Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 33 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 385 Fun & Games
- 99 BA Predictor Threads
- 31 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 284 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 112 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 25 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 384 Match Threads
- 57 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 53 Internationals
- 46 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 112 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 263 Other Teams & Matches
- 24 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Apparently Betway referred the matter when bets were placed through them too from Europe. This investigation has been going on for about a year so I think they must feel they have some evidence sufficient to charge him.
I think it's just something in his personality that I observe, when he first arrived he was often making a huge meal of things trying to con the ref, he wouldn't be alone in that but it's not something you like to see. The sending off in the Europa tie, everyone knew he was on a yellow, yet he made a deliberate cynical foul out of retaliation or frustration, in my book that's an intelligence thing. You have used the word crook and I guess that would apply if he is guilty, but my point was really about him not being that bright an individual, the sort of guy who could hatch a silly scam without thinking it through.
I recognise we don't know the exact reason for the charge yet, only that it relates to bookings in certain matches. There was talk at the time about betting patterns in his home town in Brazil. If so I am thinking he was perhaps stupid enough to tell friends and family to bet on something he would ensure happens, so they can profit. That in my book makes him a bit stupid if he could not predict it showing up. If, and that If will be shown now as the evidence is heard, but if that is the case I believe it would stand as reasonable grounds for being a bit stupid and in turn that making you crooked.
It's all speculation at present however and innocent until proven guilty, but my point was that I personally could see it being true regard Paquetta, where as if that story originated about Soucek I could probably hold out more hope that it wasn't.
We will have to wait and see whether my feeling is right or not, when details emerge and evidence offered. I hope I am wrong.
I would imagine every yellow card he has received recently) would have been investigated.
They have been looking at this for at least a year so I can only assume that they have found at least some evidence of communication in support of the charges.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that so we will see how it pans out but right now, this does not look good at all
The real reason that the FA had to act now on Paqueta.
The end of the season came and sure enough, the FA have officially charged Paqueta.
There has been a presumption of guilt from some quarters as video of the bookings in question circulate online and social media.
The inference has been that the FA “must have” hard evidence against Paqueta to have charged him.
But the real reason the FA have charged Paqueta is so that they avoided the potential lawsuit being brought against them by Paqueta’s entourage and to now leave the matter in the hands of an independent panel.
By officially charging Paqueta over the allegations the case now goes to an independent three-person panel who will decide the Brazilian’s fate.
Of course that does not mean Paqueta will get off. But it also doesn’t make it inevitable he will be found guilty just because he has been charged – as many seem to be suggesting.
Three-person panel to decide fate
The panel will be completely independent and will have to make the decision based on the evidence before them.
Whether that goes beyond the video footage we must wait and see.
So while Paqueta and West Ham find themselves in a very serious situation, it’s not necessarily an open and shut case – and it’s not curtains yet.
If it was me in those circs I'd sue for libel. Put the burden of proof back on to the accusers.
No idea who placed the bets but there was a lot of them made and they were at the top end of limits and in specific games. Most of them were new accounts set up.
Some of the bets were placed in Europe through Betway who also reported suspicious activity. It wasn’t the FA who started this, they’re just one of the bodies involved. The commission generally leave things to the governing body to investigate and take action. Dependent upon what the independent board decide the FA will determine the football punishment but it doesn’t rule out criminal proceedings.
This is not a simple bettings issue ala Toney etc.
The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not.
In this instance it will be the independent board rather than a court.
If the details are large bets on a yellow card market and new accounts it would be very suspicious but there would be a closer scrutiny of this accounts. A yellow card market is a very periphery market and would attract far fewer and smaller bets compared to winner, correct score and scorer markets. Someone opening an account to place a large sum on such a market is suspicious and regard the existing accounts it's easy to see if someone thinks they know something others don't as if they bet in £20s and then suddenly a £1000 bet, or if there are no other yellow card bets in that account previously it's all very suspicious, and damning if some of those accounts are linked to family members. I am fascinated to soon find out what they have.
To take a guys livelihood away from him and a clubs valuable asset in my view must demand actual evidence that would be expected within a criminal trial, rather than that all looks very suspicious.
Can’t remember if they traced the bets specifically to Paquetá Island (pop 3000) or to the whole of the city of Rio de Janeiro (pop 6.2m) or even the state of Rio de Janeiro (pop 16m)
Whichever they will need pretty compelling evidence such as records of phone calls, text messages, WhatsApp, between him and those who were placing the bets
Could be that Paqueta is really pushing for this to be cleared up as it's currently blocking a move to Man City; might mean that he's confident they don't have enough evidence for the spot-fixing charges to stick, and might also explain the additional "non-cooperation" charges as the FA are keen to get him on something even if they have doubts getting him on the main charges.
The FA charging Paqueta based upon whatever evidence they believe they have still does not preclude criminal investigations taking place. If he’s found guilty and banned for whatever length of time that wouldn’t redress the money aspect.
In any event if he’s found guilty he plays for nobody, if not guilty he plays for City. Either way I doubt he plays for us again but we get a fee for the latter.
Now he’s been charged, maybe they’ll be a bit reticent with the transfer.
To my mind, he just doesn't seem like a Pep kind of player, too ill-disciplined for a start.
a) He's found guilty but gets less than a year's ban
b) He's found guilty but is allowed to play while it's being appealed
c) He's found innocent, but after the summer window closes and he plays all next season for us
d) He's found innocent, but City and others decide he's got too much baggage for a move just yet.
Or, I suppose, my dream isn't prophetic 🤔🤔🤔.