Paqueta Charged By The FA.

homerdog said:
Just looked at the Regulatory Commission's findings, pretty damning for the FA - seems they were mostly making it up as they went along. They had to admit that almost none of the evidence they were relying on was impartial, such as their claim that his bookings were suspicious.

The Commission said:

"we do in any event consider the suggestion that the betting patterns, said by The FA to be the cornerstone of its case, emerge from a random passing of “hot tips” or perceived “inside information” within Brazil as the more
likely explanation."

Charges that he failed to co-operate were found to be proven and this is what the FA have written on their website:

"The Regulatory Commission will decide an appropriate sanction for the breaches of FA Rule F3 that were found proven..."

However, they are clutching at straws, as the Commision had this to say:

"...allied to matters such as The FA’s unwillingness to hear what the Player had to say once he had been provided with all the information from the first interview at the start of the second interview... any sanction imposed will be at the lower end of the scale.

Thinking of our case, is it fanciful to believe that the cunts at the PL and FA are equally incompetent?
Click to expand...

And Forest have won their appeal against the FA where the Chair of the Appeal Body was declared to have demonstrated bias in his approach to the appeal.

So it appears that the Football Authorities cannot be seen to be impartial when dealing with clubs.

Who would have imagined anything along similar lines could possibly have been the case in the PL case against City ?
 
Coatigan said:
Sky sports claiming he may now sue the FA.

I guess if he had a real offer from us, he could realistically argue loss of earnings.
Click to expand...
Mike Wedderburn has just interviewed Alastair Campbell, Paqueta's lawyer on Sly Sports.

Mike asked, if Lucas would consider suing the FA after an independent body has found him to be not guilty of all charges.

Campbell said that he would strongly advise Paqueta to sue the FA, due to significant loss of earnings which are immeasurable as Paqueta was about to join MCFC, who went onto win the premier league that year.

I bet the FA are thinking "fuck this, trying to bring City down is going to end up bankrupting us"
 
Tracking back said:
Mike Wedderburn has just interviewed Alastair Campbell, Paqueta's lawyer on Sly Sports.

Mike asked, if Lucas would consider suing the FA after an independent body has found him to be not guilty of all charges.

Campbell said that he would strongly advise Paqueta to sue the FA, due to significant loss of earnings which are immeasurable as Paqueta was about to join MCFC, who went onto win the premier league that year.

I bet the FA are thinking "fuck this, trying to bring City down is going to end up bankrupting us"
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw it, after I posted the above. The fact he specifically mentioned us, the offer, and his advice there suggests it is a serious consideration there, and that they feel they have measurable losses they can claim.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
And Forest have won their appeal against the FA where the Chair of the Appeal Body was declared to have demonstrated bias in his approach to the appeal.

So it appears that the Football Authorities cannot be seen to be impartial when dealing with clubs.

Who would have imagined anything along similar lines could possibly have been the case in the PL case against City ?
Click to expand...
Source for this mate?
 
Tracking back said:
Mike Wedderburn has just interviewed Alastair Campbell, Paqueta's lawyer on Sly Sports.

Mike asked, if Lucas would consider suing the FA after an independent body has found him to be not guilty of all charges.

Campbell said that he would strongly advise Paqueta to sue the FA, due to significant loss of earnings which are immeasurable as Paqueta was about to join MCFC, who went onto win the premier league that year.

I bet the FA are thinking "fuck this, trying to bring City down is going to end up bankrupting us"
Click to expand...
Could we also sue? We lost a player we were after due to that investigation.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Could we also sue? We lost a player we were after due to that investigation.
Click to expand...

Doubt it, be hard to quantify what impact he would have had. However West Ham possibly could as they missed out on a transfer fee if they can demonstrate that, which was by all accounts agreed.
 
manimanc said:
So reading between the lines the FA had absolutely no clear evidence of Paqueta doing anything wrong but decided to charge him.

Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell! Their case was based on the fact that irregular betting patterns in Brazil relating to him being booked in certain games, must point to him being guilty of spot-fixing. They then got so-called expert witnesses to back them up, but the Regulatory Commission found their biased witnesses made the evidence fit the crime.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Could we also sue? We lost a player we were after due to that investigation.
Click to expand...
Now that would be tasty.

Mark Bullingham the CEO, would be fuming if both parties submitted a law suit against the FA.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was straight on the phone to the red cable.

You can just imagine the conversation: right! you fuckers' you've created this mess now you're going to pay for it, and next time you want help trying to hobble a rival, get someone else to do your dirty work.......... and another thing, MCFC is a far better run club than you give them credit for."
 
Tracking back said:
Mike Wedderburn has just interviewed Alastair Campbell, Paqueta's lawyer on Sly Sports.

Mike asked, if Lucas would consider suing the FA after an independent body has found him to be not guilty of all charges.

Campbell said that he would strongly advise Paqueta to sue the FA, due to significant loss of earnings which are immeasurable as Paqueta was about to join MCFC, who went onto win the premier league that year.

I bet the FA are thinking "fuck this, trying to bring City down is going to end up bankrupting us"
Click to expand...
Absolute poetry in motion

Hope our “verdict” isn’t being delayed so every other **** can get their claims in before us the peevish bastards,

Typical City will be us trying sue a bankrupt ffs
 
Found the following from Chatgpt:

Summary of the Disciplinary Case:
Forest vs FA

1. Initial Disciplinary Charge
  • After a 2-0 loss to Everton in April 2024, Nottingham Forest posted on X (formerly Twitter) that they “warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game,” implying bias, following three contentious penalty appeals .
  • The FA charged Forest under Rule E3.1 — for improper conduct or bringing the game into disrepute .
2. FA Regulatory Commission Ruling
  • The Commission ruled that the post did imply actual bias and thus constituted misconduct .
  • The sanction: a fine of £750,000, accompanied by a formal warning and the order to pay commission costs .
3. Forest’s Appeal
  • Forest appealed, arguing the penalty was disproportionate — especially compared to other clubs’ fines — and that the wording of their post only suggested apparent, not actual, bias .
4. Appeal Board Decision
  • On 27 February 2025, an independent Appeal Board dismissed Forest’s appeal on both liability and sanction. They upheld the fine and insisted the post be removed from their X account .

5. Media Reports & FA Statement
  • The FA confirmed on 10 March 2025 that Forest’s appeal was rejected, the £750,000 fine stood, and the social media post must be taken down. Forest avoided relegation that season, finishing 17th .
6. Oversight Legal Ruling on Bias
  • A separate but related legal dispute emerged over apparent bias in the disciplinary process: Forest challenged the repeated appointment of barrister Graeme McPherson KC, who had previously called the club’s defense “somewhat hysterical.”
  • A tribunal found this to create an appearance of bias. As a result, the FA was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal and tribunal costs, and to appoint a new chair for further proceedings .
 
Tracking back said:
Now that would be tasty.

Mark Bullingham the CEO, would be fuming if both parties submitted a law suit against the FA.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was straight on the phone to the red cable.

You can just imagine the conversation: right! you fuckers' you've created this mess now you're going to pay for it, and next time you want help trying to hobble a rival, get someone else to do your dirty work.......... and another thing, MCFC is a far better run club than you give them credit for."
Click to expand...
Stefan saying unlikely either us or Paqueta could sue, on the charges thread.
 
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