10 - Lionel Messi - v4

[JamDav1982]

Again he has ADMITTED to have that company, that he just isn't using (as he says). I've said this three times now. I've even linked the tweet in which Flavia translated exactly THAT.

The rest of your comment is a bit childish "uhh you are not as well informed as you think, I can research all that". Yeah okay, I was just referencing the claims I made with the informations I have, not "bragging" about it. If you are able to google thigns, that is fine, good thing, still means that is actual Research.

Think you missed the point... I am saying it is common knowledge through headlines they have that account and nothing that took research to discover.

Nothing at all you 'researched' gives you any more of an insight other than you seem suprised it isnt easy to open up these type of accounts.

 

[KingLeo10]

when there's an allegation over a bayern player, yannik's benefit of the doubt resides with the bayern player. when the allegation concerns a barca player, the benefit of the doubt resides with the ones making the allegation.

 

[Yannik]

The Messis are suing the papers that claimed that offshore company was used for tax evasion. They have nothing to gain from lying, as they'd lose and have to pay El confidential for that.

No, the sue is fine. El Confidential said he is guilty of tax frauds, while the leak was only saying that he owns a company there so far.
Those are accusations that the newspaper is held accountable for. After all the whole case hasn't been under investigation yet, so if a newspaper goes out and say "you are guilty" then you can sue them.
The fact that Messi takes this step is also working in favour of his public credibility and is preserving his global image.

 

[JamDav1982]

No, the sue is fine. El Confidential said he is guilty of tax frauds, while the leak was only saying that he owns a company there so far.
Those are accusations that the newspaper is held accountable for. After all the whole case hasn't been under investigation yet, so if a newspaper goes out and say "you are guilty" then you can sue them.
The fact that Messi takes this step is also working in favour of his public credibility and is preserving his global image.

Surely it is worse for his credibility to deny any wrong doing and sue the press when found out to be guilty in the end.

That is about the worst case scenario.

 

[Yannik]

Think you missed the point... I am saying it is common knowledge through headlines they have that account and nothing that took research to discover.

Nothing at all you 'researched' gives you any more of an insight other than you seem suprised it isnt easy to open up these type of accounts.

I am not sure what we are debating now. My research? No offense, but I really don't care if you approve my research. I've never said I have some crazy motherfucker stationed in Panama playing 007 inside-men shit for me of stuff that I leak that noone else knows or could just google. My username says "Yannik", not Snowden".. I simply said, I have done research on which I base my assumption on. No biggie, I have repeatedly underlined all my claims with explanations gained from the information I have gathered. I don't see how belittleing my research is in any way progressing the point of this discussion, which is why I wonder what we are actually doing here?

 

[Flavia]

No, the sue is fine. El Confidential said he is guilty of tax frauds, while the leak was only saying that he owns a company there so far.
Those are accusations that the newspaper is held accountable for. After all the whole case hasn't been under investigation yet, so if a newspaper goes out and say "you are guilty" then you can sue them.
The fact that Messi takes this step is also working in favour of his public credibility and is preserving his global image.

El confidential said he used that offshore company to commit tax fraud in Spain. I can't think of how lying about that company having never been used will work in his favor, in the end. It would actually do even more damage to his image.

 

[JamDav1982]

I am not sure what we are debating now. My research? No offense, but I really don't care if you approve my research. I've never said I have some crazy motherfucker stationed in Panama playing 007 inside-men shit for me of stuff that I leak that noone else knows or could just google. My username says "Yannik", not Snowden".. I simply said, I have done research on which I base my assumption on. No biggie, I have repeatedly underlined all my claims with explanations gained from the information I have gathered. I don't see how belittleing my research is in any way progressing the point of this discussion, which is why I wonder what we are actually doing here?

We are debating that you feel more informed by other due to research when in reality you are not and everything you quoted is common knowledge.

Rather than general information about what this company does and how difficult it is to open an account - what specifically have you researched that has led you to believe Messi is breaking the law?

 

[Yannik]

Surely it is worse for his credibility to deny any wrong doing and sue the press when found out to be guilty in the end.

That is about the worst case scenario.

Well yes, it is.
In front of court some people would deny crimes until finally found guilty, even without their confession.
My little brother still denied stealing from the candy-drawer even when my parents found the wrapping in his pockets.
I don't know why people do that, but they do that. He has a PR-management and several lawyers telling him what to do, and they will most likely have said "deny it".

 

[Vlom]

You need to call the judges ASAP tell them you solved the case mate.

Any input on Putin ?

 

[Yannik]

We are debating that you feel more informed by other due to research

Can you give me a quote to that maybe? Where I said that I'd be better or more informed than others?
I can't remember that.

 

[JamDav1982]

Well yes, it is.
In front of court some people would deny crimes until finally found guilty, even without their confession.
My little brother still denied stealing from the candy-drawer even when my parents found the wrapping in his pockets.
I don't know why people do that, but they do that. He has a PR-management and several lawyers telling him what to do, and they will most likely have said "deny it".

You are making a different point now. That all guilty people deny things.

In terms of his PR the worst case scenario is to deny it when guilty.

If Messi had said nothing you would most likely be claiming anyone innocent would deny it.

 

[Chong Li]

[MENTION=19371]Yannik[/MENTION]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

[JamDav1982]

Can you give me a quote to that maybe? Where I said that I'd be better or more informed than others?
I can't remember that.

So you are not more informed then and admit your research made no difference?

I apologise.

 

[Luftstalag14]

I know about the requirements needed to create an offshore business and I've explained why the amount iof requirements makes it appear unlikely that Messi didn't know about it. And I now know that Messi DID create an offshore-account in Panama, despite claiming not to use it (which I don't know, but don't think).

Sorry I missed those, but can you explain (or point me to the place where you explained) what requirements are needed to set up one of these companies and why you believe it it is likely Messi didn't know about it? At the very best, I am guessing he had to sign a lot of paperwork? What else? Audio testimony giving approvals to set up the company by Messi?

I know from the documents that the first reference to the company in Mossack Fonseca’s files came on June 13, 2013 - one day after Spanish prosecutors first filed tax fraud charges against Messi and his father. I also know that in the earlier case, Messi and his father were also denying all charges until actual evidence was shown.

What "documents" may I ask? And I am sorry I am confused, what do you are suggesting by the above? That the Spanish authority knew about Messi's dealing with Mossack Fonseca? By the "earlier case", I suppose you are referring to the ongoing investigation and court case covering the 2007-2010 period? What evidence was shown? I don't think they are denying charges, they are denying that Messi was aware of those schemes, if I am not mistaken.

The rest is my conclusion.
I still don't buy the theory that you be so out of touch with your own money even though you're filthy rich and have people to sort that thing out for you, but let's say that Messi had no idea about the first case.
Then you're probably gonna have a talk with your money people and tell them to get shit sorted out and to keep shit clean.
When the same shit then goes down a second time right after, you know this isnt just bad advice from the people around him.

That makes no sense. Why would Messi deliberately direct his advisors to commit tax fraud when the Spanish authorities have already filed charges against him?? Is he crazy?

 

[Yannik]

So you are not more informed then and admit your research made no difference?

Uhm no, I did inform myself and it had an impact on what I think.
You were just fucking around with a random comparative that you had made up.
And apparently you weren't able to give me an example where I had actually used that comparative, so ask you again: Why are we debating it then?

[MENTION=19371]Yannik[/MENTION]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis