Please explain how he has shit on his mates.i didnt approve of him running down the touch line given he had a serious injury , so much for being a close knit family , he has shit on his mates
Wrong...Misty , he wasnt available to play , kept breaking bail, having more parties whilst on bail . The bottom line is he was the one accused and was not available to play through his own actions . To throw hand grenades into other players marriages is a cunts trick , he said they all had sex with girls at his parties , he always was a **** , loved collecting medals he never earned . How the fuck he says he has £1.90 left off his wealth is another ploy he is using so the judge says big bad city must pay up l
Finding him not guilty is neither here or there, he made himself unavailable , that is why he should get nothing out of us
Couldnt put it better myself, fcuk him.Misty , he wasnt available to play , kept breaking bail, having more parties whilst on bail . The bottom line is he was the one accused and was not available to play through his own actions . To throw hand grenades into other players marriages is a cunts trick , he said they all had sex with girls at his parties , he always was a **** , loved collecting medals he never earned . How the fuck he says he has £1.90 left off his wealth is another ploy he is using so the judge says big bad city must pay up l
Finding him not guilty is neither here or there, he made himself unavailable , that is why he should get nothing out of us
I really dont understand this comment it depends on what his Contract states....I agree that when he was remanded in custody he made himself unavailable but......
There's always a but :-)
It all depends on what his contract states and if it is a legitimate legal challenge he has every right to bring it.
(City know all about being seen as the bad guy because we dared to go the court)
That is why I am struggling to understand the hate for him.
This board loved him running down the line on crutches when we scored, now we want to hang him.
That is why I say we are going all Rawk.
With regards to the players, they were named in the criminal trial, some appeared as witness's. It's not new, he isn't suddenly destroying Jack Grealish and the rest and
Kyle Walker will not be destroyed by being named by Mendy, he can do that without Mendys help.
Only in football do we seemingly need to employ people to advise others on how to behave.Im sure City try and tell their staff how to behave. We havent signed many dickheads to be fair, they seem to do their homework. What they do once they are employed is their issue I suppose, but credit where its due we havent had many or any cunts on the books since the takeover, Mendy aside. In fact Id go so far as to say we have a lovely squad of nice lads every season. Grealish was a potential prick, but he hasnt been at all and has flourished into a family man even. Our Phil could have been a knobhead judging by his mam, but has been a great person. Being around the most professional club in world football works and we work at them obviously. We give them every opportunity to be great people. If they choose to fuck that up it has to ultimately be a personal responsibility dont you think?
This is exactly my opinion. He thought City would negotiate and a compromise figure would be met before the tribunal to avoid the embarrassment of another case for City. That turned out wrong for Mendy.I really dont understand this comment it depends on what his Contract states....
Every employment contract I have had covers sick leave, Annual leave, public holidays, some have mentioned compassionate leave and Ive had contracts that cover paternity leave. Surprisingly Ive never had a contract that suggested I would be paid if I was in HMP Altcourse or any alternative prison.
That he wasnt allowed out of his house after 6pm, wasnt allowed within the M60 (where City's ground and training facilities are), and couldnt travel outside the UK because his passport was confiscated.... meant that in all effect he couldnt play at all for the club and therefore is not meeting his end of the contract.
For the avoidance of doubt English and Welsh law is based on precedent.
The following is copied and pasted from Burns v Santander UK plc (2011)
"The Tribunal accepted that a worker who is ready and willing to perform his contract but is unable to do so by reason of sickness or injury or other unavoidable impediment is entitled to claim his wages. However, the Tribunal also accepted that a worker who is ready and willing to perform his contract but unable to do so by avoidable impediment is not entitled to wages. Although the Claimant had not been convicted of any offence at the time of the Respondent's decision not to pay him he had conducted himself in such a way that, according to the Judge in the Criminal Court, he should be deprived of his freedom and therefore deprived of his right to attend work. (emphasis added) This principle was confirmed by the fact that he was actually convicted of two of the nine charges at his trial and the six months spent on remand was treated as part of the punishment. It is true that the Respondent did not pay him but at the same time they kept his job open until a final decision could be made at a disciplinary hearing following the Claimant's trial. They also paid him at the end of his time on remand when he was suspended on full pay."
The only difference between the above and the Mendy case is that Mendy was subsequently found not guilty. However it does not change the fact that he was in prison because the Judge in the criminal court felt that he should be deprived of his freedom.
The only potentially valid argument I have seen put forward is that Mendy’s agent claimed he had an agreement in place with Berrada that, in the event of a not-guilty verdict, the player would receive the money that was owed to him. However given Berrada said that was not true - under oath - I just think its a lie.
For me this was Mendy chancing his arm and hoping the club would pay a settlement, rather than have this brought into public again. He will have a big bill coming his way.
This exactly, so many times been to the steps of the court and employer has made a final offer that is accepted. With the backlash felt by the BBC over recent payments to high profile individuals whilst unavailable (through appreciate that's license payers cash) the clubs stance on this for me is understandable and correct.This is exactly my opinion. He thought City would negotiate and a compromise figure would be met before the tribunal to avoid the embarrassment of another case for City. That turned out wrong for Mendy.
Fernandinho, Aguero, Silva D, Silva B, De Bruyne, Haaland, Ruben Dias, John Stones, Akanji, Gundogan, Gvardiol, Rodri, Kovacic etc etc say hello backMangala says hello
Nope...Wrong...
I might be wrong but didn't the ragS pay Greenwood during his absence pNope...
Im not sure thats it but maybe they do, but Im sure we do vetting beforehand because weve had very few bellends reallyOnly in football do we seemingly need to employ people to advise others on how to behave.
Available to train and play, imagine they told him not to report for work. Likely we did the same prior to charge / remand / restrictions.I might be wrong but didn't the ragS pay Greenwood during his absence p
He was banged up and had curfew restrictions that didn’t allow him to play or train.Available to train and play, imagine they told him not to report for work. Likely we did the same prior to charge / remand / restrictions.
I put 'it depends what his contract states' purely and simply because none of us know what it states.I really dont understand this comment it depends on what his Contract states....
Every employment contract I have had covers sick leave, Annual leave, public holidays, some have mentioned compassionate leave and Ive had contracts that cover paternity leave. Surprisingly Ive never had a contract that suggested I would be paid if I was in HMP Altcourse or any alternative prison.
That he wasnt allowed out of his house after 6pm, wasnt allowed within the M60 (where City's ground and training facilities are), and couldnt travel outside the UK because his passport was confiscated.... meant that in all effect he couldnt play at all for the club and therefore is not meeting his end of the contract.
For the avoidance of doubt English and Welsh law is based on precedent.
The following is copied and pasted from Burns v Santander UK plc (2011)
"The Tribunal accepted that a worker who is ready and willing to perform his contract but is unable to do so by reason of sickness or injury or other unavoidable impediment is entitled to claim his wages. However, the Tribunal also accepted that a worker who is ready and willing to perform his contract but unable to do so by avoidable impediment is not entitled to wages. Although the Claimant had not been convicted of any offence at the time of the Respondent's decision not to pay him he had conducted himself in such a way that, according to the Judge in the Criminal Court, he should be deprived of his freedom and therefore deprived of his right to attend work. (emphasis added) This principle was confirmed by the fact that he was actually convicted of two of the nine charges at his trial and the six months spent on remand was treated as part of the punishment. It is true that the Respondent did not pay him but at the same time they kept his job open until a final decision could be made at a disciplinary hearing following the Claimant's trial. They also paid him at the end of his time on remand when he was suspended on full pay."
The only difference between the above and the Mendy case is that Mendy was subsequently found not guilty. However it does not change the fact that he was in prison because the Judge in the criminal court felt that he should be deprived of his freedom.
The only potentially valid argument I have seen put forward is that Mendy’s agent claimed he had an agreement in place with Berrada that, in the event of a not-guilty verdict, the player would receive the money that was owed to him. However given Berrada said that was not true - under oath - I just think its a lie.
For me this was Mendy chancing his arm and hoping the club would pay a settlement, rather than have this brought into public again. He will have a big bill coming his way.
I’m sorry he got injured and bored, but that’s not City’s fault!
My point re his contract is I don't see how it can possibly help. Surely City are not going to sign a contract that will state that they will pay the Employee if he is arrested and remanded to custody? So like (I imagine) everyone else his contract will be silent on it. Common sense dictates that he will not be paid.I put 'it depends what his contract states' purely and simply because none of us know what it states.
Maybe his lawyer is crap at his job and is representing him, knowing he will lose, just for his fee.
On the other hand he may be shit hot at his job and know City are in the wrong.
It doesn't matter what his bail conditions state, he is innocent until proven guilty and presumably entitled to be paid.
The only time he made himself unavailable for work was when he breached his bail conditions. I assume City are correct to not pay him fir that period.
As I have stated, we seem to be turning into RAWK. An ex player takes us to a tribunal so we all turn on the player.
Strange times.
Edit: according to reports, City have today stated they paid him up and until he was remanded in custody. If that is correct I cannot see what his claim is.
I still do not understand the pile on against him. 'Worst signing ever' etc.
I agree with all your post. My 'defence' of Mendy is because of the pile on which imo is unjustified.My point re his contract is I don't see how it can possibly help. Surely City are not going to sign a contract that will state that they will pay the Employee if he is arrested and remanded to custody? So like (I imagine) everyone else his contract will be silent on it. Common sense dictates that he will not be paid.
In relation to his lawyer... at the end of the day he is a KC so is clearly good. I note in the transcripts from the case he says "may" a lot. He could well have advised Mendy not to proceed. If Mendy wants to proceed the KC has no choice but to do his best (without breaking the law or lieing). My thoughts are Mendy thinks he is more clever than he is and will end up with a huge legal bill. Here is an example of what the KC said.... By contrast, an inability to work due to an 'unavoidable impediment ' or which was 'involuntary' may render the deduction of pay unlawful. He clearly doesn't believe what he is saying - if he did he wouldn't be saying may.
I don't hate the guy in the slightest. I found him funny at times (clearly not the brightest spark). He was however clearly a bad signing as we paid a lot for him and then ultimately let him go for nothing. He clearly wasn't the worst player we have had - but in money down the drain he must be up there.