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)
Mex Martillo
12:54 Sat Jun 1
Re: Paqueta
|
Sydnney, yes looks like dragging on and on. I would not be surprised if he starts for us next season with all this still ongoing.
This is what the Brazilian FA had to say, copy paste from Alan Friday News
Sport Witness
National team release statement about Lucas Paquetá – FA clarified West Ham star’s situation
By Lucas Sposito
The CBF has now released an official statement on West Ham United star Lucas Paquetá.
In the past few days, the Brazilian media had already been claiming that the player would continue to be part of the Copa America squad, despite the betting charges from the Football Association.
Now the CBF comes forward with a piece on their website claiming that president Ednaldo Rodrigues exchanged information with FA executive director Mark Bullingham about the West Ham player.
They publish all the answers they got in the email. That makes Paquetá’s situation a lot clearer, and this is how it goes:
(a) Although the player is now subject to a number of charges, the FA has not received any provisional suspension order against Lucas Paquetá and therefore there is no impediment to him continuing to play at this time.
(b) No interim measures have been requested in relation to the current charges against Lucas Paquetá.
(c) The current position is that the player’s formal response to the charges is due on 3rd June. We anticipate that, due to the detail of this case, there may be a request to extend the deadline for responding to the charges. We will update you as soon as we are aware of any revised date. As for a likely date for the case to reach a final decision, it is not possible to provide an estimate, but we will endeavour to keep you updated whenever possible.
(d) As above, no interim measures have been requested in relation to the player and, consequently, no request has been made to FIFA.
Brazil are now starting their preparation for the Copa America, with Paquetá being one of the players who’s joining the squad in Orlando.
The West Ham midfielder is expected to fight for a starting place in the team, so it was very important for the CBF to have his situation made clear before the start of the competition.
They’re now sure that there’s no problem in using him, and it remains to be seen how he’ll deal with all of this.
|
twoleftfeet
10:02 Fri May 31
Re: Paqueta
|
Brydon Carse banned for 3 months for 303 betting offences.
|
Sydney_Iron
12:20 Fri May 31
Re: Paqueta
|
Was any time line put on this by the FA? Or could it be another (like Man citys charges) that drags on for ages, Lawyers asking for more time etc etc
|
Fauxstralian
12:14 Fri May 31
Re: Paqueta
|
Quite a few low level tennis players on those Challenger events making not much of a living have been done for throwing games for syndicates.
You'd think there would be major suspicion when you see large bets on Thierry Nobody (700th in the world) v Piers WhoTheFuck (900th in the world) in the first round of the Peckham Open
|
wansteadman
11:13 Fri May 31
Re: Paqueta
|
These betting companies have systems in place that send out signals for unusual betting patterns.so if the average bet on a yellow card is £20 and suddenly they get £25,000 on one it's investigated.
Tennis was rife for this for a while, suddenly massive bets would go on a certain game in a certain set
|
happygilmore
11:15 Wed May 29
Re: Paqueta
|
Ratted out by Betway
|
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
|
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.
|
| 
