Paqueta Charged (Catastrophise here!)

13

Comments

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    His latest defence is that he asked Moyes if he could miss the Bournemouth game in case he got injured and it would jeopardise his City transfer. No mention of wanting to miss any other August games only that one.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    steve said:

    Does he have Man City Lawyers then =)

    Not enough charges to interest them.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    thornburyiron said:

    His latest defence is that he asked Moyes if he could miss the Bournemouth game in case he got injured and it would jeopardise his City transfer. No mention of wanting to miss any other August games only that one.

    This news story is being reported in the Sun and the Mail.

    No other newspaper is covering it.
    Make of that what you will.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited June 4
    The Sun (I know) with, possibly, a few more details:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28284325/fa-lucas-paqueta-life-ban-extraordinary-details-betting-scam/

    Suggestions that it could be several months before it's all resolved, maybe we get to play him for the first half of next season.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    I looked at the Sun yesterday. Can I please be excused from looking again for the rest of the year? :(
  • DJ HammerDJ Hammer
    There were stories running yesterday that Paqueta has asked to be left out of the Bournemouth game in case he got injured and jeopardised his move to Citeh! It would appear that his team are trying to say that he didn’t want to play in the first place so why would he deliberately pick up a yellow card. Kit smacks of desperation to me.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I would just like him cleared and sold now so the new guy can have the funds and start to shape a squad. It's unfair to prolong this any further for him and us. If there is evidence enough to convict then lets get that out of the way also so we can all move on.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    DJ that’s the point I made yesterday. It’s claimed that he didn’t want to play in the Bournemouth game because of his pending transfer but didn’t ask not to play in any of the other August games which perceivably could also have resulted in an injury. It was the Bournemouth game which had the bets placed that month.
    Are his lawyers going to ask Moyes to confirm or deny he made the request or have they only mentioned it now that Moyes has gone.
    I don’t know exactly when it was he was first under investigation, before or after the Bournemouth game. Whenever it was it put a stop to the move.
  • DJ HammerDJ Hammer
    I suppose if he muddies the waters and creates some confusion. It’s getting very strange to say the least
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    The line being peddled by the press was 'he was supposed not to play (asked not to)' and also 'he was expecting (it had been agreed by Moyes) to be subbed BEFORE the yc' so how could he have colluded with betters to pick up a yc in the whatever'th minute, when he thought he wouldn't be on the pitch.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    One way to look at it is that he knew he was in being investigated before that match, and so did his best to get out of a situation where something else suspicious could be held against him (eg by not playing, or being subbed). Those facts can just as easily be spun to make him look guilty imo.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    buffybegood said:

    One way to look at it is that he knew he was in being investigated before that match, and so did his best to get out of a situation where something else suspicious could be held against him (eg by not playing, or being subbed). Those facts can just as easily be spun to make him look guilty imo.

    But if he was worried about being booked to add to the guilty look, then surely even if he was pressured to play, just don't put yourself in any contentious situations, which he subsequently did with the handball.

    Not sure how it can be proven that he asked not to play, nor the reason why, unless they start asking for witnesses.

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Of course they can call witnesses to help their case.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I’m not sure any of the bets involved specific timings as regards bookings merely that he would receive a booking during the games involved.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I don’t think the 3 man commission calls witnesses as it’s not a court case. The FA has presented its evidence and Paqueta has the opportunity with his lawyers if that’s what he wants to present his case refuting the charges with whatever evidence he can provide.
    They then deliberate and make a decision based upon what’s put in front of them.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    thornburyiron said:

    I don’t think the 3 man commission calls witnesses as it’s not a court case. The FA has presented its evidence and Paqueta has the opportunity with his lawyers if that’s what he wants to present his case refuting the charges with whatever evidence he can provide.
    They then deliberate and make a decision based upon what’s put in front of them.

    This is how I assumed it would happen.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    thornburyiron said:

    I’m not sure any of the bets involved specific timings as regards bookings merely that he would receive a booking during the games involved.

    Ah ok, then presumably the argument will emphasise that he was looking to be taken off around 60 minutes (the Sun report made a big deal about this) ... the implication being that he hadn't got a booking so why would he want to be subbed if he was intending to get booked.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    We are only hypothesising here but the counter argument would probably be if he was worried about getting injured and stopping his transfer why did he only request he missed the Bournemouth game and none of the others in August when Bournemouth was the one where bets were placed.
    I expect he would say he was hoping the move would go through before the second game.
    To my mind it looks like the FA has a firmer case than he does but time will tell.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited June 4
    Do we know that? (It's only the Bournemouth game that charges relate to?)

    I suppose it doesn't actually matter what happened in the other August games, if the charges are only about Bournemouth - they only have to give evidence about that one.

    His motive for asking to miss it, or be subbed, is irrelevant, as is whether he repeated the request at other times. If they (his team) can prove he definitely did then it undermines the case that he was planning on getting a deliberate yc in that match.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    There are 4 separate games that he is being charged for relating to the bets, stretching back to 2022, Bournemouth being the only one this season. As the FA did the investigation and charges on behalf of the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit I would imagine they feel they have pretty strong case.
    His excuse for the Bournemouth one we know about but don’t know what he’s said if anything about the other 3.
    It doesn’t from all that I’ve read seem to be that the punters in Paqueta island bet on his getting a yellow card in every game and they win some and lose some. It seems they’ve selected a few games and he’s got one in each.
    Anyway it’s now going to drag on for a while so hopefully we’ll have him for part of next season and if he’s cleared at least until the transfer window.
    Interesting to see if City would still want him or if would still want them given they still have their own charges to face which could see them drop out of the PL.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited June 5
    thornburyiron said:

    I don’t know exactly when it was he was first under investigation, before or after the Bournemouth game. Whenever it was it put a stop to the move.

    Saturday 12 August Bournemouth (A) Paqueta booked 90+4 mins

    Thursday 17 August
    Paqueta reported to have agreed terms although City and West Ham still haggling over transfer fee, etc.

    Friday 18 August
    City move is a "major doubt" due to "contractual issues" but later revealed that Paqueta is under investigation over betting. West Ham and City refuse to comment. Brazil squad announced, Paqueta not included

    Sunday 20 August
    Chelsea (H) Paqueta booked 35 mins, scores penalty 90+5
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    It will be interesting to see what happens with these Tory politicians who were betting on a July election and the Police security officer who did the same.

    I recognise it's not the same as one was acting on information and the other perpetrating an act but the fraud of betting companies for profit is the same. It may be interesting if a footballer has his career ended but an MP is allowed represent his constituents and vote upon laws for the nation.
  • alderzalderz
    claretandbluesky said:

    It will be interesting to see what happens with these Tory politicians who were betting on a July election and the Police security officer who did the same.

    I recognise it's not the same as one was acting on information and the other perpetrating an act but the fraud of betting companies for profit is the same. It may be interesting if a footballer has his career ended but an MP is allowed represent his constituents and vote upon laws for the nation.

    Maybe the FA will ban the MPs for life too
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    alderz said:

    claretandbluesky said:

    It will be interesting to see what happens with these Tory politicians who were betting on a July election and the Police security officer who did the same.

    I recognise it's not the same as one was acting on information and the other perpetrating an act but the fraud of betting companies for profit is the same. It may be interesting if a footballer has his career ended but an MP is allowed represent his constituents and vote upon laws for the nation.

    Maybe the FA will ban the MPs for life too
    You can only hope
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Paqueta is now on his holidays after Uruguay knock Brazil out of the Copa
  • stevesteve
    Hear he went to Vegas =)
  • Expat_HammerExpat_Hammer
    edited July 7
    steve said:

    Hear he went to Vegas =)

    Wouldn't bet on it, but I know a man that might =)
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    This seems harsh. The guy is the kit man and as such has no ability to influence anything and the pattern is clearly that of an ordinary guy enjoying a bet. His only individual bet on Ipswich was £5 for an Ipswich player to score a hat-trick (which lost).

    Within horse racing Jockeys are banned from betting but trainers and stable lads can bet on whatever they wish. Clearly one of these sports is under regulated or one is over regulated if the kit man gets a suspension and fine.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4ngjj5823vo
  • alderzalderz
    Yeah that seems harsh to me too, but also I guess if they know that the rules extend to all football club employees, that's that.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited July 16
    claretandbluesky said:

    This seems harsh. The guy is the kit man and as such has no ability to influence anything and the pattern is clearly that of an ordinary guy enjoying a bet. His only individual bet on Ipswich was £5 for an Ipswich player to score a hat-trick (which lost).

    He did bet on Ipswich results, though, as part of accumulators.

    And he was potentially aware of inside information, that could have had a bearing on the results.

    The written reasons (about mitigation and aggravation) are on the FA site.

    He was 'offending' (and he absolutely knew the rules) consistently for 6 (S-I-X) seasons; hundreds of bets.

    His sentence (3 month ban) was suspended. So apart from paying £750 fine, he's good to go.

    I don't think that's particularly harsh, really.


    I wonder if anyone has ever got a union involved or gone to a tribunal to argue that the sport's regulatory body (whatever sport) is through their contract terms placing unfair restrictions on employees' freedom to engage in lawful activities.
Sign In or Register to comment.