Paqueta

13»

Comments

  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    edited April 10
    BubblesNeverDies said:

    ScotHammer said:

    Surely lawyers wouldn’t drag things out? 🤪⚒

    Are you insinuating something?
    My lawyer told me to deny everything! 😉
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    buffybegood said:

    Apparently the hearing wasn't concluded within the 3 weeks allocated to it, and the remainder has been postponed until June. Farcical.

    The Telegraph is reporting that the hearing has now resumed (earlier than originally expected) and will be concluded next week with a verdict expected 4-5 weeks later. They're also saying that, if found guilty, there may need to be a separate hearing to determine the punishment.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/05/07/west-ham-lucas-paqueta-mental-state-spot-fixing-case/
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    What a shambles.
  • stevesteve
    When on earth is this going to end .Feel bad for Paqueta .But its really affecting what we can do .Seems unfair Just get it done for him and us
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    edited July 16
    Complex criminal trials can make it to court quicker than this.

    It could end up costing us a lot of money due to this delay as with each passing transfer window that passes he has left remaining on his contract, which in turn alters the value to the club.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    claretandbluesky said:

    Complex criminal trials can make it to court quicker than this.

    It could end up costing us a lot of money due to this delay as with each passing transfer window that passes he has left remaining on his contract, which in turn alters the value to the club.

    For sure it's cost the club a fortune, even if he does get off. Only at West Ham.......

  • secrethammersfansecrethammersfan
    claretandbluesky said:

    Complex criminal trials can make it to court quicker than this.

    It could end up costing us a lot of money due to this delay as with each passing transfer window that passes he has left remaining on his contract, which in turn alters the value to the club.

    I wouldn't be surprised if, should Paqutá be cleared, West Ham took the FA to court over potential lost earnings. It could be good for another 5-10 mil.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited July 17
    secrethammersfan said:

    I wouldn't be surprised if, should Paqutá be cleared, West Ham took the FA to court over potential lost earnings. It could be good for another 5-10 mil.

    Can't see it at all, there was legitimate cause for investigation, and I think there may even be something in the PL rules that prevents such an action.

  • secrethammersfansecrethammersfan
    Good point.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Latest update looks positive but ruling not released yet. The player and Club have been informed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cz6g64yv5g4o
  • stevesteve
    what are they waiting for .just release it
  • alderzalderz
    Apparently Paqueta and his legal time have a week after being notified of the outcome to be able to ask for redactions of the final report. It might mention family members by name, for example, and he might ask for that to come out.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    And costs possibly , if he is cleared?
  • alderzalderz
    I’d imagine that would come after? But maybe
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cpqnqrqe7q8o

    Free at last.
  • stevesteve
    About time
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Just to clarify. Cleared of 'spot fixing' charges but guilty 'failing to co operate', but still good news.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    IronHerb said:

    Just to clarify. Cleared of 'spot fixing' charges but guilty 'failing to co operate', but still good news.

    Yeah, I wonder what the penalty will be. Wouldn't be surprised if they go for a short ban of 3 months or so, although they run the risk of being accused of being vindictive if they do.
  • LukerzLukerz
    They aren’t going to ban him in any way shape or form after the last 2 years investigation & clearing him. He will probably be fined.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    I heard it’s likely to be a fine.
  • stevesteve
    I read somewhere a fine perhaps .guess we will find out in 2 years =)
  • EXETERHAMMEREXETERHAMMER
    Was it to do with not handing in his mobile phone?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Proper result if it's just a fine.

    Given the lower threshhold of proof required ("balance of probabilities") I'm gobsmacked, but obviously very pleased, that he got a "not proven" decision given the information that has been in the public domain. Most of betting irregularities do seem extremely suspicious, but thank goodness we seem to have got a decision for a change.

    I wonder how much we have to pay Sheffield Utd?
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    edited July 31
    EXETERHAMMER said:

    Was it to do with not handing in his mobile phone?

    That was certainly key to the not co-operating charges I believe, although he did hand it over when they originally asked for it, they kept it for a good period of time, but after handing it back to him they then requested it a second time by which point he claimed to have a new phone and couldn't (or wouldn't) produce the old one.
  • stevesteve
    So does he want to stay or go .I really hope we keep him and that he is happy to stay .Someone on here said keep till January which would at lest be something .We need his vision to pick a pass After all he has been through would not blame him for wanting a fresh start .But would love him to stay
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    The club have stated that they are making burner phones available to avoid any problems in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.