Lucas Paquetá

[domalino]

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.

 

[iTyler]

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.

 

[deano ou812]

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.

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 ..

 

[Dribble]

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 ..

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.

 

[dadnlad]

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.

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

 

[Dribble]

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

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.

 

[John Wayne]

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.

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.

 

[Skrastins]

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.

Newcastle would take a bet on him with Tonali

 

[Dribble]

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.

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.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

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.

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