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
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,936
100% this. Sounds like the quibble is over the remand period and also potential lost bonuses.I'd be surprised if legally the club hasn't paid him what they had to.
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.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,561
- Team supported
- Manchester City
He's making it sound a bit like a P Diddly party.
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:
bowp
Well-Known Member
How can a contract have a clause that says you will be paid if you are banged up? The concept is ludicrous.depends what the contract says. I'm not going to second guess that
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
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 !
Maybe he isn't due payment mate, just a thought here.
Not innocent was a typo, should read not guilty.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.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,936
That’s what he’s doing. It’s at tribunal today and tomorrow.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 !
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.
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.