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 midfielderthis season."

[Iron Duke]

I can’t see how it can go against him. The case is too flimsy. It should have been concluded at least a year ago.

 I reckon he gets acquitted, sold to Flamengo for a massive loss, and we go quietly back in our corner.

[stubbo-admin]

At least the conclusion to the saga is on us one way or the other. 

Just have to hope it goes our way. 

[dealcanvey]

Squeaky bum time 

[Steady]

Lucas Paqueta and West Ham supposedly .. will find out the verdict of his FA tribunal hearing today (Friday 25 July)

[North Bank]

exile I totally agree, I think the FA are still looking for the smoking gun and to think they can find him guilty on probability is farcical.

Never thought I'd say this but the clowns at the FA are probably more inept than the ones that sit in our boardroom 

[the exile]

I read somewhere that the case could still drag on until February, which is utterly insane. I can't understand why the club, and/or Paquetà himself, can't sue the bollocks off the FA for this completely unacceptable delay.

[El Scorchio]

The bloke doesn’t really want to be here and these charges have basically threatened to ruin his life at any second for the last two years and trapped him here which is absolutely handicapping him and us and has cost all parties millions of pounds. I don’t like that he has wanted to leave for the last two years but it’s a disgrace it’s gone on this long and to be fair I feel a bit sorry for him as much as one can for a multi millionaire footballer. 

[Mex Martillo]

I like to see him play. Didn't have a great season, but still a player to watch. He always put in a shift, even when it's not working for him. Does a lot of work to break play up. Does give the ball away too much and too often in a dangerous area. That is his biggest problem, which I think he should be able to imporve on, but it's been going on too long. Really hope he is with us next season and looks like he will be with thia nonsense hanging over him making a sale near impossible.
Joke of a situation, FA are crap.

[Massive Attack]

I think it has had an effect and I have cut him more than enough slack to forgive a fair few performances but overall I wasn't impressed with him last season come the end of it. It did feel like it was always a convenient excuse and he became a bit untouchable because of it. What got to me as well is he's on fantastic money so the effort at the very least should have seen him do more and at times I thought he hid where it just wasn't acceptable. When he's good, he's great to see but those performances are few and far between for my liking and it was a bit like that even before the ongoing case. 

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

TBH Massive son, I tend to agree with you. However if he DIDN’T have this case hanging over him, would he have been as poor as he has been? Honestly believe it’s affected his game, and we’ve been robbed of a very decent (minus the falling to the floor when the player behind him farts) player.

[Massive Attack]

Does he still play for us? Haven't seen much of him on the pitch over the past season or so.

Hhmmmmm. Wonder if there may be an underlying problem/reason for this?

I'm afraid it doesn't excuse many of his pitiful performances where we barely notice him in games, until he back heels it to the opposition in our third of the pitch. He can't hide behind it all the time. 

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

Does he still play for us? Haven't seen much of him on the pitch over the past season or so.

Hhmmmmm. Wonder if there may be an underlying problem/reason for this?

[Massive Attack]

Does he still play for us? Haven't seen much of him on the pitch over the past season or so.

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

Clickbait conjecture is all it is.

Hope you're right fella.

[Alfs]

Clickbait conjecture is all it is.

[El Scorchio]

If true that’s absolutely insane. This is shocking lack of care of duty to the player and disrespect to us. 

All they can be doing is desperately trying to find ‘new’ evidence. It makes no sense other than malice to have concluded and then not announce it for nine months. 

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

Could be entirely made-up bullshit as I did read it on C&H, that the inquiry result is now due to be delivered next February!

[Any Old Iron]

The club and Paqueta need to absolutely slaughter the FA over this long drawn out fiasco
 

[Mike Oxsaw]

Whatever the outcome the media will side with the FA. They know who butters their toast.

[Iron Duke]

The FA have completely fumbled this investigation. They’ve taken two years and still haven’t come to a verdict. During all this time, they leaked stories to the press and basically called him out as guilty before a fair and impartial trial could take place. They hung the threat of a lifetime ban over his head. They stopped him from getting a transfer to Man City, and prevented us from getting a significant transfer fee, possibly with Cole Palmer in exchange for.

We should take them to the cleaners.

[Fauxstralian]

They had his phone for 8 weeks
Understandably in that case he got a new one
When they returned the old one he got rid of it as he had a new one
A bit later they asked for the first phone AGAIN and then pretended that getting rid of it was evidence of wrong doing
Desperate nonsense from utter incompetents
They owe us £85m

[kylay]

 

But it would need to have such evidence on there, right? If he hasn't said "Bet on the 34th minute" or suchlike, what can they garner from it? If he's done it all by calls, it could be clean?

I think the bigger issue is that the FA tried to come back later and ask for the phone again, at which time Paqueta had already gotten rid of it, and then they were trying to make that look nefarious through some spoliation argument. Oxsaw's point (I think) is that either they were too incompetent the first time round which shame on them OR they knew that didn't have a case from the first time and then tried make something of nothing which would be much worse than incompetence. Either way, it definitely sounds as though they don't have any evidence from the phone which other than that, how else are they going to get it apart from a witness?

[honky cat]

The other thing regarding the phone is, surely if youre planning a few betting shenanigans you'd hop down to Brazil Argos for a Nokia and a PAYG SIM card? Not use the top spec contract iPhone that everyone knows you have. 

​​​​​​

[Mike Oxsaw]

 If we and the player agree not to sue them.



 

I don't think member clubs or players can sue the FA.

I think that's just the Premier League, but I'm not 100%

 

 

I think the "Association" in the name might be a bit of a clue.

As I understand it, it's a "by invitation only" set up whereby in order to participate in FA managed games, you have to agree by the pseudo-private club rules. Generally this is limited to such things as the suitability of grounds for staging professional games, but the rules may well extend down to abiding by any decision the FA or their approved agents arrive at.

That being said, there may be a case of preventing a company (football club) from going about their legitimate professional business, which is staging and participating in Premier League matches against their peers and others as dictated by cup competition rules.

This spat is between the FA and Paqueta & the club, not the PL which I believe is a separate legal entity.

So if the club were able to sue the FA, it shouldn't affect their ability to participate in the Premier League.

The FA may well have a sulk on this and either have no referees available to officiate in games West Ham are scheduled to play, or they may introduce an undocumented, whisper in the ref's ear,  rule to fuck us up at every opportunity during the games to teach us who the real boss is around here.

[On The Ball]

The fuck up with the phone is the big give-away.

You can clone a phone and all it's contents in a matter of minutes - wrong'uns have been doing so since long before covid, long, even, before smartphones became available.

Asking for it again should therefore not be necessary unless the phone structure itself (a passive object) holds clues (never head of such a case).

Either they fucked up their clone (if they even had one in the first place) or it was as clear as the nose on your face back then that there was no case to answer.

Be interested to know why they couldn't advance and conclude the case in the absence of any input from the Brazilian FA - their only connection is that he's played a few times for the national team since leaving Brazil. None of the alleged offences involved any games they manage.

This is absolutely correct. I work in digital forensics and imaging a phone takes less than 2 hours typically and is standard in matters where cell data is in question if for nothing else preservation. The fact the FA were given unfettered access and seemingly failed to do this is a complete dereliction of duty.

But it would need to have such evidence on there, right? If he hasn't said "Bet on the 34th minute" or suchlike, what can they garner from it? If he's done it all by calls, it could be clean?