Benjamin Mendy | Joins Pogon Szczecin (p92)

BerkshireBlue said:

"The footballer was also initially charged with breaking his bail conditions following his arrest last year but that charge was withdrawn in court."

in black and white for you
Click to expand...
There are a few things you are missing here. The question isn't why he was remanded to custody - it's was he. He was so he couldn't play for City so why the heck would they pay him?

Further the original bail conditions basically also made it impossible to play for City. Conceptually, morally and legally I cannot see any way that it can be argued that this is City's problem.

If anything he should be suing GMP.
 
Not complying with bail conditions isn’t an offence, or at least it wasn’t when I last checked.

If you don’t comply with conditions then bail can be withdrawn (as it was here) or more onerous conditions can be imposed (usually a tag) and committing an offence whilst on bail is viewed extremely dimly.

Failing to surrender to your bail at the relevant time ( e.g. your court appearance) is an offence (which did not apply here) but otherwise there are no offences under the Bail Act 1976 for individuals who are subject to bail.

So there is no gateway to charge someone with breaching a bail condition.
 
freshie said:
What a complete prick - not only is he throwing his teammates under the bus, his defence is "well everyone was doing it so why am I the only one in the wrong?"

The mentality of a child - immature twat
Click to expand...
He is mixing things up. He did attend some lockdown parties and so did some other players. But no one else was accused of sex attacks apart from his fixer pal..and the less said about him the better.
 
freshie said:
What a complete prick - not only is he throwing his teammates under the bus, his defence is "well everyone was doing it so why am I the only one in the wrong?"

The mentality of a child - immature twat
Click to expand...

He can say what he wants about other players and what they were up to. The facts are they weren't accused and arrested and under bail conditions. They played and did their jobs.
I'd be surprised if legally the club hasn't paid him what they had to.
 
bowp said:
There are a few things you are missing here. The question isn't why he was remanded to custody - it's was he. He was so he couldn't play for City so why the heck would they pay him?

Further the original bail conditions basically also made it impossible to play for City. Conceptually, morally and legally I cannot see any way that it can be argued that this is City's problem.

If anything he should be suing GMP.
Click to expand...

depends what the contract says. I'm not going to second guess that
 
paulchapo said:
I'd be surprised if legally the club hasn't paid him what they had to.
Click to expand...
100% this. Sounds like the quibble is over the remand period and also potential lost bonuses.

Given that his image had become negative for the club, it’s unlikely that his image rights needs to be paid.

He was never going to play 60% of the games anyway as he was made of glass.
 
mexico1970 said:
He's making it sound a bit like a P Diddly party.
Click to expand...

Who fucking cares - we are frying bigger fish atm.

If he's lawfully due payment, just pay him and get on with more important business.

If not tell him to fuck off and see us in court, if he's confident ..............................every other fucker is trying to screw the club, including the mardarse cabal clubs and hangers-on and their patsy Masters.
 
Last edited:
Colin Bells Boots said:
Who fucking cares - we are frying bigger fish atm.

If he's lawfully due payment, just pay him and get on with more important business.

If not tell him to fuck off and sue if he's confident ..............................every other fucker will be trying anyway including the mardarse cabal clubs and hangers-on !
Click to expand...

Maybe he isn't due payment mate, just a thought here.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
You need to have another think about this, I’d respectfully suggest. Also, ‘Not Innocent?
By have another think I mean: Imagine City are found ‘not guilty’ of most or indeed all the 115, presumably you’ll be the first to post saying we might not be guilty but we’re certainly not innocent? Because that’s exactly how opposing fans and their media shills will portray it.
Now I have no time whatsoever for Mendy, I wish the club had never bought him and, in my view, he was certainly ‘not innocent’ but, under the system we have, he was tried, found not guilty and, consequently, is innocent in the eyes of the law. It might be far from perfect but it’s what we’ve got and I’d rather have that than any alternative thus far devised.
Click to expand...
Not innocent was a typo, should read not guilty.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Who fucking cares - we are frying bigger fish atm.

If he's lawfully due payment, just pay him and get on with more important business.

If not tell him to fuck off and see us in court, if he's confident ..............................every other fucker will be trying anyway including the mardarse cabal clubs and hangers-on !
Click to expand...
That’s what he’s doing. It’s at tribunal today and tomorrow.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
100% this. Sounds like the quibble is over the remand period and also potential lost bonuses.

Given that his image had become negative for the club, it’s unlikely that his image rights needs to be paid.

He was never going to play 60% of the games anyway as he was made of glass.
Click to expand...

He should count his blessings he's left here wealthy beyond the reaches of most of us and many professional footballers, for actually contributing very little in return. If I was him I'd stfu and enjoy my life. It would serve the fucker right if he chances his arm, loses the case and the costs bankrupt 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