West Ham Online

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

"Other evidence not withstanding, I don't see anything that unusual in the fouls leading to the yellow cards."

"when you look at the 4 cards in question, the moneys come from Paqueta island and the amount involved to move the British betting markets Surely that's not all coincidence is it, geezers banged to rights. Absolute idiot, just hope the FA can't prove it"

"cholo, that was the thing that immediately struck me. Would have been crazy to wait that long if he really wanted to get a yellow. In fact, if he wanted to get subbed early to avoid possible injury ahead of his Man City move then that would have been even more reason to try to get booked earlier on as Moyes would have hooked him as soon as he was carded."

In his defence why would he wait till the 93rd minute to get booked intentionally? Could've been hooked by Moyes at any point or picked up a knock to force his hand. Also no guarantee you're going to have an opportunity to challenge for the ball in the last few minutes.

Not wanting to play could be a pretty weak defence. All the 'prosecution' would say is that he tipped people off that he'd get a booking if he played. Be interesting to know when bets were placed. Days in advance or during the match once they knew he was playing.

Seems he’s being charged with wanting to get on with his career rather than LANGUISHING under a manager know for playing the most dire form of football know to humanity. Lost his temper deep into injury time when he was supposed to have come off and handled the ball. How very DARE he.

That will be his defence till it emerges he had 50k on him to join Man City a few days before

This fucking website

"Part of his defence, apparently, is that for one of the games in question, Bournemouth at the beginning of the season, he asked to be left out of the team before the match in case he got injured, as he was expecting to join Man City."

"Its in The Sun!! LOL Not the moist reliable source, BUT...... If True an interesting turn of events on one of the bookings (Bournemouth) that Lucas Paqueta is accused of deliberately getting, wonder if Moyes and senior West Ham figures (senior players, management i guess?) will back him up.......... According to The Sun, Paqueta asked West Ham manager David Moyes to leave him out of the game to avoid any potential injury that could jeopardise his transfer to Manchester City. Despite his request, he eventually agreed to play after discussions with Moyes and other senior figures at the club. During the game, Paqueta was visibly anxious, frequently glancing towards the touchline from the 70th minute onwards, seemingly looking to be substituted. Moyes had reportedly planned to substitute Paqueta in the second half to minimise the risk of injury. However, Paqueta remained on the pitch until deep into added time, when he received the controversial booking for handball, a moment that has become the cornerstone of the FA's investigation. Apparently Paqueta’s case will be heard by a three-person independent commission later this UK summer, so towards the end of the transfer window !!!! FFS........"

Understood he was meant to lodge his response to the charges tomorrow but there was talk of a request for an extension Thought the allegations came up last year but it took 10 months for charges to be laid. Only fair if he is given 10 months to submit his defence

Given the money behind pacqueta. Don't be surprised if it's the longest lasting. Saga since the mousetrap.

Given the money behind pacqueta. Don't be surprised if it's the longest lasting. Saga since the mousetrap.

"Sydnney, yes looks like dragging on and on. I would not be surprised if he starts for us next season with all this still ongoing. This is what the Brazilian FA had to say, copy paste from Alan Friday News Sport Witness National team release statement about Lucas Paquet?° ‚Äì FA clarified West Ham star‚Äôs situation By Lucas Sposito The CBF has now released an official statement on West Ham United star Lucas Paquet?°. In the past few days, the Brazilian media had already been claiming that the player would continue to be part of the Copa America squad, despite the betting charges from the Football Association. Now the CBF comes forward with a piece on their website claiming that president Ednaldo Rodrigues exchanged information with FA executive director Mark Bullingham about the West Ham player. They publish all the answers they got in the email. That makes Paquet?°‚Äôs situation a lot clearer, and this is how it goes: (a) Although the player is now subject to a number of charges, the FA has not received any provisional suspension order against Lucas Paquet?° and therefore there is no impediment to him continuing to play at this time. (b) No interim measures have been requested in relation to the current charges against Lucas Paquet?°. (c) The current position is that the player‚Äôs formal response to the charges is due on 3rd June. We anticipate that, due to the detail of this case, there may be a request to extend the deadline for responding to the charges. We will update you as soon as we are aware of any revised date. As for a likely date for the case to reach a final decision, it is not possible to provide an estimate, but we will endeavour to keep you updated whenever possible. (d) As above, no interim measures have been requested in relation to the player and, consequently, no request has been made to FIFA. Brazil are now starting their preparation for the Copa America, with Paquet?° being one of the players who‚Äôs joining the squad in Orlando. The West Ham midfielder is expected to fight for a starting place in the team, so it was very important for the CBF to have his situation made clear before the start of the competition. They‚Äôre now sure that there‚Äôs no problem in using him, and it remains to be seen how he‚Äôll deal with all of this."

Brydon Carse banned for 3 months for 303 betting offences.

"Was any time line put on this by the FA? Or could it be another (like Man citys charges) that drags on for ages, Lawyers asking for more time etc etc"

Quite a few low level tennis players on those Challenger events making not much of a living have been done for throwing games for syndicates. You'd think there would be major suspicion when you see large bets on Thierry Nobody (700th in the world) v Piers WhoTheFuck (900th in the world) in the first round of the Peckham Open

"These betting companies have systems in place that send out signals for unusual betting patterns.so if the average bet on a yellow card is £20 and suddenly they get £25,000 on one it's investigated. Tennis was rife for this for a while, suddenly massive bets would go on a certain game in a certain set"

Ratted out by Betway

"Doesn’t it seem all too obvious, I mean with what Paqueta stands to lose wouldn’t it be a bit more subtle?"

"It's a bit suspicious for sure, and It certainly does need some explanation from those Paqueta Island, but unless they can prove there was an arrangement between them and Paqueta and the bookings were all staged by him then what can they do? What if Alvarez's relatives in Mexico decided to bet on him getting a booking, because there were some decent odds and based on the fact he does in fact get booked nearly every game, would that spark the same interest? I think they have to get concrete proof of the arrangement, as without an erstwhile confession from Paqueta (indeed its the opposite) then a conviction and ban is going to look very harsh indeed."

Haven’t looked again at the 4 cards but haven’t seen any suggestion that they weren’t correctly awarded I understood the story was that bets were placed by relatives on Paqueta Island for Paqueta & his Brazilian mate in a European league to be booked on the same day. Odd bet (personally I think bets on cards should have been banned) that stands out due to being a bit bizarre & doubly so because I can’t imagine they would have been placed anywhere else. Saw reported that it was OUR sponsor Betway who reported the bets. You couldn’t make it up You have to think we won’t see Paqueta or the £85m again

"So, since we’re all big boys and girls now and this is a serious business going to the heart of fair play and everything the game stands for, we’re not only interested in investigating Paqueta’s conduct, but that of the officials on the pitch handing out the cards. And we’ll also be very keen to make sure this kind of spit betting is not allowed to spoil the game. So what are the patterns of officials’ behaviour in the games Paqueta has been carded and how have bookies been calculating their odds? If the FA investigation is restricted to the player, how can it be accepted as being in the interest of the game?"

That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.

"The spotlight of media interest should definitely be on the FA: while it has taken 9 months to finally charge Paqueta, there is still no clarity on what he is supposed to have done or any proof he has done it. As far as I can tell, at the moment, he is simply being harassed by a licensing organisation and wins any civil suit hands down."