Lucas Paqueta investigated by FA for alleged betting breaches

[Dribble]

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.

Well it looks like Silva's staying, albeit PSG are still saying he's their main target. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

In respect to Paqueta, if he's not being formally investigated or charged, he's innocent. Arfur Daley or not, I don't see what Sullivan's done wrong.

Business is business innit? Being in business myself, I'd expect nothing less from a streetwise operator.

Everyone think City are lying FFP crooks, but that hasn't stopped other clubs doing business with us...

 

[FantasyIreland]

Gvaridol, Kovacic, Doku, Eze and Nunes....

Txiki out

 

[Dribble]

Fishing exercise, no one has ever done that to us

Exactly. It's why when I look forward, I really can't see anything coming of this unless they find a betting account directly linked to Paqueta, or someone linked to him fessing up... ¯⁠\⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

If anyone should be feeling Paqueta's pain, it's City! Lol :-)

 

[Keeper!]

Txiki out

FFS

 

[Dribble]

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

Not really. You can suspect that a part may need changing in the near future, but if it's working fine when you sell it & outlasts the warranty, you've done nowt illegal...

 

[Dribble]

But that is a flawed analogy.

In this case, it would be like trying to shift a Ferrari for top dollar to a collector, knowing the entire time you are negotiating the deal that the car was used by the head of a drug cartel and may be ceased in the near future as both evidence and asset forfeiture.

That is negotiating in bad faith and is grounds for both breach of contract and civil litigation that is highly likely to succeed.

But no one knows if Paqueta had anything to do with the suspicious betting or not, just like no one knows for certain if City are FFP cheats, until an accusation is made, investigation's follow, charges levelled & a case is heard & verdict arrived at.

As things stand, there's suspicious betting patterns eminating from a tiny Brazilian Island, with a population of 3000, on a player who hails from there.

He's not placed the bets & the accounts were evidently setup for these specific spot bets. Sounds as dodgy as fuck, but as things stand, after 6 months the investigators can't find anyone who created these accounts. The rest is mere inuendo & speculation... ¯⁠\⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[johnnytapia]

Not really. You can suspect that a part may need changing in the near future, but if it's working fine when you sell it & outlasts the warranty, you've done nowt illegal...

Caveat emptor.

 

[SebastianBlue]

But no one knows if Paqueta had anything to do with the suspicious betting or not, just like no one knows for certain if City are FFP cheats, until an accusation is made, investigation's follow, charges levelled & a case is heard & verdict arrived at.

As things stand, there's suspicious betting patterns eminating from a tiny Brazilian Island, with a population of 3000, on a player who hails from there.

He's not placed the bets & the accounts were evidently setup for these specific spot bets. Sounds as dodgy as fuck, but as things stand, Paqueta hasn't made a bet, & they can't find anyone who created these accounts. The rest is mere inuendo & speculation... ¯⁠\⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ⁠_⁠/⁠¯

That’s why I said “may be seized” in the analogy.

My version is much more accurate to the situation. This is not a case of caveat emptor, as that only covers information that can be reasonably gathered by the buyer (that would not include closed, protected investigations that only the seller is privy to).

Even if it is *just* an investigation, knowing about it and negotiating a deal without disclosure would still be grounds for breach of terms of the contracted deal and would certainly open up West Ham to civil litigation.

It would be considered bad faith negotiation based on withholding privileged information critical to the overall valuation of the transaction (the asset being sold—player’s registration rights—could fall to literally £0 with even a tentative suspension pending outcome of investigation).

This is similar to selling a house that you know has potentially serious structural damage that cannot be discovered by lawfully allowable pre-purchase survey (i.e. the only way to find out is by owning it and doing costly, invasive inspection).

 

[heslops barnet]

But that is a flawed analogy.

In this case, it would be like trying to shift a Ferrari for top dollar to a collector, knowing the entire time you are negotiating the deal that the car was used by the head of a drug cartel and may be ceased in the near future as both evidence and asset forfeiture.

That is negotiating in bad faith and is grounds for both breach of contract and civil litigation that is highly likely to succeed.

Sullivan dodgy as fuck….

 

[dronefromsector7G]

Gvaridol, Kovacic, Doku, Eze and Nunes....

Plus Gvardiol