Paqueta Charged (Catastrophise here!)

"Paqueta has been charged with four breaches of FA Rule E5.1 in relation to his conduct in West Ham's Premier League fixtures against Leicester City on 12 November 2022; Aston Villa on 12 March 2023; Leeds United on 21 May 2023; and AFC Bournemouth on 12 August 2023.

He has also been charged with two breaches of FA Rule F3 in respect of alleged failures to comply pursuant to FA Rule F2."
«13

Comments

  • Hugely serious, we could well end up losing a £50-85m asset and getting nothing back at all.
  • I think this is basically spot-fixing; much much more serious than Toney placing some bets. Potentially end of career if found guilty.
  • From the BBC:

    FA Rule E5.1 is defined as "a participant shall not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence for an improper purpose the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in or in connection with, a football match or competition."

    The FA Rule F3 is "any failure by a participant to comply with any requirement under Rule F2 may constitute misconduct under the Rules and the association may bring a charge or such charges as it sees fit."
  • Paqueta's response, also from BBC:

    Writing on his Instagram page, external, Pacqueta has denied the charges.

    "I am extremely surprised and upset that the FA has decided to charge me. For nine months, I have cooperated with every step of their investigation and provided all the information I can. I deny all the charges in their entirety and will fight with every breath to clear my name. Due to the ongoing process, I will not be providing any further comment."
  • thats is not good news
  • edited May 23
    It's almost like being taken over by Icelandic billionaires and then their own country goes bankrupt; it could only happen to us.

    Looks like next season we'll be without both Paqueta and the funds he would have brought in if he'd been sold; horrendous news.
  • I'd assume that if he ends up found guilty he'll have to pay us a lot back in compensation.
  • I am sure that the club have very comprehensive insurance on players, but I’m not sure it would cover this sort of thing.
  • alderz said:

    I'd assume that if he ends up found guilty he'll have to pay us a lot back in compensation.

    I somehow doubt he's got upwards of £50m tucked away to give us. If he's found guilty we're gonna be seriously out of pocket.
  • edited May 23
    More details of the incidents under investigation:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c2llxjxq955o

    "West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta has been charged by the Football Association for allegedly getting booked deliberately "for the improper purpose of affecting the betting market"."
  • I thought the initial investigation was linked to the last World Cup?
  • Amended thread title so it can more accurately reflect the discussion ;-)
  • I'm not quite sure how they can prove it but I suppose we'll know when it comes out in court.
  • Have they given out a date for the case to be heard?
  • It's a serious charge and you would imagine after all this time they wouldn't bring it unless they feel they have evidence. I may be doing him wrong but I can just see it being true, there is just something about him that you think he could be that stupid.

    Souckek, Ward-Prowse, Fab and most other players you just think, no I can't see it.Paquetta you just think yeah I can imagine that.
  • MrsGrey said:

    Amended thread title so it can more accurately reflect the discussion ;-)

    Fairy nuff 👍.
  • Court?

    That's part of why I changed the thread title - there's a lot to be clarified. It's not a criminal charge. It's an FA charge. So no court.

    I don't know what the procedure is, or what the range of sanctions are available if the charge is proven.

    I did look on the FA site to see if I could find out more, but it looks like the only option is to read through the FA handbook.


    #pass
  • MrsGrey said:

    Amended thread title so it can more accurately reflect the discussion ;-)

    Fairy nuff 👍.
    I wasn't having a go, it was a bit tongue in cheek.

    But I just feel quite strongly that the internet/social media/forums would be a better place if we take a leaf out of their book :-)

  • The matter will probably have been reported to the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit which gets information from a number of sources including sports governing bodies, in this case the FA.
    The FA will deal with it in as far as it relates to any of their rules and then decide any punishment catered for within those rules and their powers. That will probably be the end of the matter.
    However the SBIU still has the capability of deeming that it constitutes a criminal case dependent upon its impact in the betting world.
    This is all covered in the Gambling Commission’s Betting Integrity framework.

    The Toney case was mainly all about his betting on matches but had no real impact on the matches involved. Pacqueta’s case potentially could have impacted on the results of matches but almost certainly had a financial impact and could have resulted in large bets being paid out on ie is more akin to spot fixing than mere betting.

    If he’s found guilty he could be in serious trouble if only from a lengthy ban.
  • Have they given out a date for the case to be heard?

    He has until 3 June to respond.

    After that, who knows.
  • It's a serious charge and you would imagine after all this time they wouldn't bring it unless they feel they have evidence. I may be doing him wrong but I can just see it being true, there is just something about him that you think he could be that stupid.

    Souckek, Ward-Prowse, Fab and most other players you just think, no I can't see it.Paquetta you just think yeah I can imagine that.

    I couldn't disagree more.

    I'm curious what the 'something about him' is that makes you think he's a crook.
  • Worryingly this is the last case of this type
    In 2022 Stratford Town defender Kynan Isaac was banned for 10 years for his part in spot-fixing during an FA Cup tie in which it was alleged he deliberately got booked as part of a betting scheme with friends.
  • I wonder what the evidence is that they have to charge him.
  • Lets guess .not saying he,s guilty .But emails seem to catch so many people .Like really some people ,Or mobile records .
  • They’ve had his phone for months so a lot of it could be from that.
  • I thought the initial investigation was linked to the last World Cup?

    If it was the World Cup it would have been FIFA bringing the charges not the FA who can only rule on cases involving English football

    Would a ban issued by the FA cover other countries or just England?
  • I don't think he plays for West Ham again and i would hesitate to guess he doesn't play in England again.
  • He should be investigated for his tackle in the first leg of the Bayern Leverkusen match 🤔
  • I think a ban would cover more than just here. There are precedents as a Lincoln player in 2018 was banned for 6 years from all football for being deliberately booked in 2 FA Cup games.
    Paqueta’s case came to the fore due to extraordinarily large bets being placed in Paqueta, his home island, on his getting booked in certain games so large sums of money could be involved.
    I reckon if it’s proven his career is virtually over unless they are extremely lenient which I doubt.
  • The thing is, you kinda feel as though he may have been reckless with bookings since it was first announced he was being investigated as if to say "well, this is how I always play".

    However, it is the betting patterns that is the real issue; if, on the 4 games in question, 10, 20, 50, 100 times the usual amount was bet on him being booked with the bets concentrated back on Paqueta Island, and bets of that magnitude have never been made in a game where Paqueta wasn't booked, then it looks extremely suspicious.

    I suspect this or something very similar is exactly what has happened, but the difficulty is finding communication of some sort tying Paqueta 100% to the people making the bets, as otherwise, as damning as the betting evidence is, I would think it would still be classed as circumstantial.
Sign In or Register to comment.