Err I have no problem withholding the money - he couldn't fulfill the requirements of his contract at the time (had the club not suspended him could you imagine the reaction). It should have been set aside though.A bizarre HR/legal decision to withhold the money.
Similar to Horny Huw at the boob, where they correctly paid it (to much mob derision). The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct - no matter the eventual outcome or how unsavoury the accused may be. Unfathomable stance.
Or if proven guilty - have to pay it back.Err I have no problem withholding the money - he couldn't fulfill the requirements of his contract at the time (had the club not suspended him could you imagine the reaction). It should have been set aside though.
The fact the payment issue went to court is daft - once proven innocent in a court of law he'd be entitled to it.
That's what the BBC should have done.
Can’t see why he would be exempt.Out of interest will he have to pay NI and PAYE on his settlement?
Problem with that first sentence is there's no way he'd have been saving those wages in case he was guilty.Or if proven guilty - have to pay it back.
Right to suspend him obviously - but still have to pay when suspended - pending outcome.
Couldn't fulfil his requirements due to being jailed is clearlysubject to outcome.
Anyway - all academic now. The club were wrong. If not morally, then legally.
Agreed. Employment law has gone too far. No longer practical.Problem with that first sentence is there's no way he'd have been saving those wages in case he was guilty.
It's a tricky situation for organisations in the public eye imho.
We don’t know what his contract said, so it’s hard to take a moral stance on a legal matter.A bizarre HR/legal decision to withhold the money.
Similar to Horny Huw at the boob, where they correctly paid it (to much mob derision). The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct - no matter the eventual outcome or how unsavoury the accused may be. Unfathomable stance.