Harry due in court on Monday 23rd January 2012 (merged)

[sniff]

The amounts are small? What world do you live in ducado?

He was paid - if it wasn't a loan to his dog - 190 grand. He should have been paying 40% tax on that. That's about 75k - more than the judge earns? If you still think the amount is small the beers are on you. Forever.

Doubtless there are far more substantial frauds, and it may not be a vast sum for redknapp himself. but this is not small beer.

Unless his health packs up mid trial, or he has drawn a jury of anarchists, he is going down.

He wouldnt be paying £75k tax at all. more like £25k ish on the lot.... you only pay the top band on the ammount over £150k... the rest will be taxed at 22% to 40% on a sliding scale.

No, because this was on top of his wage which must have been upwards of £100k, so the 40% would be payable on all of it.

But it wasnt ever part of his salary, ,even declared it would have been a finders fee of some sort....

as such it wouldnt be a PAYE bonus, it was a dividend payout, or sounds like that... that has a maximum tax of about 43% above £150k...

 

[Truefaith98]

I hope the twitchy tw@ gets 3 months in prison,but I very much doubt it.

 

[waspish]

If found guilty put him in chains and drag him through the streets of London to be Personally abused by the public sell rotten fruit to throw at him the scumbag

 

[GXCity]

The amounts are small? What world do you live in ducado?

He was paid - if it wasn't a loan to his dog - 190 grand. He should have been paying 40% tax on that. That's about 75k - more than the judge earns? If you still think the amount is small the beers are on you. Forever.

Doubtless there are far more substantial frauds, and it may not be a vast sum for redknapp himself. but this is not small beer.

Unless his health packs up mid trial, or he has drawn a jury of anarchists, he is going down.

He wouldnt be paying £75k tax at all. more like £25k ish on the lot.... you only pay the top band on the ammount over £150k... the rest will be taxed at 22% to 40% on a sliding scale.

No, because this was on top of his wage which must have been upwards of £100k, so the 40% would be payable on all of it.

He would have been on a salary of a lot more than 100k. He should have paid the top tax band of 50% but got greedy. Send the **** down.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Two reasons why somebody should delete references to Ferguson:

1. Obvious danger to Bluemoon (let alone danger to the posters)
2. The odd deal at COMS under earlier management (NOT recently, I hasten to add) looked "unusual" to say the least.

1. The bit about his son is fact. That's why he wouldn't speak to the BBC after Panorama made it public
2. It certainly did but that's nothing to do with Ferguson.

Was just thinking that very few big clubs have been completely spotless over the years and that it's in nobody's interest to start pointing fingers.

Yeah let's hush it up on a forum.

 

[LongsightM13]

Notice how all the media reports are making references to his previous heart problems?
It's obvious he's gonna pull the old 'too ill to go to jail' card, like the Guinness fraudsters many years ago. And then make a similarly miraculous recovery.
There is also a delicious irony in the fact that the media whore was caught lying on tape by City-hating hack Rob 'the weasel' Beasley, the scumbag who had to apologise on The Sunday Supplement when he lied about Mancini being in the crowd at his pal Clueless' last game.

 

[SWP's back]

He may well not go to prison as the amounts are small, but consider this he is the Al Capone of British football, untouchable for years, the authorities have been after him for years, but he is a slippery customer and they have never had enough evidence against him, but I guess this time he got cocky (the downfall of many a thief) and thought he was above the law.

I wonder if Spuds can have a convicted felon as their manager? How will the FA react, it's not a good advert for the game.

I hope he is convicted this guy is a cancer on the game always has been and always will be!

The amounts are small? What world do you live in ducado?

He was paid - if it wasn't a loan to his dog - 190 grand. He should have been paying 40% tax on that. That's about 75k - more than the judge earns? If you still think the amount is small the beers are on you. Forever.

Doubtless there are far more substantial frauds, and it may not be a vast sum for redknapp himself. but this is not small beer.

Unless his health packs up mid trial, or he has drawn a jury of anarchists, he is going down.

He wouldnt be paying £75k tax at all. more like £25k ish on the lot.... you only pay the top band on the ammount over £150k... the rest will be taxed at 22% to 40% on a sliding scale.

Simply not true fella. He was already over the top rate threshold so would have paid 40% on the lot. The amounts in question did not equate to his full pat for the year.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

If convicted suspended sentence at best.

Possible,but don't forget the ramifications for George Graham.

 

[danebanksheik]

He wouldnt be paying £75k tax at all. more like £25k ish on the lot.... you only pay the top band on the ammount over £150k... the rest will be taxed at 22% to 40% on a sliding scale.

No, because this was on top of his wage which must have been upwards of £100k, so the 40% would be payable on all of it.

But it wasnt ever part of his salary, ,even declared it would have been a finders fee of some sort....

as such it wouldnt be a PAYE bonus, it was a dividend payout, or sounds like that... that has a maximum tax of about 43% above £150k...

Dividends are only to shareholders so certainly not that and the point being made by HMRC (and HR's comments to the police would confirm this) is that this is a bonus and as an employee it should have been wholly taxed as PAYE. It wasnt and even if it was he still should have declared it but it seems like he didnt. The highest rate at the time was 40% so £76k due on £190k, there may also be National Insurance but not definite on the rules on a maximum. There will be interest for late payment as well. He will have to pay this if guilty even if he gets sent down.

 

[SWP's back]

He wouldnt be paying £75k tax at all. more like £25k ish on the lot.... you only pay the top band on the ammount over £150k... the rest will be taxed at 22% to 40% on a sliding scale.

No, because this was on top of his wage which must have been upwards of £100k, so the 40% would be payable on all of it.

But it wasnt ever part of his salary, ,even declared it would have been a finders fee of some sort....

as such it wouldnt be a PAYE bonus, it was a dividend payout, or sounds like that... that has a maximum tax of about 43% above £150k...

PAYE has nothing to do with it and it would be 40% of the total amount on the transactions.

Before you argued 22% now you're saying 43%. why would he pay 43% when he only HAS to pay 40%?

And what did you mean by sliding scale?