Paqueta

buffybegood

Hearing starts today according to the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/17/lucas-paqueta-faces-biggest-game-of-life-as-spot-fixing-trial-gets-under-way

thornburyiron

It’s not a trial

DJ Hammer

David Moyes set to stand as a witness in Lucas Paqueta spot-fixing trial. He’ll be a witness for Paqueta’s defence.

thornburyiron

Must be as a character witness rather than witness for the defence as only Pacqueta himself would know the truth

MrsGrey

One of Paqueta's arguments was that he'd asked not to play in a particular match (as being evidence that he could hardly have arranged to pick up a card if he wasn't going to be playing). I expect Moyes could say whether or not that's true. And if there was any agreement to take him off early (I think it was a game he got a late card in).

buffybegood

MrsGrey said:

One of Paqueta's arguments was that he'd asked not to play in a particular match (as being evidence that he could hardly have arranged to pick up a card if he wasn't going to be playing). I expect Moyes could say whether or not that's true. And if there was any agreement to take him off early (I think it was a game he got a late card in).

That's my understanding too, I think it was the game he got the card 3 minutes into injury time (Bournemouth maybe).

DJ Hammer

thornburyiron said:

Must be as a character witness rather than witness for the defence as only Pacqueta himself would know the truth

No, not a character witness, Moyes will be there to state that what Paqueta is saying in regard to not wanting to play in one particular match is true.

thornburyiron

We don’t really know why Moyes is going and it isn’t a trial as such. Not sure how much of a defence it is for Pacqueta to say he didn’t want to play in a particular match, which is one of those involved, as it implies he knew what was going on but is denying all knowledge of it.

MrsGrey

It's being 'judged' on the balance of probabilities.

thornburyiron said:

as it implies he knew what was going on but is denying all knowledge of it.

I don't see how you get to this?

thornburyiron

I got to it as it was a game that as far as I’m aware a booking was bet upon but he said he didn’t want to play. It is not very often that a player decides he doesn’t want to play in a game and given that he denies all knowledge of any bets being placed on his getting booked it could seem as suspicious. It may well suggest he wanted no involvement but it does suggest at least to me that, to use your words, he was involved on the balance of probabilities.

Slacker

MrsGrey said:

It's being 'judged' on the balance of probabilities.

thornburyiron said:

as it implies he knew what was going on but is denying all knowledge of it.

I don't see how you get to this?

Wasn’t it because of possibly getting injured and blowing the Man.City move?🤷🏻‍♂️

ASLEFshrugged

thornburyiron said:

I got to it as it was a game that as far as I’m aware a booking was bet upon but he said he didn’t want to play. It is not very often that a player decides he doesn’t want to play in a game and given that he denies all knowledge of any bets being placed on his getting booked it could seem as suspicious. It may well suggest he wanted no involvement but it does suggest at least to me that, to use your words, he was involved on the balance of probabilities.

So if he hadn't asked not to play that would suggest to you he DIDN'T know about the bets?

If he knew about the bets and didn't want to be involved then surely he would have asked not to play in all four of the matches under investigation

Slacker said:

Wasn’t it because of possibly getting injured and blowing the Man.City move?🤷🏻‍♂️

We'd agreed a £80m transfer, FA announced their investigation 4 days after the match against Bournemouth where he got booked and City pulled out of the deal two days later

MrsGrey

Somewhere I read (I think the Guardian article) that WH informed ManCity as soon as they were told by FA - that was some days before the FA went public. And City pulled out of the deal straight away.

ASLEFshrugged

You're right

Paqueta booked "at Bournemouth on 12 August"

"FA opened an investigation on 14 August"

"FA emailed West Ham on 16 August 2023 to inform them it had opened an investigation"

"West Ham passed the information to City, who pulled out of the transfer without giving a public explanation, the real reason emerging two days later."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/17/lucas-paqueta-faces-biggest-game-of-life-as-spot-fixing-trial-gets-under-way#:~:text=Around 60 bets were placed,money for family and friends.

chicagohammer

Thanks for sharing the article which appears to summarize issue fairly adequately, imo, I can certainly see where Paqueta has enough wriggle room to escape any criminal charges but I am feaful for him as regards the lower standards inferred by the “balance of probability’s” argument.

We still do not know all the facts, I think the key is how much weight is given to the earlier suspicions events that triggered the initial scrutiny - of all the players out there the betting patterns exist resulting in the authorities being attracted to him and it certainly seems suspicious that a number of the initial bets were apparently made by members of his family…..

How much did he know is where the grey area exists but these bets are so specific that they can only be guaranteed with the collusion of the player so……

buffybegood

With the information in the public domain so far I personally feel it's all too suspicious for there not to be something a bit dodgy having gone on. The only thing in his favour is the extremely late booking in the Bournemouth game, but the counter to that is that he actually caught the ball to earn the booking. The fact that (I think) his uncle was basically found guilty in Brazil hardly helps Paqueta's case either.

IronHerb

buffybegood said:

With the information in the public domain so far I personally feel it's all too suspicious for there not to be something a bit dodgy having gone on. The only thing in his favour is the extremely late booking in the Bournemouth game, but the counter to that is that he actually caught the ball to earn the booking. The fact that (I think) his uncle was basically found guilty in Brazil hardly helps Paqueta's case either.

Wasn't Paqueta cleared of any wrong doing or, at least, not charged in Brazil?

buffybegood

IronHerb said:

buffybegood said:

With the information in the public domain so far I personally feel it's all too suspicious for there not to be something a bit dodgy having gone on. The only thing in his favour is the extremely late booking in the Bournemouth game, but the counter to that is that he actually caught the ball to earn the booking. The fact that (I think) his uncle was basically found guilty in Brazil hardly helps Paqueta's case either.

Wasn't Paqueta cleared of any wrong doing or, at least, not charged in Brazil?

I believe he wasn't charged.

nychammer66

In a small brown envelope is a paqueta money.

thornburyiron

He wasn’t charged in Brazil but he wasn’t accused of spot fixing in Brazil. He’s not charged of any criminal offence anywhere thus far. That may change if the FA find there’s a case and report it.

Expat_Hammer

Of course, had he been playing for one of the sky six luvvies, would this be happening

ASLEFshrugged

buffybegood said:

The fact that (I think) his uncle was basically found guilty in Brazil hardly helps Paqueta's case either.

Not quite

It was reported last week that the inquiry will call for his prosecution but so far there's no confirmation that he's been charged with anything yet