Claret & Hugh have spoken to a top source at West Ham to get some clarity on reports that they have hired a crack legal team to help exonerate Lucas Paquetá from his betting charges.
Yesterday, The Sun reported that the Hammers had enlisted top solicitor Nick De Marco to defend Paquetá in his bid to avoid a lifetime ban that would exclude him from football forever.
De Marco, who recently helped Leicester City escape a points deduction, was reported as working to clear Paquetá of four allegations of spot-fixing following the Hammers’ decision to appoint him.
However, a top club insider was keen to put the record straight when we spoke to them late last night.
“He [Paquetá] hires the lawyers, NOT us, and as far as I know, he has not changed his team.” That was the response when we asked directly if the club had enlisted the help of De Marco following the FA’s decision to add two more charges to the list of betting allegations already being faced by the Brazilian.
Of course, the news doesn’t mean that De Marco can’t be hired by ‘Team Paquetá,’ but he is certainly not being hired by the club.
I must say that I’m somewhat surprised to learn that the player is fighting allegations with his own legal team, but it would go some way to explaining why the club is often in the dark regarding this case.
The charges are against Paqueta not West Ham so he provides his own defence. He’s a multimillionaire who can pay for a top silk out of his weekly wage.
It wouldn’t take a silk to defend him against the new charges, they’re totally absurd. The FA had his phone for eight weeks and didn’t get all they wanted off it, it beggars belief.
They had the opportunity to download the lot but didn’t is frankly amateur. It’s staggering that they would raise an issue after goofing like that.
I’d agree, John, and it makes me think their whole approach has been amateurish from the start. which fills me with hope that they will still manage to cock-up the whole thing. Experience suggests the FA cannot organise – anything.
There has always been a presumption of innocence prior to a case being heard.This case is no different