GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
? Maybe too subtle.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Benjamin Mendy - City lose case and Mendy awarded £11m in back pay (p168)
- Thread starter awest
- Start date
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.
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.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
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?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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2009
- Messages
- 5,426
He did nothing illegal and it was the club's decision to stop paying him. What would your view if this happened to you?Because...
Baggins.mcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 428
- Team supported
- City
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.He did nothing illegal and it was the club's decision to stop paying him. What would your view if this happened to you?
Nethermoor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2019
- Messages
- 1,301
- Team supported
- Guiseley
Surprised the club haven't just agreed an out of court settlement.
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.
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.
One Fan Clapping
Well-Known Member
He wasn’t available because it was reported he broke bail conditions and ended up on remand. So wasn’t available and hence frustrated his contract.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.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
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.He did nothing illegal and it was the club's decision to stop paying him. What would your view if this happened to you?
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.