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

[Centurions]

Wrong...

Nope...

 

[Blueeye]

Nope...

I might be wrong but didn't the ragS pay Greenwood during his absence p

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Only in football do we seemingly need to employ people to advise others on how to behave.

Im not sure thats it but maybe they do, but Im sure we do vetting beforehand because weve had very few bellends really

 

[Cumbie Blue]

I might be wrong but didn't the ragS pay Greenwood during his absence p

Available to train and play, imagine they told him not to report for work. Likely we did the same prior to charge / remand / restrictions.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Available to train and play, imagine they told him not to report for work. Likely we did the same prior to charge / remand / restrictions.

He was banged up and had curfew restrictions that didn’t allow him to play or train.

He was told repeatedly about his behavior and ignored the club and their policies.

After having a COVID Restriction party, he was told to stop, so he had another next night! How do we know? Rape charges and sexual assault accusations both nights!

He’s having a fucking laugh!

You pays your money, you makes your choice. He chose “Sex and not The City!”

I’m sorry he got injured and bored, but that’s not City’s fault!

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

I put 'it depends what his contract states' purely and simply because none of us know what it states.
Maybe his lawyer is crap at his job and is representing him, knowing he will lose, just for his fee.
On the other hand he may be shit hot at his job and know City are in the wrong.

It doesn't matter what his bail conditions state, he is innocent until proven guilty and presumably entitled to be paid.
The only time he made himself unavailable for work was when he breached his bail conditions. I assume City are correct to not pay him fir that period.

As I have stated, we seem to be turning into RAWK. An ex player takes us to a tribunal so we all turn on the player.
Strange times.

Edit: according to reports, City have today stated they paid him up and until he was remanded in custody. If that is correct I cannot see what his claim is.
I still do not understand the pile on against him. 'Worst signing ever' etc.

 

[mexico1970]

I’m sorry he got injured and bored, but that’s not City’s fault!

That's about the long and the short of it, in this exception I am not even sorry he was injured he sounds like a right nasty fucker.

 

[bowp]

I put 'it depends what his contract states' purely and simply because none of us know what it states.
Maybe his lawyer is crap at his job and is representing him, knowing he will lose, just for his fee.
On the other hand he may be shit hot at his job and know City are in the wrong.

It doesn't matter what his bail conditions state, he is innocent until proven guilty and presumably entitled to be paid.
The only time he made himself unavailable for work was when he breached his bail conditions. I assume City are correct to not pay him fir that period.

As I have stated, we seem to be turning into RAWK. An ex player takes us to a tribunal so we all turn on the player.
Strange times.

Edit: according to reports, City have today stated they paid him up and until he was remanded in custody. If that is correct I cannot see what his claim is.
I still do not understand the pile on against him. 'Worst signing ever' etc.

My point re his contract is I don't see how it can possibly help. Surely City are not going to sign a contract that will state that they will pay the Employee if he is arrested and remanded to custody? So like (I imagine) everyone else his contract will be silent on it. Common sense dictates that he will not be paid.

In relation to his lawyer... at the end of the day he is a KC so is clearly good. I note in the transcripts from the case he says "may" a lot. He could well have advised Mendy not to proceed. If Mendy wants to proceed the KC has no choice but to do his best (without breaking the law or lieing). My thoughts are Mendy thinks he is more clever than he is and will end up with a huge legal bill. Here is an example of what the KC said.... By contrast, an inability to work due to an 'unavoidable impediment ' or which was 'involuntary' may render the deduction of pay unlawful. He clearly doesn't believe what he is saying - if he did he wouldn't be saying may.

I don't hate the guy in the slightest. I found him funny at times (clearly not the brightest spark). He was however clearly a bad signing as we paid a lot for him and then ultimately let him go for nothing. He clearly wasn't the worst player we have had - but in money down the drain he must be up there.

 

[Blue Mist]

My point re his contract is I don't see how it can possibly help. Surely City are not going to sign a contract that will state that they will pay the Employee if he is arrested and remanded to custody? So like (I imagine) everyone else his contract will be silent on it. Common sense dictates that he will not be paid.

In relation to his lawyer... at the end of the day he is a KC so is clearly good. I note in the transcripts from the case he says "may" a lot. He could well have advised Mendy not to proceed. If Mendy wants to proceed the KC has no choice but to do his best (without breaking the law or lieing). My thoughts are Mendy thinks he is more clever than he is and will end up with a huge legal bill. Here is an example of what the KC said.... By contrast, an inability to work due to an 'unavoidable impediment ' or which was 'involuntary' may render the deduction of pay unlawful. He clearly doesn't believe what he is saying - if he did he wouldn't be saying may.

I don't hate the guy in the slightest. I found him funny at times (clearly not the brightest spark). He was however clearly a bad signing as we paid a lot for him and then ultimately let him go for nothing. He clearly wasn't the worst player we have had - but in money down the drain he must be up there.

I agree with all your post. My 'defence' of Mendy is because of the pile on which imo is unjustified.

 

[Semper aggressus]

He can fuck off. ****.