Harry - trial begins

Wellspurs · Jan 24, 2012

How was the jury vetted? Did they have to say if they followed a football team?

What if they are all Spammers?

If I was on a jury with Wenger in the dock he would be guilty no matter what the evidence was.

Booney · Jan 24, 2012

The more I hear the more confident I become that my ideal scenario is unfolding...

Harry found not guilty but reputation sufficiently tarnished in FA and public eyes that he isn't offered the England job.

sloth · Jan 24, 2012

bigturnip said:
Those aren't facts, those are the arguments presented by the prosecution, later in the trial Harry's defence will argue that Harry didn't open the bank account, but Mandaric did, they will also argue that Harry never had access to the account and that Mandaric told him the money had all been lost in a bad investment. I assume they will also argue that why on earth would anybody declare a bank account to HMRC that they never opened, never had access to and as far as they knew any money in there had been lost in a bad investment?

Once all sides have presented their arguments it will be up to 12 people led by a judge to decide which version of events is true and whether either, both or neither of them are guilty of the charges they are accused of.

At least the press have the decency to include the prosecution's arguments in inverted commas and not state them as fact.

I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.

Harry himself said he went to Monaco to open the account. He said he didn't want to, but that's what he did.

He doesn't deny that he received a payment from Mandaric, which he says was his cut of the Peter Crouch deal.

The account was opened in his dogs name.

All I'm saying - and I don't quite know why it's coming in for such opprobrium - is that most of the British public (if they notice the case at all) will think that all of that is a bit dodgy.

In my office, anyone who cares thinks it's dodgy to be getting a slice of the transfer fee.

They also think it's funny/strange that the account is opened in his dogs name.

I know my parents and their generation think it's morally dubious to have off-shore accounts for the purpose of reducing tax. I think it is a bit too - though my philosophy is to live and let live, judge not lest ye should be judged an all that.

I'm well aware that none of that is illegal (as far as I know), and tha plenty of rich people take advantage of tax havens, will have accounts in strange names, and that in the case of getting a slice of the transfer fee there was nothing in the rules to say he shouldn't.

I'm making no judgement myself.

My rather narrow point was that there's not a lot of point getting our knickers in the twist over lurid newspaper headlines, nor worrying about the fairness of the British, adversarial, trial by jury system of justice.

For some reason a few people have taken that as criticism of Harry, when in fact it's clearly nothing of the kind, it's my view on the impact of the court case, immaterial of the verdict.

As you say we all on this board should care about the verdict, for the reasons you give. I was not saying we shouldn't care about that, but only that we shouldn't give two figs for the public perception. Who cares :shrug

I also didn't want an embarrassing thread in the vein of the one on RAWK and was warning against going down that route.

That could well be quite a boring, uninteresting thing to say, in which case ignore it - as the majority have done - but don't misrepresent what I am saying and then castigate me for that misrepresentation.

maltahotspur · Jan 24, 2012

Wellspurs said:
How was the jury vetted? Did they have to say if they followed a football team?

What if they are all Spammers?

If I was on a jury with Wenger in the dock he would be guilty no matter what the evidence was.[/quote]

Nah I would not. But you give me a Foy, a Clattenberg or a Webb and I would do any of them good and proper :grin:

thinktank · Jan 24, 2012

Crow said:

Should be more photoshops using that sketch, of 'Arry talking to the media, training etc. Triffic.

Dundalk_Spur · Jan 24, 2012

The courts shoult be more worried about the blatant match fixing going on within the premier league and its administrators!!!!

Eek :wink:

guate · Jan 24, 2012

'Arry will not be found guilty as his lawyer's far too professional to allow that to happen.
The inland revenue will be made to look like they are witch hunting, this being a high profile case and all.
Much ado about nothing IMHO and during the next two weeks this will become obvious.

steve · Jan 24, 2012

Supersi32 said:
From what I`ve read so far, this looks particulary bad for Mandaric, with the prosecution trying to get something on Harry by association.

Paolo10 said:
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.

I agree with this, this looks worse for MM than HR at this point I think based on what's been said. H isn't trying to deny what the money was for - Crouch - MM is saying summink quite different...

beats1 · Jan 24, 2012

I think this whole week will make harry not want to became england manager, you can see that he is getting alot abuse and the media attention is insane atm, this might give him a taste of what it may be like, if it goes wrong with england in the future

guate · Jan 24, 2012

beats1 said:
I think this whole week will make harry not want to became england manager, you can see that he is getting alot abuse and the media attention is insane atm, this might give him a taste of what it may be like, if it goes wrong with england in the future

Excellent point.

nightgoat · Jan 24, 2012

Wellspurs said:
How was the jury vetted? Did they have to say if they followed a football team?

What if they are all Spammers?

I would have thought that sort of thing would have been taken into account...

MattyP · Jan 24, 2012

guate said:
'Arry will not be found guilty as his lawyer's far too professional to allow that to happen.
The inland revenue will be made to look like they are witch hunting, this being a high profile case and all.
Much ado about nothing IMHO and during the next two weeks this will become obvious.

As far as I know, the CPS, not HMRC, have brought the case against Harry.

As for 'Arry's lawyer being far too professional, I'm sure 'Arry employed an extremely professional accountant who he "forgot" to tell that a bank account called FidoTwitchinaminute existed.

My preferred option is that Harry is found not guilty but The FA decide there is too much smoke to appoint him as England manager and he stays and carries on with us.

But I don't buy for a minute that just because Harry has employed a professional lawyer versus "an amateur" CPS person that he will therefore get off.

My opinion (and as far as I know expressing an opinion is allowed in law and on here) is that he has at best taken advantage of tax avoidance (which is legal), more likely tax evasion (which is illegal).

But I hope you are right.

#1 Spur · Jan 24, 2012

nightgoat said:
I would have thought that sort of thing would have been taken into account...

It was.

bigturnip · Jan 24, 2012

sloth said:
Harry himself said he went to Monaco to open the account. He said he didn't want to, but that's what he did.

No, that's what the prosecution QC stated, who opened the account is a matter of debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16698153

sloth said:
He doesn't deny that he received a payment from Mandaric, which he says was his cut of the Peter Crouch deal.

He doesn't deny knowledge that a payment was made, but he does deny having access to the account, surely if somebody doesn't have access to an account then they can't have received the money.

sloth said:
The account was opened in his dogs name.

Yep, this is a fact

sloth said:
All I'm saying - and I don't quite know why it's coming in for such opprobrium - is that most of the British public (if they notice the case at all) will think that all of that is a bit dodgy.

In my office, anyone who cares thinks it's dodgy to be getting a slice of the transfer fee.

They also think it's funny/strange that the account is opened in his dogs name.

I know my parents and their generation think it's morally dubious to have off-shore accounts for the purpose of reducing tax. I think it is a bit too - though my philosophy is to live and let live, judge not lest ye should be judged an all that.

I'm well aware that none of that is illegal (as far as I know), and tha plenty of rich people take advantage of tax havens, will have accounts in strange names, and that in the case of getting a slice of the transfer fee there was nothing in the rules to say he shouldn't.

I'm making no judgement myself.

My rather narrow point was that there's not a lot of point getting our knickers in the twist over lurid newspaper headlines, nor worrying about the fairness of the British, adversarial, trial by jury system of justice.

For some reason a few people have taken that as criticism of Harry, when in fact it's clearly nothing of the kind, it's my view on the impact of the court case, immaterial of the verdict.

As you say we all on this board should care about the verdict, for the reasons you give. I was not saying we shouldn't care about that, but only that we shouldn't give two figs for the public perception. Who cares :shrug

I also didn't want an embarrassing thread in the vein of the one on RAWK and was warning against going down that route.

That could well be quite a boring, uninteresting thing to say, in which case ignore it - as the majority have done - but don't misrepresent what I am saying and then castigate me for that misrepresentation.

I fully understand your point, there's no smoke without fire, of course some people are going to draw conclusions, and some people will assume he's obviously done something dodgy even if he's found to have done nothing wrong. My only problem with posts up to now have been where people have been stating things as fact which aren't.

OmarsComing · Jan 24, 2012

OmarsComing said:

[yt]BkQ1XeTrLvI[/yt]

:dance:

Gooner scum

Bus-Conductor · Jan 24, 2012

Paolo10 said:
Agenda/twit/tactical mastermind.

Paolo10 said:
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.

Agenda/twit/legal mastermind

Kendall · Jan 24, 2012

Sir Henry said:
If your location is correct, then why do you have an opinion on that when you dont contribute to the public purse yourself ?

I contributed to it for years, as do all of my family.

Kendall · Jan 24, 2012

Paolo10 said:
Maybe you want to try being objective after both sides have their say then instead of filling this thread with a big pile of complete shite.

Just read back over your own posts in this thread. More antagonistic than me after a few beers with little to no input other than to call out others for their opinion.

You're fucking full of hot air at the moment.

fridgemagnet · Jan 24, 2012

I'd genuinely love to know how much this whole investigation and trial costs compares to the 300k Harry owes.

If the jury do find him guilty i really cannot see how it can be a safe conviction, football is way to big a part of UK life for there to be totally impartial jury (same reason why i believe no UK referee can be totally impartial)

It is a witch hunt on HMRC's part they've been trying to sting managers for years.

Bus-Conductor · Jan 24, 2012

Paolo10 said:
Maybe you want to try being objective after both sides have their say then instead of filling this thread with a big pile of complete shite.

Paolo10 said:
Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.

It's a good idea to give it at least 5 pages before your contradict yourself this much.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Harry - trial begins

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Always look on the bright side of life

Hmmm...

The only Spur in the village

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

Member

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body

Mentally Disturbed Individual!

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Similar threads