- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
Now the way I see it it is that it is perfectly feasible it went down a little something like this...
Harry thought he was due 10% on the Crouch sale, but contractually ,down to his change of role, was actually only due 5%. Portsmouth, as a club, could not, and would not pay the difference.
MM can see that Harry is pissed about this, so turns round and says to Harry, look I've got this investment opportunity coming up. Open yourself an account down in Monaco then you won't have any tax implications here, and if this investment comes in it'll more than make up for what you lost on the Crouch deal.
Harry thinks that MM knows what he's talking about tax-wise, thinks it's sailing a little close to the proverbial wind but reckons that any normal person would try to reduce there tax liabilities by keeping this kind of thing off-shore so it ain't a problem.
H opens an account up and then totally forgets about it, these sort of investments don't turn over a profit in a couple of weeks and believes he only has to tell his accountant once that has happened. A little later MM tells him the investment went south so he presumes that everything has gone (again!)
When the Quest investigation comes about he remembers the account and tells them he's got this account but there ain't nothing in there.
Tosspot Beasley gets wind of the account and finds some monies going into it so ambushes H with this the day before the cup-final and H tells him it's the Crouch bonus to keep himself off the front page on cup-final day and promptly forgets about this conversation as it doesn't hit the headlines, everything's hunky-dory.
Now he finds himself in front of the beak.
IMO there's enough there to muddy the waters on each point necessary that none of them prove beyond reasonable doubt that he can be convicted for this offence.
No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that this wasn't a gift. Just the word of a NOTW reporter
No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
Just the word of a NOTW reporter.
No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was dishonest by ordinary standards.
Nothing reported at all
No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that if it was dishonest that H knew it to be so.
Nothing reported at all.
It may be that only the details that were thought to be interesting to the more general public was actually reported but from what I have read IMO there is no way that they have proved all of the requisite elements of the offence charged.
NOT GUILTY
All the parts matter, and the most important thing is the whole (so if you listen the climate change deniers or the creationists, or the "What Suarez said was racist" deniers, they break everything down into the smallest constituent parts and then say but this could, conceivably be interpreted this way, and then this next thing can be and this next thing can be, and suddenly the incredible starts to seem more reasonable if you're not careful; classic not seeing the wood for the trees syndrome), but for me the crucial thing is that Rob Beasley interview.
But anyway, I fully expect others will take their own view on this. My view is that the jury will probably find him guilty and on the basis of the evidence I've heard I'd find them both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I do think that because we as Spurs fans have a vested interest in having him proved innocent then there's a lot of reason to think we're unlikely to be unbiased on this matter - which is why none of us would have been allowed to sit on the jury - if you swapped the main protagonists for MPs or bankers and then judged whether you thought their version of events was credible I think 99% would come to a different conclusion to the one you have.