Redknapp verdict?

jury out

i think before 5pm

probably yes, the jury are have been out for a couple of hours now.

He'll only get a fine I expect.

I can tell you the verdict of the Betfair forum:

Guilty: Correct

Not Guilty: He only got off because it's good old Arry'.

40k fine


even-stevens

doubt it. courts don't often carry on beyond about 4 and 3 hours today including lunch isn't very long.

tomorrow heavy odds on for me

Forum braced for meltdown if he gets off.

could be a split---one let off/other guilty

i don't think it can be xmoneyx

GOING BY THE JUDGES COMMENTS TO THE JURY HE'S A CERT TO GET OFF

what was judges comments?

I expected the prosecution to have far more substantial evidence than they've shown to prove guilt, I'd expect a not guilty from everything I've seen and heard presented. Just my opinion on matters though.

He said that they were of previous good character and should be believed basically.

He will get off, its a difficult one but agree with buzzer

agree buzzer.

YEAH BASICALLY SAID LET THEM OFF YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE

prosecution case was NOTW

lucky timing

You're so right, xmoneyx

4/6 he gets off

11/8 found guilty

4/6?

MORE LIKE 1/6

money talks , redknapp walks.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/keyc6x.jpg - Odds

Am taking punts if you fancy it. Money up front.

there is no smoking gun and no concrete proof of deliberately avoiding tax

2.6 not guilty is massive!!!

It has been backed.  I was 3.75 initially.

A monkey on guilty at 2.6, pls.

Down to 2.25 now. Lot of sharp money for it.

sent home for the night

is that good/bad for not guilty verdict?

if they'd have come back this afternoon would have been definite not guilty.

don't get many juries coming back after only a few hours.

judge all but directed for an acquittal emphasing the good character of the defendants

If I was on the jury I'd have been angling for one more day off work. #justsaying ;-)

AGREE WITH RF DAY OFF WORK MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

DO THEY GET PUT UP IN A HOTEL OR GO HOME? MAY BE ANOTHER REASON

judge also wants unanimous verdict.  surely one of them will be a closet spurs fan.  the judge has practically ordered a not guilty verdict for Arry.

agree on judges comments... will get not guilty!!! less theres a gooner on jury making a stand for guilty

OJ simpson got off so harry is 1.01 the loveable rogue

the fact that the defence spend very little time on their summing up tells you their confidence in their case

not guilty, it's a good thing!

All being above board, I'd go 1.01 guilty, where do people think this offshore account in the name of his dog appeared from, and it's just a fantastic coincedence that no tax was paid on the money which was in it? Really?!?

Only thing I am worried about is that we could get a repeat of the Gerrard affair when it was 100% certain that he assaulted that bloke in the nightclub, but needless to say the chance of a Liverpool jury finding their most famous player guilty is about the same as San Marino winning the next world cup!

I can't believe some of the comments on here, do people actually believe the "I have no idea what I'm doing financially, can't even fill out a teamsheet or write properly" cobblers?

it seems to me that if the geezer who gave him the money has told harry  that tax had already been paid on it then that lets harry off the hook, unless the prosecution can prove that the money came from somewhere else and tax hadn't been paid on it.

even then the crown has to prove that #arry knew it was iffy money.

the fact that he put the money in a spurious name is neither here nor there as far as i can see.

What reason does someone have for an offshore account other than to avoid tax

you got any bank accounts that your wife dosen't know about?

if he doesnt get banged up it sends out the wrong message

No, I'm not married, as it happens. If I was I can assure you that I wouldn't have an account in a jurisdiction which is famous for their, shall we say "flexible" arrangements with a client who wants to avoid the attentions of HMRC.

rosie, funny you'd should mention gerrard. the same fella that got gerrard off just happens to be arry's brief in this case too.

I could have got gerrard off, as could anyone who represented him. Did you seriously imagine he could be found guilty in a liverpool court

By: This user is online. bbc2 Date Joined: 16 Apr 09
Add contact | Send message When: 07 Feb 12 18:38 Joined: Date Joined: 16 Apr 09 | Topic/replies: 22,700 | Blogger: bbc2's blog
if he doesnt get banged up it sends out the wrong message
---------------------------------------------------------------

well; i reckon if the evidence isn't there to convict him it would send out a terrible message were he to get done.

bbc2 you're assuming he gets found guilty.

I'M GONNA GO FOR A NOT GUILTY VERDICT

THE PROSECUTION'S CASE SEEMS TO REVOLVE AROUND THAT OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNT, FFS WE ALL HAVE ACCOUNTS ABROAD NAMED AFTER OUR PETS, WELL MY FELLOW PROS DO ANYWAY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

said all along , poor case by  prosecution , not even a  a knuckle  was  wrapped,  well done  arry  ,,,, the best thing you get from  managers ,  is a  odd 1  or 2  days  grace to  watch  their teams  performing . At least harry put  150 k in bank for  youth footie , anybody  else do  this  ?............man appears to more than compensate for any  wrong  doing , ats off to arry    well done  ...

street partys all over tottenham tomorrow all welcome

HARRY'S STREET PARTY, WILL THAT BE TAX DEDUCTABLE ?

"in his legal directions, the judge said the jury could not find Redknapp guilty and at the same time acquit Mr Mandaric"

and vice versa themover

ATS OFF TO ARRY PARTY   ................................NEXT ENGERLAND  MANAGER  ...DOING IT  FOR  NOWT  ,,,,,,A GENTLEMAN  OF THE  KNIGHT  .................MAYBE A  SIR  ARRY   ...A FEW  KNIGHT HOODS  SPARE  FOR HIM  ?????????  A JOB  ADVISER TO  H.M.R.   NO  THATS TOOK IT  TOOO FAR ???

it doesnt matter if he opened an account abroad.  even if the prosecution proved that the money related to an employment related bonus, contrary to what MM says, they have to prove that Arry knew that no tax was paid on it.  when we get paid by our employers we assume that they have paid the tax, Arry cant be expected to know if it has or hasnt been paid.  if it was not employment related its upto MM what he does with his money including setting up a fund for Arry to invest.  Will be amazed if Arry was found guilty but cant be sure sbout MM.

think it's cos mandaric told redknapp tax had already been paid on the money in the monaco account. hence mandaric could be found guilty while redknapp not guilty

"Arry cant be expected to know if it has or hasnt been paid."

Well I dunno about you, but it says on my payslip that tax has been deducted. Is it different for football managers

I don't understand why one cannot be found guilty if the other is acquitted? It's the individuals responsibility to make accurate tax declarations not those of the employer.

well Mandaric and Redknapp claim the monies weren't paid in relation to his job as Portsmouth football manager, the prosecution believe it was and that's where we're at.

oh I see Regular Fries. What are they saying it was paid for?

Footie clubs alredy under investigation regards  ....EXPENSES  ...in an 183  part  questionair  from revenue  .............. arry better watch  the  party  job,  and keep  receipts  for future  .....not get off twice ...????????????

Lester piggott 3 years
Steffi Graf`s dad 4 years
Wesley Snipes 3 years
Boris Becker jammy fecker got away with a big fine
Sophia Loren 30 days

Harry Redknapp ?  deserves to do time but probably won`t IMO

I think he'll get acquitted RAPS, so the 'sentence' element won't even come into it.

"Redknapp believed he was entitled to the money in addition to an initial payment of the same amount, which equated to five per cent of Portsmouth’s net profit on the deal."

That sounds to me like an employer to employee agreement to me?

oh but then :

"Both men deny the charges, and have told the court the payments were an investment made by Mandaric on Redknapp’s behalf as “an unrelated personal gesture”

That's in relation to a bonus on the sale of Peter Crouch, which is what the prosecution claim was the payment in the Monaco bank account.

The defence claims that money wasn't anything to do with that but monies paid by Mandaric to Redknapp for investments.

yes, that's right mover.

It seems to me that the argument that he doesnt need the money as he`s so well off so why would he do it doesnt hold water.
As somebody at work today said,. you may have had a thousand BJ`s but you never say no to another one

so like a gift?

It doesn't pounf but why risk an STD for one more ****?

like i say, i don't think it's a paricularly strong prosecution

what actually happened to that money in the end?  was it transferred to the US like MM said it was for? if there is no documentation to say this money related to employment I dont know how the prosecution can prove its case. was one of the payments exactly 50% of the expected commission he was expecting for Crouch? If my boss was my best mate and he gave my 5K, why would any tax be paid.

I've got an offshore bank account, but I do live in the Channel Islands.

Prosecution evidence very poor,surprised that it went to court-must be not guilty.That does not mean to say they are innocent-I am sure the vast majority will think they are 100% guilty.I know what I think!!

Yes, I maintain my stance that I think he will be acquitted. Would be very surprised if he was found guilty based on that prosecution.

I am amazed all the fuss there has been, for such a small matter. I expected evasion on a gargantuan scale. Seems highly unlikely to me he will be found guilty.

If he was 'at it', then I cant believe he would only have done it this one time, for this relatively paltry amount.

I agree but it's the high profile personality in the dock.
A bit like the politician getting his wife to take the 3 points
for him. It's good copy as they say.

prosecution clutching at straws.  FA also praying for not guilty verdict so they can chuck out Capello and appoint Arry part time until the end of the season before he takes over full time.

case was supposed to be over yesterday Capello has his meeting today Coincidence?

If found guilty I think will  get prison after the way they have been putting MPs in clink for expenses

you cant compare MPs to a football manager......

cleared as expected.  amazed that it got to court.  Arry for England

Not guilty!

capello in danger now

Did they say whether the payments showed up on Portsmouth's accounts. Surely that would prove whether it was a personal gift to Redknapp or not.

Think this case has still done huge harm to his chance of getting England job.

Yorkshire Ripper gutted he didnt get the same judge and jury.

Rumour has it it cost taxpayers £8m for this trial.

8m quid?????

im not that well up on this legal nonsense, so bit of help, please.

does that mean that redknapp and mandaric would have been liable for the prosecution costs (ie the 8m)? as well as any fine?

do the prosecution have to be harry and milans legal fees?

what was the potential gain for the 8m risk?

many thanks

The charge was for tax evasion around the tune of £80k

Harry Redknapp's dog found guilty of tax evasion and sentenced to 3 years, 21 in doggy years.

mtoto2 • February 8, 2012 12:35 PM GMT
Harry Redknapp's dog found guilty of tax evasion and sentenced to 3 years, 21 in doggy years.

Rough...!

Whoever it was who said "when you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty" knew what they were talking about.