The mancityfans.net football forum

The Original Special One wrote:

BobKowalski wrote:In fairness I would have found them not guilty as well. All HMRC had was one dormant account with no activity and for a relatively poxy amount. They had no paper trail demonstrating systematic intent to defraud the taxman over a period of time. The evidence they had hinged on a taped phone conversation with Beasley/NOTW which Redknapp freely admitted was a pack of lies to get rid of them. Relying on a taped conversation with the NOTW as the main piece of evidence of Redknapp's intent to evade tax was never likely to win a case when you had bugger all else to back it up.

Personally I think the case was a joke and a waste of tax payers money (oh the irony).

But why set up the account in the first place?
And travel to Monaco to do so?
And how come the money was 'paid back' only after questions were being asked about it?

And how much of a coincidence was it that the amount in question just happens to be quite similar to the 5% that Harry lost from the Crouch transfer?

He's obviously guilty, but resting on NOTW after their recent public image catastrophe (no matter how right the interview was) was a stupid move. Still, Harry has been shown to be quite the illiterate scumbag who could care less about Portsmouth's fortunes right before they went into administration. If I was a Pompy fan, Harry would be close to public enemy #1

The Original Special One wrote:

BobKowalski wrote:In fairness I would have found them not guilty as well. All HMRC had was one dormant account with no activity and for a relatively poxy amount. They had no paper trail demonstrating systematic intent to defraud the taxman over a period of time. The evidence they had hinged on a taped phone conversation with Beasley/NOTW which Redknapp freely admitted was a pack of lies to get rid of them. Relying on a taped conversation with the NOTW as the main piece of evidence of Redknapp's intent to evade tax was never likely to win a case when you had bugger all else to back it up.

Personally I think the case was a joke and a waste of tax payers money (oh the irony).

But why set up the account in the first place?
And travel to Monaco to do so?
And how come the money was 'paid back' only after questions were being asked about it?

Vanity. Stupidity. Milan pressured him into it. Intention was to use it to avoid tax but never used it beyond the initial deposit. Any number of reasons so take you pick; but it is not illegal to set up an off shore bank account so the fact he had one proves nothing. You can set up an account without leaving the country so travelling to Monaco again proves nothing initself except perhaps you fancied a couple of days in the sun. The sum deposited was undoubtedly compensation for the lost 5% but if it is done as an 'investment' or 'loan' or anything other than 'income' then its not taxable. I do think it was compensation for losing out on the transfer deal but you need more than a taped conversation with Beasley to prove it.

The fact that the account was dormant and showed little to no activity; that Redknapp volunteered the account to the authorities; that the amount was relatively small; that there was no real evidence to say this was taxable income means the chance of a successful prosecution was about zero. Other than the fact that he was well known I can't think of one solid reason for bringing a court case. Usually it would have been resolved around the table with a proportion been paid to the taxman as part of a negotiated settlement with no admission of guilt.

Total waste of time apart from the comedy value.

BobKowalski wrote:Total waste of time apart from the comedy value.

Spot on, totally agree ... someone else can do Terry's trial, I can't be arsed

bigblue wrote:

The Original Special One wrote:

BobKowalski wrote:In fairness I would have found them not guilty as well. All HMRC had was one dormant account with no activity and for a relatively poxy amount. They had no paper trail demonstrating systematic intent to defraud the taxman over a period of time. The evidence they had hinged on a taped phone conversation with Beasley/NOTW which Redknapp freely admitted was a pack of lies to get rid of them. Relying on a taped conversation with the NOTW as the main piece of evidence of Redknapp's intent to evade tax was never likely to win a case when you had bugger all else to back it up.

Personally I think the case was a joke and a waste of tax payers money (oh the irony).

But why set up the account in the first place?
And travel to Monaco to do so?
And how come the money was 'paid back' only after questions were being asked about it?

And how much of a coincidence was it that the amount in question just happens to be quite similar to the 5% that Harry lost from the Crouch transfer?

He's obviously guilty, but resting on NOTW after their recent public image catastrophe (no matter how right the interview was) was a stupid move. Still, Harry has been shown to be quite the illiterate scumbag who could care less about Portsmouth's fortunes right before they went into administration. If I was a Pompy fan, Harry would be close to public enemy #1

Very much doubt that HR reads this forum and there will be plenty more alluding to the same point but may I advise caution against questioning his guilt. A court has found that he is not guilty so you are in theory at least opening yourself to a charge of defamation, libel or slander (not sure which!)

Triffic ... the innocent ones speach ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16925280

Even so, by his own admission, he is a liar.

BobKowalski wrote:

The Original Special One wrote:

BobKowalski wrote:In fairness I would have found them not guilty as well. All HMRC had was one dormant account with no activity and for a relatively poxy amount. They had no paper trail demonstrating systematic intent to defraud the taxman over a period of time. The evidence they had hinged on a taped phone conversation with Beasley/NOTW which Redknapp freely admitted was a pack of lies to get rid of them. Relying on a taped conversation with the NOTW as the main piece of evidence of Redknapp's intent to evade tax was never likely to win a case when you had bugger all else to back it up.

Personally I think the case was a joke and a waste of tax payers money (oh the irony).

But why set up the account in the first place?
And travel to Monaco to do so?
And how come the money was 'paid back' only after questions were being asked about it?

Vanity. Stupidity. Milan pressured him into it. Intention was to use it to avoid tax but never used it beyond the initial deposit. Any number of reasons so take you pick; but it is not illegal to set up an off shore bank account so the fact he had one proves nothing. You can set up an account without leaving the country so travelling to Monaco again proves nothing initself except perhaps you fancied a couple of days in the sun. The sum deposited was undoubtedly compensation for the lost 5% but if it is done as an 'investment' or 'loan' or anything other than 'income' then its not taxable. I do think it was compensation for losing out on the transfer deal but you need more than a taped conversation with Beasley to prove it.

The fact that the account was dormant and showed little to no activity; that Redknapp volunteered the account to the authorities; that the amount was relatively small; that there was no real evidence to say this was taxable income means the chance of a successful prosecution was about zero. Other than the fact that he was well known I can't think of one solid reason for bringing a court case. Usually it would have been resolved around the table with a proportion been paid to the taxman as part of a negotiated settlement with no admission of guilt.

Total waste of time apart from the comedy value.

So basically, unless you sign a form saying 'please tax me on this money as it's a bung for services rendered', you can stash hundreds of thousands in offshore back accounts & nobody can do fuck all about it ?

You don't even have to bother putting it on your tax form in the bit where it asks you to put it on your tax form. You don't even have to tell your accountant or the police about it when asked, just stuff it in a vault in fucking Monaco & no problem.

I wonder what the outcome would be if I got one of the people I work for to bung me two hundred fucking grand & said nowt to the Customs or police about it when investigated. I'm sure a jury would also send me off on the piss wih no penalties whatsoever.

I'm fed up reading about the cunt. Can we close this thread now please?


Please?

Hasn't Twitchy broken any FA rules in all this? Is he completely teflon coated?

nah not at all. just blame our arab owners they aren't kosher enough....

at least i won't have to watch the demise of english international football at the hands of this tosser in june

come on city .... ket's get that title under our belt!

BobKowalski wrote:Vanity. Stupidity. Milan pressured him into it. Intention was to use it to avoid tax but never used it beyond the initial deposit. Any number of reasons so take you pick; but it is not illegal to set up an off shore bank account so the fact he had one proves nothing. You can set up an account without leaving the country so travelling to Monaco again proves nothing initself except perhaps you fancied a couple of days in the sun. The sum deposited was undoubtedly compensation for the lost 5% but if it is done as an 'investment' or 'loan' or anything other than 'income' then its not taxable. I do think it was compensation for losing out on the transfer deal but you need more than a taped conversation with Beasley to prove it.

The fact that the account was dormant and showed little to no activity; that Redknapp volunteered the account to the authorities; that the amount was relatively small; that there was no real evidence to say this was taxable income means the chance of a successful prosecution was about zero. Other than the fact that he was well known I can't think of one solid reason for bringing a court case. Usually it would have been resolved around the table with a proportion been paid to the taxman as part of a negotiated settlement with no admission of guilt.

Total waste of time apart from the comedy value.

I haven't followed all the articles but wasn't the money only 'repaid' after questions were being asked about it, or after the Beasley interview, or after some investigation or other was being launched?
That would add weight to the taped conversation with Beasley as it was an obvious trigger.
Ex-Irish PM, Bertie Ahern claims he got what he described as 'dig outs' from about 20 alleged 'friends' about 20 years ago to explain away monies he used to buy property: he only 'repaid' the money when his property and other purchases came to light in a Tribunal of Enquiry.
Some of these 'friends' stated that they were never friends of his
I think he might have had to pay 'gift tax' and penalties on some or all of this money
(whatever wasn't repaid)

If it was all very innocent there would be no reason to 'repay it', or certainly not at either of those times

QQ: Where has the money gone now, has Mandaric took it all back?

Beefymcfc wrote:QQ: Where has the money gone now, has Mandaric took it all back?

Funny if he takes the england job now after stating i that bbc interview how much the spurs fans mean to him. Will people start seeing his true egotistic nature then? i doubt it :-(

RIP Twitchy

#PrayForTwitchy

I'm bored, feel free to help me get it trending

Didn't 'arry at one time manage the current bottom three in the Premier League ?