✍️ Welcome Lucas Paquetá

[WestSamToo]

Anyone know how long this hearing lasts?

And then how long until they expect to hear the outcome?

It may have been in the previous pages but bugger if I can find it.

I'm sure I read it was due to start on Mon 17 March and last for three weeks (which seems a long time).

I doubt we'll hear any titbits as to how it's going until it's all done.

[Ironing Board]

I think he will get 8-9 months ban from football. This would cover rest of the season and start of next, back by November under the understanding he doesn't appeal thus saving face for the FA.

Anything longer and he will go to CSA

I think he’ll get a ban which is effectively a lifetime ban as a professional. They don’t take this stuff lightly at all.

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

Good post, Crouchy.

It's very easy to imagine a slightly pissed uncle of a Brazilian superstar trying to curry favour with the lads in the bar by suggesting that he had some inside-knowledge. All of a sudden, 40 or 50 have lumped on, the odds have gone down and Paqueta gets a booking. Uncle Tolentino tries the same trick a few weeks later and suddenly the whole of Paqueta island are all whatsapping each other.

I mean, he may well be guilty, but for me I've never seen him play a game of football where it didn't look like he was actually trying to get himself booked. I think that's just how he plays.

If that's what happened then he will be fine.

If he sent WhatsApp messages (even if the content is gone) it's a bit trickier.

[westlondonhammer]

I read something recently that said that whilst there were unusual betting patterns on him those games there are regularly unusual betting patterns on him, so they may not be unusual for him.

I'd hope that was the case.

If it was the case though, I am not sure it would have got this far tbh. It's too much of an obvious defense...

[MB]

Good post, Crouchy.

It's very easy to imagine a slightly pissed uncle of a Brazilian superstar trying to curry favour with the lads in the bar by suggesting that he had some inside-knowledge. All of a sudden, 40 or 50 have lumped on, the odds have gone down and Paqueta gets a booking. Uncle Tolentino tries the same trick a few weeks later and suddenly the whole of Paqueta island are all whatsapping each other.

I mean, he may well be guilty, but for me I've never seen him play a game of football where it didn't look like he was actually trying to get himself booked. I think that's just how he plays.

In which case decent money would have gone on matches where he wasn't booked. That, to the best of our knowledge, it only went on matches when he was booked is why there is a case to answer

Pissed up uncle with a crystal ball...

[Doc H Ball]

My bet is that although the algorithm sets the hare running, the case will turn on the thrown away mobile phone.

[kaisersose]

Indeed.

The *largest* single bet was reportedly £400. Absolute peanuts for Paqueta himself and not even a rounding error for an international betting firm.

The problem is that when every single bet on a single player getting a booking comes from a small island with the same name as you, it doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to work out there's an issue...

This sums it up perfectly. For all the guesses as what evidence there is or isn't, if this scenario does not arouse suspicion then what would.

[flaneur]

I read something recently that said that whilst there were unusual betting patterns on him those games there are regularly unusual betting patterns on him, so they may not be unusual for him.

How unusual might be an important question. I hope his defence team have consulted a good Bayesian statistician. Unless he is guilty of course.

[simonirons]

The smart thing to do would be to lump bets on him at a later date. - even after it was announced he was under investigation. - It would have blown the whole thing out the water.

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

The smart thing to do would be to lump bets on him at a later date. - even after it was announced he was under investigation. - It would have blown the whole thing out the water.

How?

[Ozza]

As far as I can tell

New beltway accounts opened up just before a match on an island in Brazil which shares the same name as our playe

The only bets are on that player getting a yellow card

He gets his yellow

One of the people betting on this is his uncle who is also part of another spot fixing investigation with another Brazilian player for yellow cards

There’s someone in this gang who had spilled their beans to the authorities about our player telling his uncle he’d give him a birthday present which then seemed to initiate the new accounts being setup

Our players phone once given back to him disappears after he was told to keep it in case of further investigation?

[Ben]

I'd hope that was the case.

If it was the case though, I am not sure it would have got this far tbh. It's too much of an obvious defense...

That would be the only way he gets off imo.

I know when I used to bet, you’d have group of mates and think you all know something better than others, a player who always gets a card in away games, a team score late etc and you probably all bet on it together.

On the island they could all be “Lucas always gets yellows especially when they are losing” etc so they all get on it


That only applies if there were multiple bets from them when he didn’t get a card though

[Turns to Stone]

In which case decent money would have gone on matches where he wasn't booked. That, to the best of our knowledge, it only went on matches when he was booked is why there is a case to answer

Pissed up uncle with a crystal ball...

I suppose it depends on how many times it happened and the balance of probability. Let's say it happened 10 times, and he got booked in 7 games, I would say that it's going to be a real balance. If it happened 4 or 5 times and he got booked every time, he's bang in trouble.

And as mentioned, if there are Whatsapp messages, then he's toast. But it seems odd that he would be protesting his innocence so much, if then at court the QC reads out a text saying

"Ola Unc, lump big on a booking this weekend. I ****ing hate Villa"

[dakeane]

Let's all bet on a yellow against Wolves

[simonirons]

How?

I read most of these accounts were set up, placed a single bet and not used since. - So that account reactivating a month later and losing a small sum would add weight to its irregularities, provided he doesn't get booked. - Which is quite an ask.

[Loadsa2000]

I read most of these accounts were set up, placed a single bet and not used since. - So that account reactivating a month later and losing a small sum would add weight to its irregularities, provided he doesn't get booked. - Which is quite an ask.

could you imagine if he then went and got booked again

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

I read most of these accounts were set up, placed a single bet and not used since. - So that account reactivating a month later and losing a small sum would add weight to its irregularities, provided he doesn't get booked. - Which is quite an ask.

I would think the odd pattern would have been picked up by then and reactivating might be difficult.

What would have impacted was a previous history of losing bets before the 4 that got flagged up. Even bets on other players to get booked that lost would help.

New accounts set up to place bets on the same player in quite an unusual market and they all win. If that's what happened it looks pretty iffy - just to add that wouldn't be enough to link paqueta to any scheme though.

[officeboy]

I had a friend who used to get tips in various ways for horse racing - and some of his favoured bookies closed down his account because they did not like his betting activity

I "lent" him my account with one of those companies and they closed the account after just 2 horse racing bets, both losing bets, just because of the movement in the odds on the horses that he was betting on

I doubt if many of the people who opened accounts to be on him getting booked would have been allowed to place any losing bets on him (or anything else) afterwards at Betway - or they would play the "maximum stake allowed is £1" thing whenever they try to place a bet

[Turns to Stone]

If there are no whatsapp messages, and no admission of guilt, and it's purely based off betting patterns. It's a big call to ban someone for life isn't it?

[Swiss Pauli]

If there are no whatsapp messages, and no admission of guilt, and it's purely based off betting patterns. It's a big call to ban someone for life isn't it?

Yep. But there's also the non-cooperation charge, potentially relating to the mobile which may have had incriminating WhatsApps on it.

If it looks fishy, but they don't have him bang to rights then a big slap on the wrist for not cooperating might be a possible fall-back position.