Jury told that when Redknapp was director of football at Portsmouth his contract entitled him to 10% of net profit on any transfers. When Redknapp moved from director of football to manager in May 2002 his profit on transfers reduced to 5%. Jury told example of Peter Crouch. Bought for £1.25 million and sold for £4.5 million. Prosecution say Crouch sold just 9 days after new Redknapp contract reduced his share from 10% to 5%. Prosecution say Redknapp's share of Crouch transfer was £115,473. Would have been double if contract not changed. Prosecution allege that Redknapp instead received secret payment from Mandaric and in April 2002 Redknapp flew to Monaco to open account. Monaco account not in Redknapp's name. Was called "Rosie 47". Prosecution say this was combination of his dog's name and his year of birth. https://twitter.com/Pearcesport
Closed for the day, the prosecution seems to have brought some interesting things to light, but I still can't believe that Redknapp would have continued pleading innocence through all this unless he has some very very concrete evidence which proves him so.
who knows about a custodial sentence,but one things for sure,he wont be England manager if proven..good luck against watford..should be a hatfull .
Obviously Spurs fans will be defending him to the hilt and opposition fans will be hoping he is found guilty. Basically we should just let the courts do their job. If Harry has been up to no good then rightly he should go to jail, and I would imagine face punishment from the FA as it appears to be some kind of bung. If he didn't do it you have nothing to worry about and he will be back at training in a fortnight.
Or he didn't know the full extent of their evidence against him and he thought he could bluff it out. Evidence against him is fairly strong, personally I think he's going down, football is dirty, full of brown envelopes and after Portsmouth went bust owing millions to HMRC they have had a hard-on to get someone, as Redknapp has always had the aura of an 'Arthur Daly' about him, he makes an ideal target, and lets face it, he looks guilty.
Not how it works. Prosecution have to disclose all evidence against someone before coming to trial. I would imagine Harry has a fairly good brief, so they will believe that they have a chance. Just wait till all the evidence is shown.
Uneventful in my eyes. If your £1m an hour lawyer says "I'll get you off", I think you might believe him. Perhaps you have no choice but to believe him. I've pleaded not guilty to driving offences I knew I'd committed because I knew they couldn't have evidence they said they did. It happens. Could Harry be that sure? Answer me this Harry-haters: what possible good would it do by locking him up? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Debt to society? Danger to the public? Prisons are full, so I'm told.
Think you should be more careful with your language Miggins. The term 'looks' is very ambiguous. Your first comment implies that Harry has the physical resemblance of a criminal, whereas I believe what you mean is that the evidence so far appears to suggest that he is guilty. Although, it would do, seeing as we have only heard the prosecution
Fairly sure the prosecution's case won't stick. He'll get fined on a technicality at worst. Similar to presenting a tax return on Feb 1st... HMRC always go for the kill. Harry (and Mandaric) wouldn't be pleading not guilty if he wasn't very sure of what he's doing.
Even Spurs fans must admit that this looks a dodgy as it comes ? Secret payments into Monaco bank account set up in the name of his dog to pay in bungs from transfer dealings ??? If he is found guilty, I think he's definitely looking at a custodial sentence. Even if he escapes prison, can Spurs still stick by a convicted criminal, given that the nature of the crimes have brought his reputation in the game into serious question? No wonder he reacted the way did when that MOTD reporter called him a Wheeler dealer
