Benjamin Mendy | Joins Pogon Szczecin (p92)

A prediction:

Mendy's lawyers will talk to City's lawyers.

Former will claim he's entitled to all earnings. Latter will claim his own actions (particularly breaching bail conditions to get banged up) mean he isn't entitled to anything. They'll split the difference because neither side wants this to get anywhere near court.

Which probably is about fair as whilst he was found not guilty of a criminal offence, his actions made him unavailable.
 
Corky said:
Someone may have pointed that out but it wasn't how it happened. They didn't put him on remand for breaching pre-charge bail conditions as that would not be legal, they charged him then put him on remand. The breach of bail conditions may have played a part in future bail hearings.

The police noticed the party when then came to arrest him to charge him, but it was not reason they came to arrest him.
Click to expand...
Im sure thats incorrect. He was charged and put out om conditional bail, which he breached and so was rearrested, and the court then put him on remand
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
Read what I said. The police charge someone if they think there is sufficient evidence.

An individual does not decide to "press charges", which is something that 99% just don't understand.

You can decide to provide evidence or a statement but that' it. It's in the hands of the police then.
Click to expand...
I’ve been asked by the police whether I want to press charges on someone (I said no), and on the flip side I’ve also been told by police that someone didn’t want to press charges against me.

I won’t go into the details of either case, but all I was saying is that the police do infact use that terminology… rightly or wrongly.
 
paska said:
I’ve been asked by the police whether I want to press charges on someone (I said no), and on the flip side I’ve also been told by police that someone didn’t want to press charges against me.

I won’t go into the details of either case, but all I was saying is that the police do infact use that terminology… rightly or wrongly.
Click to expand...

They might have said that to be nice but that’s not how the law works.

The police don’t need any consent from a victim to charge anybody.

Not that this has anything to do with Mendy..!
 
paska said:
I’ve been asked by the police whether I want to press charges on someone (I said no), and on the flip side I’ve also been told by police that someone didn’t want to press charges against me.

I won’t go into the details of either case, but all I was saying is that the police do infact use that terminology… rightly or wrongly.
Click to expand...
That's just them saying they're quite happy to ignore things unless someone is willing to kick up a fuss about it.
 
aguero93:20 said:
That's just them saying they're quite happy to ignore things unless someone is willing to kick up a fuss about it.
Click to expand...
Standard police procedure that innit.

"Your house has been broken into and you've got the guys on video and currently holding him while he's got your telly under his arm? Yeah sorry sir, send us an email and if anyone else reports it maybe we'll post something on Twitter this time next year. Anyway got to go, Dave's been to Krispy Kreme and we knock off in 30 mins."
 
SWP's back said:
Then I’d assume a) we’d have insurance for such instances and b) whatever I think about him as a man, he’s likely due full back pay.
Click to expand...
They have more than likely paid the money into a separate account gaining interest waiting for it to be claimed or a settlement agreed.

I reckon the clubs will settle quick as his friends still play at the club. Playing hardball would be bad for moral.

eastmanc said:
He was very stupid to be honest and after he'd been charged he should have kept his head down and not thrown more parties.
Click to expand...
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
Im sure thats incorrect. He was charged and put out om conditional bail, which he breached and so was rearrested, and the court then put him on remand
Click to expand...
Once charged on 26 Aug 21 he was detained until Jan 22 and then bailed. He didn't breach bail conditions after the charges once released as far as the press are aware.

I don't think anyone doubts he was stupid have a parties breaching pre-trial charge bail conditions and allowing more mud to be slung at him, and maybe forced the had of the Police to charge him earlier.
 
mattcity5 said:
I don't like praising Ferguson, but one thing he always wanted was for his players to be settled and married as soon as possible. I think he thought it to be a way of preventing players acting the dickhead. Obviously it's not 100% perfect, but there's some positives to that approach.

However, a negative we've seen at City is that wives seem to want to live somewhere warmer/nicer than Manchester..!
Click to expand...
As you'll be well aware married rags/single rags are still more than capable of 'putting it' around.
 
Corky said:
Once charged on 26 Aug 21 he was detained until Jan 22 and then bailed. He didn't breach bail conditions after the charges once released as far as the press are aware.

I don't think anyone doubts he was stupid have a parties breaching pre-trial charge bail conditions and allowing more mud to be slung at him, and maybe forced the had of the Police to charge him earlier.
Click to expand...
He was released on bail after he was originally arrested (presumably with some bail conditions), he was subsequently re-arrested. I haven't followed the time line of it all, but bail starts after arrest and questioning, not after charges are made.
 
cleavers said:
He was released on bail after he was originally arrested (presumably with some bail conditions), he was subsequently re-arrested. I haven't followed the time line of it all, but bail starts after arrest and questioning, not after charges are made.
Click to expand...
Yes it did in his case, and ended when arrested and finally charged. Then was denied bail after charges for 4 months or so then bailed again.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
If he's entitled to it he should get it. The guy lost his career
Click to expand...

blueinsa said:
Chase away.

Whilst I have sympathy with him following his acquittal and damage to his career and reputation, I’m certain we will have been advised by lawyers that terminating his contract was well within our rights.
Click to expand...

For me this is one of those, the (contract) law is the law and whatever the lawyers work up will be what it is. It is beyond right or wrong as simple principles, it is probably too complex for that.

There will be mechamism for this, who gets what and who ultimately pays or loses out.

As long as it doesn't get forced into becoming a distraction.
 
He was still under contract to City until 30 June this year (we know this because that’s when he went to the Released List). So that means we never considered him in breach of contract/terminated the contract earlier.

If that’s the case, now he has been found not guilty, it’s hard to see how we don’t owe him wages for at least the period when he was available to train and play (remand feels more difficult for him). Can’t really see the counter argument here unless we had a specific contractual clause dealing with arrest, charge and being found not guilty.

Suspect it will be settled without litigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top