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."

I think in all honesty even if the betting stuff went away, we'd be lucky to get 40-50 mill for him now anyway.

As an aside, just read this- could be bollocks and I've no idea if the source is any good:
( https://www.westhamzone.com/news/lucas- ... es-update/ )As for Paqueta, the failed transfer to City will form a part of his defence in the battle against the FA, according to The Guardian.The newspaper reported via their website on Monday (17 March) that the 27-year-old claims he had asked David Moyes not to play him against Bournemouth to avoid risking his agreed move to Manchester City in any way.His lawyer, Nick De Marco KC, will use this to defend against the accusation that the player was part of a betting conspiracy to get booked.

The claim that Paqueta was not expecting to be on the pitch as late as the 93rd minute is now being used as a defence in his legal battle.

goose wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025, 11:08

threesixty wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025, 10:45 I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 






 

1) he’s not an £80m asset on our books
2) what if he’s actually guilty?

 

One of the good things about this new version of WHO is that you can edit that post and we’ll all just pretend you didn’t just type ‘Packwetter’.

The reality about Packwetter is we need consistent performances out of him.

It's the FA, not the PL, right?
It's not just to help Betway, it's all about the integrity of the game. If a player is proven to have colluded to have fixed an outcome in a game they are playing in- even if it's a yellow card which may not actually affect the result, then it's absolutely essential to stamp it out as it's just a slippery slope. 

This is way worse then Toney betting on games that he had no influence on and IF he's proven to be guilty then he should get an enormous ban. They have to make the consequences of this crystal clear to every footballer playing the game. But yes at the same time they should have to have concrete proof  rather than 'a strong hunch' of something so serious which has such a profound effect on the player and his future.

Hearing actually started yesterday? Three weeks long as well. It can't be very cut and dried in terms of evidence or it would be far quicker.

threesixty wrote: ↑18 Mar 2025, 10:45 I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 




 

I just don’t see how the PL get anything out of banning this guy.
Who wins here? A PL member (West Ham) lose a potential 80m asset. Thats terrible for our books. 
the PL lose a star attraction. 
For what? Circumstancial evidence where no admission of guilt has been made and they don’t even have evidence gathered on a phone they had for 2 months.

all to help out Betway?? Really? Over a few grand?

The likelyhood of a player earning the money Paq earns in our league doing this is so low so why the need to make an example out of him that costs the PL tens of millions in a lost asset?

all of this makes zero sense and the prosecution is just looking to save face and let it peter out somehow. Maybe they’ll give him some official sanction that’s suspended if he does anything wrong again and that will be it. 



 

Even if they charge him on this highly dubious “balance of probability” which means their wont be facts but more circumstancial, Paqueta’s lawyers will contest it and it will go back into more hearings etc by which time his contract and career will be nearimg an end. He will continue to play while this all goes on imo for the next 2 seasons. 
 

Starting to think the same. They must be spending far too much time and money on this than they want and it makes no sense it’s not over by now. Feel they are still scrabbling for knockout evidence that they just cannot find that will stop counter claims and years more of it, and them looking stupid. 

Any admission (or finding of guilt) would result in a very long ban - there's no way around that - so he was never going to do that.

I still feel that they can't have what the media suggests they might have - it has taken far too long.

We should sue the FA for loss of potential transfer earnings if they keep dragging this out and he's eventually found not guilty or they just drop the charges. 

The fact the he continues to flat out deny wrong doing says something. His legal team and the club must have recommended admitting it and facing a short term ban as opposed to the prospect of harsher punishment after being found guilty by an inquiry, so they must feel confident there is nothing to this. I just get the feeling this is going to peter out and the FA will bide their time in burying the news.

True. There just seems to be this ever rumbling 'oh we;ll come for you soon. Yeah, soon. Hmmmm, soon. Maybe soon.'

It's a bit cartoonish and pathetic now. Shit or get off the pot.

If I was running West Ham or was Paqueta himself or his legal people - I would start to toss allegations of harassment at the FA. There needs to come a time when they show their cards. You can't just keep an allegation running against someone for this long without coming out and showing what you have. The fact that they haven't done that tells me that much or all of their case is built on circumstance / coincidence and association. From what I can see that's going to be hard to make stick. Either they have clear fundamental evidence that proves he was involved and knew what he was doing or they don't. If they do, show it and get this matter over with. If they don't, drop it. 

FWIW, this is almost the exact same situation with Tom Brady and "deflategate". They got his phone did whatever and gave it back at which point he threw it away. The league then wanted it back and tried to make a big deal out of him throwing it away which ultimately went nowhere.

Assuming the FA did have access, can't see anything other than them having egg on their face for not collecting what they needed.

Why the fuck, given the severity of the charges, did they give him the phone back? Weapons grade incompetence, that.

Surely they knew he'd go straight out and buy a replacement when they first took it, simply in order to get on with his life.

Paqueta's not responsible for the stupidity of the FA (investigation team).

If they fucked up, they need to man up and say so, so everybody can move on.

Thought it was established that they asked for his phone and gave it back after 8 weeks
Obviously he bought a new one in the meantime and disposed of the old when returned
Later they asked for the phone again for some reason & told him he was obstructing the investigation when he didn’t have it
After going on for 2 years the cunts are floundering and I’ve always said we should be taking legal action as they are too embarrassed to back off
Ruining the players career & stopping us from selling him

Rossal wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025, 14:21 I am saying £30m loss on player value or potential sale 

I am then saying we are another £30m down to try and replace him with someone of similar quality. 

Maverick180180 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025, 10:23 I get what you’re saying 
they took his phone, he went out and bought a new one so didn’t need the old one anymore so tossed it when they gave it back 
but now I’ve read that wasn’t the case, they asked for it, he didn’t reply and threw the phone away, and then when they asked for it again, then he replied and said he didn’t have it anymore 

it depends which one is true 
the first scenario is perfectly fine 
the second one isn’t though 

Paqueta will finish his career in Brazil I suppose ( they are not bound by FA rules etc ? ) 

I get what you’re saying 
they took his phone, he went out and bought a new one so didn’t need the old one anymore so tossed it when they gave it back 
but now I’ve read that wasn’t the case, they asked for it, he didn’t reply and threw the phone away, and then when they asked for it again, then he replied and said he didn’t have it anymore 

it depends which one is true 
the first scenario is perfectly fine 
the second one isn’t though 

FA have to create a strong deterrent that is their priority and why I guess he will get a life time ban since they use “balance of probabilities” not facts.  Gawd knows what the truth is but its West Ham and we always come out on the losing side of any thing like this. 

Paqueta will finish his career in Brazil I suppose ( they are not bound by FA rules etc ? ) and we will be lucky to get 20 million of our 50 million outlay.

Then we have to sue Paqueta which will take years and come to nothing ? 

Maverick180180 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025, 09:37 What I’ve just read says they never had his phone 
he got rid of it as soon as he was asked to hand it over 

Manuel wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025, 00:25

wils wrote: ↑07 Mar 2025, 16:07 Yeah, it's double counting to me too. It Paqueta has a resale of value of £30 million then the player we replace him with also has a £30 million resale value. So you might lose Paqueta and his resale but you don't lose the resale value of the replacement unless the same thing happens to him.

FMOB are you for real or what? If me auntie had a pair of bollocks I'd be addressing her as 'uncle'.

What I’ve just read says they never had his phone 
he got rid of it as soon as he was asked to hand it over 

Maverick180180 wrote: ↑08 Mar 2025, 09:15 Dunno if someone else has already mentioned this on this thread but I can’t see it if they have 
I’ve just read that the reason he was also being charged with failing to comply was because on the second time of asking to hand over his phone he told them he couldn’t because he’d disposed of it 

blokes guilty as hell and a complete thick as fuck moron