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

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
Please explain how he has shit on his mates.

His solicitor and barrister would have asked him about the party's in the run up to the trial. They then called certain City players to give evidence at the trial. It was all played out in the public domain. The players were named. We have learnt nothing new.
 
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
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
Only in football do we seemingly need to employ people to advise others on how to behave.
 
His argument about other players doing the same things as him is so illogical I don't understand how it's even worth arguing. They were available to do their job because they weren't in prison like him. The fact that he was cleared of the charges is irrelevant, he was lawfully being held on remand unless he can prove otherwise (which is a claim to make against the GMP and the CPS).
 
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 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.

Find it truly bizarre that any blues are defending Mendy. The fact that the only memorable thing he did for City was charging down the line with crutches sums him up.

I hope he gets nothing.
 
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.
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.

Entitled to bring the case of course, it made it through the sifts so its legit / valid for the ET to look at and rule on but I'd agree with other posters not for the period when he was unavailable both on remand or restrictions of movement prevented him from attending work as required. I think that will be the outcome, reduced basic salary by time not available due to the above and no bonuses.

EDIT: On the contract side standard obligations on the employee are to report to the employer if charged or convicted of a criminal offence. It's not an automatic termination / suspension of salary etc but feeds into conduct and adherence to policies which although not fully listed in the contract will be referenced. So conduct which in the opinion of the employer brings or is likely to bring them or you into disrepute can escalate to suspensions etc.
 
Last edited:

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.