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."

9898 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2025, 11:44 We need to sell this trouble maker ASAP. Very talented but was a disgrace last season and feels he is better than the club. Detestable individual who causes trouble anywhere h plays. 
Anything above £30 million sell. 

9898 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2025, 11:44 We need to sell this trouble maker ASAP. Very talented but was a disgrace last season and feels he is better than the club. Detestable individual who causes trouble anywhere h plays. 
Anything above £30 million sell. 

9898 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2025, 11:44 We need to sell this trouble maker ASAP. Very talented but was a disgrace last season and feels he is better than the club. Detestable individual who causes trouble anywhere h plays. 
Anything above £30 million sell. 

We need to sell this trouble maker ASAP. Very talented but was a disgrace last season and feels he is better than the club. Detestable individual who causes trouble anywhere h plays. 
Anything above £30 million sell. 

I've had a club affiliated with the FA and there is no promise not to sue them as a term of association.

The FA is two entities, one is a limited company which can be sued, and the other is a National Governing Body which is not entitled to any state funding from Sport England because they don't adhere to the Tier 3 Code of Sporting Conduct. They make their own rules, appoint their own people without consultation with the membership and they operate for profit.

Legally, they are more vulnerable than most so they can - and should - be sued when their poor practice has a material detriment on any member organisation or individual.

Here's the Athletic's writeup on the whole saga. 

https://archive.ph/0JRQH

Lucas Paquetá’s lawyer speaks out after West Ham star cleared of spot-fixing charges.
Basically waiting for the detail before deciding what to do.

XKhammer wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 16:23

northbankboy68 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025, 21:14 The FA, as with most things in Britain, is on the slide.  A country that chooses the likes of Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss as Prime Minister deserves the Sweet FA.

 

 

Only two of those won an outright majority...so how did the country choose May and Truss?

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 20:03 It does seem that it is possible to sue an unincorporated association - there have been a couple of recent cases.

I assume that the FA is an unincorporated association, otherwise it would be a legal entity (/person) in it's own right and sue-able by default.


 

Far Cough UKunt" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:10 Club statement:

https://www.whufc.com/news/west-ham-uni ... as-paqueta

It does seem that it is possible to sue an unincorporated association - there have been a couple of recent cases.

I assume that the FA is an unincorporated association, otherwise it would be a legal entity (/person) in it's own right and sue-able by default.

It probably hinges on the T&C the clubs agree on when invited to join the FA, but the glaring incompetence by the FA and disregard for the player to be able to go about his legal and lawful business may persuade a judge to allow a case for compensation to be raised.

Over the moon for the Pac-Man. Said it at the time. And still stand by it. Some cսnt higher up the food chain didn't want him going to Man City. I reckon we get another season from him and he go back to Brazil. With his love for us. And his head held high.

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 17:12

threesixty wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 17:03

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:38

This is probably just face saving for them so they get something and don't look like utter chumps after all the fanfare and the fuss. Guess it's going to be to do with having lost or 'lost' his phone after they gave it back to them before they asked for it again. Probably not too severe a punishment, you'd think and hope.

 

I knew they’d do that. I think I said a few weeks back. They’ve spent 2 yrs trying to figure out how to stop them from being sued basically. 
The FA haven’t cleared Paq, an independent tribunal has. As far as they are concerned the fact that he in their opinion wasn’t helping them solve the case means they have reason to still be suspicious and thus them bringing the charge was justified. 

they will think that will legally protect them from being sued because their actions were “reasonable”. 

I dunno… but what u need is a very rich man who will drag them through the courts forever until they cry for mercy.. Maybe Sullivan has it in him? That’s a lot of money he lost and so has Paq. But I suppose Sullivan can have a chat with them about that at the local “lodge meeting” lol 

 

Yeah, I think so too. All this delay has been about face saving and not looking silly and making sure they got a concession in this other charge to pretend this hasn’t all been a waste of everyone’s time and money 

BRANDED wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 17:23 The only issue is

” why did it take so long?”

and

yo what extent did that have a material impact upon the player of club?

The only issue is

” why did it take so long?”

and

yo what extent did that have a material impact upon the player of club?

Mad Dog" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 17:10 I thought we weren't allowed to sue them or fifa

threesixty wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 17:03

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:38

goose wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:20 "not proven"

wankers.


"Paqueta was also charged with two counts of failing to co-operate with the investigation after breaching "FA Rule F3 in respect of alleged failures to comply pursuant to FA Rule F2", which relates to providing information and documents.He also denied these charges, but the regulatory commission found them to be proven and will "decide an appropriate sanction for these breaches at the earliest opportunity".

This is probably just face saving for them so they get something and don't look like utter chumps after all the fanfare and the fuss. Guess it's going to be to do with having lost or 'lost' his phone after they gave it back to them before they asked for it again. Probably not too severe a punishment, you'd think and hope.

 

I knew they’d do that. I think I said a few weeks back. They’ve spent 2 yrs trying to figure out how to stop them from being sued basically. 
The FA haven’t cleared Paq, an independent tribunal has. As far as they are concerned the fact that he in their opinion wasn’t helping them solve the case means they have reason to still be suspicious and thus them bringing the charge was justified. 

they will think that will legally protect them from being sued because their actions were “reasonable”. 

I dunno… but what u need is a very rich man who will drag them through the courts forever until they cry for mercy.. Maybe Sullivan has it in him? That’s a lot of money he lost and so has Paq. But I suppose Sullivan can have a chat with them about that at the local “lodge meeting” lol 

 

I thought we weren't allowed to sue them or fifa

Simon Jordan is a slimy smug cսnt but I have to agree with what he said about Paqueta (of course in a way which heavily insinuated he was guilty but got lucky) in that it’s not necessarily wise to go after the FA as then he leaves himself open to further scrutiny. Implying that he must be an admission of guilt if he doesn’t. Don’t necessarily like his assertions but it’s probably wisest for the player to just let it lie. Us however as an innocent party could have a go. Probably only if he should leave for less than 85 million quid though depending on how close to completion that deal actually was. Don’t know if we have a case if Paqueta stays. 

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:38

goose wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 15:20 "not proven"

wankers.


"Paqueta was also charged with two counts of failing to co-operate with the investigation after breaching "FA Rule F3 in respect of alleged failures to comply pursuant to FA Rule F2", which relates to providing information and documents.He also denied these charges, but the regulatory commission found them to be proven and will "decide an appropriate sanction for these breaches at the earliest opportunity".

This is probably just face saving for them so they get something and don't look like utter chumps after all the fanfare and the fuss. Guess it's going to be to do with having lost or 'lost' his phone after they gave it back to them before they asked for it again. Probably not too severe a punishment, you'd think and hope.

 

Don't forget that slimy cսnt starmer

Ron Eff" wrote: ↑31 Jul 2025, 16:14 Absolute pricks on proven breach of the communications point. Because they gave his phone back having not found anything and he had got rid by the time they thought they better have another look because they aren’t finding any evidence. 

Don’t quite know why it’s thought to be so ridiculous that he takes counter action. This agenda, based on frankly,  circumstantial evidence of some minor bets on a regularly booked player getting booked in quite typical fashion, which then took two years to find him not guilty, or not proven as they feel the need to use, when a case that was linked and allegedly happened concurrently in Spain was disregarded very swiftly by the Spanish FA; all of which cost him a potentially career changing move to Man City, and meant he had to live with a cloud over him for two years, knowing that the FA were seeking a lifetime ban which would ruin his career when in his prime and arguably have an extremely detrimental impact on his life.

I’d suggest it’s actually more ridiculous to think he might not be considering it. Maybe he just wants to get on with his life now, but the FA have made a proper dogs dinner of this. 

 

northbankboy68 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025, 21:14 The FA, as with most things in Britain, is on the slide.  A country that chooses the likes of Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss as Prime Minister deserves the Sweet FA.

  Only two of those won an outright majority...so how did the country choose May and Truss?

Well its great thats over the FA havent come out of this with any credibility 

however - the cսnt will probably put in a transfer request now . . .

no smoke without fire. If youre on a  +100k a week or whatever, you need to go out of your way not to get dragged into shit like this, either by keeping the entourage in check, or maybe just not picking up soft yellows every week . .

He owes us a good season.

Imagine the poor bloke who had to sift though his phone.  There's probably endless amounts TIK TOK videos of him dancing around.