Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Redknapp cleared.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
as far as I can read...the prosecution could not prove why money was in that bank account.
it meant that anyone with a hidden bank account (not illegal) could be accused of having illicitly gained funds.
quote of the day :
"I don't have to tell the News of The World the truth"
Another example of the unholy alliance between tabloids and the police. Now unraveling.
Far more interesting will be the dozens of cases that will see top tabloid executives and lowly hacks jailed. |
|
In The Know |
angel wrote:
Is it just me, or perhaps some high profile individuals just might be guilty.
On this board its just you angel! |
|
angel |
Is it just me, or perhaps some high profile individuals just might be guilty. |
|
In The Know |
Mike Read's Hairdresser wrote:
It was the taxpayers (jury) who made the final decision, and they may have got it wrong. The fact is that money (equating to 5% the Crouch's transfer fee) was placed in an offshore account in a place where there is 0% income tax. The bonus Redknapp actually received and paid tax in the UK on was - yes you may have guessed it - also 5%. This is very strange considering that under the terms of Redknapp's contract, he was entitled to a 10% commission; why wasn't he unhappy about only getting 5%? Draw your own conclusions...
from BBC News -
The court heard Mr Redknapp's cut of transfer profits was reduced from 10% to 5% when he moved from being Portsmouth's director of football to manager in March 2002 but Mr Redknapp told jurors he felt he was was "morally" due the full 10%.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16925280 |
|
Mike Read's Hairdresser |
It was the taxpayers (jury) who made the final decision, and they may have got it wrong. The fact is that money (equating to 5% the Crouch's transfer fee) was placed in an offshore account in a place where there is 0% income tax. The bonus Redknapp actually received and paid tax in the UK on was - yes you may have guessed it - also 5%. This is very strange considering that under the terms of Redknapp's contract, he was entitled to a 10% commission; why wasn't he unhappy about only getting 5%? Draw your own conclusions... |
|
|
|
