stevegrant

I think your maths needs a recount The end of the last page was the completion of page 999, 999 x 50 = 49950

I'm hoping Private Eye will go to town on it, although I'm sure they'll wait until after the trial has finished. Fair to say Ian Hislop is well aware of what constitutes Contempt of Court by now

Correct. Another trek down from London for a midweek game

We're talking about an off-shore account owned by a man who has been paid tens of millions of pounds during his career. For him, £100k probably *is* a token amount.

Incorrect, the 5th Round will be played over the weekend of the 18th February, so says the FA website

It was mentioned a day or two ago that "dormant" accounts attract some sort of fee from the bank, so it might have been a token transaction just to ensure the account status remained "active".

But that's Mandaric's account (or, more specifically, Mandaric's company), not Redknapp's.

Don't forget, the only disclosure in this case is that the rosie47 account existed in the Monaco branch of HSBC. There's been no disclosure - as it's not relevant - of any other off-shore accounts Redknapp owns. Given the relatively low figures involved in this particular case, i.e. the one that HMRC has managed to gather enough evidence with which to prosecute, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this isn't a one-off. As he says himself in his defence, why would he bother going to that trouble just for £30k (or £80k as is more accurate given his status as a high-rate taxpayer)?

Those figures include around a dozen sub appearances as well. In terms of goals-to-minutes-played, his record's probably not dissimilar to Lambert, who generally plays the full 90 minutes every game.

Guly's such an unreliable source of goals, what a **** record 22 goals in 68 games is for someone predominantly playing in midfield, along with however many assists. Compare that with the stellar performance of Mr Davies this season, a whopping three goals in 23 games. Sign him up...

You're at least a year late to that particular party

I'm surprised we didn't say they couldn't do it because it would be a health and safety risk. After all, that's supposedly what Plymouth Argyle said...

Your guess is as good as mine, and I know it's baffled that publication's journalists as well

Presumably when Jim Smith went back there, possibly as an apology for shafting him when we were relegated.

Au contraire, Cortese had a 3-hour meeting with the Sun's sports editor (as reported on here at the time) where everything was smoothed over.

And now Bournemouth, having realised that a club of their size can't move forward anymore without being forced to sell their entire first team for peanuts every year, are following Pompey's lead by taking some dodgy Russian's money. It will end in tears for them as well.

Latest: 1-0 down, against the run of play

Funny how impressions often don't reflect the actual reality - a few numbers for the last month compared with the same 31-day period a year ago: Site Visits: up 31.4% Unique Visits: up 66.8% Page Views: up 22.8% Number of Posts: up 20.5% All in all, the site's doing pretty well compared to a year ago, I would say. At this stage, there are no plans to change the moderators.

And he was still hopeless, which probably says more about how appalling the rest of them were on Monday night.

I find the deals you can get with the big search sites vary quite significantly. Sometimes there's simply nothing of any worth available, but other times you'll get a gem - I managed to get a triple room in a 4* hotel in Karlsruhe last Friday for £50, when the normal rate for the same room is €115.

It depends... I think that if HMRC were to apply for the court to place the club in administration, they would have some sort of input, but if the club went into admin voluntarily, they would get to choose. HMRC could challenge any appointment, so I can't imagine there's much chance they'd allow AA to perform that role again.

What kind of self-respecting journalist names one of the jurors during a trial, FFS?

Whether it was in his contract or not (I suspect not), the answer to that is definitely "yes".

I reckon that article might be from 2009

Seems to be on all news sites now (or at least those I'm following on Twitter).