If someone's innocent until proven guilty, Paqueta's not even been charged with anything as yet, so in WHU's position I'd have done the deal, then told City about the possible issue & left it to them to continue, pause or pull out. It seems to be what the Hammers have done.
City, as would all other clubs I suspect, regarded being the subject of an investigation by the governing body as a material cause for pulling out of his transfer. My understanding is it was not disclosed and when they found out through their own due diligence they exited the transaction. If Sullivan knew about it all along he was undeniably negotiating in bad faith and deserves censure.
Is he though? It's like selling a car. You advertise it, buyers come take a look, they can see the obvious flaws & if you're a decent geezer, you'd point out anything that maybe a concern.
If Sullivan knew about the investigation from the off and didn't come clean about it (which is almost certainly the case) in car dealer terms he'd make Arthur Daly look like a saint - dodgy doesn't even come close. The deal's definitely now off btw, obviously should Paqueta be cleared we may be back in January if an alternative such as Eze hasn't been signed in this window - doubt if there would be room for another AM then unless Silva goes.
Fishing exercise, no one has ever done that to us
if this deal was a car deal ,it would be like selling a car that you know will have to be taken off the road because it's illegal ,going to get taken away by the police as evidence,not some oil leak
Again there are only investigations right now, when the investigation is finished he might get charged or there might not be enough evidence to charge him. So for the car example no one knows if it is illegal yet, police are just inspecting the car.
i was responding to the poster that said if west ham knew about the betting charge its only the same as selling a car with a hidden defect
But that is a flawed analogy.
