Paqueta

Can't help to not get embarrassed to support West Ham after watching paqueta week in week out. Can't help with the childish stupid behaviour of him saying on the ground all game, how can he come home to his kids after that? He also isn't really that good.

Comments

  • Can't help to not get embarrassed to support West Ham after watching paqueta week in week out. Can't help with the childish stupid behaviour of him saying on the ground all game, how can he come home to his kids after that? He also isn't really that good.

    His antics are embarrassing at times but I'm hoping Potter can sort him out.
    He was voted MOTM, can't remember your handle's name ever getting that at West Ham ;)
  • BND, To this day I feel it was a shame we didn’t hang onto Hernández for longer but it was the Scottish manager who got rid of him, something he also did to him at Old Trafford. You can’t say he isn’t the good judge of a striker can you 🤮.
  • Hang on. Didn't the player put in a transfer request?
  • edited January 28
    MrsGrey said:

    Hang on. Didn't the player put in a transfer request?

    According to Wikipedia, yes he did. Must admit, I didn't think he played 63 times for us. Incidentally that is only 23 fewer games than Savio is listed as having played at the 15 clubs across about 12 years he's listed as having been signed for after he left us 🤣😂🤣
  • Probably to get away from you know who 😉.
  • Back on track, I agree that Paqueta is an embarrassment (thank you, spellcheck) He seems to see himself as our Maupay...however, he does add energy and if he can remember how to pass he'll be an important part of the team again.
  • Watching Welbeck rolling around yesterday and Odeegard today I don’t think Paqueta’s theatrics are too bad
  • Odegaard was clearly taken out by Silva but good on Banksy saw nothing.
  • IronHerb said:

    Odegaard was clearly taken out by Silva but good on Banksy saw nothing.

    You wonder how he finds time to do all that street art... 🤔
  • I suspect this isn't good news for Paqueta. Translations lifted from posts on KUMB (I hope that's ok)

    Testimony of Bruno Lopez and connection with Paquetá

    The investigated Bruno Lopez de Moura reported to the CPI that he won a combined bet involving Luiz Henrique and Lucas Paquetá, in March 2023. This same game generated an alert in Europe and led to the English Federation's complaint against Paquetá, currently at West Ham.

    Bruno Lopez mentioned that he received the information about the bet through Marlon Bruno Nascimento da Silva, who is suspected of recruiting players to fix results. The breach of banking secrecy revealed that Tolentino transferred R$97,000 to Marlon in five transactions.

    Paquetá's brother's involvement

    The CPI report also mentions Matheus Paquetá, the player's brother. According to testimony, Marlon allegedly told Bruno that the bet involved a “birthday present” for Matheus, a yellow card, on March 12, 2023. Matheus turned 28 on the date of the game under investigation.

    Bank records indicate the January and February 2023 transfers took place shortly after Luiz Henrique picked up yellow cards in La Liga. He was cautioned on January 28 against Getafe and again on February 4 against Celta.
  • Brazil-based coverage from earlier today:

    Betting CPI report brings new revelations…
    PUBLISHED 2 hours ago in February 11, 2025
    Nicholas Shores

    Whistleblower for Operation Maximum Penalty, Bruno Lopez de Moura told the Public Prosecutor's Office that he had received information that midfielder Lucas Paquetá , planning to force a yellow card in a match for West Ham in the Premier League in 2023, had promised a “birthday present” for his brother, Matheus Paquetá.

    The description is included in the final report presented by Senator Romário (PL-RJ) in the CPI on Game Manipulation and Sports Betting , which brings new revelations about the accusations that the Brazilian national team midfielder premeditated actions on the field in collusion with bettors, including his family.

    The game for which the promise was made was West Ham 1 x 1 Aston Villa, on March 12, 2023 – the 28th birthday of Paquetá's brother, who received a yellow card 25 minutes into the second half.

    One of the three indictment requests in the report is against Bruno Tolentino , Paquetá’s uncle. According to confidentiality breaches obtained by the CPI, Tolentino paid 97,000 reais in five transactions to Marlon Bruno Nascimento da Silva, the contact who informed Moura, the whistleblower for the Maximum Penalty, about the “gift.”

    In the conversation with the whistleblower, Marlon also claimed to have knowledge that former Botafogo striker Luiz Henrique , at the time at Real Betis, would receive a yellow card in a Spanish League game on the same day – which in fact happened, in the 44th minute of the second half of the 1-1 draw with Villarreal.

    In testimony to the CPI, Bruno Lopez de Moura, the whistleblower for Penalidade Máxima, stated that he used the information provided by Marlon to place bets on both games.

    The inquiry committee's report also reveals proof of a Pix transfer of 30,000 reais from Paquetá's uncle to Luiz Henrique on February 6, 2023, which is suspected of being a payment for manipulations agreed upon at the time.

    Paquetá is being investigated by the English Football Association (FA) and is due to stand trial in March. Luiz Henrique was sold earlier this year by Botafogo to Zenit in Russia for more than 30 million euros.
  • This is what I don't understand about this sort of thing. They are saying that someone earning £150k a week (1,075,111.50 reais), would be willing to match fix for his brother, for £13k. (97k reais)
    The numbers don't make any sense, he could literally throw his brother that money out of his normal debit account.
  • What in that info implicates Paquetá?
  • I'm guessing him promising his brother a birthday present, bets are placed on his yellow card, he gets card, his brother gets a birthday payout.
  • If that is what he’s done - he deserves everything he gets. Could’ve just opened his wallet.
  • I'm totally not getting this.

    How much is the brother supposed to have won in this dodgy deal?

    If the uncle could pay an amount to a 'match fixer' equivalent to approximately £14 000, why didn't he just give that to the nephew. And what was he paying it for... For the march fixer to get Paqueta to pick up that yellow card?

    Why didn't the uncle just ask him direct and save the dosh?


    Obviously I don't have a criminal mind because I can't see who benefits. And like others have said, Paqueta could afford to give that to his brother without missing it. Why risk getting involved in a potential criminal ring (where there are third parties who can't be trusted to keep schtum).

    Stupidity is one explanation, I suppose.

    But still, a bit baffling.
  • MrsGrey said:

    Stupidity is one explanation, I suppose.

    I think that is what it boils down to. I suspect that Paqueta thought there was absolutely no possibility that he'd get caught, but as word got around and the more and more bets were placed in suspicious circumstances, then suddenly a huge spotlight was shone on his actions.

  • I just don't think Paquetta is that bright. It will come home to him however when he sees his career ended due to what is pretty much pocket chnage for him.

    I guess his only hope is that there is no communication evidence directly leading to him as that is his only slim chance of getting away with it. I suspect however that will pretty much be his career ended and we will litigate against him for the financial loss we will incur. It would be such a sad and sorry outcome for him, the club and football.
  • If there is no evidence directly leading to him, doesn't that mean he's... you know...not guilty?

    So rather than getting away with it, he's not been found guilty of something that has been alleged against him.

    Are we all to be assumed guilty, now, unless we can prove we didn't do it???

  • MrsGrey said:

    If there is no evidence directly leading to him, doesn't that mean he's... you know...not guilty?

    So rather than getting away with it, he's not been found guilty of something that has been alleged against him.

    Are we all to be assumed guilty, now, unless we can prove we didn't do it???

    Unfortunately, for the FA, it doesn't need to be proven. It's decided on the balance of probability or somesuch.

  • Hmm. Not great, is it. I can see a player suing for libel/unfair dismissal/restraint of trade type stuff.

    Only ones getting rich are the lawyers.
  • MrsGrey said:


    Only ones getting rich are the lawyers.

    Isn't that always the way?

  • edited February 12
    MrsGrey said:


    Only ones getting rich are the lawyers.

    My daughter likes this comment =) =)
  • Lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily mean not guilty. I would expect that most criminals except the thick ones make every effort to ensure they don’t leave much if anything by way of evidence.
    Paqueta could have easily been involved by his family verbally liaising with him thereby seemingly not leaving any evidence. What there might be though is enough circumstantial evidence to implicate him to satisfy FIFA and FA criteria especially his getting booked in the games specifically bet on.
    It seems to me that this started out as a family affair but snowballed with many others involved.
  • According to various sources Bruno Lopez de Moura is "the supposed mastermind behind the whole betting scandal" but he's not being charged

    Paqueta isn't being charged either.

    Paqueta was supposed to give evidence in December, first he was told he would have to go to Brazil, then was told he could do it via a video link then was told he wouldn't have to give evidence after all

    So the bloke behind the scheme has been given a deal in exchange for his testimony and they don't want to hear from the bloke who supposedly did the cheating

    Sounds a bit dodgy...
  • Being guilty or not guilty by law is very different to not having done something, I have no doubt there are sadly many people in prison for things they didn't do, but whatever amount that number is I feel it would be dwarfed by those who walked free from court after being tried for things they did do.

    I don't think many people in this world are of the view O.J.Simpson didn't actually do it, but he is not guilty of it.
  • What a sorry tale this seems to be, I do believe that the unusual betting pattern that shone light on this scheme is real and exists.

    That means that a LOT of money was placed on these very specific bets where the outcome was known to be 100% assured by the action of the player,

    if the bet was on a score or result, it is beyond the ability of any single player to guarantee the desired outcome, but on something so specific that a player, or players will receive a yellow card……..that can only be guaranteed if the players are in on it.

    I cannot see how Paqueta was innocent of the scheme, he may have been unaware of the scale and thought it was just a small thing involving a couple of family members and mates, and he may have thought that it was no big deal - I think he has since found out that it is a big deal and how monumentally stupid it was to have gone along with it
Sign In or Register to comment.