ExWHUEmployee is reporting that West Ham are growing increasingly confident that the FA doesn’t have enough evidence to successfully prosecute Lucas Paqueta.
For those of you who have been hiding under a rock for the past year, Paqueta has been the subject of an FA investigation over betting irregularities concerning suspicious gambling centred around the player’s yellow cards.
Whether or not the Brazilian playmaker will be cleared of any charges in the immediate future remains unclear. However, it is incredibly encouraging news, particularly given new head coach Julen Lopetegui’s recent comments about the player.
Paqueta is believed to have a buyout clause in his contract allowing teams who bid Ā£85 million pounds for his services to begin negotiating terms with the player. The clause is believed to run for only one calendar month and is due to end in July, meaning any subsequent offer would have to be accepted by West Ham.
The Ā£50m signing from Olympique Lyonnais has always maintained his innocence regarding suspicious betting patterns, which seem to have arisen from Paqueta Island in Brazil.
Whatās behind the story about Paqueta being sold to Flemengo in Brazil? Canāt see them being able to afford him personally. Unless we know heās going to be banned by FA and are cutting our losses.
Any offer made by activating his release clause does not have to be accepted by the club, it just means West Ham will be duty bound to inform the player of the offer/s. It is then up to the player if he wants to negotiate with the offering team/s or if he wants to stay at the club
Doesnāt have to be proved Beyond all reasonable doubt
They donāt need evidence as such. It goes on probability. If they think he was probably in on it then they can charge him. Doesnāt have to be proven betting all reasonable doubt.
Does anyone know what the evidence actually is? OK some people made bets on him in his home town, suspicious, but you are talking of possibly denying an international footballer the right to earn a wage in the game. These are drastic measures that require very strong evidence to implement. More than one person who claims a verbal agreement with him or a written contract that can be traced to him for example. Without one of these it is innocent until proven guilty, the way it should be. No matter how much smoke there is, you still need to see flames to call it a fire.
Letās hope he is cleared , he owes us a year if heās cleared of all allegations. Would be great to have Paqueta at his best without the stress.
It won’t be sorted b4 the clause expires so he will still be a hammer and by God do we need him as our, squad is very thin on the ground with no more signings as yet but apparently earthy and Orford are being added to the 1st team squad, so as i stated all along we will only make 4 signings in this window, i just hope it’s a, striker and a defender but 2 central defenders are needed not just one.
Itās encouraging if Paqueta has the same āone monthā release clause arrangement as kudus