Dribble
Well-Known Member
PAQUETA! Nerves of steel! :-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lucas Paqueta investigated by FA for alleged betting breaches
- Thread starter TRUE BLUE NO1
- Start date
chris85mcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 5,918
Very short sighted or me only judging on this game, but I don't see a City player at all in him.
Reminds me a little bit of Bruno Fernandes the way he goes about himself, a bit too theatrical if you ask me.
As I say, short sighted view, as I don't watch a lot of the Hammers.
Reminds me a little bit of Bruno Fernandes the way he goes about himself, a bit too theatrical if you ask me.
As I say, short sighted view, as I don't watch a lot of the Hammers.
Never really took any notice of him before, thought he was top class today tbh
People mentioning theatrics etc. Fair enough, but he's playing in a sub standard team and perhaps part of his remit/instruction is to break up play, causes delays etc to give his team the best chance - particularly with 10 men. At city he would be given very different instructions and be working with very different players who have 65-80% possession instead of 30%. These tactics at the top levels are sometimes a necessity to compete.
People mentioning theatrics etc. Fair enough, but he's playing in a sub standard team and perhaps part of his remit/instruction is to break up play, causes delays etc to give his team the best chance - particularly with 10 men. At city he would be given very different instructions and be working with very different players who have 65-80% possession instead of 30%. These tactics at the top levels are sometimes a necessity to compete.
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
It’s a ‘Paquetata’ for me.
D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
It’s not a shame for him, it’s shame on him.I can't believe some of the comments in here!
"not working hard enough" Ha.. I must have been watching a different game. He worked his tail off, held the ball up well, was good in the opposition box, etc... What a shame for him and us if the allegations are true and he misses out on a big move.
Goater=Legend
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2006
- Messages
- 6,664
There was similar comments on here about whether Kovacic was good enough us based on him playing for that shitshow.
I thought he played great and you can see what Pep wanted.
I thought he played great and you can see what Pep wanted.
It’s obvious that he must have been involved.
How much proof they have will determine his ban/prison sentence.
In what way? Something seeming obvious can't be enough, surely. Not when it comes to something so serious with such a big impact on someone's life.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
He is a fukin bent mardy arse.I can't believe some of the comments in here!
"not working hard enough" Ha.. I must have been watching a different game. He worked his tail off, held the ball up well, was good in the opposition box, etc... What a shame for him and us if the allegations are true and he misses out on a big move.
But what worries me is what the fuck our scouting staff were looking at for 85 million quid
The first question I’d be asking is why these bets were put on in his neighbourhood in Brazil. That’s far too much of a coincidence for him not to be involved.
Can coincidence be used as proof though? If it can, then bin berting altogether, becuse surely the whole premise of gambling is coincidence. To then use that as definitive proof for punishment can't possibly be fair.
Note, I'm not arguing he wasn't involved or that it doesn't look suspicious as fuck if not obvious. But I just can't understand how that can be used as conclusive proof. There would have to be some form of admission or a statement by someone, I would think.