Benjamin Mendy - City lose case and Mendy awarded £11m in back pay (p168)

Blue Mist said:
That doesn't make sense.
What was reported on the same day it was dropped ?
He was on bail. He was remanded in custody because he breached his bail.
I know he was found not guilty of rape.
Click to expand...
he was up in court for a load of charges including rape and breaches of bail August 27th 2021 he was sent to prison on this day and the court dropped the breaches of bail claims on that day. The shite newspapers like the sun and mirror reported on the breach of bail as they thought it had more clicks potential whilst other papers say it was dropped and didn't bother mentioning other than one sentence
 
Blue Mist said:
He was charged on the most dubious evidence going. It was imo disgraceful that he was charged.
You don't like him fine but he has a right to ask for what he believes he is entitled to.
Click to expand...
Maybe he can , but publicly bashing your team
mates is acting like looser
 
Banned by the FA and unable to play yet thinks he should have been paid. That’s just the initial period. The period after he breached his bail ridiculous.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
We will have to pay up his contract. He was innocent so can’t see how we avoid that. Not sure why we would even contest it to be honest.
Click to expand...
You only have to read one of the articles on the case today to learn why:
1. When was in custody he could not turn up to work, hence no pay.
2. When he was on bail, the FA put a ban on him playing, hence no pay.
3. When he breached his bail and went back to jail, guess what? No pay.
 
paulchapo said:
No firm I know of allows an employee facing such serious charges to carry on working. For a high profile footballer it would be impossible for him to play. They are usually suspended on pay though. 500 grand a week, were we really paying that wanker that much???
Click to expand...
Might be worth deleting this post to stop the urges to correct something wrong on the internet and blow up your alerts!
 
ctwrd said:
You only have to read one of the articles on the case today to learn why:
1. When was in custody he could not turn up to work, hence no pay.
2. When he was on bail, the FA put a ban on him playing, hence no pay.
3. When he breached his bail and went back to jail, guess what? No pay.
Click to expand...
All true but it depends what it says in his contract. The reason so few of these cases go to tribunals is that employment law usual works in the worker's favour. The complication will not be his wages though but his appearance money. Let's wait and see what happens.
 
Axel Freed said:
It’s not but maybe it should be when an overwhelming body of evidence shows you’re a wrong un despite not having broken any laws
Click to expand...
What overwhelming body of evidence?
You mean he had a lot of money and a high sex drive.
What did he do wrong ?
What did he do wrong that any single, early 20's lad wouldn't do ?
I really find some of these reactions bizarre.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.