Lucas Paquetá

[Kinkladze's crazy skills]

Question: If his betting allegations aren't cleared by September, would you still risk signing him & hope for a positive outcome?

It'd be stupid for us to move for anyone who still has this looming over them even with him supposedly having the investigation dropped, he'd be perfect for us though but I fear the FA are taking too long with this decision, considering the actual criminal investigations into the betting stuff has meant to have been dropped.

Personally I think Paqueta might need to do something to hasten this decision, you'd think with him supposedly being cleared by authorities with real power to punish him, that this would make the FA's decision much easier and they'd concede on the matter.

I think he should consider legal action and claim the prolongment of this is damaging his reputation, the threat alone might make the FA rush their decision sooner.

Hopefully he's cleared and free to talk to us by the time the season is over and it can easily be wrapped up, if not we'll have to set our own deadline for FA to decide his fate and find someone else if he's not cleared by then.

 

[deano ou812]

Question: If his betting allegations aren't cleared by September, would you still risk signing him & hope for a positive outcome?

Call me cynical but if another team comes in for him the betting allegations are suddenly dropped by the league/FA,if it’s us they’ll continue..

 

[Dribble]

I would say we are looking at other options in case. Has always been reported we have multiple targets for each position incase 1 doesn't happen and then we've already don't scouting and due diligence.

Part of me thinks we are planning to loan Savio once signed but he is a back up incase certain transfers don't happen as well.

So you reckon if his betting allegations aren't cleared up, we'll move onto other targets?

 

[blueparrot]

So you reckon if his betting allegations aren't cleared up, we'll move onto other targets?

We'll have to. We can't wait all summer.

 

[Dribble]

I would say we are looking at other options in case. Has always been reported we have multiple targets for each position incase 1 doesn't happen and then we've already don't scouting and due diligence.

Part of me thinks we are planning to loan Savio once signed but he is a back up incase certain transfers don't happen as well.

It'd be stupid for us to move for anyone who still has this looming over them even with him supposedly having the investigation dropped, he'd be perfect for us though but I fear the FA are taking too long with this decision, considering the actual criminal investigations into the betting stuff has meant to have been dropped.

Personally I think Paqueta might need to do something to hasten this decision, you'd think with him supposedly being cleared by authorities with real power to punish him, that this would make the FA's decision much easier and they'd concede on the matter.

I think he should consider legal action and claim the prolongment of this is damaging his reputation, the threat alone might make the FA rush their decision sooner.

Hopefully he's cleared and free to talk to us by the time the season is over and it can easily be wrapped up, if not we'll have to set our own deadline for FA to decide his fate and find someone else if he's not cleared by then.

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd have signed him last summer & damned the consequences. If he gets a ban, he gets a ban, however we'd have had his services this season which would have made a massive difference to us, & we'd have them after his ban was up.

The issue is the not knowing. Granit Xhaka's investigation took two seasons before he was eventually cleared for similar accusations.

The Brazilian FA have dropped their investigation into him, leaving the PL/FA or whoever's investigating him to crawl at their usual snails pace trying to reach a conclusion.

Whilst being highly suspicious, the smart money's on there being no actual proof against him, hence the Brazilian FA dropping their investigation & announcing he was free to continue representing his country.

Personally I think we should bite the bullet this summer & hope for the best outcome. I've a horrible feeling that the 115 breaches is stopping us from making such a bold move if he isn't cleared beforehand.

With rumours of ArseAnal's interest, can you imagine the meltdown on BM if they bit the bullet & got him, after we spent a year dithering?

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

You'd have gambled £86m? Are you Kerry Packer in disguise?

 

[Gabriel]

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd have signed him last summer & damned the consequences. If he gets a ban, he gets a ban, however we'd have had his services this season which would have made a massive difference to us, & we'd have them after his ban was up.

The issue is the not knowing. Granit Xhaka's investigation took two seasons before he was eventually cleared for similar accusations.

The Brazilian FA have dropped their investigation into him, leaving the PL/FA or whoever's investigating him to crawl at their usual snails pace trying to reach a conclusion.

Whilst being highly suspicious, the smart money's on there being no actual proof against him, hence the Brazilian FA dropping their investigation & announcing he was free to continue representing his country.

Personally I think we should bite the bullet this summer & hope for the best outcome. I've a horrible feeling that the 115 breaches is stopping us from making such a bold move if he isn't cleared beforehand.

With rumours of ArseAnal's interest, can you imagine the meltdown on BM if they bit the bullet & got him, after we spent a year dithering?

Would be an almighty gamble- if you will- and not one we could genuinely consider, though we do appear to have developed a certain penchant for signing midfielders who then don't play...

One could conclude that Xhaka had to remain at Arsenal for that length of time as the prospective ban hanging over him deterred suitors, and that would probably be the case for Paqueta, too; unless, of course, someone leaks information to the buyer on the Q.T.

 

[Dribble]

You'd have gambled £86m? Are you Kerry Packer in disguise?

Calculated risk taking is the difference between you & the winners in life.

 

[Dialog]

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd have signed him last summer & damned the consequences. If he gets a ban, he gets a ban, however we'd have had his services this season which would have made a massive difference to us, & we'd have them after his ban was up.

My thoughts exactly. We should have signed him, he would get banned for 9months at most??? We have had players go missing for that long, MENDY, STONES and Gundo 1st season, we still functioned. I am sure we could have been 8-12points clear at the top of the league if we had signed him.

 

[Dribble]

Would be an almighty gamble- if you will- and not one we could genuinely consider, though we do appear to have developed a certain penchant for signing midfielders who then don't play...

One could conclude that Xhaka had to remain at Arsenal for that length of time as the prospective ban hanging over him deterred suitors, and that would probably be the case for Paqueta, too; unless, of course, someone leaks information to the buyer on the Q.T.

What would be the difference in taking a gamble (dunno if you realised your pun) on Paqueta & buying an injured Gundog?