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 won’t miss him.

He's only out for 1-2 weeks.

Staged an injury!
Sure his ankle wasn’t weakened by COVID vaccine injections?

iphammer wrote: ↑19 Feb 2025, 22:46 it's all a bit strange that the match-fixing stuff has recently re surfaced and now he is out injured for 4 weeks. 

iphammer wrote: ↑19 Feb 2025, 22:46 it's all a bit strange that the match-fixing stuff has recently re surfaced and now he is out injured for 4 weeks. 

This must be the most depressing season since Avram's days.

it's all a bit strange that the match-fixing stuff has recently re surfaced and now he is out injured for 4 weeks. 

honky cat" wrote: ↑19 Feb 2025, 19:31 I'll probably get pelted for this but .. 

 

I'll probably get pelted for this but .. Im sick of him really. Any good bit of form and fitness always seems to coincide with the transfer window. If there wasnt this gambling shit going on, i'm sure he would be long gone. Talented yes, but name a game where he completely bossed it.

Out for at least 4 weeks. Wouldn't be shocked if he can't be arsed ro play much more this season

Could not give a shit. Hasn't contributed anywhere near enough this season. If it's a bad enough injury we might not see him in a west ham shirt again.

Maybe we'll be a little bit more solid without him in the team.

It's not a massive blow, no, and I've been a big critic of his his this season, but he has played quite well of late and arguably our best player in recent games.

No loss whatsoever 

He has been dreadful this season and having to carry him and Kudus has cost us.

Let Ferguson start and bring Irving in for Soler and JWP for Alvarez.

fraser wrote: ↑19 Feb 2025, 09:08 We played without a striker it just makes it easy to start Ferguson.

We played without a striker it just makes it easy to start Ferguson.

Got to hope Paqueta being unavailable causes one of those positive, unintended consequences like Bobby Robson had when forced to play Lineker and Beardsley in the WC due to squad injuries.  But with JWP, Soler and Irvine as the replacements it don’t feel that will be the case?

interestingly, the indestructable Soucek factor strikes again. Everytime we think he might have to make way, circumstances conspire to ensure he gets a starting 11 birth.  

Irving in for Arsenal, or more likely JWP.

You couldn’t fucking make it up. 

Rolled his ankle in training...scan today but could be out for a bit.

scott_d wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 18:57

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 12:17

• If he's found to have breached the rules, it'll be West Ham who suffer the most, because that's the sort of shit we deal with! I give you the Sheffield United "third party" malarkey with Tevez. How many other Premier League clubs used third party ownership (answer: many, including some of those winning silverware at the time)? But it came down on us.

Sheffield United did.
They loaned Steve Kabba from Watford in that season and agreed not to play him against their parent club when the 2 teams met before this was a rule.  They even said on their website that the clubs had agreed he would not play in the fixture but later took this down.
This meant that Watford, a third party had influence over Sheffield United's team selection at a time when this was against the rules.
But of course this didn't get mentioned by anyone at the time.

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 12:17 [*]If he's found to have breached the rules, it'll be West Ham who suffer the most, because that's the sort of shit we deal with! I give you the Sheffield United "third party" malarkey with Tevez. How many other Premier League clubs used third party ownership (answer: many, including some of those winning silverware at the time)? But it came down on us.

goose wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 16:00 and deleted whatsapp messages?

and deleted whatsapp messages?

Absolute horseshit.

If they had his phone in an unlocked state, they had everything they needed to read his messages.

Encryption is about accessing the messages on the server or whilst in transport (interception).

You don't need your mates phone to read the messages you send him or the ones he sends you. Complete rubbish. 

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 14:20 They had his phone for 8 weeks and then returned it to him
Obviously he got a new phone after handing his over & disposed of the one returned to him
If they had a problem accessing apps surely they should have sorted that in the 8 weeks and not returned it
The cunts are floundering 
Understand when later they asked for the phone again & were told he’d disposed of it said they would charge him with obstructing the inquiry
Shambolic