. 

we wouldn't have £30m more on the balance sheet, but i not gonna waste my time.

 

From the guardian article:

“ For all his employers’ frustration at the case, and the potential erosion of an £80m asset on their balance sheet, Paquetá remains a hugely popular figure at West Ham, where there will be surprise and devastation if he is found guilty.”

and 

“West Ham have taken a huge financial hit because of the case. An £80m transfer to Manchester City for Paquetá had been agreed before the FA emailed West Ham on 16 August 2023 to inform them it had opened an investigation into suspicious betting patterns surrounding bookings the player had received in the previous nine months. West Ham passed the information to City, who pulled out of the transfer without giving a public explanation, the real reason emerging two days later.“

I rest my case…

Aside from the fact he isn’t an £80m on the balance sheet. Guessing some financial illiterate wrote that because it’s simply not true.

[threesixty]

the value of the asset is the value on paper, that's how assets are valued.
it's not "terrible for our books" because our books never valued him at £80m.

 

 

I’m not talking about “balancing the books”. I’m literally saying our balance sheet would have had 30m more on it of the sale has gone through. And if in court they can say they have been harmed by the FA’s process and if there were any holes in the carrying out of that process they may have a case.

it will be for the courts to decide if WHU decide they should be compensated.

Courts deal with hypothetical arrangements all the time. I.e. the loss of earnings for a wife who gave up their job as a lawyer to be a housewife and have kids etc. 

we wouldn't have £30m more on the balance sheet, but i not gonna waste my time.

 

 

From the guardian article:

“ For all his employers’ frustration at the case, and the potential erosion of an £80m asset on their balance sheet, Paquetá remains a hugely popular figure at West Ham, where there will be surprise and devastation if he is found guilty.”

and 

“West Ham have taken a huge financial hit because of the case. An £80m transfer to Manchester City for Paquetá had been agreed before the FA emailed West Ham on 16 August 2023 to inform them it had opened an investigation into suspicious betting patterns surrounding bookings the player had received in the previous nine months. West Ham passed the information to City, who pulled out of the transfer without giving a public explanation, the real reason emerging two days later.“

I rest my case…

[goose]

 

As I said. The value minus the elapsed years is basically amortisation. The issue is the original value of the asset. On paper it’s the 53m. But I’m sure West Ham will argue that they had an 80m offer on the table so they have in effect lost money for no reason if the allegations are unfounded. 

even if the argument is somewhat hypothetical people
still sue. Sheffield Utd did it to us right?

and yes “if” he is guilty. But because the understanding of guilt as described by our criminal court (and this is a criminal offence) will not applied here. So I really don’t give a fuck what the fa decide here unless it’s an admission or actual smoking gun evidence. It’s indecent to ruin a man for anything less than this. 

the value of the asset is the value on paper, that's how assets are valued.
it's not "terrible for our books" because our books never valued him at £80m.

 

 

I’m not talking about “balancing the books”. I’m literally saying our balance sheet would have had 30m more on it of the sale has gone through. And if in court they can say they have been harmed by the FA’s process and if there were any holes in the carrying out of that process they may have a case.

it will be for the courts to decide if WHU decide they should be compensated.

Courts deal with hypothetical arrangements all the time. I.e. the loss of earnings for a wife who gave up their job as a lawyer to be a housewife and have kids etc. 

we wouldn't have £30m more on the balance sheet, but i not gonna waste my time.

[Mex Martillo]

Started today.
The Guardians take on it, long read.
ATHammer gives a good summary.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -under-way

[threesixty]

you assume wrong, you don't value players on what you think you might get for them.
they are valued using amortization of the transfer fee over the length of their contract.

if he is guilty he deserves everything he gets.

 

As I said. The value minus the elapsed years is basically amortisation. The issue is the original value of the asset. On paper it’s the 53m. But I’m sure West Ham will argue that they had an 80m offer on the table so they have in effect lost money for no reason if the allegations are unfounded. 

even if the argument is somewhat hypothetical people
still sue. Sheffield Utd did it to us right?

and yes “if” he is guilty. But because the understanding of guilt as described by our criminal court (and this is a criminal offence) will not applied here. So I really don’t give a fuck what the fa decide here unless it’s an admission or actual smoking gun evidence. It’s indecent to ruin a man for anything less than this. 

the value of the asset is the value on paper, that's how assets are valued.
it's not "terrible for our books" because our books never valued him at £80m.

 

 

 

 

I’m not talking about “balancing the books”. I’m literally saying our balance sheet would have had 30m more on it of the sale has gone through. And if in court they can say they have been harmed by the FA’s process and if there were any holes in the carrying out of that process they may have a case.

it will be for the courts to decide if WHU decide they should be compensated.

Courts deal with hypothetical arrangements all the time. I.e. the loss of earnings for a wife who gave up their job as a lawyer to be a housewife and have kids etc. 

[ATHammer]

Kangaroo court now in session. Thing is I just can't see how the FA are onto anything but a hiding to nothing. All sorts of stuff about career ending if found guilty flies around like confetti. Where is it coming from? Paqueta? all he has said is that he is innocent of all charges and questioned the FA as to how the details of the charges and potential outcomes get into the public domain; The club? why?; Shit journalists? in some cases, such as the really rubbish "expose" by that berk Darmesh Seth on Sky (there are no allegations that Paqueta himself bet or benefitted from a bet to my knowledge), yes; or the FA? If the latter, and Paqueta is understood to be pursuing that line of thinking, then clearly it is prejudicial and, possibly, vexatious.
What is in the public domain does not appear to help the FA at all. As well as pursuit of the lifetime ban there is the phone matter. A phone that they seem to have had for a period of time, given back and then asked to have another look at it as they might have missed something. In the interim it appears to have gone missing. Well, having handed over the phone is it not inconceivable that he would have immediately bought a new one for communication purposes? Secondly, as an impoverished footballer I wonder how long a phone lasts in those circles before an upgrade is essential, either from peer pressure or simply just keeping up? With the timescale and personal environment involved unless specifically told to keep the phone it seems unlikely that it would have been kept. It is even likely that had the matter not occurred it would have been changed in that period in any event.
Then there are the charges themselves. Allegedly Paqueta is charged with deliberately getting booked for the benefit of those betting on such things back on Paqueta Island, including family. Well, legally that is a serious crime, effectively insider trading, as I understand it. 
However. 
The FA tribunal propose to adopt civil criteria (balance of probability) to pontificate on a criminal Act (beyond a reasonable doubt.) Brazilian courts (known for their good standing) have already declined to follow the criminal route as achieving the reasonable doubt threshold seemed unlikely, even with "whistle-blower", AKA a very interested party.
So, The FA want to end someone's career for a criminal act on the balance of probabilities. Can't see that not being challenged and, ultimately, quashed.
Unless Paqueta does a 180 and admits his guilt the FA are a long way from a guilty decision that stands up. If the FA win and ban him they can expect a lengthy battle with his lawyers, I understand that Live Nation are involved with his agency and they won't back down easily. If the FA lose they can also expect a legal backlash from both Paqueta and the club. There are multiple issues up to and including who has the right to restrict a persons right to earn a living on a balance of probabilities decision? 
This latter point would be amusing. As, and when, the club wade in for their pound of flesh this could well involve the Baroness in legal action against the FA. Now that would be fun. The Baroness did make an appearance in the House of Lords to argue against a Government Football regulator as the FA is supposed to be just that!
Primarily, I would like Paqueta to have the balance of probabilities in his favour and allowed to get his life back on track and get on with playing football. This whole scenario has had the nasty smell of witch hunt.
Secondly, I would like to see the Baroness and Paqueta pursue the FA for punitive recovery and win, thus stripping the FA of their Kangaroo court rights and saddling Sullivan and Brady with the independent regulator they so seriously appear not to want for some reason.
Wouldn't that be a nice outcome all round?

[goose]

 

He would have sold to City for 80m had it not been for this accusation. So I’m assuming he’s rated the same minus the elapsed years on the contract. 

if he’s guilty then prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But if they can’t do that then that’s a heck of a lot of money lost to enforce the integrity of the game. And it would be West Ham and the PL that have lost out. Not the FA. Would be interesting if this was a huge English player where the FA make money off shirts and stuff (Kane?) how they would treat this. 

besides, they are all dodgy snakes in these institutions so I have a hard time caring about “game integrity” when they are judge and jury. 

you assume wrong, you don't value players on what you think you might get for them.
they are valued using amortization of the transfer fee over the length of their contract.

if he is guilty he deserves everything he gets.

 

As I said. The value minus the elapsed years is basically amortisation. The issue is the original value of the asset. On paper it’s the 53m. But I’m sure West Ham will argue that they had an 80m offer on the table so they have in effect lost money for no reason if the allegations are unfounded. 

even if the argument is somewhat hypothetical people
still sue. Sheffield Utd did it to us right?

and yes “if” he is guilty. But because the understanding of guilt as described by our criminal court (and this is a criminal offence) will not applied here. So I really don’t give a fuck what the fa decide here unless it’s an admission or actual smoking gun evidence. It’s indecent to ruin a man for anything less than this. 

the value of the asset is the value on paper, that's how assets are valued.
it's not "terrible for our books" because our books never valued him at £80m.

[threesixty]

1) he’s not an £80m asset on our books
2) what if he’s actually guilty?

 

He would have sold to City for 80m had it not been for this accusation. So I’m assuming he’s rated the same minus the elapsed years on the contract. 

if he’s guilty then prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But if they can’t do that then that’s a heck of a lot of money lost to enforce the integrity of the game. And it would be West Ham and the PL that have lost out. Not the FA. Would be interesting if this was a huge English player where the FA make money off shirts and stuff (Kane?) how they would treat this. 

besides, they are all dodgy snakes in these institutions so I have a hard time caring about “game integrity” when they are judge and jury. 

you assume wrong, you don't value players on what you think you might get for them.
they are valued using amortization of the transfer fee over the length of their contract.

if he is guilty he deserves everything he gets.

 

 

As I said. The value minus the elapsed years is basically amortisation. The issue is the original value of the asset. On paper it’s the 53m. But I’m sure West Ham will argue that they had an 80m offer on the table so they have in effect lost money for no reason if the allegations are unfounded. 

even if the argument is somewhat hypothetical people
still sue. Sheffield Utd did it to us right?

and yes “if” he is guilty. But because the understanding of guilt as described by our criminal court (and this is a criminal offence) will not applied here. So I really don’t give a fuck what the fa decide here unless it’s an admission or actual smoking gun evidence. It’s indecent to ruin a man for anything less than this. 

[goose]

I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 







 

1) he’s not an £80m asset on our books
2) what if he’s actually guilty?

 

He would have sold to City for 80m had it not been for this accusation. So I’m assuming he’s rated the same minus the elapsed years on the contract. 

if he’s guilty then prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But if they can’t do that then that’s a heck of a lot of money lost to enforce the integrity of the game. And it would be West Ham and the PL that have lost out. Not the FA. Would be interesting if this was a huge English player where the FA make money off shirts and stuff (Kane?) how they would treat this. 

besides, they are all dodgy snakes in these institutions so I have a hard time caring about “game integrity” when they are judge and jury. 

you assume wrong, you don't value players on what you think you might get for them.
they are valued using amortization of the transfer fee over the length of their contract.

if he is guilty he deserves everything he gets.

[El Scorchio]

I think in all honesty even if the betting stuff went away, we'd be lucky to get 40-50 mill for him now anyway.

As an aside, just read this- could be bollocks and I've no idea if the source is any good:
( https://www.westhamzone.com/news/lucas- ... es-update/ )As for Paqueta, the failed transfer to City will form a part of his defence in the battle against the FA, according to The Guardian.The newspaper reported via their website on Monday (17 March) that the 27-year-old claims he had asked David Moyes not to play him against Bournemouth to avoid risking his agreed move to Manchester City in any way.His lawyer, Nick De Marco KC, will use this to defend against the accusation that the player was part of a betting conspiracy to get booked.

The claim that Paqueta was not expecting to be on the pitch as late as the 93rd minute is now being used as a defence in his legal battle.

[threesixty]

I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 






 

1) he’s not an £80m asset on our books
2) what if he’s actually guilty?

 

 

He would have sold to City for 80m had it not been for this accusation. So I’m assuming he’s rated the same minus the elapsed years on the contract. 

if he’s guilty then prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But if they can’t do that then that’s a heck of a lot of money lost to enforce the integrity of the game. And it would be West Ham and the PL that have lost out. Not the FA. Would be interesting if this was a huge English player where the FA make money off shirts and stuff (Kane?) how they would treat this. 

besides, they are all dodgy snakes in these institutions so I have a hard time caring about “game integrity” when they are judge and jury. 

[Gank]

One of the good things about this new version of WHO is that you can edit that post and we’ll all just pretend you didn’t just type ‘Packwetter’.

[,]

The reality about Packwetter is we need consistent performances out of him.

[El Scorchio]

It's the FA, not the PL, right?
It's not just to help Betway, it's all about the integrity of the game. If a player is proven to have colluded to have fixed an outcome in a game they are playing in- even if it's a yellow card which may not actually affect the result, then it's absolutely essential to stamp it out as it's just a slippery slope. 

This is way worse then Toney betting on games that he had no influence on and IF he's proven to be guilty then he should get an enormous ban. They have to make the consequences of this crystal clear to every footballer playing the game. But yes at the same time they should have to have concrete proof  rather than 'a strong hunch' of something so serious which has such a profound effect on the player and his future.

Hearing actually started yesterday? Three weeks long as well. It can't be very cut and dried in terms of evidence or it would be far quicker.

[goose]

I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 




 

1) he’s not an £80m asset on our books
2) what if he’s actually guilty?

[threesixty]

I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 



 

[Sir Alf]

Even if they charge him on this highly dubious “balance of probability” which means their wont be facts but more circumstancial, Paqueta’s lawyers will contest it and it will go back into more hearings etc by which time his contract and career will be nearimg an end. He will continue to play while this all goes on imo for the next 2 seasons. 
 

[El Scorchio]

Starting to think the same. They must be spending far too much time and money on this than they want and it makes no sense it’s not over by now. Feel they are still scrabbling for knockout evidence that they just cannot find that will stop counter claims and years more of it, and them looking stupid. 

[On The Ball]

Any admission (or finding of guilt) would result in a very long ban - there's no way around that - so he was never going to do that.

I still feel that they can't have what the media suggests they might have - it has taken far too long.

[nychammer]

We should sue the FA for loss of potential transfer earnings if they keep dragging this out and he's eventually found not guilty or they just drop the charges. 

The fact the he continues to flat out deny wrong doing says something. His legal team and the club must have recommended admitting it and facing a short term ban as opposed to the prospect of harsher punishment after being found guilty by an inquiry, so they must feel confident there is nothing to this. I just get the feeling this is going to peter out and the FA will bide their time in burying the news.