Premier League Spurs - Arry's gone but we still dislike them...

[CI]

Prison would be ridiculous unless a lot more gets unearthed.

Prison is for rapists, paedos, murderers & maverick Bankers. Not for some bloke who has juggled some finances about but on the whole is a law abiding, hard working tax paying citizen. Quite frankly, the game needs more Harry Redknapps and fewer Tony Pullis's / Sam Allardyces.

[JulieB]

Joking aside - I don't think he should go to jail either - I'll bet this is just the tip of the iceberg for corruption & football.

Like they say - if you spot a cockroach then you know there's always more under the carpet!

It's a bit rich that HMRC can be allowed to make deals with companies like Vodaphone, Goldman Sachs et al over expensive lunches

to let them off Millions in tax bills and then they are coming after small time Dell boys - like Redknapp - even if he does represent

the seedier side of the game.

[Keyblade]

I'm not very familiar with Redknapp's history but why is it that people dislike him so much? I used to think it was because he has a habit of talking about other teams players, but surely that isn't enough to want to see him go to jail?

[Mantis]

Prison would be ridiculous unless a lot more gets unearthed.

Prison is for rapists, paedos, murderers & maverick Bankers. Not for some bloke who has juggled some finances about but on the whole is a law abiding, hard working tax paying citizen. Quite frankly, the game needs more Harry Redknapps and fewer Tony Pullis's / Sam Allardyces.

I don't understand. You seem to want to see bankers in general put in prison but not a tax evader?

[joey55]

Tax evaders should also go to prison. I don't think Harry will though, even if found guilty. That's based on what we've heard so far. If something that really demonstrates some sinister conspiracy to defraud is brought to light, then he could well go to prison. But based on what we've so far heard, if found guilty, I think he'll be fined and told to keep better track of his finances in the future.

[joey55]

From a Spurs fan point of view, I actually think being found guilt and fined is the best result, as it means England can't employ him, but he wont go to prison, so we can keep him.

[Qwpzxjor1]

I think he'll get fined to buggery. He'll pay it, and we'll hear no more about it - and he'll still be England manager.

[MMFy]

Tax evaders should also go to prison. I don't think Harry will though, even if found guilty. That's based on what we've heard so far. If something that really demonstrates some sinister conspiracy to defraud is brought to light, then he could well go to prison. But based on what we've so far heard, if found guilty, I think he'll be fined and told to keep better track of his finances in the future.

Opening an offshore account in his dogs name isn't sinister? He knew what he was doing was wrong and he still did it.

£189,000 is SEVEN times what the average person earns in a year GROSS.

This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane...

[joey55]

Tax evaders should also go to prison. I don't think Harry will though, even if found guilty. That's based on what we've heard so far. If something that really demonstrates some sinister conspiracy to defraud is brought to light, then he could well go to prison. But based on what we've so far heard, if found guilty, I think he'll be fined and told to keep better track of his finances in the future.

Opening an offshore account in his dogs name isn't sinister? He knew what he was doing was wrong and he still did it.

£189,000 is SEVEN times what the average person earns in a year GROSS.

This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane...

I don't think he opened the account in his dogs name. He named the account after his dog. It's not like the dog had an account. So it's not sinister and not uncommon. If it's proven he opened the account with the intention to defraud, then you can say it's sinister, but I don't think that will happen. It would just be an odd thing for someone who earns as much as Harry to do, unless it was part of wider tax dodging enterprise, but I don't think, even after years of investigation, there is any suggestion of that. As much as people don't want to believe it, because it's Harry, his explanation does seem more likely. So far from what we've seen in court there isn't anything to suggest he's tried to avoid paying his tax before, but there is evidence that he's not careful with money and doesn't keep track of his finances.

I think the case is actually more about Mandaric and his actions, but Harry is the big name, so getting all the attention.

[MMFy]

Sounds like he's preparing for life on the inside...

Source

[Mr_Dogg]

Tax evaders should also go to prison. I don't think Harry will though, even if found guilty. That's based on what we've heard so far. If something that really demonstrates some sinister conspiracy to defraud is brought to light, then he could well go to prison. But based on what we've so far heard, if found guilty, I think he'll be fined and told to keep better track of his finances in the future.

Opening an offshore account in his dogs name isn't sinister? He knew what he was doing was wrong and he still did it.

£189,000 is SEVEN times what the average person earns in a year GROSS.

This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane...

I don't think he opened the account in his dogs name. He named the account after his dog. It's not like the dog had an account. So it's not sinister and not uncommon. If it's proven he opened the account with the intention to defraud, then you can say it's sinister, but I don't think that will happen. It would just be an odd thing for someone who earns as much as Harry to do, unless it was part of wider tax dodging enterprise, but I don't think, even after years of investigation, there is any suggestion of that. As much as people don't want to believe it, because it's Harry, his explanation does seem more likely. So far from what we've seen in court there isn't anything to suggest he's tried to avoid paying his tax before, but there is evidence that he's not careful with money and doesn't keep track of his finances.

I think the case is actually more about Mandaric and his actions, but Harry is the big name, so getting all the attention.

Have you considered a life in politics?

[Oaks]

It just like the Liverpool fans who don't think Saurez is a racist, fans don't want to believe it, or even more deep down don't care as long as the guy is doing a good job.

[joey55]

It just like the Liverpool fans who don't think Saurez is a racist, fans don't want to believe it, or even more deep down don't care as long as the guy is doing a good job.

If he gets found guilty I'll accept no problem. Liverpool fans were a disgrace as even when he was found guilty and admitted using a word they were adamant he hadn't, they still defend him to this day. I see that as probably the worse thing that has happened in football since the Prem began. Also there is a big difference between letting bias get the better of you in a taxation legal case that could go either way and an accussation of racism. But to be fair the point you've made could just as easily be made against many of the Villa fans in this thread including yourself. Most of the Villa fans in this thread don't want to believe he's not guilty. But either way it's just banter and you really shouldn't compare it to the Suarez thing. If Harry had been racist then I wouldn't support him and I doubt Villa fans or fans of any team wanted Suares banned simply because they didn't like him, but because what he did was wrong. The key difference is that most of us would dodge a bit of tax if we could, but hopefully none of us would racially abuse someone.

[MMFy]

Most of the Villa fans in this thread don't want to believe he's not guilty.

You have to admit, the evidence is really mounting up against him, and his defence is shakier than Michael J Fox on a jackhammer. He is playing the sympathy card with this 'can't read, can't write, can't email, can't fax' bullshit, and evidence of these lies will be extremely easy to uncover.

It's not that I don't like Redknapp that makes me think he is guilty, it's the fact that he appears to all but the most rose tinted (exactly like the Scousers who claim Suarez is innocent) that he is hiding something and doing an extremely poor job of it.

From what I have read on this case, which admittedly isn't the entire court notes, it looks like something is up. You don't name a bank account in an offshore location after your dog unless you don't want people to find it. He intentionally hid that account, and he has been found out. He only admitted to that account after it had been found out.

The key difference is that most of us would dodge a bit of tax if we could, but hopefully none of us would racially abuse someone.

I don't. I earn above the average national wage, as does my missus, and neither of us cheat tax.

We do disagree with where the raised revenue goes, but avoiding tax is fraud. It is exactly the same as feigning injuries in insurance claims and cheating benefits. The more people who do it - the more it **** over the economy/infrastructure and more critically **** over the hard working man in the street. If everyone did it we would have total anarchy.

I wouldn't cheat taxes, it is illegal. If you would, as you stated, I am forced to believe, Sir, with all the greatest respect due (none) that you are a word removed.

And please can you use paragraphs? :?

[Brumstopdogs]

Send Redknapp to prison please.

He's won 1 trophy as a manager and he manages a club that have won 2 league titles in their entire history.

Over hyped Harry cheating the system. Throw away the key!

[joey55]

Most of the Villa fans in this thread don't want to believe he's not guilty.

You have to admit, the evidence is really mounting up against him, and his defence is shakier than Michael J Fox on a jackhammer. He is playing the sympathy card with this 'can't read, can't write, can't email, can't fax' bullshit, and evidence of these lies will be extremely easy to uncover.

It's not that I don't like Redknapp that makes me think he is guilty, it's the fact that he appears to all but the most rose tinted (exactly like the Scousers who claim Suarez is innocent) that he is hiding something and doing an extremely poor job of it.

From what I have read on this case, which admittedly isn't the entire court notes, it looks like something is up. You don't name a bank account in an offshore location after your dog unless you don't want people to find it. He intentionally hid that account, and he has been found out. He only admitted to that account after it had been found out.

The key difference is that most of us would dodge a bit of tax if we could, but hopefully none of us would racially abuse someone.

I don't. I earn above the average national wage, as does my missus, and neither of us cheat tax.

We do disagree with where the raised revenue goes, but avoiding tax is fraud. It is exactly the same as feigning injuries in insurance claims and cheating benefits. The more people who do it - the more it **** over the economy/infrastructure and more critically **** over the hard working man in the street. If everyone did it we would have total anarchy.

I wouldn't cheat taxes, it is illegal. If you would, as you stated, I am forced to believe, Sir, with all the greatest respect due (none) that you are a word removed.

And please can you use paragraphs? :?

It was only yesterday you posted:

"This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane..."

Indicating tax dodging is always all that bad, so you'll forgive me for just assuming your sudden high morality is just faux outrage in order to justify an insult.

But back to the case and your assertation that the evidence is really mounting up against him. It wasn't a question of if he'd paid the tax or not. It was already known that the tax hadn't been paid on the money in that account. The question was why not and was it done deliberately. From that point of view the evidence isn't really mounting up. We just know the circumstance and the jury need to decide whether that is evidence of a conspiracy or just an error.

Like it or not, but it's very hard to tell either way, so the jury will have to look at other factors to decide what the most likely intention was. One of the key factors isn't the amount itself, but what that figure is as a perecentage of tax that he's paid over a long period of time. For Harry to claim neglegance and that this was all just an oversight and not a conspiracy to committ fraud, he has to demonstrate how insignificant the amount is to him and that it was a one off. He can hardly claim an oversight if he has these types of accounts all over the place and has been avoiding paying the tax on numerous payments to these various accounts, which would have made a good dent in his income! From this point of view, given the amount involved and the fact it's one account, things are very much in Harry's favour.

However, that alone isn't enough, as we know some people will do anything to save a penny or two, even if it seems totally illogical. So Harry's team must convince the jury that he is the kind of man who literally would be so irresponsible as to set up an account on the bequest of someone else, recieve payment there, assume the tax had been paid, just leave it to be invested and then forget about it. So far Harry has given examples that show he is exactly the kind of guy that would do what Mandaric asked of him, let a friend invest for him and even forget about an account with that much in it.

The prosecutions case would rest on doing the opposite. They have to demonstrate he's the kind of guy who would and has done ths intentionally. But the prosectution clearly can't do that, as they've gone through a decade of tax records, where he'd have paid around £6million in tax and all they have is this one account, on which he's not paid. We are talking about 1% of the tax he should have paid in a decade. I'm not saying that one shouldn't be severely punsihed for try steal such an amount, but at the same time you have to recognise that for someone of Harry's wealth it is easily a small enough amount to be an oversight and would seem very odd thing for him to do. He's given examples of how useless and carefree he can be with large sums of money, but on the other hand the prosection have come up with nothing to suggest he's got form or motive when it comes to tax avoidence. But even so it's still worth it for HRMC to take a case like this to court for numerous reasons.

I think alot of people are under the impression there is alot more to this case than there is and has even been compared with the Ked Dodd case. This really isn't much like the Ken Dodd case. Dodd was accussed of avoiding paying income tax for a number of years on a large portion of his income and he got off! I know most people would really love to see Harry go down for this, but it just isn't going to happen. No matter how much the media or whoever hype this case up, there just isn't enough to it. It's good for HMRC as Redknapp is high profile and this will act as a warning to people, but the actual case itself is a bit of a nothing. I'm not saying he'll get off scot free. Even if it was just negligence he should arguably still be punished. It could go either way, but the most he'll get is a fine. Those baying for blood are in for a disappointment. There really are no accussations of long sustained conspiracy to defraud HMRC and unlike as you say, the evidence really isn't mounting up against him. It's about whether or not Harry intentionally tried to avoid paying tax on 2 payments and it's going to be very hard to prove he did.

[MMFy]

It was only yesterday you posted:

"This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane..."

Indicating tax dodging is always all that bad, so you'll forgive me for just assuming your sudden high morality is just faux outrage in order to justify an insult.

That was in relation to, and on the same page as this:

Prison would be ridiculous unless a lot more gets unearthed.

Prison is for rapists, paedos, murderers & maverick Bankers. Not for some bloke who has juggled some finances about but on the whole is a law abiding, hard working tax paying citizen. Quite frankly, the game needs more Harry Redknapps and fewer Tony Pullis's / Sam Allardyces.

You do the crime, you do the time. I don't give a flying **** if it is Redknapp, Allardyce, or some toaster-punting barrow boy down Brick Lane.

And it's not faux-outrage, if you are prepared to cheat HMRC you deserve all the abuse that can possibly be thrown at you. And that goes for anyone here.

Don't take it personal though...

[MMFy]

And the rest of your post is bullshit. It's nothing to do with a percentage of what tax he had paid over ten years.

I could post here how much fuel I have bought in the last ten years. It still wouldn't excuse me from prosecution if I drove off without paying for a tank of fuel.

I passed my driving test 19 years ago, and I've never had a point on my licence. It doesn't mean I should escape prosecution if I get flashed by a camera. The fine I would be liable to would also not be in relation to the amount I earn either.

From the HMRC perspective, a person cheating them of a taxable payment of £189,000 is equivalent to the tax the average person would pay over seven years. That is not an insignificant amount, and is the reason this has gone to court. If the situation was playing out as you describe, it would not be a court case, it would be an ongoing investigation.

He also claims he pays a fortune for an accountant/financial advisor. It appears to me he is throwing shit at everyone around him, hoping some of it will stick...

[joey55]

And the rest of your post is bullshit. It's nothing to do with a percentage of what tax he had paid over ten years.

I could post here how much fuel I have bought in the last ten years. It still wouldn't excuse me from prosecution if I drove off without paying for a tank of fuel.

I passed my driving test 19 years ago, and I've never had a point on my licence. It doesn't mean I should escape prosecution if I get flashed by a camera. The fine I would be liable to would also not be in relation to the amount I earn either.

From the HMRC perspective, a person cheating them of a taxable payment of £189,000 is equivalent to the tax the average person would pay over the pen years. That is not an insignificant amount, and is the reason this has gone to court. If the situation was playing out as you describe, it would not be a court case, it would be an ongoing investigation.

He also claims he pays a fortune for an accountant/financial advisor. It appears to me he is throwing shit at everyone around him, hoping some of it will stick...

It's not bullshit, you are missing the point. The fact he hasn't paid the tax isn't being contested. It's whether it's plausible it could have been down to negligence. Therefore the percentage is important as it shows the insignificant difference it makes.

You couldn't argue that you drove off without paying for the fuel, but it could be argued you did it by accident. In your defence you'd come up with numeorus reasons for your absent mindness and give reasons why there is no logic or motive behind you stealing the fuel. But if it was demonstrated that you'd stolen fuel from a few petrol stations and were found to be flogging cheap fuel, you'd be screwed. In one case you might get off or be given a fine, in the other you are likely to get jail time.

I'm not saying he'll escape prosecution, but trying to point out why this case isn't quite what it is made out to be, what the battle ground really is and why those hoping for a harsh outcome are going to be disappointed.

[joey55]

It was only yesterday you posted:

"This is no small-time barrowboy wheeler-dealer flogging a few toasters - cash-in-hand - down Brick Lane..."

Indicating tax dodging is always all that bad, so you'll forgive me for just assuming your sudden high morality is just faux outrage in order to justify an insult.

That was in relation to, and on the same page as this:

Prison would be ridiculous unless a lot more gets unearthed.

Prison is for rapists, paedos, murderers & maverick Bankers. Not for some bloke who has juggled some finances about but on the whole is a law abiding, hard working tax paying citizen. Quite frankly, the game needs more Harry Redknapps and fewer Tony Pullis's / Sam Allardyces.

You do the crime, you do the time. I don't give a flying **** if it is Redknapp, Allardyce, or some toaster-punting barrow boy down Brick Lane.

And it's not faux-outrage, if you are prepared to cheat HMRC you deserve all the abuse that can possibly be thrown at you. And that goes for anyone here.

Don't take it personal though...

It probably is faux outrage though, as otherwise you be the sort of person who thinks someone who goes over the speeding limit, like in your exmaple above, is a word removed or someone who takes money that isn't theirs when the opportunity arises is and this kind of stuff happens all the time. You'd have to be outraged at a lot of people.