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
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
c. Buy some f***ing players or we're in a battle to stay up & that's as good as it gets
d. Moyes out
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

LeroysBoots 7:36 Sun Apr 14
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)

Side of Ham 4:14 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
Doesn’t it seem all too obvious, I mean with what Paqueta stands to lose wouldn’t it be a bit more subtle?

nychammer 3:43 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
It's a bit suspicious for sure, and It certainly does need some explanation from those Paqueta Island, but unless they can prove there was an arrangement between them and Paqueta and the bookings were all staged by him then what can they do?

What if Alvarez's relatives in Mexico decided to bet on him getting a booking, because there were some decent odds and based on the fact he does in fact get booked nearly every game, would that spark the same interest?

I think they have to get concrete proof of the arrangement, as without an erstwhile confession from Paqueta (indeed its the opposite) then a conviction and ban is going to look very harsh indeed.

Fauxstralian 12:29 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
Haven’t looked again at the 4 cards but haven’t seen any suggestion that they weren’t correctly awarded
I understood the story was that bets were placed by relatives on Paqueta Island for Paqueta & his Brazilian mate in a European league to be booked on the same day.
Odd bet (personally I think bets on cards should have been banned) that stands out due to being a bit bizarre & doubly so because I can’t imagine they would have been placed anywhere else.
Saw reported that it was OUR sponsor Betway who reported the bets. You couldn’t make it up
You have to think we won’t see Paqueta or the £85m again

Hammer and Pickle 12:13 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
So, since we’re all big boys and girls now and this is a serious business going to the heart of fair play and everything the game stands for, we’re not only interested in investigating Paqueta’s conduct, but that of the officials on the pitch handing out the cards. And we’ll also be very keen to make sure this kind of spit betting is not allowed to spoil the game. So what are the patterns of officials’ behaviour in the games Paqueta has been carded and how have bookies been calculating their odds? If the FA investigation is restricted to the player, how can it be accepted as being in the interest of the game?

goose 11:33 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.

Hammer and Pickle 10:41 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
The spotlight of media interest should definitely be on the FA: while it has taken 9 months to finally charge Paqueta, there is still no clarity on what he is supposed to have done or any proof he has done it. As far as I can tell, at the moment, he is simply being harassed by a licensing organisation and wins any civil suit hands down.

Massive Attack 2:22 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
What I'd like to know is how long this'll all take exactly? As in when the verdict is given of being found guilty or not guilty. It's dragged on for a year as it is so far and he's still allowed to play. Doesn't seem fair to being made to sweat this long when not found guilty yet.

Also if he was found guilty, surely it'll become a Police matter too as its very serious what they're accusing him of. They're not fucking about here from what I can tell.

Not that I think he will be found guilty, unless they have concrete evidence of communication of deliberately doing it.

Mike Oxsaw 2:17 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
Are they dragging this out for a maximum publicity effect, rather than aiming for a prosecution?

Given that the gambling company who reported this feel that they have all the information needed (I assume they didn't honour the bets) you would have thought that it could have been wrapped up in a couple of days.

Smells to me of an objection to the "wrong sort of people" playing the system and winning rather than the two players collaberating to defraud - and on the money they're on, they could have simply and quietly paid the "ransom" and nothing more would have been said.

onsideman 1:34 Mon May 27
Re: Paqueta
Because you and you alone have the ability to win the bet (or win it for others). In a team sport it's the only way you would have ultimate control. You can bet on your team to win and play out of your skin, but victory is far from assured. Similarly you can bet on your team to lose and play like a cunt, but the other team may be equally shit and not capitalise... or you may be hooked and replaced by the match winner.

Spot betting and therefore spot fixing is 100% guaranteed... getting deliberately booked - like bowling a no ball in cricket - is entirely within your gift and is therefore fraudulent

frank_booth 11:47 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
Can someone tell me why spot fixing is worse than betting of an outcome of a game you are playing? Surely both affect the outcome of a game, whether in a positive or negative way.

Match fixing I understand. But giving up a throw in or getting a yellow card...a lifetime ban seems a bit harsh to me.

onsideman 7:08 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
If the FA find him guilty and issue a ban then I imagine his recourse would be through the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but obviously the Pakistani bowlers were arrested and prosecuted so I do agree that the absence of any police involvement would seem to imply that the FA don't have the level of evidence that would be required for a criminal case

onsideman 7:00 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta

nychammer 4:43 Sun May 26

Because this is spot fixing!

Fauxstralian 6:57 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
Haven’t read the Samuel’s article but would imagine he is still owned by us for the rest of his contract so would we have to recognise the loss now?
I think we should invite Man City to show their confidence in the player by triggering his buyout on July 1.
If they don’t we should point out to Paqueta that they have abandoned him unlike us & he should sign a new buyout free contract
Then get the charges thrown out as just a bit of BRAZILIAN HI-JINKS

onsideman 6:52 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta

Ron Eff 5:48 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
I agree, threesixty. The fact the player and the club are denying it and committing to fighting the accusation suggests there is highly unlikely to be any “hard” evidence. Otherwise, like you say, he’d admit it and probably create a sob story (threatened, addicted, whatever) to try and reduce any punishment as Tonali did.

Sure, the balance of probability suggests something might have happened given the location of the bets, but it doesn’t feel right that you can end a man’s career on that assumption alone without any actual evidence. In fact, to base that sort of decision and punishment on a 51% chance is plain wrong.

If that happens, he will obviously counter claim given the severity of the punishment vs the lack of any real evidence. Clearly if there is an audit trail he’s both an idiot and fucked.

It’s not really fixed a result has it since it hasn’t had any real impact on it. It’s defrauded the (salt of the earth) bookmakers and cost them cash. On the basis it’s fraud, it should be a criminal case and they would be required to find him guilty with 99% certainty. Truth is though, absent of hard evidence it wouldn’t even get to court.

nychammer 4:43 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
In 2017, Joey Barton was banned for 18 months for placing 1,260 bets on matches between 2006 and 2016, which included at least five matches in which he was a player.

Now, can the FA actually prove Paqueta did anything approaching that, and if so why would the punishment be any more severe?

Far Cough 4:12 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
The original football betting scandal:


w4hammer 4:04 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
martin samuels article in the paper today highlights if he's banned it potetially fucks our FFp status up as we have to write-off £40 M or whatever he's valued at on the books... this is one of the things that fucked up evertons books and the difference in the value- on the books of gilfy sigerson after they sacked him for nonecing

I cant think they will be able to find evidence of an email or an ext that they can tie to him...if they can, he's a fukn idiot

threesixty 3:37 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
I feel like if they had anything concrete Paqueta would have pleaded guilty by now. I think thats what generally happens.

If its just that he probably did it because of the suspicion, but there is no actual evidence, then they ban him for 10yrs... well thats another court case I imagine because what they are accusing him of is criminal activity.

So he would want to clear his name, and it just goes right back to they dont have the evidence to say he really did something. So any ban will get overturned.

I feel like they dont want to look like mugs by accusing him so they charging him. And maybe hope him having to testify gives them the evidence somehow.

But British authorities ALWAYS double down even if they're wrong on something or cant prove it. Look at the post office shit. It's just in our culture.

twoleftfeet 3:16 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
Some of you lot have clearly been listening to those twats at C & B, they love a bit of West Ham gloom.

I’m pretty sure Lopetegui and Steidten have a war chest that doesn’t include any money from selling Paqueta.

goose 2:03 Sun May 26
Re: Paqueta
If someone loves a pound note, then borrowing £85m plus interest against £85m which will be paid in a couple of months is completely counterintuitive.

Page 1 - Next

Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: