• Liverpool Message Board

  • Vito Vito Jan 24, 2012 08:48 Flag

    Dirty Harry & Corrupt FA

    I wonder if your board is going to do­ the right thing and sack Redknapp, or are they going to­ condone him? Will the FA ban him by taking a leaf out of the honest, upstanding Lega Calcio's book who docked points and even demoted teams guilty of corruption in the Serie A? The corrupt individuals in Serie A were all tried and locked up. I fear that the FA will just turn a blind eye like the corrupt, incompetents that they are. Either way, a sad day­ for football!

    Redknapp 'received offshore bungs'. Full article below:

    Tottenham manager Harry Redknapp went on trial on Monday accused of receiving offshore bungs from his former employer.

    The 64-year-old - tipped as a future England boss - dodged taxes on "substantial payments" while he was in charge at Portsmouth, a jury heard.

    Appearing in the dock, Redknapp stood accused of receiving two untaxed payments of more than £189,000 from former chairman Milan Mandaric, his co-accused.

    John Black QC opened the Crown's case at Southwark Crown Court by telling jurors "both parties must have known" they were avoiding taxes.

    "These payments were a bung or offshore bonus that the parties had absolutely no intention of paying taxes for,'' he said.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Erm, I mean in general I agree.


    • In general, yes. However, the England manager job is more sensitive than other jobs and the FA has a wider need to make the game look good than any particular club does. Also, if it wants to be seen as encouraging the inclusivity of everyone in football, then it should act against people making offensive remarks based on race, gender, homosexuality, disability, and so on.

      I won't object if JT loses the England captaincy if he loses the court case. I will think it par for the course.


    • Hi Robert

      No it doesn't. I'm not sure about your point on it being "gratuitously offensive to the disabled" - a member of my immediate family is disabled and he didn't find Hoddle's view offensive.

      But that isn't my point.

      My point is he should have been judged on his ability to do the job - nothing else. In the same way that, for example, Ryan Giggs shouldn't be forced to give up football because he, allegedly slept with his sister in law. Or that JT shouldn't be disqualified from captaining Chelsea because he once parked his car in a disabled spot. Do you disagree?

    • It may well be a genuine religious belief. That doesn't make it exempt from the judgement that it is also ludicrous. Religious beliefs are also fit for the Nonsense Detector, aren't they?

      And extolling belief that is fairly plainly offensive shouldn't be deemed acceptable just because it is called religious. Should it? We're not allowed to persecute or be gratuitously offensive to Jews, or Catholics, or Protestants or Muslims or anyone just because our religion tells us to, so religious beliefs which are gratuitously offensive to the disabled should also not be acceptable on the grounds of religion.


    • Hi Robert

      My memory was that it came out at the end of a football interview when the interviewer asked him about his religious beliefs (nothing about Eileen Drury).

      As for being "utterly ludicrous", there a millions of people around the world who are part of religions that share his view of reincarnation. You might find it ludicrous but it doesn't mean it isn't a genuine religious belief.

      Clearly his religion (or rather the hysterical reaction to it) lost him the England managers job. You mention it requires an image of cleanliness - the point is that whether someone is clean or not seems to depend largely on what the current (I mean this weeks) opinion of the 'great british public' is - usually spurred on by a press agenda.

      Hoddle's great crime was not holding the conviction of his beliefs but by being nieve enough to answer a question honestly.

      I feel that's wrong - it should just be about whether he can do the job or not (ps. I think the same for JT).

    • 1, why should THFC sack arry when its nothing to do with the club?
      2, if found guilty, then fair enough, he should be punished, but how can Spur's be deducted point's?
      3, as his employers, then its up to Portsmouth ( Mandaric ) to deduct tax before payment and he was entitled to the payment by contract, so how can it be a bung? COYS...

      • 4 Replies to john
      • 1. I think it's up to Spurs how they see fit to respond to a successful prosecution.
        2. I don't believe there is any case to punish Portsmouth for what is alleged to have happened. It's obviously nothing to do with THFC.
        3. It's not a bung, it seems, in the George Gaham sense of the word. However, I don't think it's quite as simple as it's all Pompey FC's fault for not deducting it in his PAYE. There's an offshore account in a tax-haven here, in 'Arry's name, or his dog's, or something. Now, normally there's only one reason to have accounts in tax havens and that's to avoid paying tax. Many people with international lifestyles can do this quite legally as they manage to make themselves scarce most of the time to avoid paying income taxes in any one jurisdiction. My guess is that 'Arry can't do this as he is a UK citizen, lives and works full-tme in the UK and so is subject to UK income taxes for all his UK earnings.

        Most of us are employees who have tax paid under PAYE. Most of us don't earn millions and don't have our salary paid into offshore accounts. The particular transactions here look less like a monthly salary and more like a business transaction between manager and chairman. Nothing wrong with that, probably, but it does rather mean that 'Arry can't play innocent and claim he knew nothing about an account in his name, or didn' realise tax hadn't been paid. The law of the country says that it is his responsibility, and his responsibility alone, to declare all his earnings to HMRC. If he doesn't submit a tax return that shows several hundred thousand pounds of taxable income that has been sent directly abroad then that is an offence.

        My guess is he's going down.


      • Ah but it to do with the club as Reknapp is their manager and represents them on the pitch.. If that puts a slur on Spur's name then he has to go..

        Or they could ride it out and have a black mark against the club...

      • It’s all allegations at this point so think its way to early to go jumping to conclusions or especially prescribing punishments.

        However while I agree this has nothing to do with Spurs, I'm not sure Harry can plead ignorance here and blame it all on the club for not deducting taxes. Most people get paid with a cheque or a direct deposit, so large bonuses being deposited into an offshore account tells me Harry can't play dumb here.

        But also I read this morning the bonus in question was a result of the profit Harry helped the club realize when they sold Crouch. Considering the rest of Harry's Portsmouth transfer dealings did result in an FA cup, but also bankrupted the club while both he and Mandaric walked away (Harry to the same place he sold Crouchie onto) suggests at the very least things were a little cozy even if they did not deliberately intent fraud or tax evasion.

      • With only a limited knowledge of the case that is my feeling too.

    • I want Harry to be found NOT guilty so he can become England manager, resulting in Bale et al to leave, thereby making spurs weaker and thus improving Liverpool's chances of getting into the top four within the next 100 years.

    • Great topical post.