WHO Poll
Q: 2023/24 Hopes & aspirations for this season
a. As Champions of Europe there's no reason we shouldn't be pushing for a top 7 spot & a run in the Cups
24%
  
b. Last season was a trophy winning one and there's only one way to go after that, I expect a dull mid table bore fest of a season
17%
  
c. Buy some f***ing players or we're in a battle to stay up & that's as good as it gets
18%
  
d. Moyes out
38%
  
e. New season you say, woohoo time to get the new kit and wear it it to the pub for all the big games, the wags down there call me Mr West Ham
3%
  



LeroysBoots 7:36 Sun Apr 14
Paqueta
85 million !?!

Lol, if we get that I'd piss myself

Bloke was fucking terrible today, showboating twat

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 11:36 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Stubbo 4:28 Sat May 25

'Trouble is Shorty that "proof" only needs to be that it's more likely that he didn't than didn't. The threshold for success is only balance of probability.'

I suspect you might have to be a bit more certain than 'on the balance of probabilities' if you are going to take away the right for someone to pursue their trade for several years.

Gary Strodders shank 9:40 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
The geezer the Sun have dug up is talking about Paqueta like he has already been found guilty.

Not that suing him would be any good as he is clearly skint and desperate hence the scummy article.

Side of Ham 7:58 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Fair enough Stubbo.

Stubbo 7:06 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
The time? Usually it's just 'booked within normal time'.

Side of Ham 5:08 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Surely he need to know the time to the second and that's pretty hard to do whilst in a game, even with the time on a scoreboard? Which is not at every stadium is it?

Sorry if it's easy to get the time exactly right.

Stubbo 4:28 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Trouble is Shorty that "proof" only needs to be that it's more likely that he didn't than didn't. The threshold for success is only balance of probability.

Means they don't need unequivocal proof, and Paqueta really needs some solid evidence that is pretty confounding too to cast very significant doubt on the claim.

RBshorty 4:27 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
The non cooperating charge has likely been thrown in too cover the FA. If Paqueta hadn't been helping with their investigation up until now. The charges would already been in place. Seem's somebody (Not from Paqueta camp.) Is trying to kick the can down the road?

RBshorty 4:09 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
It wouldn’t get that far. You ban anyone. You need proof to back it up. Even the mighty FA have to adhere to the laws of the land.

easthammer 4:09 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
I read this yesterday and maybe it puts a slightly different perspective on where this lies with the FA.

https://www.hammers.news/news/real-reason-fa-charged-west-ham-star-lucas-paqueta-and-its-not-curtains-yet/

Whilst I am not a fan of this writer's work it is often just opinion for clickbait, but if true it might explain why the FA has now added a charge of non-cooperation.

The FA put the case to an independent hearing and cover their backs from being sued by Paueta's team. Although they might only have circumstantial evidence on the main charge which may or may not convince the independents even if it doesn't they are confident on the charge of not coopreating, which they can win and get Paqueta on something albeit not the big charge.

factory seconds 3:39 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
if the FA go "we think he did it but couldn't prove it in a court of law, but nevertheless will ban him anyway", at that point can't Paqueta's lawyers drag it into a court of law?

North Bank 3:35 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Played in the correct position and fully motivated which pretty sure Loppy will know hed be almost unplayable, yes he was off the pace towards the end of last seasn but playing out of position with his future in the balance obviously took its toll.

Stubbo 3:05 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
@Steady...it's not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is lower than 100%.

If the related circumstantial evidence is that the plausibility of a alternative scenario is very low, then they'll ban him. It will need to be strong still, but for them to take it forward you'd have to think it's pretty strong. How strong time will tell.

Technically it's only tried on the balance of probabilities (that it is more likely it happend than that it didn't). Paqueta will of course appeal and counter claim if that happens, but unless the FA case gets dismissed, this saga isn't going to end quickly and none of it is good for West Ham. Arguably akin to the Ashton injury saga in a way.

Sydney_Iron 2:33 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Clutching at straws there Mike? If Man City can’t or won’t go for Paqueta they will just sign someone else of the same ilk, Not like having to pay a few more million will be an issue either!

Mike Oxsaw 2:24 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Maybe this is not about Paqueta at all except, seeing as the authorities are struggling to address the 100+ charges in place against Man City, they're having a stampy-foot moment to stop them improving their squad by proxy and all this will quietly disappear once the transfer window closes.

twoleftfeet 2:12 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
The thing about bookmakers is they are happy taking your last £10 but hate paying out if you win big.

Plenty of YouTube videos showing people having a real struggle to get paid out.

I hope we fuck betway off and get a new sponsor, you’d think the owners of westfields would be all over our shirts?

Steady 2:02 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Unless there is 100% concrete proof via messages or voice mails etc, then I can’t see how they can ban him no matter how suspicious it looks.

Stubbo 1:53 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Totally agree Sydney. Paqueta has clearly been off form...but he's also.when on form the player that makes us tick, and his formatgely coincides with Moyes becoming a lame duck and his tactics starting to see us get shafted by all and sundry.

If his head is in the game and he buys into Lopetegui, nothing to suggest he wouldn't be a huge huge player for us again. The teams interested in him and open to paying 85m clearly demonstrate he has the talent.

BUT...I reckon it's starting to look very dicey for him.

This Twitter thread spotted the suspiciousness of it before anything was made public or before the first alleged offence was committed:

https://x.com/alwaysagooner83/status/1634910520431001601?t=N8qBD40QhuucO8Ok-wP0og&s=19

The more you learn about it, the worse for him it starts to look....and for the FA to take it forward, the likelihood is they can link the player to the bettors, and the betting patterns to being very irregular for those involved at the very least...and potentially even conversation between the bettors themselves about this kind of bet and its certainty, even if not directly involving Paqueta.

Either way we're not getting 85m for him anytime soon.

Manuel 1:46 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Ron Eff 1:00 Sat May 25

I've noticed of late that you're a bit of an argumentative prick who likes to put words into peoples mouths. Where the fuck have I said we shouldn't get excited about Earthy?? I've commented myself that he looks very promising. My only point was, which imo is a very reasonable one, was that we shouldn't assume he is ready, or indeed good enough yet, to be a regular in the first team replacing Paqueta, as someone did allude to.

Sydney_Iron 1:36 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
“Let's face it Paqueta has been shocking these last few weeks so he will be no great loss”

Well that maybe true, but let’s face it apart from a decent second half against a bang average Luton we have been pretty shit? Pretty sure a more in form and motivated Paqueta would have seen us do much better…….If he’s banned then let’s not kid ourselves it’s “no great loss” becouse it most definitely is!

Stubbo 1:21 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
Interesting link provided by Whetstone about the Shrewsbury player who previously got banned for 12 years for fixing a yellow card bet (Kynan Isaac):

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjbvafuma
SGAxWkUUEAHZB8BQYQFnoECBUQAQ&url=
https%3A%2F%2F
www.thefa.com%2F-%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fthefaportal%2F
governance-docs%2Fdiscipline-cases%2F2022%2Fthe-fa-v-kynan-isaac---11-october-2022.
ashx&usg=AOvVaw0yKM_8K-dUbl6c4NzooJbd&opi=89978449


It's long but worth a read, but the FA made a strong case. The individuals implicated clearly all knew each other (WhatsApp Group) had discussed the idea of a yellow card bet on the player, and then their betting patterns were out of keeping with previous bets. The player clearly was shown to have lied when interviewed about circumstances he claims exonerated him too.

If the evidence was this strong against Paqueta, no one would have any complaints about the boom being thrown at him.

Ron Eff 1:00 Sat May 25
Re: Paqueta
There may be a bit of over excitement on Earthy, but the senior pro’s at the club, and specifically Paqueta, wax lyrical about him, and these are the people that see him train day in day out, so I think we should allow ourselves to be excited about a local lad coming through the academy who might have the potential to be the real deal.

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: