Harry - trial begins

[Spurs_Bear]

Ouch.

 

[Paolo10]

Seems like Harry made a good call on Crouch and between mates Mandaric decided to 'invest' what bonus Harry would have been due if he was still DoF for him as a 'gift' as it wasn't in his current contract.

It's not clear cut, but I honestly don't think Harry's done too much wrong here.

 

[brasil_spur]

So the only evidence that the prosecution have that the money in the offshore account is a bonus for Crouch is something that Harry said to a News of the World reporter.

Very weak case for the prosecution if this is all they have.

Surely also there is a bonus payment at the 5% rate which has been declared by Harry, so my question is does the extra 5% bonus that is supposedly what the Monaco money was for equal the same 5% bonus he got for Crouch into his UK bank account from Portsmouth FC?

If so then the prosecution would have much more of a case, if the two sums aren't for the same amount, then i can't see how you can easily claim that it was for this.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Today's updates from Ben Pearce @ BBC



Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp shows frustration with prosecution: "Do you think that me + Mr Mandaric are going to have 2 different stories? Are we that stupid?"
4 minutes ago

Pearcesport James Pearce
Prosecution: News of World reporter "caught you out Mr Redknapp. You decided to speak to him and let the cat out of the bag"
3 minutes ago

Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp tells jury that what he said to News of World was "all a story" and "I wanted to get him off the phone"
4 minutes ago

Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp's phone interview with News of World in which he says Monaco money was a bonus was recorded and played to to the Court last week
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp says not important if he tells truth to News of World, only needs to tell truth to police
4 minutes ago
»

Pearcesport James Pearce
Pros ask Redknapp if money wasn't a bonus then why did he tell News of World "That money was a bonus paid to me for selling a player"
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Pearcesport James Pearce
Three times prosecution put it to Redknapp that Monaco money was Crouch bonus. Three times Redknapp answer same "Absolutely not"
4 minutes ago

Pearcesport James Pearce
Prosecution begin by asking Redknapp if "your evidence yesterday was utterly misleading?" Redknapp: "Absolutely not"
4 minutes ago

I know this is being paraphrased and everything, but am i the only one is getting really frustrated by the prosecutions approach here? They appear to be dancing around Harry, poking him with a little stick, going, "You know you did it... you did it, huh? Just admit it, tell the jury what you did... but you did do it, right? it was a crouch bonus, yeah? So you say you didn't do anything, but what you mean is you did?"

Are they simply trying to catch him out in front of a captive audience of 12 people? And the most frustrating part is that they ask him the same questions over and over, in as many ways as possible and listen to not one of his answers, yet he changes even the tiniest detail in any one of these answers and they'll leap on it like a panther.

"Oh, so hold on a moment, Mr Redknapp, you say that on the morning in question you wore brogues to the meeting, yet now you are claiming your feet had gotten damp because of the new crocs you were wearing? I must admit, Mr Redknapp, i find it very hard to believe a man with regards to his finances if he can't recall what shoes he had on, on any given day, 6 years ago..."

Circus. Present some facts or sit down and stop dragging this jurys life into a mental abyss

 

[Sweatybum]

That's as clear as mud brasil spur!

 

[gilzeantheking]

The next instalment


Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp says if money was bonus "I've gained nothing. Portsmouth would have saved some tax. I'm not interested in saving Portsmouth money"
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»

Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp repeatedly tells Court that he wasn't telling truth in the News of World interview and Monaco money wasn't a bonus
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Pearcesport James Pearce
On tape - Redknapp "It was bonus". Beasley: Mandaric says investment". R "Investment? If that's what said he's wrong but what's difference?"
2 minutes ago

Pearcesport James Pearce
Redknapp listens as tape played to Court of his recorded conversation with News of the World reporter Rob Beasley

 

[tototoner]

James Pearce @Pearcesport Redknapp says if money was bonus "I've gained nothing. Portsmouth would have saved some tax. I'm not interested in saving Portsmouth money"

3m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp repeatedly tells Court that he wasn't telling truth in the News of World interview and Monaco money wasn't a bonus

James Pearce @Pearcesport On tape - Redknapp "It was bonus". Beasley: Mandaric says investment". R "Investment? If that's what said he's wrong but what's difference?"

23s James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp listens as tape played to Court of his recorded conversation with News of the World reporter Rob Beasley


23m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp shows frustration with prosecution: "Do you think that me + Mr Mandaric are going to have 2 different stories? Are we that stupid?"

23m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Prosecution: News of World reporter "caught you out Mr Redknapp. You decided to speak to him and let the cat out of the bag"

23m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp tells jury that what he said to News of World was "all a story" and "I wanted to get him off the phone"

23m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp's phone interview with News of World in which he says Monaco money was a bonus was recorded and played to to the Court last week

23m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp says not important if he tells truth to News of World, only needs to tell truth to police

24m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Pros ask Redknapp if money wasn't a bonus then why did he tell News of World "That money was a bonus paid to me for selling a player"

24m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Three times prosecution put it to Redknapp that Monaco money was Crouch bonus. Three times Redknapp answer same "Absolutely not"

24m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Prosecution begin by asking Redknapp if "your evidence yesterday was utterly misleading?" Redknapp: "Absolutely not"

1h James Pearce @Pearcesport
Welcome to day 9 of Mandaric/Redknapp trial. Long queue already outside court room. Redknapp will continue evidence at 10am

 

[tototoner]

James Pearce @Pearcesport We're on a 20 minute break now. Trial resumes at 1135

2m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp has just told the Court the security code word for his UK accounts. I won't repeat it otherwise he could be poor very quickly!

13m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp said the other Rosie "might have been someone's wife. If she was as nice as Rosie (dog) then they had a good wife"

13m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp says account was named Rosie47 as bank already had account called Rosie. Redknapp said other Rosie might have been someone's wife

13m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp on Monaco account name : "Rosie was my dog. I loved Rosie to bits." Prosecution: "I'm sure you did"

 

[Phantom]

Hope his accountant can change his security code for him!

 

[brasil_spur]

That's as clear as mud brasil spur!

What i mean is:

Harry says his bonus went from 10% down to 5%, but when Crouch was sold he was due 10% as it occurred before the change in bonus.

Thus there should be a legitimate bonus on the crouch sale of X amount (at 5%) which shows in his salary submitted to HMRC by Portsmouth FC.

Then the amount in his Monaco account, let's called it Y should be another 5% - thus taking the total bonus paid to the 10% that it should have been according to Harry.

My point is that if X=Y then Harry looks suspicious, if it doesn't then i don't see how HMRC can claim it was a bonus in the way they are.

2m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp has just told the Court the security code word for his UK accounts. I won't repeat it otherwise he could be poor very quickly!

Harry is turning this into a joke - must be one of the funniest court cases to be a juror for when it comes to tax evasion. :rofl:

13m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp said the other Rosie "might have been someone's wife. If she was as nice as Rosie (dog) then they had a good wife"

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Kendall]

Harry is such an idiot :lol:

 

[CosmicHotspur]

Harry is such an idiot :lol:

Yes, but he's our idiot... :grin:

 

[ryantegan]

I just showed all these tweets to my boss. He laughed his head off

But he did agree Rosie was a lovely dog

 

[sloth]

Seems like Harry made a good call on Crouch and between mates Mandaric decided to 'invest' what bonus Harry would have been due if he was still DoF for him as a 'gift' as it wasn't in his current contract.

It's not clear cut, but I honestly don't think Harry's done too much wrong here.

So the only evidence that the prosecution have that the money in the offshore account is a bonus for Crouch is something that Harry said to a News of the World reporter.

Very weak case for the prosecution if this is all they have.

Surely also there is a bonus payment at the 5% rate which has been declared by Harry, so my question is does the extra 5% bonus that is supposedly what the Monaco money was for equal the same 5% bonus he got for Crouch into his UK bank account from Portsmouth FC?

If so then the prosecution would have much more of a case, if the two sums aren't for the same amount, then i can't see how you can easily claim that it was for this.

If I could I'd prefer to gift my employees their annual bonus, that would save me tax and them tax, however there are strict rules that say govern how payments from Employers to employees are treated under UK tax law.

Basically, anything that looks like income is considered income no matter what the two parties might wish to deem it.

If it was different then all us employers would be gifting our employees all the time and HMRC would miss out.

What the prosecution are arguing is something more than this however. They're trying to make the case that not only was this clearly income, but Redknapp's and Mandaric's actions show that they understood this and were trying to hide it from HMRC. That's what they're being tried for.

If Mandaric and Redknapp can prove that whatever the case, the truth is they considered it a gift at the time and they weren't colluding to hide it from HMRC then they'll get off, but still be liable for paying back the tax.

The problem is that their story is full of holes.

Why wouldn't Harry run it by his accountant before flying to Monaco to open that account? That is not a casual action and if he doesn't understand finances or the law and relies on his accountant to run that part of his life surely he'd have consulted him first?

Why wouldn't Redknapp have said to Rob Beasley it was a gift from Mandaric, an investment his chairman was making on his behalf? Why would have saying that attracted any worse headlines than saying it was a bonus for selling Crouch? There appears to be no purpose to the lie, so why lie?

The prosecution will make the case that he said it to Beasley because it wasn't a lie, but the truth, and that Mandaric only started agreeing with each other when it became clear it would be treated as a criminal offence were it shown that they knew it was income and they'd hidden it in Monaco.

In other words there was no motive to lie to Beasley, but plenty now and given the jury know that Redknapp was lying on one occasion, they simply have to decide which is the more plausible motivation for lying.

It's worth noting that it's a terrible defence to admit lying at all, it makes your evidence seem unreliable and sows in the minds of the jurors that here's a man willing to lie to get out of trouble - which is exactly what Redknapp says he did with Beasley.

The more I think about the more horrible it becomes.

I think the wheels could just be about to fall off our season.

Only Spurs

I know this is being paraphrased and everything, but am i the only one is getting really frustrated by the prosecutions approach here? They appear to be dancing around Harry, poking him with a little stick, going, "You know you did it... you did it, huh? Just admit it, tell the jury what you did... but you did do it, right? it was a crouch bonus, yeah? So you say you didn't do anything, but what you mean is you did?"

Are they simply trying to catch him out in front of a captive audience of 12 people? And the most frustrating part is that they ask him the same questions over and over, in as many ways as possible and listen to not one of his answers, yet he changes even the tiniest detail in any one of these answers and they'll leap on it like a panther.

"Oh, so hold on a moment, Mr Redknapp, you say that on the morning in question you wore brogues to the meeting, yet now you are claiming your feet had gotten damp because of the new crocs you were wearing? I must admit, Mr Redknapp, i find it very hard to believe a man with regards to his finances if he can't recall what shoes he had on, on any given day, 6 years ago..."

Circus. Present some facts or sit down and stop dragging this jurys life into a mental abyss

I hate the adversarial system for exactly this reason, I much prefer the French approach of judge led inquiries that try to discover the truth, than the UK's knock-about advocacy where two parties argue the extreme opposites and a jury has to try and decide which version is true.

 

[tototoner]

Dan Ashcroft's ringtone ???


James Pearce @Pearcesport Redknapp said focus was on marking Beckham when Monaco fax sent before Old Trafford match, "but didn't work well as he scored a hattrick!"

3m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp: "I've paid over £8 million income tax. Why are we bothering over £10,000 or whatever I'm said to have saved in tax?"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp had told News of World Monaco money was "1million per cent" Crouch bonus. He tells prosecution that it was "1million per cent NOT"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Brief pause when phone rings in public gallery. The ringtone is the song "Glory, Glory Tottenham Hotspur"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
More humour from Redknapp, after saying he didn't know address of Monaco bank. Pros: "You knew a man who did." R: "I knew a man who can?"

 

[sloth]

Hope his accountant can change his security code for him!

The only reason he would say it is if it was Rosie. Anyone reading that Twitter feed could work that out. I think someone should be changing itt right now.

 

[wooderz]

Dan Ashcroft's ringtone ???


James Pearce @Pearcesport Redknapp said focus was on marking Beckham when Monaco fax sent before Old Trafford match, "but didn't work well as he scored a hattrick!"

3m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp: "I've paid over £8 million income tax. Why are we bothering over £10,000 or whatever I'm said to have saved in tax?"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Redknapp had told News of World Monaco money was "1million per cent" Crouch bonus. He tells prosecution that it was "1million per cent NOT"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
Brief pause when phone rings in public gallery. The ringtone is the song "Glory, Glory Tottenham Hotspur"

4m James Pearce @Pearcesport
More humour from Redknapp, after saying he didn't know address of Monaco bank. Pros: "You knew a man who did." R: "I knew a man who can?"

Legend!

 

[Paolo10]

Fuck sake Sloth, read the fucking thing. He was on a different contract, he wasn't particularly entitled to the extra 5% profit from Crouch or whatever, but obviously HR's judgement did the club some good.

If you had a new contract with less commission on a sale or whatever that's all your entitled to, if your manager reduced your bonus that's what you're entitled to.

It doesn't seem that Harry was particularly entitled to this 'bonus', but it's something that Mandaric wanted to give him or invest for him or whatever as he'd made the club a profit of £2.5m in a year. Mandaric thought he was a wrong 'un, 42 England caps and a succession of higher transfer fees shows Harry was right.

While the reasoning might have had a lot to do with football, this gift/investment looks something aside as it wasn't relevant to HR's managerial contract at the time.

 

[brasil_spur]

This case is cracking me up - Glory Glory Tottenham Hotspurs song ringing out in court!!!!

 

[#1 Spur]

I know this is being paraphrased and everything, but am i the only one is getting really frustrated by the prosecutions approach here? They appear to be dancing around Harry, poking him with a little stick, going, "You know you did it... you did it, huh? Just admit it, tell the jury what you did... but you did do it, right? it was a crouch bonus, yeah? So you say you didn't do anything, but what you mean is you did?"

Are they simply trying to catch him out in front of a captive audience of 12 people? And the most frustrating part is that they ask him the same questions over and over, in as many ways as possible and listen to not one of his answers, yet he changes even the tiniest detail in any one of these answers and they'll leap on it like a panther.

"Oh, so hold on a moment, Mr Redknapp, you say that on the morning in question you wore brogues to the meeting, yet now you are claiming your feet had gotten damp because of the new crocs you were wearing? I must admit, Mr Redknapp, i find it very hard to believe a man with regards to his finances if he can't recall what shoes he had on, on any given day, 6 years ago..."

Circus. Present some facts or sit down and stop dragging this jurys life into a mental abyss

Really?!