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.
