NG32 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Doesn't matter who England hire as manager tbh, there's not a good enough pot of players to make a proper team. And the players who are available, are total shitehawks who don't have the mentality to achieve anything with England That. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Only just seen the news, absolute joke tbh. Like some have said, if it was just your average person, they would have been sent down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Doesn't matter who England hire as manager tbh, there's not a good enough pot of players to make a proper team. And the players who are available, are total shitehawks who don't have the mentality to achieve anything with England. We simply aren't good enough or close to being good enough. It's not just the players it's the system, everywhere else has a much better set up. There's too much ''hoof it'' culture in England for a start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Needs to start with kids on small pitches playing with a small ball, learning touch, pass and move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdawson Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Justice is served. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Lord Sugar tells BBC Radio 5 live: "If this was Harry Smith or Harry Brown, it wouldn't have gone to court." Speaking about footballers and managers often signing documents blindly, he explains: "They trust and leave it to the profesionals. Harry and many others have grown up with that culture. They shove a piece of paper under your nose and you sign it." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Im not a professional accountant, can i get away saying "i didnt know" Fuck that man, eveyone knows you gotta pay tax, lying bastards. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wasn't the ignorance defence that got them off though was it? It was the fact that the judge instructed the jury to believe their word that the money was an 'investment' rather than anything to do with the Crouch sale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Lord Sugar tells BBC Radio 5 live: "If this was Harry Smith or Harry Brown, it wouldn't have gone to court." Speaking about footballers and managers often signing documents blindly, he explains: "They trust and leave it to the profesionals. Harry and many others have grown up with that culture. They shove a piece of paper under your nose and you sign it." The point Sugar is missing is HMRC have sent out a (expensive) message saying "We know what has gone on in the past between football clubs and managers, but now we are watching you. Pay your taxes up front and we will leave you alone" Next time someone just might be found guilty!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Something I vaguely heard on Radio2 whilst driving today about the time Ken Dodd was found not guilty of a similar offence. Can't say for sure I quote verbatim, but the judge said the case had shown... A comedian is incapable of being an accountant but an accountant can be a comedian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Lord Sugar tells BBC Radio 5 live: "If this was Harry Smith or Harry Brown, it wouldn't have gone to court." Speaking about footballers and managers often signing documents blindly, he explains: "They trust and leave it to the profesionals. Harry and many others have grown up with that culture. They shove a piece of paper under your nose and you sign it." The point Sugar is missing is HMRC have sent out a (expensive) message saying "We know what has gone on in the past between football clubs and managers, but now we are watching you. Pay your taxes up front and we will leave you alone" Next time someone just might be found guilty!" really ? the message i'm seeing is "get as much offshore as you can and a decent accountant can come up with any number of reasons as to why it wasn't taxed, mind you it's only an option open to the rich as those accountants are expensive, but worth it for all that tax you'll save" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't really know how the prosecution went at Redknapp, but if it was as bad as Redknapp's defense, then that's pathetic. Some of the claims Redknapp made to defend himself were useless, and should never hold up in court, they must really had not had a case, or just didn't try hard enough to win it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't really know how the prosecution went at Redknapp, but if it was as bad as Redknapp's defense, then that's pathetic. Some of the claims Redknapp made to defend himself were useless, and should never hold up in court, they must really had not had a case, or just didn't try hard enough to win it. It is weird, I would have thought they wouldn't have bothered to charge him unless they had strong evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wasn't the ignorance defence that got them off though was it? It was the fact that the judge instructed the jury to believe their word that the money was an 'investment' rather than anything to do with the Crouch sale. also to believe that what saggy face said on the phone to weasely besely was a lie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 has it been announced whether there was a spilt in the jury ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 perfect picture of him on bbc homepage when he finds out verdict http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wasn't the ignorance defence that got them off though was it? It was the fact that the judge instructed the jury to believe their word that the money was an 'investment' rather than anything to do with the Crouch sale. also to believe that what saggy face said on the phone to weasely besely was a lie. Did he instruct them to believe that? I thought that it was rather that if they did believe that then they had to acquit him - which makes more sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It wasn't the ignorance defence that got them off though was it? It was the fact that the judge instructed the jury to believe their word that the money was an 'investment' rather than anything to do with the Crouch sale. also to believe that what saggy face said on the phone to weasely besely was a lie. Did he instruct them to believe that? I thought that it was rather that if they did believe that then they had to acquit him - which makes more sense. i didn't mean it to sound like the judge instructed them to believe that, though he did say something about believing them the other day due their good charcter didn't he ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He said they were of good character and so the jury should tend to believe their testimony IIRC. Sounds like he thought the prosecution was a load of bollocks. Also they had paid a large amount of tax perviously and so argued that there was no reason for them to avoid a small amount now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He said they were of good character and so the jury should tend to believe their testimony IIRC. Sounds like he thought the prosecution was a load of bollocks. Also they had paid a large amount of tax perviously and so argued that there was no reason for them to avoid a small amount now. Yeah, that seemed to be a major part of the defence. Did you read that piece from the Man City fan who was a QC? He seemed to think the Judge was really well-respected. I suspect that, as you said, the prosecution wasn't the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dover Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Gutted truly gutted. Still was worth it just for two weeks of pleasure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Watch Capello get sacked for his comments about Terry and appoint Redknapp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I am stopping my PAYE from now, will just plead ignorance tot the fact that the whole concept of taxation even exists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Taxes will rise, people will die and people will fiddle away... I guarantee every manager has done a Redknapp, and players and anyone in business really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Anyone read any Portsmouth forums to see what their take on it is ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts