Benjamin Mendy | Joins Pogon Szczecin (p92)

bluemoon32 said:
**** should give us money for all that cringey shark shite
Click to expand...

God. Looking back at that now, I fucking hate(d) it!

Cheeky bastard suing us as well. Like we didn't continue to pay him for the months he was on the treatment table (as we should) until the accusations.

I can't imagine that we stopped paying him just because we thought he was a prick. I assume there was some sort of advice and legal process to it.
 
The blue phantom said:
Breaking bail conditions on a crime he never committed.
Click to expand...
That’s completely irrelevant. He applied for bail and it was granted with conditions, which he was lawfully subject to, irrespective of the outcome of the trial.

Bail is there to allow people who are accused of crimes to retain a degree of liberty, but conditions are imposed to further the interests of justice. It doesn’t work on the basis that the conditions only count if you’re convicted. How would that even work?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
That’s completely irrelevant. He applied for bail and it was granted with conditions, which he was lawfully subject to, irrespective of the outcome of the trial.

Bail is there to allow people who are accused of crimes to retain a degree of liberty, but conditions are imposed to further the interests of justice. It doesn’t work on the basis that the conditions only count if you’re convicted. How would that even work?
Click to expand...
If it was player still valued at £100 million and he'd broke bail Conditions and then found not guilty there'd be no tribunal today, That's for sure.
 
Gazza said:
Not guilty isn't innocent.

Not innocent means a person is completely cleared of the accusation, often implying they didn’t commit the act. "Not guilty" means there's not enough evidence to convict them. The former asserts their innocence, the latter highlights the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a subtle but crucial legal difference.
Click to expand...

It's innocent until proven guilty, he wasn't found guilty therefore he's innocent. Not sure why that's a hard concept to understand. Any other view on it is wrong as it's the most basic bit of law around
 
Reputationaly I don’t think we had a choice, if we’d paid him up headlines would write themselves, at least if we fight it and lose it sends the right message
 
Jesus H Gabz said:
Reputationaly I don’t think we had a choice, if we’d paid him up headlines would write themselves, at least if we fight it and lose it sends the right message
Click to expand...
it doesn't seem to bother Arsenal. I'd have been angry with City if they played him but we should have paid him. Just one of those things that you have to write off as a bad situation.
 
Gazza said:
Not guilty isn't innocent.

Not innocent means a person is completely cleared of the accusation, often implying they didn’t commit the act. "Not guilty" means there's not enough evidence to convict them. The former asserts their innocence, the latter highlights the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a subtle but crucial legal difference.
Click to expand...
? Maybe too subtle.
 
The basic position, of course, is that someone who's been remanded in custody is entitled to be paid during the time they spend on remand. However, there are precedents in previous Employment Tribunal decisions whereby that general principle ahs been disapplied where an employee is at fault, through their own conduct, for having been remanded. This was the case with Mendy, with the Court stating that he was denied bail specifically as a function of his previously having breached the conditions of his police bail during the investigation.

I'm sure this is what the club will be arguing, and in my view absolutely rightly so, with respect to the time he spent on remand. As the wait for the trial date wore on, he was eventually granted bail, but subject to conditions. I don't know exactly what those conditions were, but if (and please note my use of this word) they also prevented him from performing his employment duties and were imposed to similar reasons to those behind the original decision to place him on remand, then similar considerations will apply.

The decisions of previous Employment Tribunals aren't binding on subsequent Tribunals, but I personally think that Mendy has brought his own woes upon himself and hope we're as aggressive as it takes in this case to ensure he gets as little further cash from the club as we can get away with. I'd certainly consider, in the event of an unsatisfactory verdict, attempting to get the case to the Court of Appeal. It's actually a serious legal issue that IMO ought to be covered by a binding legal precedent, so I think we'd have a fair chance of being given leave to appeal, as well.
 
Pay him off, back of the sofa money for City and you can bet that the media will drag our name through the mud as usual.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
it doesn't seem to bother Arsenal. I'd have been angry with City if they played him but we should have paid him. Just one of those things that you have to write off as a bad situation.
Click to expand...
I think we stopped playing him as soon as he was charged didn't we? I'm not sure the Arsenal player has got to the stage where he has been charged yet?

P.S: It's a shame we didn't stop playing Mendy about a week or so before he was charged as then we would've been spared that stinker of a performance away at Spurs!
 
Blue Llama said:
He did nothing illegal and it was the club's decision to stop paying him. What would your view if this happened to you?
Click to expand...
He wasn't available for selection because the police fucked up with charging him. Its should now be their responsibility to cover lost wages not Citys.
 
I think its right that the period he was available to play but we didn't select him, he should be paid for but whilst in a position that he wasn't available then we shouldn't be paying him anything.
I'm more pissed off that because he has money he can take action, where as people like myself cant get legal support when dealing with employment issues that have had a similar catastrophic affect.
 
Blue Llama said:
He did nothing illegal and it was the club's decision to stop paying him. What would your view if this happened to you?
Click to expand...
He breached his bail conditions which is (presumably) illegal. I know we weren't playing him anyway but he even took that option off the board. We couldn't even let him train to at least keep his fitness levels up for if and when it was resolved.

It was his decision to break bail conditions and no doubt he'd have been told to abide by them by the club, he certainly breached his contract with us and you don't need to have read it to work that out.

If it had happened to me I'd have held my hands up and said "it's my fault for being a muppet" but perhaps I'd just got more morals and a sense of what's right & wrong than him.
 
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