Lucas Paquetá

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinkladze's crazy skills said:
I get what you're saying he would've made a major difference to us this season, plus it'd be the worst case scenario if he ended up at a Prem rival too.

The investigation at the time though wasn't just the Brazilian FA was it? I thought it was claimed there was actually an ongoing criminal one too if the reports were true.

If guilty of the charges mentioned by football authorities it would've been a major ban for Paqueta, not just a 12-18 month ban slap that we've seen in the past as it'd be seen as clear case of match fixing, the accusations stated he'd potentially betted on or let people know he was getting intentionally booked in games he's actually played in.
There mustn't actually be any proof of it though if those other more thorough investigations have been dropped, because in theory if guilty of the accusations he could be banned for half a decade or more his career would've been over for him.

If guilty it would've been a major ban no doubt about it I don't think we could've made any move without fully knowing, it might now be a more clear cut thing after the other major investigations on his back have been dropped, it could be a case of lazy processing the FA going at a snails pace and known full well that he'll be found innocent.
Click to expand...
The investigation was both the English FA & the Brazilian FA too from what I recall. What struck me was the similarities to the Xhaka case, where there was no accusations he did any betting. Trying to prove he committed a late foul to get a yellow is very hard to substantiate, considering how shit his tackling is in general.

As for a major ban, I think there's a big difference between match fixing or throwing a game, as opposed to committing a minor foul which would have no bearing on the result. However, I also acknowledge from small acorns do oak trees grow.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
Oh dear...


View attachment 111947

Sandro Tonali has been charged with 50
betting offences by the Football Association after it was revealed the Italian midfielder placed bets last season while at Newcastle.

Tonali, 23, is currently serving a 10-month football ban after being found guilty of betting on games involving both of his former clubs, Brescia and AC Milan, by the ltalian Football Federation.

'Sandro Tonali has been charged with
misconduct in relation to alleged breaches of the FA Betting Rules," an FA statement read.

"It's alleged that the Newcastle United
midfielder breached FA Rule E8 50 times by placing bets on football matches between 12 August 2023 and 12 October 2023."
Click to expand...

Nothing will come of this. He'd already admitted to these before the FIGC banned him and they were all placed before he found out he was getting investigated in Italy.

It's not like he's been flouting the ban.

The FA gains nothing from punishing someone who's already been banned for 10 months (plus 8 suspended) and committed to going to rehab.

On the otherhand they're fairly exposed on gambling, as a lot of the public (and all of the expros that dominate the media) are of the opinion it's unfair to expect people in an industry to not gamble on that industry, and if the PFA, Newcastle or Tonali wanted to they could present this as persecution of a guy who's done his time and just trying to recover from his addiction.

Also...they gave Ivan Toney 8 months for 250 bets, so are they going to give Tonali 6 weeks for 50?


IMO they will give him a ban that runs concurrent to the existing one. That way they can say they did their job and punished him, but there's no reason for anyone to kick up a fuss.
 
bell_mcfc said:
Agreed. We will sign him and then all of a sudden they’ll reopen the case haha!!
Click to expand...
Lord Pannick: Meet the lawyer representing Boris Johnson and Manchester City - BBC News
 
Lucas was the best player on the park in the first half, but he's faded badly in the second.

Guimarães also played well in the first half, but he faded in the second half too.

A proper blood & snot, up & at em PL match. Kudus is one to keep a very close eye on too.

Barnes has made a huge difference since he came on, & as I'm typing, he's just smashed in what looks like the fuckin winner!
 
He's a fine player but I just don't see this clamour for his signing. He's 27 this year and could be past his peak by 2026. He's also had games for West Ham where he was completely missing. While I have no doubt he could slot into our squad just fine, I don't really see him as a big upgrade on anyone. People just want signings for the sake of making them.
 
domalino said:
It's really annoying me that this signing falling through in very bizarre fashion could well be the difference between us winning the league or not.
Click to expand...
I’m skeptical over the whole thing obviously there is some doubt over the betting side of it and how it’s dragged on,I’ve posted before if he was going to any other team the FA/Premier league would have cleared it by now ..
 
deano ou812 said:
I’m skeptical over the whole thing obviously there is some doubt over the betting side of it and how it’s dragged on,I’ve posted before if he was going to any other team the FA/Premier league would have cleared it by now ..
Click to expand...
Granit Xhaka faced similar charges in 2021 & it took 2 years for him to be cleared after the initial allegations were made.

Personally, I'd have bitten the bullet last summer with Paqueta. I honestly think he'd have been a brilliant replacement for Gundog, & would've made a huge difference to us this season.

We missed a trick not going for him regardless of the accusations & resultant investigations, which the Brazilian FA have now dropped.
 
Dribble said:
Granit Xhaka faced similar charges in 2021 & it took 2 years for him to be cleared after the initial allegations were made.

Personally, I'd have bitten the bullet last summer with Paqueta. I honestly think he'd have been a brilliant replacement for Gundog, & would've made a huge difference to us this season.

We missed a trick not going for him regardless of the accusations & resultant investigations, which the Brazilian FA have now dropped.
Click to expand...
i think 85 million reasons and do you think they'd drag feet if we'd signed him

oh no the anti cartel poster will be after me hope he doesnt stray from charges thread
 
dadnlad said:
i think 85 million reasons and do you think they'd drag feet if we'd signed him

oh no the anti cartel poster will be after me hope he doesnt stray from charges thread
Click to expand...
It's about calculated risks. We'd benefit from his addition up to the point the investigation was completed.

In truth, there's no suggestion he made a bet, & no evidence offered to say he was involved in a conspiracy to make the foul leading to the yellow card.

How the FA/PL could prove otherwise is beyond me, hence why I'd have taken the calculated risk & gone for him, as I reckon we'd have had a far more productive season with Paqueta as opposed to Nunes.

After his rugged performance at Wembley, there's far more concrete evidence that he's just a shit tackler, than his tackles being made for bets. Just my personal opinion.
 
Dribble said:
It's about calculated risks. We'd benefit from his addition up to the point the investigation was completed.

In truth, there's no suggestion he made a bet, & no evidence offered to say he was involved in a conspiracy to make the foul leading to the yellow card.

How the FA/PL could prove otherwise is beyond me, hence why I'd have taken the calculated risk & gone for him, as I reckon we'd have had a far more productive season with Paqueta as opposed to Nunes.

After his rugged performance at Wembley, there's far more concrete evidence that he's just a shit tackler, than his tackles being made for bets. Just my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
You don't take an £85m gamble (pardon the pun) on someone being investigated for betting breaches. That's why due diligence exists. A very lengthy ban and potential criminal investigations for an adverse outcome cannot be overlooked.

City have a reputation for not being hasty. We don't take needless risks for short-term benefit. Whilst it now appears that there is no incriminating evidence, little else was known back in August.
 
Dribble said:
It's about calculated risks. We'd benefit from his addition up to the point the investigation was completed.

In truth, there's no suggestion he made a bet, & no evidence offered to say he was involved in a conspiracy to make the foul leading to the yellow card.

How the FA/PL could prove otherwise is beyond me, hence why I'd have taken the calculated risk & gone for him, as I reckon we'd have had a far more productive season with Paqueta as opposed to Nunes.

After his rugged performance at Wembley, there's far more concrete evidence that he's just a shit tackler, than his tackles being made for bets. Just my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Newcastle would take a bet on him with Tonali
 
John Wayne said:
You don't take an £85m gamble (pardon the pun) on someone being investigated for betting breaches. That's why due diligence exists. A very lengthy ban and potential criminal investigations for an adverse outcome cannot be overlooked.

City have a reputation for not being hasty. We don't take needless risks for short-term benefit. Whilst it now appears that there is no incriminating evidence, little else was known back in August.
Click to expand...
Which is why in business it's known as a calculated risk. You do the due diligence by carrying out your own investigation to the best of your ability.

You consider previous instances (Granit Xhaka), then you make an informed decision. For all we know, City did the above & decided Paqueta was too hot to handle. Personally I'd have taken the risk.

EG: Six years ago I bought a high-end convertible for a bargain price because the roof wasn't working. Replacing the motor, mechanism & roof was estimated to be £9k.

Something told me to take the risk, so I called a main dealer mechanic I know & he told me to see if I could hear a click from the rear when I tried the switch, which I could. He told me to snap it up & drop it off at his home.

The part which was damaged wasn't sold separately, BUT luckily I was able to get one from an almost new salvage vehicle for £90. He charged me £150 to strip the mechanism, replace the broken part, & service the motor.

He told me to book the car in for a service at his dealership, where they had a specialised convertible frame they used to set the roof alignment to stop any leaks, which he'd get done for me as part of the service.

The service cost was the service cost, which I'd have had to pay anyway to maintain the main dealer service history.

I sold it 18 months later for more than I bought it for. Commonsense would've told the average private buyer to walk away at that kind of money.

But the £240 fix made the calculated risk more than worthwhile. As a business owner, I'm one of life's calculated risk takers.

If you do your proper due diligence, I find you tend to win more than you lose. This type of risk taking makes far more sense to me than sticking £50 on a nag, or on a football result at your local William Hill's bookie.
 
Dribble said:
Which is why in business it's known as a calculated risk. You do the due diligence by carrying out your own investigation to the best of your ability.

You consider previous instances (Granit Xhaka), then you make an informed decision. For all we know, City did the above & decided Paqueta was too hot to handle. Personally I'd have taken the risk.

EG: Six years ago I bought a high-end convertible for a bargain price because the roof wasn't working. Replacing the motor, mechanism & roof was estimated to be £9k.

Something told me to take the risk, so I called a main dealer mechanic I know & he told me to see if I could hear a click from the rear when I tried the switch, which I could. He told me to snap it up & drop it off at his home.

The part which was damaged wasn't sold separately, BUT luckily I was able to get one from an almost new salvage vehicle for £90. He charged me £150 to strip the mechanism, replace the broken part, & service the motor.

He told me to book the car in for a service at his dealership, where they had a specialised convertible frame they used to set the roof alignment to stop any leaks, which he'd get done for me as part of the service.

The service cost was the service cost, which I'd have had to pay anyway to maintain the main dealer service history.

I sold it 18 months later for more than I bought it for. Commonsense would've told the average private buyer to walk away at that kind of money.

But the £240 fix made the calculated risk more than worthwhile. As a business owner, I'm one of life's calculated risk takers.

If you do your proper due diligence, I find you tend to win more than you lose. This type of risk taking makes far more sense to me than sticking £50 on a nag, or on a football result at your local William Hill's bookie.
Click to expand...
Bit of a difference replacing a car roof for £9k and £86m. There's taking a calculated risk and there's being a bellend.
You could say we took a calculated risk on Nunes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top