West Ham Online

"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."

easthammer wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 16:36
All along the FA have known that their ace in the hole is that they can rely on the balance of probability to get them off the hook. 

 

Presumably, the FA  have known for some time the nature and amounts of the bets placed, but I suspect maybe when it first came to light in 2023 they started an investigation before the exact nature of the of the betting was known other than the existence of suspicious patterns of betting.

Just prior to August 23 it was being reported that the FA were likely to drop the case - maybe because it had become known that it clearly wasn't large-scale syndicated fraud and that most evidence was circumstantial. It was also reported around the same time that the Man City transfer had collapsed and there was now the possibility of legal action against the FA. Fearing that the FA had no choice but to push on with the investigation and to formally charge Paqueta. Since then it has tried to build a case on further circumstantial evidence, such as that arising from the investigations in Brazil and it has also drummed up other charges of non-cooperation, obviously leaking stories to the press relating to Paqueta's phone. All along the FA have known that their ace in the hole is that they can rely on the balance of probability to get them off the hook. 

I am uncertain whether or not he did give out some strong hints to relatives about the likelihood of him receiving a booking but I am certain this will be in the courts for some time yet. All this "independent" panel will decide is who will be suing who.

nychammer wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 12:36 if a few friends from Mexico where Alvarez is from and fancied a bet a few dollars now and again on Alvarez getting booked (because lets face it over 90 minutes the odds arent that bad) would that lead to an investigation too? Stupid isnt it?

Maybe we should stop betting on bookings and things players can wield an influence on. 

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 12:31 Is using inside information to win a bet a crime?
If so why hasn’t Paqueta been charged by the police 
Would Betway be committing a crime by warning off someone who is doing that?
Im not sure

Sullivan owns the club & this has pissed an £80m transfer fee up the wall so his shares are worth less

if a few friends from Mexico where Alvarez is from and fancied a bet a few dollars now and again on Alvarez getting booked (because lets face it over 90 minutes the odds arent that bad) would that lead to an investigation too? Stupid isnt it?

Maybe we should stop betting on bookings and things players can wield an influence on. 

Is using inside information to win a bet a crime?
If so why hasn’t Paqueta been charged by the police 
Would Betway be committing a crime by warning off someone who is doing that?
Im not sure

Sullivan owns the club & this has pissed an £80m transfer fee up the wall so his shares are worth less

9898 wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 11:17 His character shows every game - rolls about acting, cheats, general dishonesty - so I think the case will be fairly straight forward and we will pay the price. 

We won’t pay the price. You have to assume we have insurance, and we’ll take him to the cleaners as well.

His character shows every game - rolls about acting, cheats, general dishonesty - so I think the case will be fairly straight forward and we will pay the price. 

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑22 Mar 2025, 10:04 As a club sponsor I would have hoped Betway would have had a quiet word with West Ham & got them to get Paqueta to stop this nonsense. Haven’t seen the amounts but by the comments below they weren’t significant 
Must be a bit awkward when Betway turn up to matches & Sullivan knows they have cost him a payday of his transfer to Man City
Surely this sponsorship won’t be renewed 

From the Guardian
"The high stakes for Paquetá contrast starkly with the modest sums involved. A source with knowledge of the FA’s investigation said that one of the bets was for £7, with the highest £400."

It's all weird, I cannot see him being found probably guilty, but fuck knows. I also find it odd it's been going on for 5 days and no news reports of whats been said, must be very uninteresting to be absolutely no news.

As a club sponsor I would have hoped Betway would have had a quiet word with West Ham & got them to get Paqueta to stop this nonsense. Haven’t seen the amounts but by the comments below they weren’t significant 
Must be a bit awkward when Betway turn up to matches & Sullivan knows they have cost him a payday of his transfer to Man City
Surely this sponsorship won’t be renewed 

Not sure whether the amounts involved in betting will have a huge impact or not, but surely it goes in Paq’s favour. I think general perception was that the family were making huge amounts out of this. Makes you wonder why Betway even flagged anything up as suspicious 

Doh Selecta" wrote: ↑21 Mar 2025, 20:30 Just seen the amounts of the bets placed, Paquetta earns more than the payouts in an hour! Why would he even bother!

Just seen the amounts of the bets placed, Paquetta earns more than the payouts in an hour! Why would he even bother!

So were at the petty child's game of "Who blinks first" then?

Ladysmith wrote: ↑20 Mar 2025, 18:12

Moyes has always been good at sorting out a defence.

and  1 of many reasons why he should still be West Ham manager

BoleynGone wrote: ↑21 Mar 2025, 06:35 That same Moyes bloke that didn't play Paqueta at first waited quite awhile (like he did with Kudus , both for no reason but his arrogant stubborness ).

My gut feeling is Paqueta is guilty and he will succumb to the guilt/stress before the 3 weeks is out.
He may have thought it was petty,he was doing nothing wrong as he and others (on here ) think it didn't affect the games outcome.Wrong bookings always do because it's a change of circumstance.
His family probably thought the same.

However the FA must surely know guilty or not guilty that the case could well go on for years unless something dramatic happens. There has to be absolute proof as Paqueta's lawyers will demand this.

This all depends on whether Paqueta can hide his guilt or not many other high profile persons have hid far worst crimes with no apparant moral feelings. Several of our prime ministers and current US President stand out.

That same Moyes bloke that didn't play Paqueta at first waited quite awhile (like he did with Kudus , both for no reason but his arrogant stubborness ).

My gut feeling is Paqueta is guilty and he will succumb to the guilt/stress before the 3 weeks is out.
He may have thought it was petty,he was doing nothing wrong as he and others (on here ) think it didn't affect the games outcome.Wrong bookings always do because it's a change of circumstance.
His family probably thought the same.

However the FA must surely know guilty or not guilty that the case could well go on for years unless something dramatic happens. There has to be absolute proof as Paqueta's lawyers will demand this.

This all depends on whether Paqueta can hide his guilt or not many other high profile persons have hid far worst crimes with no apparant moral feelings. Several of our prime ministers and current US President stand out.

Pipe down you divvy cսnt.

goose wrote: ↑20 Mar 2025, 17:32

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑20 Mar 2025, 17:27 Mail reporting that Moyes is a witness for Paqueta in his defence- presumably about this substitution thing

Moyes has always been good at sorting out a defence.

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑20 Mar 2025, 17:27 Mail reporting that Moyes is a witness for Paqueta in his defence- presumably about this substitution thing

Mail reporting that Moyes is a witness for Paqueta in his defence- presumably about this substitution thing

Go on for some time.
Der.

nychammer wrote: ↑19 Mar 2025, 00:38

Mex Martillo" wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025, 17:20 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.
'