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 midfielderthis season."

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

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

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.

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

On The Ball" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 15:17

 

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?

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. 

​​​​​​

Gank wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 15:08

honky cat" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 15:04

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 04:49  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%

 

kylay wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 14:52

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 05:46 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.

honky cat" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 15:04

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 04:49  If we and the player agree not to sue them.

 

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

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 04:49  If we and the player agree not to sue them.
 

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑14 Jul 2025, 05:46 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.

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.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the FA are trying to strike a deal where Paqueta won’t be suspended if we and the player agree not to sue them.
Sullivan will want it wrapped up before the transfer window closes so he can be sold

cheesebgt wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 20:00

nychammer wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 14:19

easthammer wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 14:10

I would guess that the FA are getting all their legal soldiers lined up for the battles to follow, irrespective of the verdict. Probably the same reasons that the Man City charges have not yet been resolved.

what defence could the FA possible have for dragging this on indefinitely? They'd be better finding not guilty and settling on damages. Sullivan is cheap so flash a few notes and he'll probably take it. Whatever, I'd be making all sorts of noise to push the FA to act with the new season fast approaching. 

Why would they be settling on damages? They are following the rules about spot fixing. If you're going on about how long its taken, then perhaps it is because they had to first wait for the Brazilian FA to conduct and conclude their own investigation, and then after that Paqueta's lawyers delayed the FA's proceedings for over six months to collect there own defence.

Also, Paqueta has been able to play and earn his wages during the whole proceedings, so he hasn't lost anything and we, as a club, have not either as he has been available for every game.

We’ve lost the £85m fee Man City had agreed to pay
Paqueta has probably lost £10m in extra wages over 2 years on an enhanced City contract

nychammer wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 14:19

easthammer wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 14:10

RootsRadical wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 13:37 How is this still dragging on for a third pre season.
The club should instruct solicitors to offer an ultimatum  of legal action if this isn't wrapped up before the season starts.
Why has it taken so long?

It shouldn't affect another season for the club or player, simply unfair on the club in particular who have undoubtedly done nothing wrong but have lost tens of millions in a transfer fees and the effectiveness of one of our best players.



 

I would guess that the FA are getting all their legal soldiers lined up for the battles to follow, irrespective of the verdict. Probably the same reasons that the Man City charges have not yet been resolved.

what defence could the FA possible have for dragging this on indefinitely? They'd be better finding not guilty and settling on damages. Sullivan is cheap so flash a few notes and he'll probably take it. Whatever, I'd be making all sorts of noise to push the FA to act with the new season fast approaching. 

easthammer wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 14:10

RootsRadical wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 13:37 How is this still dragging on for a third pre season.
The club should instruct solicitors to offer an ultimatum  of legal action if this isn't wrapped up before the season starts.
Why has it taken so long?

It shouldn't affect another season for the club or player, simply unfair on the club in particular who have undoubtedly done nothing wrong but have lost tens of millions in a transfer fees and the effectiveness of one of our best players.


 

I would guess that the FA are getting all their legal soldiers lined up for the battles to follow, irrespective of the verdict. Probably the same reasons that the Man City charges have not yet been resolved.

RootsRadical wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 13:37 How is this still dragging on for a third pre season.
The club should instruct solicitors to offer an ultimatum  of legal action if this isn't wrapped up before the season starts.
Why has it taken so long?

It shouldn't affect another season for the club or player, simply unfair on the club in particular who have undoubtedly done nothing wrong but have lost tens of millions in a transfer fees and the effectiveness of one of our best players.

 

How is this still dragging on for a third pre season.
The club should instruct solicitors to offer an ultimatum  of legal action if this isn't wrapped up before the season starts.
Why has it taken so long?

It shouldn't affect another season for the club or player, simply unfair on the club in particular who have undoubtedly done nothing wrong but have lost tens of millions in a transfer fees and the effectiveness of one of our best players.
 

Le Tissier had no pace. No work rate or stamina either. Wouldn't tackle or press at all. Much better as an attacking midfielder than Paqueta but it's a bit apples and oranges comparing the two. 

Thunder, you don't know what you're talking about. Would Le Tissier have been even better if he could beat a man for pace? Of course he would.

As in compared to others when running (without the ball).

Massive Attack" wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 08:00 Oh for sure lightning quick with the ball at his feet, I'm on about without the ball he never appeared at all quick to me.

He didn't have to rely on it so was never really an issue. Just like it never was for say someone like Sheringham, they were always 1 or 2 steps ahead in other ways.

Oh for sure lightning quick with the ball at his feet, I'm on about without the ball he never appeared at all quick to me.

He didn't have to rely on it so was never really an issue. Just like it never was for say someone like Sheringham, they were always 1 or 2 steps ahead in other ways.

Gank wrote: ↑13 Jul 2025, 06:44

THUNDERCLINT wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 22:28

Gank wrote: ↑12 Jul 2025, 17:37 Not long after Paqueta signed for us, one of our donkeys lumped a ball far too high and far too long to nobody in particular, it was heading off the side of the pitch on our left sideline. Paqueta sprints all the way down from an advanced central position towards where the halfway line meets the sideline, leaps high into the air, turns in mid air, puts his left leg behind his right like an aerial rabona and controls the ball, it drops dead onto the ground like a rock.

Le Tissier was a great player, very entertaining, but he was nowhere near as quick, agile or skilful enough to be able to pull that off.

 

That last sentence is the dictionary definition of ignorance.

Le Tissier didn't lack pace he just rarely needed to use it because he was a yard in front of everyone mentally.

As for agile, he turned people inside out for fun.

Both feet were as close to perfect as anyone I've seen.

Scored goals the quality of which Paqueta couldn't dream nevermind equal.

You could have said that without the opening insult. It looks like you can't handle someone who can't agree with you on every matter.