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."

[Ladysmith]

No.

going into the last game it looked like this:

sheff utd.   38
West Ham. 38
wigan.        35
charlton & Watford already down.

Is that when we were relegated at Wigan?

[goose]

No.

going into the last game it looked like this:

sheff utd.   38
West Ham. 38
wigan.        35
charlton & Watford already down.

[Mike Oxsaw]

We had to lose both wigan and Sheffield had to pick up at least one point.  With our win we were safe no matter what.  Pretty sure that wigan beating Sheffield utd meant we were safe.

However if we had lost i guarantee that game ends in a draw.  Us winning put a right cat amongst the pigeons and meant they both bad to go for it

So, we could have lost by a cricket score and due to what happened elsewhere - outside any West Ham player's field of influence - we were safe.

Is that the bottom line?

[Mad Dog]

We had to lose both wigan and Sheffield had to pick up at least one point.  With our win we were safe no matter what.  Pretty sure that wigan beating Sheffield utd meant we were safe.

However if we had lost i guarantee that game ends in a draw.  Us winning put a right cat amongst the pigeons and meant they both bad to go for it

[Mike Oxsaw]

I know it's drifting slightly off-topic, but can somebody remind me, given all the other results that day, what score at Old Trafford would have relegated us?

[goose]

FA appointed judges  Lord Triesman, And an ex chairman / CEO Kevin Mccabe, concerns me

Cushty

Isn't McCabe one of the Sheffield cunts pushing for us to get relegated in the Tevez affair?

Yeah that's fucking impartial.

wooooooosh!!

[Gank]

FA appointed judges  Lord Triesman, And an ex chairman / CEO Kevin Mccabe, concerns me

Cushty

Isn't McCabe one of the Sheffield cunts pushing for us to get relegated in the Tevez affair?

Yeah that's fucking impartial.

They're nothing to do with it, don't worry. I think it was an attempt at a joke.

[Far Cough UKunt]

FA appointed judges  Lord Triesman, And an ex chairman / CEO Kevin Mccabe, concerns me

Cushty

Isn't McCabe one of the Sheffield cunts pushing for us to get relegated in the Tevez affair?

Yeah that's fucking impartial.

[Mex Martillo]

This really is beyond a joke, fucking incompetent cunts. Cannot believe this is going to the summer.

Report from the Guardian:

West Ham’s Paquetá in limbo as spot-fixing hearing adjourned until summer

Complexity of case sees it drag on to June at earliest
Brazilian faces potential life ban if found guilty

Lucas Paquetá faces a frustrating wait as he fights a possible life ban over Football Association spot-fixing charges because the case will not finish until June at the earliest.

The independent panel presiding over the hearing did not conclude proceedings in the initial allotted three-week slot, that ended last Friday, because of its complexity. The case has been adjourned.

Owing to the lawyers’ other commitments, it is understood the hearing will not resume until June, leaving Paquetá in limbo. The Brazilian withdrew from World Cup qualifiers against Argentina and Colombia last month so he could take part in the hearing but has made himself available for West Ham and played all of their Premier League games against Wolves and Bournemouth last week.

West Ham are backing Paquetá and are unhappy with the FA’s handling of the most high-profile corruption case in English football since Bruce Grobbelaar was acquitted of conspiring to fix five Premier League games in a criminal trial 27 years ago. The club had asked the FA to put back Paquetá’s hearing until the summer to avoid disrupting their season.

West Ham sources have expressed frustration that Paquetá has experienced the worst of both worlds, with a hearing that began on 17 March not concluding until the summer. There could be a further delay if Paquetá is found guilty and a separate hearing is required to determine the punishment.

The case could overshadow another summer transfer window for West Ham. Manchester City had agreed to pay £80m for Paquetá in August 2023 but pulled out after it emerged the FA was investigating suspicious betting patterns surrounding four bookings he had received in the preceding nine months.

Paquetá was charged with four counts of spot-fixing and two of obstructing an FA investigation in May 2024 after allegations that he was deliberately booked in Premier League games to earn money for family and friends in Brazil. He strongly denied wrongdoing.

“I am extremely surprised and upset that the FA has decided to charge me,” he said. “For nine months I have cooperated with every step of their investigation and provided all the information I can. I deny the charges in their entirety and will fight with every breath to clear my name”

The FA has alleged that Paquetá “directly sought to influence … matches by intentionally seeking to receive a card from the referee, for the improper purpose of affecting the betting market in order for one or more persons to profit from betting”. The charge sheet is understood to include the recommendation of a life ban if he is found guilty.

The FA and West Ham declined to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -adjourned

[Monsieur merde de cheval]

FA appointed judges  Lord Triesman, And an ex chairman / CEO Kevin Mccabe, concerns me

Cushty

[Monsieur merde de cheval]

I think a lot of you are being overly optimistic because many of you seem to think that he has to be found guilty to a criminal standard ie beyond reasonable doubt.  It would be almost impossible to prove that, that's true.

But this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case.  It will be decided on the balance of probabilities ie if those making the judgement conclude that it is 51% likely that he did it, then that means it's proven.

That could hypothetically be solely based on betting patterns.  For example, if there were 15 matches he picked up yellow cards in and there were bets placed on him by his family getting yellows in each of those matches whilst they did NOT place bets on matches in intervening periods where he didn't get yellows, then the balance of probabilities (probably) says that he's guilty even if there is not a smoking gun.  It's not a criminal trial.

If as rumoured on here the FA offered to settle it may feel that their betting pattern type evidence may not persuade tribunal on balance of probabilities of him being guilty and that being the case then hopefully he gets off.

The original story was there was joint betting on him AND another Brazilian player in another league (League 1 in France maybe?) both getting yellows in particular games ie doubles and these repeatedly coming off.  So that may be another piece of evidence.

Fingers crossed the case isn't strong enough to prove he's done it.

It's what's being reported in the news. One of our 'experts' was a stats bloke who analysed a load of other times he should have been booked but wasn't and things such as that who's evidence was apparently very strong, and the FA brought along a (former?) gambling addict or similar who melted under questioning, I believe. We also had Moyes' confirmation that Paqueta shouldn't have played in that Bournemouth game and certainly the plan was not for him to be on the pitch when the booking happened. Which apparently has all swung it quite largely in our favour. Hence the FA now trying to cut a deal (this has been disputed though) rather than pressing ahead but its been adjourned until the summer now.

I just want him gone.... preferably to N17

[Sir Alf]

FA appointed judges  Lord Triesman, And an ex chairman / CEO Kevin Mccabe, concerns me

[El Scorchio]

I think a lot of you are being overly optimistic because many of you seem to think that he has to be found guilty to a criminal standard ie beyond reasonable doubt.  It would be almost impossible to prove that, that's true.

But this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case.  It will be decided on the balance of probabilities ie if those making the judgement conclude that it is 51% likely that he did it, then that means it's proven.

That could hypothetically be solely based on betting patterns.  For example, if there were 15 matches he picked up yellow cards in and there were bets placed on him by his family getting yellows in each of those matches whilst they did NOT place bets on matches in intervening periods where he didn't get yellows, then the balance of probabilities (probably) says that he's guilty even if there is not a smoking gun.  It's not a criminal trial.

If as rumoured on here the FA offered to settle it may feel that their betting pattern type evidence may not persuade tribunal on balance of probabilities of him being guilty and that being the case then hopefully he gets off.

The original story was there was joint betting on him AND another Brazilian player in another league (League 1 in France maybe?) both getting yellows in particular games ie doubles and these repeatedly coming off.  So that may be another piece of evidence.

Fingers crossed the case isn't strong enough to prove he's done it.

It's what's being reported in the news. One of our 'experts' was a stats bloke who analysed a load of other times he should have been booked but wasn't and things such as that who's evidence was apparently very strong, and the FA brought along a (former?) gambling addict or similar who melted under questioning, I believe. We also had Moyes' confirmation that Paqueta shouldn't have played in that Bournemouth game and certainly the plan was not for him to be on the pitch when the booking happened. Which apparently has all swung it quite largely in our favour. Hence the FA now trying to cut a deal (this has been disputed though) rather than pressing ahead but its been adjourned until the summer now.

[Fifth Column]

I think a lot of you are being overly optimistic because many of you seem to think that he has to be found guilty to a criminal standard ie beyond reasonable doubt.  It would be almost impossible to prove that, that's true.

But this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case.  It will be decided on the balance of probabilities ie if those making the judgement conclude that it is 51% likely that he did it, then that means it's proven.

That could hypothetically be solely based on betting patterns.  For example, if there were 15 matches he picked up yellow cards in and there were bets placed on him by his family getting yellows in each of those matches whilst they did NOT place bets on matches in intervening periods where he didn't get yellows, then the balance of probabilities (probably) says that he's guilty even if there is not a smoking gun.  It's not a criminal trial.

If as rumoured on here the FA offered to settle it may feel that their betting pattern type evidence may not persuade tribunal on balance of probabilities of him being guilty and that being the case then hopefully he gets off.

The original story was there was joint betting on him AND another Brazilian player in another league (League 1 in France maybe?) both getting yellows in particular games ie doubles and these repeatedly coming off.  So that may be another piece of evidence.

Fingers crossed the case isn't strong enough to prove he's done it.

[scott_d]

Hope he gets 100% vindicated and him and the club pile in for massive damages.

One less thing at the club to moan about.

What's not to like?

Plus we get the Paqueta from before this all came out, the one Man City were willing to spend 85m on. 

Win win.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Hope he gets 100% vindicated and him and the club pile in for massive damages.

One less thing at the club to moan about.

What's not to like?

[Manuel]

 

It could even be something silly and completely innocent like he’s rang his dad and been in a bad mood and his dad has said ‘he’s definitely going to get booked today’ and had a flutter with a few of his mates or family.
 

 

This is the 2nd time I've been on this website in about 15 years but THIS. This is something I've thought all along. I've used the example previously of him complaining to his mum that "Moyes is putting me on the wing again FFS" - or something similar and probably in Brazilian.
Either way the resulting thought from his mother could be that she knows her son is frustrated and told somebody else this information and a group of locals who know him very well thought they'd have a couple of quid on what is generally speaking a pretty good bet anyway.

Without proof, such as phone calls of chat logs, there's no way they can unequivocally determine he's got them intentionally.

If they had that, this would've been shut by now. Looking forward to the responding counter claim £££ (and more importantly a focused Lucas)

Yea that would be it, his old man detected he was in a bad mood so guessed he'd go in for a sliding tackle the next time he played and get booked so he put a bet on in the hope to win few few quid. Genius.

[TheOriginalBraderz]

 

It could even be something silly and completely innocent like he’s rang his dad and been in a bad mood and his dad has said ‘he’s definitely going to get booked today’ and had a flutter with a few of his mates or family.
 

 

 

This is the 2nd time I've been on this website in about 15 years but THIS. This is something I've thought all along. I've used the example previously of him complaining to his mum that "Moyes is putting me on the wing again FFS" - or something similar and probably in Brazilian.
Either way the resulting thought from his mother could be that she knows her son is frustrated and told somebody else this information and a group of locals who know him very well thought they'd have a couple of quid on what is generally speaking a pretty good bet anyway.

Without proof, such as phone calls of chat logs, there's no way they can unequivocally determine he's got them intentionally.

If they had that, this would've been shut by now. Looking forward to the responding counter claim £££ (and more importantly a focused Lucas)

[Fauxstralian]

It is behind closed doors

Not sure how true but read one report saying it would be adjourned & restart in June which seems bonkers
Also said the FA had made an offer but was rejected as it involved some sort of ban
West Ham are resisting as want him completely cleared and could claim compensation after the Man C transfer fell through
Paqueta was due to double his wages so could also claim compensation 

[Mike Oxsaw]

Is it a closed doors thing? I find it odd that there are no reports on how the case is developing. Hearing starts it 4th week on Monday 7th April.

I guess they're not "Hearing" enough of the stuff they need to lead them to their desired outcome, so they'll probably keep listening until they do.

[Mex Martillo]

Is it a closed doors thing? I find it odd that there are no reports on how the case is developing. Hearing starts it 4th week on Monday 7th April.

[Alfs]

I would LOVE that to happen

[El Scorchio]

Sounds like the FA are going to come up short with this given the sounds coming out of it. Trying to reach a deal/settlement which we will refuse AND go after them for millions in compo given this case made his 80 million transfer fall through.

[Mex Martillo]

Yep bollocks. I think that was the Villa game. Why is it suspicious that people that know Paqueta bet on him getting a yellow? Why is it suspicious they chose the Villa game? Paqueta gets booked a lot. McGinn is good at drawing players into a foul. Paqueta gets odds of a favourite to get a yellow. Surprising? Not really. Paqueta does get a yellow. Surprising? Not at all.
Only surprising thing seems to be that he did actually play.

[threesixty]

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.

 

 

Now that makes far more sense! I can see them doubling down on this nothing case because they have scuppered an 80m sale.

If they can get a circumstantial conviction but give a suspended sentence or something then that may protect the FA. 

apparently, Moyes has given evidence saying Paq wasn’t going to play the game is question because he didn’t want to f up his Man City deal. Moyes made a deal with him to play an hour but he ended up playing the whole game. 
So how would he be telling people to bet on a game he wasn’t going to play in?
it’s all bollocks.