If he's got the bank account, the payments have gone there and he tries to plead not guilty he'll probably go to jail, as pretty much everyone else who does it, for much smaller amounts, generally do. My dad got done in the mid 80's for not paying tax. He admitted it to them (they didn't come after him) and an accountant showed his books that he actually owed no tax, but they gave him a £50,000 fine, which was more than he'd earned in the untaxed period. HMRC are probably the worst 'law enforcement' to get on the wrong side of, and Redknapp is a high profile case envolved in an 'industry' the HMRC really want to hammer, so they'll probably throw the book at him in the hope it shakes a few more apples from the tree and footballers/managers/owners/clubs decide to start paying their taxes like everyone else. He will be judged by 12 people who will either see a nice bloke being victimised or they'll see a rich 'fat cat' trying to hide his ill-gotten gains in an overseas tax haven while public services get cut.
HOWEVER. My friends mum was on the jury for an HMRC case against a non-league semi pro side, most of the board were in the dock for tax offenses. She told me the case was a total waste of time and tax-payers money as it was obvious to all that they hadn't done anything illegal, it's just the way football was run. They walked.
Ignored by the Ignorant
Fanaticism: A belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports.
Jury told that when Redknapp was director of football at Portsmouth his contract entitled him to 10% of net profit on any transfers.
When Redknapp moved from director of football to manager in May 2002 his profit on transfers reduced to 5%.
Jury told example of Peter Crouch. Bought for £1.25 million and sold for £4.5 million.
Prosecution say Crouch sold just 9 days after new Redknapp contract reduced his share from 10% to 5%.
Prosecution say Redknapp's share of Crouch transfer was £115,473. Would have been double if contract not changed.
Prosecution allege that Redknapp instead received secret payment from Mandaric and in April 2002 Redknapp flew to Monaco to open account.
Monaco account not in Redknapp's name. Was called "Rosie 47". Prosecution say this was combination of his dog's name and his year of birth.
https://twitter.com/Pearcesport
Awards:
Ken Dodd was found not guiltyOriginally Posted by Hoddle Is A God
Do you know what the word nemesis means ? A righteous inflection of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent,personified in this case by an 'orrible ****.......Me!
Rosie47
HahahAhahaha
Going down going down going down
And not in the relegated way
It's not racist, It's how they talk, init.
What did you think about his defence?
CP's generous attempt to get us to like the Spud nickname.
It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low - Bill Nicholson
Closed for the day, the prosecution seems to have brought some interesting things to light, but I still can't believe that Redknapp would have continued pleading innocence through all this unless he has some very very concrete evidence which proves him so.
lol
who knows about a custodial sentence,but one things for sure,he wont be England manager if proven..good luck against watford..should be a hatfull .
Obviously Spurs fans will be defending him to the hilt and opposition fans will be hoping he is found guilty. Basically we should just let the courts do their job. If Harry has been up to no good then rightly he should go to jail, and I would imagine face punishment from the FA as it appears to be some kind of bung.
If he didn't do it you have nothing to worry about and he will be back at training in a fortnight.
Or he didn't know the full extent of their evidence against him and he thought he could bluff it out. Evidence against him is fairly strong, personally I think he's going down, football is dirty, full of brown envelopes and after Portsmouth went bust owing millions to HMRC they have had a hard-on to get someone, as Redknapp has always had the aura of an 'Arthur Daly' about him, he makes an ideal target, and lets face it, he looks guilty.
Last edited by Miggins; 23/01/2012 at 05:14 PM.
Ignored by the Ignorant
Fanaticism: A belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports.
Not how it works. Prosecution have to disclose all evidence against someone before coming to trial. I would imagine Harry has a fairly good brief, so they will believe that they have a chance. Just wait till all the evidence is shown.
CP's generous attempt to get us to like the Spud nickname.
It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low - Bill Nicholson
Uneventful in my eyes.
If your £1m an hour lawyer says "I'll get you off", I think you might believe him. Perhaps you have no choice but to believe him. I've pleaded not guilty to driving offences I knew I'd committed because I knew they couldn't have evidence they said they did. It happens. Could Harry be that sure?
Answer me this Harry-haters: what possible good would it do by locking him up? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Debt to society? Danger to the public?
Prisons are full, so I'm told.
well they aren't going to go after someone who looks innocent are they, muppet.Now there's a thought; let's prosecute everyone and anyone that looks guilty
Ignored by the Ignorant
Fanaticism: A belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports.
Think you should be more careful with your language Miggins. The term 'looks' is very ambiguous. Your first comment implies that Harry has the physical resemblance of a criminal, whereas I believe what you mean is that the evidence so far appears to suggest that he is guilty. Although, it would do, seeing as we have only heard the prosecution
If found guilty andgets sent down dont worry theres always Neil Warnock
Pass.
Fairly sure the prosecution's case won't stick. He'll get fined on a technicality at worst. Similar to presenting a tax return on Feb 1st...
HMRC always go for the kill. Harry (and Mandaric) wouldn't be pleading not guilty if he wasn't very sure of what he's doing.
Now there's a thought; let's prosecute everyone and anyone that looks guilty
Why not? Worked with Lindsey Chamberlain, Barry George and Amanda Knox, didn't it?
Even Spurs fans must admit that this looks a dodgy as it comes ? Secret payments into Monaco bank account set up in the name of his dog to pay in bungs from transfer dealings ???
If he is found guilty, I think he's definitely looking at a custodial sentence. Even if he escapes prison, can Spurs still stick by a convicted criminal, given that the nature of the crimes have brought his reputation in the game into serious question?
No wonder he reacted the way did when that MOTD reporter called him a Wheeler dealer
Rosie's stitched him right up.Even Spurs fans must admit that this looks a dodgy as it comes ? Secret payments into Monaco bank account set up in the name of his dog to pay in bungs from transfer dealings ???
If he is found guilty, I think he's definitely looking at a custodial sentence. Even if he escapes prison, can Spurs still stick by a convicted criminal, given that the nature of the crimes have brought his reputation in the game into serious question?
No wonder he reacted the way did when that MOTD reporter called him a Wheeler dealer
'Arry's 'innocent
Once known as Schteffen
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks