Lucas Paqueta investigated by FA for alleged betting breaches

Bill Walker said:
Haha you mad sod.
DIL is Chilean :)
Click to expand...
dill.jpg
 
Dribble said:
Paqueta didn't place the bets. Also the Brazilian betting industry is unregulated, & the bets mostly came from a raft of new accounts, which makes the investigation almost impossible to conduct.

Dodgy as fuck yeah, but how dya link these spot bets to Paqueta without a betting account audit trail, witnesses, messages or recordings?

Also, considering you're innocent until proven guilty, unless specific evidence is presented to Paqueta, he's got no case to answer. This investigation sounds more like a fishing exercise.

If he says, "I know fuck all about any of this", what then? You don't need a brief to interrupt his hols for that... \0/
Click to expand...
With respect the eventual outcome of the FA/FIFA investigation is irrelevant, what's at issue is whether Sullivan et al were aware of it before negotiating the transfer deal and concealed the information from City. Doubt whether we can show the required financial loss to take it to law though.
 
johnny crossan said:
With respect the eventual outcome of the FA/FIFA investigation is irrelevant, what's at issue is whether Sullivan et al were aware of it before negotiating the transfer deal and concealed the information from City. Doubt whether we can show the required financial loss to take it to law though.
Click to expand...
If someone's innocent until proven guilty, Paqueta's not even been charged with anything as yet, so in WHU's position I'd have done the deal, then told City about the possible issue & left it to them to continue, pause or pull out. It seems to be what the Hammers have done.
 
Dribble said:
If someone's innocent until proven guilty, Paqueta's not even been charged with anything as yet, so in WHU's position I'd have done the deal, then told City about the possible issue & left it to them to continue, pause or pull out. It seems to be what the Hammers have done.
Click to expand...
City, as would all other clubs I suspect, regarded being the subject of an investigation by the governing body as a material cause for pulling out of his transfer. My understanding is it was not disclosed and when they found out through their own due diligence they exited the transaction. If Sullivan knew about it all along he was undeniably negotiating in bad faith and deserves censure.
 
Last edited:
johnny crossan said:
City, like most other clubs I suspect, regarded being the subject of an investigation by the governing body as a material cause for pulling out of his transfer. My understanding is it was not disclosed and when they found out through their own due diligence they exited the transaction. If Sullivan knew about it all along he was undeniably negotiating in bad faith and deserves censure.
Click to expand...
Is he though? It's like selling a car. You advertise it, buyers come take a look, they can see the obvious flaws & if you're a decent geezer, you'd point out anything that maybe a concern.

If you pointed out all possible concerns when viewing was being arranged, few would bother coming to have a look. Now if we'd bought Paqueta & then the betting issue came to light, if it was then proven that Sullivan knew before the deal was signed, I'm pretty sure he'd have a legal situation on his hands.

We've essentially looked at Paqueta, like what we've seen & reportedly agreed a fee with WHU. This spot betting investigation is the only issue we have, so we've deferred any deal until it's resolved.

If come January we don't have a replacement & the situation's sorted, we'll only have to cross & dot the i's & t's during further due diligence, conduct a medical & sign him.

As it stands, I don't think Sullivan's done anything wrong...
 
Dribble said:
Is he though? It's like selling a car. You advertise it, buyers come take a look, they can see the obvious flaws & if you're a decent geezer, you'd point out anything that maybe a concern.

If you pointed out all possible concerns when viewing was being arranged, few would bother coming to have a look. Now if we'd bought Paqueta & then the betting issue came to light, if it was then proven that Sullivan knew before the deal was signed, I'm pretty sure he'd have a legal situation on his hands.

We've essentially looked at Paqueta, like what we've seen & reportedly agreed a fee with WHU. This spot betting investigation is the only issue we have, so we've deferred any deal until it's resolved.

If come January we don't have a replacement & the situation's sorted, we'll only have to cross & dot the i's & t's during further due diligence, conduct a medical & sign him.

As it stands, I don't think Sullivan's done anything wrong...
Click to expand...
If Sullivan knew about the investigation from the off and didn't come clean about it (which is almost certainly the case) in car dealer terms he'd make Arthur Daly look like a saint - dodgy doesn't even come close. The deal's definitely now off btw, obviously should Paqueta be cleared we may be back in January if an alternative such as Eze hasn't been signed in this window - doubt if there would be room for another AM then unless Silva goes.
 
Dribble said:
Paqueta didn't place the bets. Also the Brazilian betting industry is unregulated, & the bets mostly came from a raft of new accounts, which makes the investigation almost impossible to conduct.

Dodgy as fuck yeah, but how dya link these spot bets to Paqueta without a betting account audit trail, witnesses, messages or recordings?

Also, considering you're innocent until proven guilty, unless specific evidence is presented to Paqueta, he's got no case to answer. This investigation sounds more like a fishing exercise.

If he says, "I know fuck all about any of this", what then? You don't need a brief to interrupt his hols for that... \0/
Click to expand...
Fishing exercise, no one has ever done that to us
 
Dribble said:
Is he though? It's like selling a car. You advertise it, buyers come take a look, they can see the obvious flaws & if you're a decent geezer, you'd point out anything that maybe a concern.

If you pointed out all possible concerns when viewing was being arranged, few would bother coming to have a look. Now if we'd bought Paqueta & then the betting issue came to light, if it was then proven that Sullivan knew before the deal was signed, I'm pretty sure he'd have a legal situation on his hands.

We've essentially looked at Paqueta, like what we've seen & reportedly agreed a fee with WHU. This spot betting investigation is the only issue we have, so we've deferred any deal until it's resolved.

If come January we don't have a replacement & the situation's sorted, we'll only have to cross & dot the i's & t's during further due diligence, conduct a medical & sign him.

As it stands, I don't think Sullivan's done anything wrong...
Click to expand...
if this deal was a car deal ,it would be like selling a car that you know will have to be taken off the road because it's illegal ,going to get taken away by the police as evidence,not some oil leak
 
Sir peace frog said:
if this deal was a car deal ,it would be like selling a car that you know will have to be taken off the road because it's illegal ,going to get taken away by the police as evidence,not some oil leak
Click to expand...
Again there are only investigations right now, when the investigation is finished he might get charged or there might not be enough evidence to charge him. So for the car example no one knows if it is illegal yet, police are just inspecting the car.

That is why the best option is to let all things settle first and know if he is getting charged or not.
 
Tokyo32 said:
Again there are only investigations right now, when the investigation is finished he might get charged or there might not be enough evidence to charge him. So for the car example no one knows if it is illegal yet, police are just inspecting the car.

That is why the best option is to let all things settle first and know if he is getting charged or not.
Click to expand...
i was responding to the poster that said if west ham knew about the betting charge its only the same as selling a car with a hidden defect
 
Dribble said:
Is he though? It's like selling a car. You advertise it, buyers come take a look, they can see the obvious flaws & if you're a decent geezer, you'd point out anything that maybe a concern.

If you pointed out all possible concerns when viewing was being arranged, few would bother coming to have a look. Now if we'd bought Paqueta & then the betting issue came to light, if it was then proven that Sullivan knew before the deal was signed, I'm pretty sure he'd have a legal situation on his hands.

We've essentially looked at Paqueta, like what we've seen & reportedly agreed a fee with WHU. This spot betting investigation is the only issue we have, so we've deferred any deal until it's resolved.

If come January we don't have a replacement & the situation's sorted, we'll only have to cross & dot the i's & t's during further due diligence, conduct a medical & sign him.

As it stands, I don't think Sullivan's done anything wrong...
Click to expand...
But that is a flawed analogy.

In this case, it would be like trying to shift a Ferrari for top dollar to a collector, knowing the entire time you are negotiating the deal that the car was used by the head of a drug cartel and may be ceased in the near future as both evidence and asset forfeiture.

That is negotiating in bad faith and is grounds for both breach of contract and civil litigation that is highly likely to succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top