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
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
WesthoughtonJohn
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
NantwichBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 262
Out of interest will he have to pay NI and PAYE on his settlement?
mick10
Well-Known Member
You mean…you mean the club actually paid this tube?! Noooooo
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,958
Can’t see why he would be exempt.Out of interest will he have to pay NI and PAYE on his settlement?
WesthoughtonJohn
Well-Known Member
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.
It's a tricky situation for organisations in the public eye imho.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
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.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,258
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.