It's posters like you that are the joke. You weren't at the trial, you know nothing about the case, you just think he's a bit dodgy so must be guilty. Well he's not guilty, the jury has been pretty quick to unanimously determine they'd done nothing wrong.
Redknapp and the jury's out (merged) ** NOT GUILTY**
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
BensGrandad
New member
5% of £8m is £400k a lot more than £30k.
fly high
Well-known member
Coleby1007
New member
Rubbish, hes guilty as they come. My old man was a tax inspector for 20 years, said the case couldnt of been more clear cut.
Oh. Quick, better phone up the CPS and tell them then.
Well no, as he was found not guilty of an offence. Won't become case law. It's what the judge says that is case law and holds precedent for future cases, and even if this was the case and the judge wrote his judgement that made it 'ok' it would most likely get appealed in the court of appeal and therefore override it anyway.
Scoffers
Well-known member
That are not the sums involved BG. The 5% reference is the reduction in his part of the payout. This doesn't reflect how much was paid into his foreign account. The tax payable on that would have been closer to £30k. As is now proven, that was an investment account setup by Mandaric, and not cash for Harry
My 2 cents are;
1) It is fair to assume that your employer deduct the neccessary taxes before paying you a salary.
2) I don't check what bank account my employer use to pay my salary.
3) An off-shore account is not illegal.
With that said, I think that Harry knew what was going on but there is not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.
1) It is fair to assume that your employer deduct the neccessary taxes before paying you a salary.
2) I don't check what bank account my employer use to pay my salary.
3) An off-shore account is not illegal.
With that said, I think that Harry knew what was going on but there is not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.
Coleby1007
New member
Im pretty sure i know more than you regarding tax evasion and have been following the case very closely. What I do know is that for every other tom dick and harry the defence of 'I didnt know i had to declare it, I dont even write my own team sheets' Wouldnt wash.
Not Guilty mate. No chance that he was.
f***ing joke.
Nathan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2010
- 3,767
How did he say the money got into his account, and what was the money for? If it was a investment, then can we all have investments rather than a 'bonus'.
Either way, i bet there will be football managers and chairman up and down the country looking at how they can do the same thing, and save paying tax.
Coleby1007
New member
They can only put the case forward. Its the jury who decide. Quite clearly they have got it wrong. Otherwise please explain to me why he doesnt have to declare it? Or why it took him years to eventually do so, only when he was backed into a corner.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
It's going to shake Edna's faith in the justice system.
This.
Seagull Steve
SWC
So going by your logic, if John Terry is found guilty in July. He must be innocent then.
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
Another wonderful choice of photo from the BBC
Gritt23
New member
Agreed. And that is why it's a very difficult appointment. Club managers are usually good at identifying players to sign, bring in and improve the side. Whereas managers who are good at making the best of what they have at their disposal will have the question mark of whether they can handle the big name players, as they were probably at a club without them, or they would have been the manager signing loads of players.
What always amazes me is how good Germany are at giving it to rookie managers.
You are mugging yourself off now