Redknapp on his way ?????????
- Thread starter tototoner
- Start date
Dr Know
SC Supporter
- Aug 21, 2008
- 11,678
- 9,506
Levy would be cutting off his nose to spite his face if he did
Harry has not been charged with anything, if convicted then his position is untenable but until he has been convicted he should keep his job
Look how Lowe sacked Dave Jones when he was charged with being a paedo and then Jones was later acquited
markiespurs
SC Supporter
- Jul 9, 2008
- 11,899
- 15,576
Levy would have known about all this when he hired Harry and as Dr Know said, it's innocent untill proven guilty.
There really is nothing new in the NOTW article.
There really is nothing new in the NOTW article.
There is something new and that's that he could actually be charged this week, that situation hasn't been in place before.
I think it is more serious than people think, the club is a PLC and it also has its major sponsors to think about and how they interpret such events. If Redknapp is charged this week with a criminal offence its not hard to see that the club would be in a difficult position especially if a major sponsor came forward and wanted answers. I'm pretty certain that there would be clauses about image in such agreements that could cause us problems. We've already been led to believe at times that Mansion aren't happy with their deal, do they have get out clauses around such situations?
I have no doubt that Levy wants to keep Harry but we don't know what the full picture is or what the potential reprocussions might be. Yes the club would have known about this issue before appointing Redknapp and were probably led to believe it was something and nothing. However if he is charged and subsequently found guily it does present things in a different light, and what if the FA get involved and find him guilty of taking a bung (which it is starting to look like)?
I think it is more serious than people think, the club is a PLC and it also has its major sponsors to think about and how they interpret such events. If Redknapp is charged this week with a criminal offence its not hard to see that the club would be in a difficult position especially if a major sponsor came forward and wanted answers. I'm pretty certain that there would be clauses about image in such agreements that could cause us problems. We've already been led to believe at times that Mansion aren't happy with their deal, do they have get out clauses around such situations?
I have no doubt that Levy wants to keep Harry but we don't know what the full picture is or what the potential reprocussions might be. Yes the club would have known about this issue before appointing Redknapp and were probably led to believe it was something and nothing. However if he is charged and subsequently found guily it does present things in a different light, and what if the FA get involved and find him guilty of taking a bung (which it is starting to look like)?
Charged and convicted are 2 totally different things, someone is innocent till proven
Levy sacking Harry would firstly prejudice any trial and secondly if Harry was found not guilty most of our transfer budget for the next 2 years would have to go to Harry when he sues for wrongful dismissal
If he is convicted he has to go but being charged means nothing
Dr Know
SC Supporter
- Aug 21, 2008
- 11,678
- 9,506
M8 people get charged with all sorts of things everyday of the week. Its if you get convicted in a court.
Like I said our judicial system allows us to prove our innocence and in some cases you don't even have to do that, the CPS needs to prove you guilty.
I just hope all this crap don't affect the games/players
3Dnata
Well-Known Member
- Oct 5, 2008
- 5,879
- 1,345
It still seems to be at the early stages of legal advice.
If he is interviewed they will go back to the lawyers and ask them to make a decision.
The length this taken so far I couldn't imagine a trial within a year if they are looking at evasion and noy avoidance.
If he is interviewed they will go back to the lawyers and ask them to make a decision.
The length this taken so far I couldn't imagine a trial within a year if they are looking at evasion and noy avoidance.
Midostouch
Active Member
- Aug 9, 2006
- 2,374
- 4
I agree with you and I desperately hope Harry stays but in these circumstances don't they normally say that X has left the club by mutual agreement so that he can focus on defending himself?
Krafty
Well-Known Member
- May 26, 2004
- 4,797
- 2,139
Having read the article, and heard the journalist on the sunday supplement, it seems very, very weak.
It only gets the centre of a two page spread, as much coverage as Wenger saying he doesnt mind picking foreigners/
The City police investigated corruption, and found nothing untowards, but because payments in excess of £10,000 were paid they automatically get passed over to the IR.
Because Mandaric owned the club with an offshore account, like a lot of owners, payments had to go into offshore accounts for tax purposes. In Harry's case he then transferred it to his English bank account, and paid all the tax (according to him and his accountant).
The only slightly intriguing bit of the article is the reason why Harry recieved a payment - 5/10% of the profit from selling Crouch first time round according to Harry, somethign that has nothing to do with football according to Mandaric, with Storrie backing Harry up.
From my point of view, its typical journo hyperbole. The betting didnt help, but it seems to be a case of a different investigation team wanting to go over all the evidence again from a different view point. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on all charges relating to Harry being dropped.
It only gets the centre of a two page spread, as much coverage as Wenger saying he doesnt mind picking foreigners/
The City police investigated corruption, and found nothing untowards, but because payments in excess of £10,000 were paid they automatically get passed over to the IR.
Because Mandaric owned the club with an offshore account, like a lot of owners, payments had to go into offshore accounts for tax purposes. In Harry's case he then transferred it to his English bank account, and paid all the tax (according to him and his accountant).
The only slightly intriguing bit of the article is the reason why Harry recieved a payment - 5/10% of the profit from selling Crouch first time round according to Harry, somethign that has nothing to do with football according to Mandaric, with Storrie backing Harry up.
From my point of view, its typical journo hyperbole. The betting didnt help, but it seems to be a case of a different investigation team wanting to go over all the evidence again from a different view point. If I was a betting man, I'd put money on all charges relating to Harry being dropped.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,014
- 45,337
We are a PLC and so there may be a case for having to release Mr Redknapp pending an outcome but as with any protocol there is one overiding factor to be taken into account, business, that is to say if the suspending a member of staff is going to prove detrimental to the success of the company or organisation then the board is likely to respectfully say bugger protocol he stays and if anyone don't like it they can piss in their boots!!
In my humble opinion m'lud.
In my humble opinion m'lud.
NickHSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Mar 14, 2004
- 13,651
- 11,995
People are worrying over very little in my opinion, the only way Harry will leave/get sacked in my opinion is if he's put in prison. We're doing too well for there to be any other scenario.
We've learnt three things from the Screws:
i) that Redknapp and Storrie, who've been on bail for about 2 years, are finally going to be interviewed with a view to either charging them, probably with tax offences rather than fraud, or dropping all the potential charges for which they've been on bail.
As others have pointed out, this is a normal part of the criminal justice system. People are bailed on suspicion of various offences, and then either charged or have the charges dropped;
ii) that Redknapp was variously Mr 5% and Mr 10% on profits from transfer deals whilst at Portsmouth. There have long been claims that a similar situation applied when he was selling players at West Ham.
My own view is that I don't want a manager or a DoF or any employee of Spurs being incentivized by a profit clause to sell the club's players. I'm delighted that it appears no such arrangement exists at Spurs;
iii) if the Screws article accurately describes the only outstanding matter that is still being investigated, then it does seem relatively mild compared with the potential brown paper bag horrors that the Stevens and Quest enquiries were set up to investigate. In fact, it will show that Stevens and Quest have pretty much failed to deliver on their original, anti-corruption, mandate.
Redknapp's account of the £100k in a Monaco bank account seems fairly straightforward, and not particularly problematic - given he was Mr 10% on transfer deals according to a written contract or oral understanding with Portsmouth FC and Mandaric. The potential problem occurs because Milan Mandaric does not agree with Redknapp's account.
According to the Screws:
So what was the non-football "thing in America"? Mandaric isn't saying, and Redknapp claims the Monaco payment was football transfer-related.
If HMRC and/or the rozzers decide to investigate to see who's telling the truth, that could take another year or so.
If this is all there is left in the police enquiry, I would expect Redknapp to remain as Spurs manager whilst any investigations proceed.
i) that Redknapp and Storrie, who've been on bail for about 2 years, are finally going to be interviewed with a view to either charging them, probably with tax offences rather than fraud, or dropping all the potential charges for which they've been on bail.
As others have pointed out, this is a normal part of the criminal justice system. People are bailed on suspicion of various offences, and then either charged or have the charges dropped;
ii) that Redknapp was variously Mr 5% and Mr 10% on profits from transfer deals whilst at Portsmouth. There have long been claims that a similar situation applied when he was selling players at West Ham.
My own view is that I don't want a manager or a DoF or any employee of Spurs being incentivized by a profit clause to sell the club's players. I'm delighted that it appears no such arrangement exists at Spurs;
iii) if the Screws article accurately describes the only outstanding matter that is still being investigated, then it does seem relatively mild compared with the potential brown paper bag horrors that the Stevens and Quest enquiries were set up to investigate. In fact, it will show that Stevens and Quest have pretty much failed to deliver on their original, anti-corruption, mandate.
Redknapp's account of the £100k in a Monaco bank account seems fairly straightforward, and not particularly problematic - given he was Mr 10% on transfer deals according to a written contract or oral understanding with Portsmouth FC and Mandaric. The potential problem occurs because Milan Mandaric does not agree with Redknapp's account.
According to the Screws:
So what was the non-football "thing in America"? Mandaric isn't saying, and Redknapp claims the Monaco payment was football transfer-related.
If HMRC and/or the rozzers decide to investigate to see who's telling the truth, that could take another year or so.
If this is all there is left in the police enquiry, I would expect Redknapp to remain as Spurs manager whilst any investigations proceed.
Harry Redknapp says Spurs fans should relax about "absolute nonsense" reports he could quit: "I'm definitely not leaving. It's absolute rubbish. There's not a chance: I love it here."
• 2004: Harry attacks "rubbish" reports that he could join Southampton from Portsmouth: "I will not go down the road – no chance."
• 2005: Attacks reports he'll quit Southampton to go back to Portsmouth: "I have no idea where this has come from. It is absolute nonsense – just a stupid rumour."
• Aug 2008: Attacks reports he'll quit Portsmouth for Spurs: "It's absolute rubbish. Portsmouth is my club – I feel an immense sense of loyalty. To leave would be a betrayal. This is my last job in football."
• 2004: Harry attacks "rubbish" reports that he could join Southampton from Portsmouth: "I will not go down the road – no chance."
• 2005: Attacks reports he'll quit Southampton to go back to Portsmouth: "I have no idea where this has come from. It is absolute nonsense – just a stupid rumour."
• Aug 2008: Attacks reports he'll quit Portsmouth for Spurs: "It's absolute rubbish. Portsmouth is my club – I feel an immense sense of loyalty. To leave would be a betrayal. This is my last job in football."
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
Go away, chum; there's a good boy.
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
True, I suppose. For some time to come, I think we can point to this thread as a healthy example of the anti-climax.
Midostouch
Active Member
- Aug 9, 2006
- 2,374
- 4
Let's hope so.
