Forum | General Discussion

Since receiving his verdict of the betting hearing, Paqman has become a different version of a player, scoring 3 goals in 4 games so far this season.

It was first thought once the verdict was announced that Paqueta wouldn’t be counter-suing the FA as he wanted to resume his ordinary life and go back to playing Football, however, that has now since changed.

Yesterday the 314 page document regarding the case was published, making it the longest case the FA have ever had to deal with, which translates to, making it the most dreary document to read in the entirety of English Football.

The exorbitant amount of information revealed shocking revelations, one of which being, comments from David Moyes and Ex-referee Mark Clattenburg.

Mark would gave support in favour of Lucas Paqueta during his betting case with the FA.
He said some bookings were "unfortunate" or harsh but still within the normal range, and importantly he saw nothing to suggest Paqueta was deliberately chasing cards.

As well as Mark, David Moyes would also give support to Paqueta whilst also inadvertently mocking the FA.

A = Moyesiah
Q = FA

A: Yes, okay, sorry, I just wanted to say that, because I don't see any point in me reading something if it's from people who are only analysts and have no football experience.
Q: All right. All I wanted to do, just glance at the document I've shown you, I think you can see three events there, can you?
A: I can, but again, it's an analyst who has written this -
Q: Mr Moyes, I'll tell you what, I'm going to take it away from you.
A: Please do.
Q: I've tried to help you.
A: Let's talk through the clips. This is my world now".

More was to be said, but that’s hasn’t be disclosed to the public, however, it’s a rather amusing to believe how the remainder of that would go, especially considering there was 4+ incidents to go through.

He might’ve even given them the Moyes post match catchphrase of “I thought the lads [Lucas] played great today!”

However, despite the humorous introduction of Mr Moyes, as well as a helpful referee, the most comical bit would have to be point 103 which read “Accordingly, in the Commission's view, on what The FA have accepted was the most important element of its case, it simply did not call independent expert evidence. Instead, it relies on the evidence of its integrity investigator and asks the Commission to accept that he has shown the impartiality that would have been expected of an independent expert.”

To not call independent expert evidence considering that this was a case based upon exactly that, meant the FA faced a loosing uphill battle before they’d even begun.

And, once evidence had been provided to them through other means, they attempted to dissociate themselves from it! As read in 239.

[239] That The FA sought to disassociate itself from the evidence of Mr Astley is concerning to the Commission. Firstly, there was not, in the Commission's view, any evidential basis for doing so given Mr Astley's evidence was clear. Secondly, Mr Astley was the principal person who had conducted, in meticulous detail, the investigation into the granular betting data and presented it to the Commission as The FA's principal witness on the data. Yet, by saying on this point that it 'disagreed' with its own witness, the Commission's confidence in The FA's case could only be undermined. The clear appearance given to the Commission was that The FA was not altogether certain what case it was presenting against the Player. Although the Commission accepts the point was just one of a number of strands of evidence relating to the betting patterns presented by The FA, in the Commission's view it was nonetheless an important one.

As this statement suggests, and as many suspected, the FA’s persistent delays was due to the fact that they didn’t have a coherent argument that was formulated well enough to win, but in this instance, they hadn’t even formulated a case to compete!

Ultimately this was a disaster for the FA from start to finish, and the fact it took as long as it did has been described by many as ‘ridiculous’.

Lucas Paqueta and West Ham United are now considering to counter sue the FA with the intention that Paqueta was deprived of his move to Manchester City, whilst West Ham have lost out on a monumental transfer fee, which according to the club, has had financial impacts and therefore other action has had to be taken to ensure the club would manage.

From start to finish this saga has been disastrous for all parties involved, but it’s certainly seeming that it’s far from over.

In classic deadline day fashion, West Ham is scrambling to complete deals, but there’s some hope that at least one player will be signed today.

Emerson seems to be making his move to Marseille for an astronomical fee of €1,000,000, as well as Nayef Aguerd, who seems to be heading to Marseille to for £19,500,000! Now that is seriously an astronomical fee.

In light of this news, we’re attempting to replace Cresswell with a younger Cresswell in the form of Charlie from Toulouse.

Other central defenders are being explored, such as Disasi. Igor from Brighton, Ex-Fiorentina, was also discussed, but ultimately the Brazilian decided to go to Crystal Palace.

As well as the exits of Emerson and Aguerd, there were thoughts that Areola could be heading to Galatasaray, but as time goes on, that doesn’t look likely.

The situation of Irving and Guido Rodriguez is tough and predominantly all to do with the agents, not the club wanting to keep them.

That’s enough for the midday guff nonsense, we’ll find out everything in the next 7 hours of the transfer window.