Well of course he's entitled to do that, but then he would have to prove that they lied. Him being found not guilty does not prove that they lied about it, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove it.Of course they won't have the money, but Mendy should be suing the women making the allegations against him for losing the money.
Yeah, but we didn't dismiss him, did we?Employment Law is similar to civil law where the burden of guilt is built around the balance of probabilities. I am sure that by his actions, guilty or not he brought the name of the club into disrepute which on it's own would be enough for any company to dismiss him. By being in the position he was in there was not a chance he would be able to play football for us so he would have frustrated his contract ( Frustrated contract .When an unforeseen event renders performance of a contract impossible or radically different from that originally contemplated by the parties. All future obligations of the parties to the contract are discharged) I don't think he would get far at an industrial tribunal
I'm surprised the rags aren't looking to sign him.
It’d be very unlike the rags to sign a narcissistic overhyped overpriced social media banter merchant crocked (alledged) sex pest.
I just don’t see it.
Straight swap for Greenwood?I'm surprised the rags aren't looking to sign him.
What's that got to do with it?According to this atricle in the Grauniad:
City paid Mendy until he was remanded.
Some of his parties were held in lock-down, which was illegal at the time.
One of the women was 17, Mendy was 28.
The burden of proof in a civil case is different to a criminal case. If he were to sue the women he could end up with a counter suit and lose. If he sues City he could end up with a counter suit and lose.
I can't see him getting anything out of this, tbh.
Its a complete lie as well, he was acquitted completely aged 28 last month, and the allegations were 2020 and 2021. Somehow I think he was younger then.What's that got to do with it?