The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't think it's very clear cut at all. Wouldn't shock me if he's guilty, his defence seems to revolve around him being a thick as pig **** old man who can't tie his shoelaces, and the fact that he repeatedly lied on tape
 
Who knows. I'm certainly no lawyer but if the prosecutions case does simply rest around that interview, I'm not sure how a jury could find him guilty.
 
BaZ87 said:
DM, you do realise the prosecution openly state the the case rests on whether Redknapp got that money as a bonus for the Crouch deal or whether it was an investment?

You've not again wrote a whole lot about something you don't understand?
Click to expand...

Is this another one of those times your entire argument is, "DM is posting without knowing what he's talking about", while at the same time talking out of your own arse?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/07/harry-redknapp-jury-considers-verdict

The case was started as a TAX FRAUD case, there are questions to the legality of it being a "bung" for the Crouch deal, not many though as its perfectly legal to receive payment for a player transfer being done. The question started and mostly has been, did he deliberately not pay tax on it or not.

In fact, just about every single last story describes it as a tax evasion case, Redknapp in ALL reports has been discussed as given evidence over if he paid tax on it, Redknapp was asked why he didn't pay tax on it, Mandaric was asked if tax was ever paid on it. Tax has been involved throughout the whole case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/07/harry-redknapp-jury-considers-verdict

The jury trying Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric on charges of tax evasion has been instructed to ignore the "deeply emotive" subject of football as it retires to consider its verdict.
Click to expand...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f8ab6fc-4db4-11e1-b96c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lhtTO9G8

Harry Redknapp was accused by prosecutors of telling “a pack of lies” to a jury hearing his tax evasion case yesterday.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jury-out-in-harry-redknapp-trial-6639139.html

Jurors at the Harry Redknapp tax evasion trial retired today to consider their verdicts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DM, it's difficult not to be rude to you at times. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The prosecution openly stated in their summation that the case rests on whether the jury believe the money was paid to Redknapp as a bonus for the Crouch deal.

edit: Even the judge mentioned to the jury before he sent them out to decide on the verdict, they have to decide what the Monaco payment for.

edit2: Here's the exact wording of what the prosecution asked the Jury to consider in it's summation:

Did it arise from employment income? Was it a bonus?, If [it was a] bonus, [it] should have been taxed.
Click to expand...

Who's talking out of their arse DM? :p
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
The case was started as a TAX FRAUD case, there are questions to the legality of it being a "bung" for the Crouch deal, not many though as its perfectly legal to receive payment for a player transfer being done. The question started and mostly has been, did he deliberately not pay tax on it or not.

In fact, just about every single last story describes it as a tax evasion case, Redknapp in ALL reports has been discussed as given evidence over if he paid tax on it, Redknapp was asked why he didn't pay tax on it, Mandaric was asked if tax was ever paid on it. Tax has been involved throughout the whole case.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if you paid attention to what BaZ actually said, you'd realise that simply having the money in his account isn't proof of guilt, which is what you tried to suggest when you said:

drunkenmaster said:
Well there is also that other TINY piece of evidence...... the 190+k and the fact he actually didn't pay tax on it? ;)
Click to expand...

The evasion part of this tax evasion case only concerns whether he got that money as a paid bonus from Portsmouth FC to its employee.

I'm with BaZ here, I think he'll get off. His actual 5% of the Crouch deal was paid above board, and this payment can't really be proven. As dodgy as it looks to have a Monaco account in your dog's name with payments from your former boss in it, it's not actually illegal.

That said, what kind of football club, that supposedly at that point wasn't really in any financial trouble, gives its manager a bonus for every player he sells? That's just absolutely asking for trouble. The more you scratch at the underbelly of football, the more sordid it really is.
 
Goodie said:
again? huths appeal was only turned down hours ago?
Click to expand...

He means the age old how can the FA possibly fail to overturn a Red card when they had the cheek to appeal Rooney's ban argument.

And for what's it's worth I agree. I've lost count of how many times of the past 24 hours people's arguments on this forum has descended into shifting the focus on Rooney or Man Utd :o
 
It's good to know that when I was talking about this place having a serious lack of a sense of humour recently, thinking about you when I posted wasn't misguided at all.

I shall stop now before I get suspended. Or rolleyesed, because that would probably cut even deeper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom