So the bookies records are vital.

Doesn't matter what they are, the electronic data held on each punter
will need to be correlated and matched against booking results.

Luck, within reasonable parameters, or a coup or series of coups.

It doesn't matter that they have to recycle winning on slots or bingo
or jump through hoops to get winnings it's simple data records that
need to be analysed by 3rd party.

The problem with the data will be that Betway can hand pick what data they show to support their argument. If it is only that bookie and no other bookie, then I'm deeply suspicious, as it also happens to be the one bookie that I completely don't trust.  I would hope, if he is found guilty, there is other evidence from other sources.

Add in also that the other yellow card was in the 4th minute of injury time and that there was a very good chance he'd have been substituted by then.  And then add in that the accusations are possibly only from Betway.  Still I don't know, but if he or his lawyers want my help .....

They've coughed up files to support their evidence.  There's no way it's full disclosure or even close imo.  You don't what info is there that isn't coughed up.  Taken 15 years and hundreds of millions for the PO to cough up files.

It's got nowt to do with post office.

It's accounts punting on paqueta yellow cards.

I've no idea what evidence shows but clearly
Prima facie it needs to be analysed for luck or a coup.

I'm looking at 22/23.  8 of the 10 most yellow cards were given to midfielders, 7 to central midfielders, soo it's the position that receives the most yellows.  There's an average of about 4 per game.  so let's say 5/1 approx if you start.  He got five in the PL that season from 26 starts and 2 sub appearances.  About average.  At 5/1 per match played there is only a 13% chance that he only received 2 genuine yellow cards.  (just worked it out)

I'm looking at 22/23.  8 of the 10 most yellow cards were given to midfielders, 7 to central midfielders, soo it's the position that receives the most yellows.  There's an average of about 4 per game.  so let's say 5/1 approx if you start.  He got five in the PL that season from 26 starts and 2 sub appearances.  About average.  At 5/1 per match played there is only a 13% chance that he only received 2 genuine yellow cards.  (just worked it out)

This doesn't mean that he isn't guilty ofc.  But as evidence it makes it less likely.

Why would Paqueta risk losing his multi million £ career?

Why would tonali?

Why would Toney?

Who knows if he did or did not.

Analysis of the bets will be informative

I thought you made money on betting?

The statistical analysis is did the bets beat the
expectation, not the bookings beating expectation. Anybody can cover
by getting average amount of bookings, but if the backers
are winning,... And are related by geography are
they lucky or is the luck outside of bounds.

Are the number of backers growing as word gets out
that somebody knows he's getting a card and keeps
getting it right.

Could be a money tree type guesser on good run

The evidence will be there, one way or another.

Well it suggests it needs further investigation.

If árvore de dinheiro lived on paqueta island and
had a good run with his tips that could explain it too.

These Brazilian lads usually support their villages by buying them a goat they can fck and eat or eat and fck depending on their preferences. Perhaps if he has his time again, he'll plump for the goat.

https://www.hammers.news/news/monumental-lucas-paqueta-trial-twist-as-fa-push-for-deal-but-west-ham-refuse-to-budge/

It is among the longest trial periods in the FA’s history as the Hammers playmaker fights to save his career.

Ahead of the trial it was reported the Football Association are pushing to ban Paqueta for life.

West Ham’s £51m record signing has always maintained his innocence.
What next for Paqueta’s FA trial?

‘The Godfather of sports law’, renowned barrister Nick De Marco KC, is part of the team defending Paqueta.

De Marco told West Ham he expects Paqueta to be absolved after week two.

Earlier this week Hammers News exclusively revealed things were looking better and better for West Ham’s Paqueta.

That’s after a gambling expert witness called to give evidence ‘had a really rough time and was not good’.

And a statistician was called to give evidence West Ham and the defence felt confident would ‘tip the whole case’ in Paqueta’s favour.

Now there has been a monumental Paqueta trial twist as the FA push for a deal but West Ham refuse to budge.

Speaking ahead of West Ham’s game against Bournemouth, manager Graham Potter broke his silence on the Paqueta case, as reported on the club’s website.

Potter revealed he had a sit-down chat with the Brazilian in which he declared he loves playing for West Ham and is not being affected by the ongoing case.

Now we might know why.

A top senior source close to the case has revealed the latest on the trial to Hammers News.

And the balance of power seems to be shifting in West Ham’s favour.
West Ham refuse to budge over Paqueta

“So it seems the case is to now be adjourned to resume some time in June,” the top source exclusively told Hammers News.

“The FA are looking to strike deal.

“But West Ham won’t accept any suspension, which the FA want.

“The data guy’s evidence went well I am told.”

The statistician the source refers to reportedly pointed to hundreds of instances that Paqueta committed fouls which did not result in a booking – but which normally would in the Premier League.

West Ham’s refusal to accept a deal from the FA on what it’s safe to assume would be a reduced suspension is telling.

It suggests the Hammers and Paqueta’s legal team are growing in confidence the £150k per week star will be admonished.

The major update comes after it emerged West Ham and Paqueta could launch a counter case against the FA, headed up by Mark Bullingham, for millions in compensation if he is cleared.

Any news....?

Verdict due

Then they can do citeh...

Taking a while to release...

With the money involved in the Prem, anything goes

Nick De Marco KC

I cannot say how happy I was to receive the news that all the spot fixing charges against Lucas Paquetá have been dismissed after a long 2 years.
 
Having got to know Lucas during the process, and spent much time with the evidence, I am delighted the correct verdict has been reached. Doing a case for an individual, especially one as dedicated and talented as Lucas, whose whole career and life depends on the outcome, can be very stressful at times. But when the final result is the right one it makes it all worthwhile.
 
That’s why for me this is probably one of the most important cases I have ever worked on, and one I shall never forget. I’m very grateful for the patience of the Regulatory Commission and the support of my great legal team, especially barrister Kendrah Potts and solicitor Alastair Campbell from Level, as well as the unwavering support of West Ham United throughout, and of course to Lucas and his advisers, for their trust.
 
We await reading the written reasons when they are published, and apart from sharing my happiness and thanks, I can’t comment any further.

As I said initially.  The accuser was Betway and they can't be trusted.  When I looked at the evidence, it didn't stack up and I did contact the West Ham Chief Executive on Linkedin, with my thoughts.  No surprise that they never responded to an effectively anonymous person, and they probably reached the same conclusions as I did that the evidence didn't stack up.  It's a disgrace really

The irony is West Ham were sponsored by Betway at the time. Hence they are no longer club sponsors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/crmewl2x7pmo

West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta is considering suing the Football Association after he was cleared of spot-fixing.

Sources close to the 28-year-old have told BBC Sport that the player's lawyers are currently "considering all options".

The Brazilian was charged by the FA in May 2024 for allegedly getting booked deliberately for the "improper purpose of affecting the betting market".

Paqueta was cleared on four counts of supposed spot-fixing by an independent commission in July 2025.

Written reasons detailing the commission's findings were published on Wednesday, calling into question the FA's decision not to call in independent expertise on the key area of betting data.

Paqueta's legal team is now analysing the case and considering all options in response, including suing the FA.

The FA's investigation into Paqueta began in August 2023 - nine months before the Brazilian was eventually charged.

The announcement of the investigation led to the collapse of the Brazilian's £80m move to Manchester City.

The commission noted that both Paqueta and West Ham would have "received substantial sums running into the tens of millions of pounds" and that "both the player and West Ham reserve all of their rights in that regard".

The FA, which has confirmed it will not be appealing against the decision, has been contacted for comment.

A 314-page document prepared by Sports Resolutions - an independent and not-for-profit dispute resolution service - provided detail of the case.

A range of information - from former West Ham manager David Moyes' views on the yellow cards to conversations Paqueta's hairdresser mother Cristiane had in a salon back in Brazil - is covered by the commission's written findings.

The FA claimed 542 bets totalling £46,758.83 were staked by 253 different bettors with a collective return of £213,703.81, reflecting a net profit of £166,944.98.

However, the commission noted that the FA's case rested "entirely on circumstantial evidence" and the decision to tender evidence on the betting data from one of its own employees, betting integrity investigator Tom Astley, was an "oddity" and "an obvious flaw".

"In the commission's view, on what the FA has accepted was the most important element of its case, it simply did not call independent expert evidence," the commission said in the written findings.

"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."

In his evidence, Astley said the betting on Paqueta "appears highly orchestrated".

The commission said the FA's legal counsel subsequently disagreed with Astley's assessment and was "thus abandoning, without further explanation, its case on orchestration".

The FA said 27 of the 253 bettors could be linked to the player, but Paqueta maintained he only had a real relationship with five of the people.

He said he did not speak to the five regularly, and even then, rarely about football.

The commission concluded that an analysis of the betting data was not "illustrative of a spot-fix" and added it was "in many respects inconsistent with a spot-fix, but consistent with alternative explanations".

Nick de Marco, part of Paqueta's legal team, said: "I remain delighted for my client Lucas, cleared of all the serious charges of spot-fixing.

"The decision is understood to be the longest sports-related judgment ever issued in the world - a reflection of how serious the case was, the amount of evidence deployed in what was the biggest case in the FA's history."

Ex-West Ham manager Moyes, now in charge of Everton, and former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg gave evidence on Paqueta's behalf from a performance perspective.

Moyes said he had "re-watched the yellow card incidents closely" and "consider them to be entirely within the normal range of actions for this player".

Clattenburg disagreed with findings presented by Stats Perform Integrity Services (SPIS) in support of the FA's case, and felt two of the four yellow cards should not have been shown.

"Each challenge is comfortably within the sphere of things that happen multiple times every match, both individually and when taken in conjunction with each other," Clattenburg said.

The commission concluded there was "nothing in Paqueta's on-field conduct" which advanced the FA's case that he had deliberately sought to be booked in any of the four games.

The commission found the FA's inability to locate one item of data from either of the player's mobile phones that even mentioned betting or had any connection to one of the four games related to the charges was a significant point in favour of Paqueta's defence and indicated he was being truthful about his lack of interest in gambling.

The FA accepted it could not be proved Paqueta had deliberately deleted any messages or contacts.

More than 300 deleted messages were recovered, none of which had anything to do with spot-fixing.

The commission said this was "a salient reminder to the commission not to jump to conclusions and the dangers of drawing adverse inferences from events unknown".