Entertainment For Lively Minds
Redknapp jury out
Posted by Merv on 7 February 2012 - 4:28pm.
The jury in the Redknapp trial have retired to consider their verdict. I believe this means we can now speculate wildly about the likely outcome without fear of being found in contempt of court!
Personally, I think the Revenue have got him bang-to-rights, but the jury might just have fallen for his cockney-geezer schtick and give him a pass. It wouldn't be huge shock if he's spending the next few weeks behind bars, though.
(So overall I'm sitting on the fence, just like a good pundit should!)
- More from Merv.
- Login or register to post comments
-
If found guilty
Will Spurs be needing a new manager?
Inevitable
Hard to see how he wouldn't be immediately fired, surely.
Hope so...
I've a tenner at 9-1 that he'll be the next managerial casualty, so here's hoping Justice and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are the winners.
If guilty
big fine and he will still be Spurs manager in the morning.
If innocent then I will purchase a hat specifically to eat it.
I reckon he will only lose the Spurs job if he goes to prison. Which is unlikely I think.
Agreed.
Even if he did spend a couple of weeks behind bars, I can't see the Spurs board firing 'Arry when they're third in the table only 7 points behind the leader.
George Graham was banned for a year for taking a bung
Surely the FA would take similar steps if Harry is found guilty of tax evasion, especially as it's on football-related income. Hard to see how Spurs can stand by him then.
Merv, Merv, Merv...
we're talking about The FA here. Normal, rational standards do not apply...
Hurry on down to that
hat shop pronto LB, 'arry is innocent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16925280
I'll have it grilled I think
I will now use my prediction skills in a more positive manner.
1. Leeds will not get promoted.
2. England will not win the Euro's.
3. Man Utd will win the Prem.
Job done.
bit harsh
the games last night was dull, but hardly deserves gaol time...
Oh, the other thing. George Graham was found/suspected/claimed to have Arsenal's money in his safe. Isnt the accusation that it is Portsmouth's money, not Spurs? So I can see Spurs forgiving if not forgetting.
He's still the favourite to be......
....the next England manager though.
Sums it all up for me right there.
I can forgive Redknapp a lot...
as he looks like a football manager should. All those suave, handsome Mourinho and Mancini types... I want double chins, goddamn it!
True but
Harry wasn't a bad-looking chap in his playing days.
I can believe that...
after all his son isn't exactly well-acquainted with the ugly stick.
Harry was...
...in a fatal road accident in Italy many years ago. He received serious facial injuries.
Like Leedsboy
I am preparing a specific item of clothing for consumption if he does get sent down. I hope the gusset isn't too tough.
Wait until the other stories surface.
Mainly about Portsmouth property deals involving some businessmen from the, erm, more colourful end of the island's spectrum.
the, erm, more colourful end of the island's spectrum.
Not Gosport surely ?
(& yes, I know it is across the water)
Two plates of
clothing for the two gentlemen from the Word blog please
The insanity plea was successful
Louis Saha and Ryan Nelsen have now been released.
I guess we now have to be careful that we don't libel anyone
But they really seem to have gotten away with that!
Just of out interest...
... the jury accepted the dosh was a present, not wages, and therefore not taxable. I thought gifts over a certain threshold were subject to Capital Gains Tax, or doesn't that apply if handed over abroad ?
Not CGT, IHT
Cash isn't a 'chargeable asset' so there are no CGT implications of giving it away.
Inheritance tax can be an issue if a person gives away over ~£325k over a 7-year period, but all lifetime gifts are 'potentially exempt transfers' and so (broadly) no IHT arises unless the donee has exceeded the limit and dies within 7 years of the gift.
Thanks for putting me right...
...I can sleep safely now in the knowledge that the few quid I give to my lad on his 18th birthday won't trigger an HMRC swoop.
Double protection
There is also an annual IHT exemption which cover the first £3k of gifts in a tax year. And you can 'carry forward' an unused exemption for one year, making the effective exemption £6k if you have not previously given anything away.
Taxable Income
Wouldn't it be likely that if the money was a gift from MM then it should be out of his taxed income and not from a company that was employing HR....
I'd have thought chasing the money trail rather than the interview with the NOTW was a clearer source of whether they were guilty of defrauding the public purse....
Wouldn't matter
If the payment was in connection with his employment, it would be subject to income tax and NI (and employer's NI) even if paid by a person other than his legal employer.
Milan Mandaric is presumably non-domiciled, and possibly non-resident too, so will very likely have offshore income that is (legitimately) not taxed in the UK.
Juries
you have to love them!
As someone once said to me at Bar School
"The problem with jury trials is that juries are typically made up of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service."
(Although, to be fair, I assume that this is not so much the case now that they've tightened up the rules on avoiding it!)
Scuse me, scuse me. Man with big balls has just been acquitted!
Naturally enough, 'Arry is giving some forthright quotes about the legal process he's just been through. For example:
"...this is a case that should never have come to court. It's unbelievable, really..."
and
"...it was a unanimous decision, absolutely unanimous – there was no case to answer."
It still took the jury 5 hours to decide, though, so it obviously wasn't an open-and-shut case. Plus, all we can say for certain is that they unanimously agreed that they weren't sure beyond reasonable doubt that they did it. Plus, the judge clearly thought there was a case to answer, otherwise he would have declared that there wasn't before the defence even needed to adduce evidence, and the jury would have been dismissed there and then.
You obviously
think he was guilty. On what basis do you think that?
It's not my place to think either way
but I think that it's a bit rich to seemingly claim he's been subject to some sort of victimisation when he has to take some responsibility for bring suspicion on himself (offshore bank account, bragging to journalists etc.)
I guess I did say in the OP that I don't believe their story, which goes against my usual principle that one should not leap to conclusions without access to all evidence. However, the people who brought the prosecution would not be idiots and they obviously thought there was something going on to pursue the case for 5 years.
Overall, I was just enjoying a bit of banter about a high-profile case that is in my area of professional interest. I actually quite like Harry Redknapp, would be delighted if Spurs won the league this season (despite being a Utd fan), and am kind of looking forward to him taking over the England team next season!
Victim
LFC fans were yesterday's victims, for challenging the verdict of a legal case. Now Harry Redknapp is a victim for agreeing with one.
The mind boggles.
Not mutually exclusive
I hadn't really put the two together, but my criticism (if it was such) would be that they are both claiming victim status without accepting any responsibility for their own actions which caused them to be the subject of investigation and/or censure.
I do have some sympathy for what Redknapp must have been through, but he used an off-shore bank account to receive a special one-off gift that was suspiciously similar to an amount that he was in some dispute over with his employer. I think that's worthy of detailed investigation, particularly when he is caught on tape referring to it as a bonus. Fair enough, he's been acquitted, but he's wrong (IMO) to criticise the process that led to his being in court.
Well
after all the comments he made in court for the last 3 weeks I think we all know that Arry's mind really does boggle like no one else's.
I just think it's interesting that there is an assumption that 'Arry must have done fraudulent and that HMRC were right to pursue their case.
On a purely anecdotal basis I'd be disinclined to assume HMRC act objectively in the pursuit of a legal determination on an issue of tax given their track record with making deals with big business.
I'm mostly just being pedantic
As a one-time trainee lawywer, I know that 'not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent' and always want to pick people up who talk about vindication (or the like) on the steps of the court afterwards. I guess it's a bit tedious of me, really.
As for HMRC, they can be a bit like a dog with a bone when they get hold of something, but I have always found them to be pretty reasonable in the main, so that's probably coloured my view in their favour. I think they also still have to go through the CPS before a prosecution is brought, so there would be independent review of the case.
Pah
Let he who has never opened an overseas bank account in his dog's name cast the first stone.
RE: victimsation
'Arry has made no claim of victimisation. He just said it's been a nightmare and in his opinion his case shouldn't have gone to trial. 5 years is a long time to be pursued by HMRC so a few minutes after being told in court that those five years haven't proven anything against you I think it's only fair to give a bit of latitude when a free man declares he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Some kind of objective and reflective assessment of the process doesn't really strike me as a response I would expect in such circumstances.
Given the fact that it has subsequently emerged that Mandaric was acquitted in another tax evasion case last October I think it's appropriate that more light is cast on HMRC rather than on the tittle-tattle that surrounds the way Redknapp dispenses his money and mouths off to the red tops.
Have an up arrow
For the Bill Hicks reference/giving me a much needed chuckle
I'm glad someone appreciated it!
No point in being clever if no one spots it!
Apparently his accountant
is the same bloke who announces that 60,000 people turn up to Arsenal home games
Terrible news for...
... Alan Pardew.
So, any suggestions
as to how I might prepare my pants for consumption? Lightly fried in animal fat perhaps?
Pants tartare would be best, I feel.