What a Arseh0le.

Correct ,no shame

joey13 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:12 pm

Correct ,no shame

Never liked Redknapp, his son is just as greasy,money mad cockney asshole.

Can't help it.

He's another Big Sam, except Big Sam's dog didn't have a bank account.

He’s a crook who somehow seems to get away with it with a lot of the public because he mentions his wife a lot and won a reality show which he was paid a fortune for appearing.

One of the dodgiest managers in the history of the game for the amount of shady transfers and agents backhand deals.
On top of this he is a tax dodger
And on top of this has been involved in spread betting irregularities in his days at West Ham.

He'll talk his way out of it with help from his media mates and of course Saaaaandra.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:07 pm

What a Arseh0le.ESlOOt4WkAAo0lV.jpeg.jpg

As Barry Taylor,( Timothy Spall) electrician in Auf Wiedersehen,Pet said of Terry Leather,London crook and wideboy 'Despicable people'.

Man gets, admittedly overpaid, for job

Not sure what the story is here tbh

He got paid for promoting a charity? What’s wrong with that? Unless I’m missing part of the story.

I'm more interested in Kelly

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:33 pm

He'll talk his way out of it with help from his media mates and of course Saaaaandra.

Blame it on the dog.

Come on, he's a geezer inn he. That's what geezers do nudge nudge wink wink say no more

Dodgy 2nd hand car salesman

The charity sector has thousands of people either contributing their time and effort for nothing or working as a vocation for less than they could. It's also got thousands of people taking fat salaries for achieving very little away from any of the normal oversight that a job would entail.

Pillar of society.

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:57 pm

Pillar of society.

You missed the K off Pillar Timbob it should read

Pillark of society....

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:03 pm

You missed the K off Pillar Timbob it should read

Pillark of society....

Sorry I rushed it... indeed he is.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:29 pm

He’s a crook who somehow seems to get away with it with a lot of the public because he mentions his wife a lot and won a reality show which he was paid a fortune for appearing.

One of the dodgiest managers in the history of the game for the amount of shady transfers and agents backhand deals.
On top of this he is a tax dodger
And on top of this has been involved in spread betting irregularities in his days at West Ham.

All the betting allegations were denied & the FA probe went nowhere, apart from that you might have a point.

ClaretMov wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:41 pm

I'm more interested in Kelly

Or should that read "Kelly's"????

ZizkovClaret wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:34 pm

Man gets, admittedly overpaid, for job

Not sure what the story is here tbh

I just saw the headline didn't need to read the story grade one bellend along with Sandra Jamie & Rosie the dog

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:36 pm

All the betting allegations were denied & the FA probe went nowhere, apart from that you might have a point.

I take it you have not seen the West Ham game in question where the spread bets were made ? It’s the most obvious betting fix I have ever seen in a football game but it was at the advent of spread betting without the laws and regulation that came later.

Oh and you mean the FA probe where he said he could not read or write and it was his dogs fault ?

But other than that your support for straight up Harry is commendable...did he get a speeding ticket too ?

Getting off with something and being able to utilise very expensive lawyers does not mean you didn’t do it.

Big Sam was literally caught on camera paying agents and then said he had no idea his own son was taking back handers on the players BFS was himself signing for “undisclosed fees” - he didn’t get done either.

I think he owes his wife a few mentions in the media after he nearly killed her, driving off with her still not fully out of the car

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:45 pm

I take it you have not seen the West Ham game in question where the spread bets were made ? It’s the most obvious betting fix I have ever seen in a football game but it was at the advent of spread betting without the laws and regulation that came later.

Oh and you mean the FA probe where he said he could not read or write and it was his dogs fault ?

But other than that your support for straight up Harry is commendable...did he get a speeding ticket too ?

Getting off with something and being able to utilise very expensive lawyers does not mean you didn’t do it.

Big Sam was literally caught on camera paying agents and then said he had no idea his own son was taking back handers on the players BFS was himself signing for “undisclosed fees” - he didn’t get done either.

The rest of the post might have been correct, even though it doesn't look good while no concrete proof exists it's wise to reserve judgement. There's enough dirt on Harry to be had, without making things up we can't be 100% sure about

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:53 pm

Redknapp & Allardyce would make damn fine scousers......

Sounds like a Dickensian firm of dodgy Lawyers...

Emphasis on 'DODGY'

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:57 pm

The rest of the post might have been correct, even though it doesn't look good while no concrete proof exists it's wise to reserve judgement. There's enough dirt on Harry to be had, without making things up we can't be 100% sure about

Who is making things up ?
I know for a fact about the spread betting and that he instigated a very substantial spread bet and got players in his team involved to execute it. I had a friend who worked in the betting industry at the time - it was before they had the monitoring systems in place to track irregular sports betting volumes.
As for the dog incident that was very well reported.

It’s fine that you choose to believe he is innocent though - quite a champion of the criminal world aren’t you ? Maybe it’s just another money making scam by the HMRC wasting time and money Investigating good old innocent salt of the earth people like Harry.

I’m surprised folk are surprised. Dodgy footballer managers goes back forever.
Managers getting a percentage on player transfers, in and out, is outrageous and should be illegal. They are paid to manage a team that means get results and improve players not take a cut for improving players.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:06 pm

Who is making things up ?
I know for a fact about the spread betting and that he instigated a very substantial spread bet and got players in his team involved to execute it. I had a friend who worked in the betting industry at the time - it was before they had the monitoring systems in place to track irregular sports betting volumes.
As for the dog incident that was very well reported.

It’s fine that you choose to believe he is innocent though - quite a champion of the criminal world aren’t you ? Maybe it’s just another money making scam by the HMRC wasting time and money Investigating good old innocent salt of the earth people like Harry.

I like to deal in facts, I know it's a inconvenient obstacle towards some narratives, the facts are - all the allegations were denied & the FA found no wrongdoings,
I'm not on some sort of crusade defending HR, it's murky enough as it is, let's be consistent with the truth & what we know to be fact, it's not too much to ask is it?

Past misdemeanours aside, I’m still to see anyone explain what exactly he’s done wrong here?

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:13 pm

I like to deal in facts, I know it's a inconvenient obstacle towards some narratives, the facts are - all the allegations were denied & the FA found no wrongdoings,
I'm not on some sort of crusade defending HR, it's murky enough as it is, let's be consistent with the truth & what we know to be fact, it's not too much to ask is it?

You mean you like to deal with facts when it suits you ?
I’ve already said you are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion and that of many people is that he was guilty as hell of both the incidents I mentioned - one because I know the facts and the second because it was one of the most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard. My opinion is that he had very clever and expensive lawyers and they managed to get him off with it...but that he still did it.

You are talking about these incidents like he hasn’t been ridiculed all over the media for getting off with them.

You are one weird fish.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:21 pm

Past misdemeanours aside, I’m still to see anyone explain what exactly he’s done wrong here?

I think the implication is that if you're a celeb promoting/supporting a charity you should be donating "yourself" for free. I'm not a celebrity (you'll be surprised to hear!) so I don't know what normal practice is in these situations, but I remember being somewhat shocked when Wogan was outed as getting a huge fee to do "Children in Need" each year when (apparently) everyone else who takes part does it for free. I believe Wogan quickly changed his stance after that came out and made it clear he would no longer be taking his pay for that show.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:24 pm

You mean you like to deal with facts when it suits you ?
I’ve already said you are entitled to your opinion.

My opinion and that of many people is that he was guilty as hell of both the incidents I mentioned - one because I know the facts and the second because it was one of the most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard. My opinion is that he had very clever and expensive lawyers and they managed to get him off with it...but that he still did it.

You are talking about these incidents like he hasn’t been ridiculed all over the media for getting off with them.

You are one weird fish.

"Getting off with them" probably based on a lack of evidence, I'll leave you to it, good day.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:28 pm

"Getting off with them" probably based on a lack of evidence, I'll leave you to it, good day.

Ok no problem - enjoy your drive out..(you obtuse %#%%)

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:27 pm

I think the implication is that if you're promoting/supporting a charity you should be donating "yourself" for free. I'm not a celebrity (you'll be surprised to hear!) so I don't know what normal practice is in these situations, but I remember being somewhat shocked when Wogan was outed as getting a huge fee to do "Children in Need" each year when (apparently) everyone else who takes part does it for free. I believe Wogan quickly changed his stance after that came out and made it clear he would no longer be taking his pay for that show.

Have you ever been to a charity dinner etc? Do you think the ‘celebrities’ that compere these events do it for free? If Redknapp is offered a sum of money to promote a charity and therefore increase its exposure why should he not oblige? Without knowing the guy I’d hazard a guess that Harry Redknapp has donated significantly more money to charity than any of those on this thread who are criticising him.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:33 pm

Have you ever been to a charity dinner etc? Do you think the ‘celebrities’ that compere these events do it for free? If Redknapp is offered a sum of money to promote a charity and therefore increase its exposure why should he not oblige? Without knowing the guy I’d hazard a guess that Harry Redknapp has donated significantly more money to charity than any of those on this thread who are criticising him.

He is still a complete and utter knob though

Never got the love-in with him, grade A two hat, always has been.

Celebrity gets paid to endorse thing... wow, who knew.

All those thousands of people who work for charities and get paid, hang them, hang them I say.

Lads, you do realise corona doesn’t give you Coronavirus don’t you?

Poor chap needs all the cash he can get his hands on, leave him alone, it can't be cheap living on Millionaires row on Sandbanks !

And to think that this spiv was , when there was an England manager vacancy, frequently described, by the London-centric media as , "The People's Choice!"

Aye oreight, the "people" with a penchant for pie,mash, liquor, jellied eels and old bamboo!!!

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:21 pm

Past misdemeanours aside, I’m still to see anyone explain what exactly he’s done wrong here?

wonder if he intended declaring the cash payment...or would dog claim it as expenses?

woof!

He needs the money to fund his sandbanks lifestyle. Diamond geezer is Harry.

claretblue wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:24 pm

wonder if he intended declaring the cash payment...or would dog claim it as expenses?

woof!

Just for clarity Redknapp didn’t claim that it was his dog’s bank account.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:28 pm

Just for clarity Redknapp didn’t claim that it was his dog’s bank account.

hope he doesn't lose d'is temper!

Tricky Trevor wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:11 pm

I’m surprised folk are surprised. Dodgy footballer managers goes back forever.

Don Readies, anyone?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:28 pm

Just for clarity Redknapp didn’t claim that it was his dog’s bank account.

His dog did......


Wuff Wuff

As far as the dog is concerned, the facts as admitted by Redknapp are that he went out to Monaco to open an account there using the name of his dog as an alias, and that he deposited $295,000 of money which he earned under the terms of his contract at Portsmouth, and which he received from Portsmouth, in that bank account. That income was UK taxable income and he did not declare it to the taxman, he did not pay tax on it.

Three years later he was investigated for tax disclosure during which he was asked to (and presumably agreed to, since he wasn't prosecuted) make a full signed disclosure that all his income had been declared. He still did not declare this $295,000.

Eventually the money was found and he was prosecuted. His defence was that he is stupid to the point of being unfit to be let out, and that his boss at Portsmouth was crooked and that his accountant was crooked but that he was as honest as the day is long. That defence was accepted by the jury.

So if you say he is a criminal tax dodger, you would have to be able to stand by that in a court of libel. (Which is decided on balance of probability, so the fact he wasn't convicted doesn't mean you'd lose!) But if you just say that large amounts of money on which he should have paid tax were taken to Monaco and were hidden from the taxman, then you are on 100% solid ground.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:39 pm

He got paid for promoting a charity? What’s wrong with that? Unless I’m missing part of the story.

Well, when you have the sort of wealth he enjoys, he could have done it for nothing.

I think Kelly Brook might be a new Cockney rhyming slang? I’d say deffo!

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:03 pm

Well, when you have the sort of wealth he enjoys, he could have done it for nothing.

Can you imagine how many charities must approach people like Harry Redknapp? Should he give up his time for free every time every time he’s asked?