redknapp tax evasion - trial begins january

[Royal Rother]

They seemed to ignore the shadows when giving Venables the job.

[FiNeRaIn]

So just to get this clear for my next tax return. I can just get my employer to put a large amount of money into an overseas account as a gift and I don't have to declare it for tax purposes. Excellent.

Was the money actually brought into the UK though? Or was it sat there untouched still?

[Hoop Blah]

They seemed to ignore the shadows when giving Venables the job.

Only just, and they didn't actually give him all the support and commitment he wanted (they didn't even give him the full job title did they?) and so he didn't stay more than the two years for Euro 96.

A real shame too as, along with Hoddle and Robson, he was the best we've had since Ramsey.

[YateleyRoyal]

lowerwestjnr, they can do what they like.

They want a squeaky clean image. A man who'd been accused of fraud doesn't bring that whiter than white image with him, especially as he's been found not guilty, which doesn't actually mean he didn't do it, just that it couldn't be proven beyound reasonable doubt.

The people in the FA will have a decent idea of what they really think has gone on and whether or not they want to give that person their most high profile job. In the past they've shy'd away from that kind of thing. This time around I think they'll probably ignore it and he'll get the job.

You would think that LWJ would have a reasonable idea about what they can and can't do in court....

[exileinleeds]

...and has been for his entire career in management.

I wonder what he does with it all.

Well it isn't like he would buy property in Southsea...or that a problem with planning consent would be improved by a fire in one of those properties...nor would he be involved in a syndicate developing seafron property which the law states should be 25% affordable housing. It would be unfair if they had to give away so much potential profits so people like Pompey fans can afford to live in the city.

[TBM]

IF the FA can see their way to taking him on with this cloud over him.

Er? what cloud mate, he has been found NOT guilty. The FA can't then go well you were charged wrongly but that doesn't matter we think you are a bad influence.

John Terry hasn't been found guilty yet, but they still took the captaincy off him

[YateleyRoyal]

IF the FA can see their way to taking him on with this cloud over him.

Er? what cloud mate, he has been found NOT guilty. The FA can't then go well you were charged wrongly but that doesn't matter we think you are a bad influence.

John Terry hasn't been found guilty yet, but they still took the captaincy off him

As has been said in other threads, the FA have set precedents for this before, and in any other line of work there is a chance you could be suspended from your job with a pending trial. Why is this any different?

[who are ya?]

The FA will prefer a pathetic yes man that they can arse rape.

Let's give 'Arry a go

[Silver Fox]

John Terry hasn't been found guilty yet, but they still took the captaincy off him

But he's a horrible racist pcunt, whereas 'Arry's a loveable cockernee villainous geezer

[Barry the bird boggler]

Mud sticks though. We lost Venables for less.

[Silver Fox]

The main thing I can ascertain from the TV in the lobby is that the pcunt Oliver Holt is looking a bit like a homeless at the moment

[Cobi]

The FA will prefer a pathetic yes man that they can arse rape.

Let's give 'Arry a go

[Eaststandman]

lowerwestjnr, they can do what they like.

They want a squeaky clean image. A man who'd been accused of fraud doesn't bring that whiter than white image with him, especially as he's been found not guilty, which doesn't actually mean he didn't do it, just that it couldn't be proven beyound reasonable doubt.

The people in the FA will have a decent idea of what they really think has gone on and whether or not they want to give that person their most high profile job. In the past they've shy'd away from that kind of thing. This time around I think they'll probably ignore it and he'll get the job.

I'm confused (as always) in your world then, is he 'guilty or not guilty' will he walk away scot free or will he be punished? if the FA punish him does that mean they know more than the law or that they are more powerful and intuitive?

Perhaps you or the FA should deal with Abu Catarrh'd! (sic)

[Seal]

I think he'll get off.

His lawyers are playing a very clever game where they are triangulating every element of this case between Harry, his accountant and Mandaric.

Be difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.

Also bear in mind this jury will be bored to tears by now. The longer these cases go on, the harder it is to get a conviction from a jury.

Selfishly I want him to get off as he's the best choice for next England manager we have!

1. Did Mr Redknapp set up an offshore account named Rosie47? YES
2. Did Mr Redknapp put money to the value of approx. £300K into this account? YES
3. When did Mr Redknapp declare this account to HMRC? 2 Months AFTER being arrested for tax evasion
4. Did Mr Redknapp pay income tax on the money deposited into this account? NO

Open and shut.

I believe the phrase is "told you so".

[Scylla]

I think he'll get off.

His lawyers are playing a very clever game where they are triangulating every element of this case between Harry, his accountant and Mandaric.

Be difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.

Also bear in mind this jury will be bored to tears by now. The longer these cases go on, the harder it is to get a conviction from a jury.

Selfishly I want him to get off as he's the best choice for next England manager we have!

1. Did Mr Redknapp set up an offshore account named Rosie47? YES
2. Did Mr Redknapp put money to the value of approx. £300K into this account? YES
3. When did Mr Redknapp declare this account to HMRC? 2 Months AFTER being arrested for tax evasion
4. Did Mr Redknapp pay income tax on the money deposited into this account? NO

Open and shut.

I believe the phrase is "told you so".

Juries - Bloody Hell!

[TheMaraudingDog]

I think we all know that Mr Angry hasn't come out of this thread well.

His profession is a tax accountant!

Wouldn't let him anywhere near my books.

[No Fixed Abode]

For somone who can't be arsed to trawl through the whole thread - what did Mr Angry say?

[Hoop Blah]

lowerwestjnr, they can do what they like.

They want a squeaky clean image. A man who'd been accused of fraud doesn't bring that whiter than white image with him, especially as he's been found not guilty, which doesn't actually mean he didn't do it, just that it couldn't be proven beyound reasonable doubt.

The people in the FA will have a decent idea of what they really think has gone on and whether or not they want to give that person their most high profile job. In the past they've shy'd away from that kind of thing. This time around I think they'll probably ignore it and he'll get the job.

I'm confused (as always) in your world then, is he 'guilty or not guilty' will he walk away scot free or will he be punished? if the FA punish him does that mean they know more than the law or that they are more powerful and intuitive?

Perhaps you or the FA should deal with Abu Catarrh'd! (sic)

In the eyes of the law and in the minds of the jury he's not guilty. That means they can't be sure he did anything wrong and so they can't return any other verdict.

That doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong though.

The FA won't be punishing him as such (as far as I know at least) but if they hold this allegation against him then I wouldn't be shocked by it. There is no smoke without fire and although the media seem to be lapping up the Redknapp PR I think most people I've spoken to still think there's something pretty dodgy about Rosie47 and his dirty cash.

Apologies if that's a bit too confusing for you though.

[facaldaqui]

So just to get this clear for my next tax return. I can just get my employer to put a large amount of money into an overseas account as a gift and I don't have to declare it for tax purposes. Excellent.

Being the generous citizen that I am, I am just penning an email to my employer asking that they don't pay me any more. I would instead prefer to work for free and instead receive 4/5ths of my wages as a gift instead. Company saves money, I save money, and I feel good about not robbing my work blind by sitting on the internet for more than half a day every day. Everyone's a winner, Petit Dejeuner!

This is all very well (and I know you're joking), but the company has to pay tax on its income before it pays you. It would need spare assets abroad--as Mandaric has from selling various businesses--in order to give you gifts: it would have to subsidise its wage bill (gift bill) from overseas capital. Mandaric has plenty of spare money splashing about--capital he's built up in the past. On the face of it, if he wants to give Harry some of that money through banking channels such as those in the tax haven of Monaco, he can do so. But we can all guess that the money must have been related to Harry's performance in Mandaric's employ.

Of course, the whole thing stinks, loophole or not--and I expect this is just the thin end of the wedge. Certain pieces of information that emerged during the trial might raise a few suspicions--or at least eyebrows. When you consider Portsmouth's present plight, it is hard to believe the Mandaric/Redknapp regime there was good for the game of football. I wonder how Portsmouth fans feel about Harry taking a cut of transfer profits out of the club to put in his own pocket, for example. On the Venables precedent, I wouldn't let him near the England team.

[Silver Fox]

But of course, the whole thing stinks, loophole or not--and I expect this is just the thin end of the web.

That's why I thought they'd make Redknapp an escape goat