mendy

[Tokyo Blue]

I thought the wording was “beyond all reasonable doubt”…?

Or am I missing something.

[johnny crossan]

the jury seems to have been out a long time....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... Mendy.html

Two or three days init?
Each charge and evidence will have to be assessed and a unanimous verdict (unless directed otherwise) reached.
Also there are two defendants so I anticipate they could be out a whole lot longer unless they it's evidently clear one or both are guilty/not guilty.

5 days already

[PeterParker]

the jury seems to have been out a long time....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... Mendy.html

Two or three days init?
Each charge and evidence will have to be assessed and a unanimous verdict (unless directed otherwise) reached.
Also there are two defendants so I anticipate they could be out a whole lot longer unless they it's evidently clear one or both are guilty/not guilty.

5 days already

Just in time for the murderers game.

[Mase]

I’ve just read that Mendy told the court we’ve not paid him since Sept 2021. What utter bollocks! You can’t just stop paying someone when they have a contract but haven’t been found guilty yet.

If he’s not guilty he’ll be due some serious back payments. If he’s on near £150k he’ll be due nearly £10m.

Absolutely no way we could legally withhold that from him.

[nottsblue]

I’ve just read that Mendy told the court we’ve not paid him since Sept 2021. What utter bollocks! You can’t just stop paying someone when they have a contract but haven’t been found guilty yet.

If he’s not guilty he’ll be due some serious back payments. If he’s on near £150k he’ll be due nearly £10m.

Absolutely no way we could legally withhold that from him.

Unless a players contract stipulates if they are jailed for whatever reason and can't play because of this. Though I have doubts about whether a clause like that exists or if its even permissible under employment law.

But I'll bet any future contracts may include something on those lines. Of course it depends on the player, some are more valuable to the team than others

[Tokyo Blue]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

[Mase]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Epstein Island is free.

[johnny crossan]

Trial resumes Dec 19th
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... d-28658477

[Hazy2]

The jury have literally retired…….

[sheblue]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

[Mase]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

It’s also not his fault, if found innocent, that he’s been accused of such a horrible crime.

If he’s found innocent he shouldn’t be punished. He’s already very nearly had his life ruined. In a perfect world the accusers would pay his wage that he’s missed out on, but they’re not going to do that are they.

[Tokyo Blue]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

A contract is a contract. If he is acquitted, it is no fault of his either.

[Im_Spartacus]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

Suspension without pay will only be done where his contract states this is permissable, and even then it must be applied reasonably - if someone is in jail then it's reasonable, as he wasn't available to fulfil his obligations. Legally and morally, it would be less clear why he's not been paid since he was released in Jan 2022.

Whilst the nature of the allegations are repulsive, the blunt reality is that they have zero bearing on his ability to fulfil his contractual obligations to the club except for the period he was in jail. He could still make himself available to play, and the club could still choose not to select him if it was felt it would cause embarrassment.

As it is, I do feel city's reaction is somewhat prejudging his guilt - almost certainly as a result of adverse media about historic abuse allegations in the club, and if he's not guilty I reckon a lawsuit to recover deductions will very quickly follow.

[johnny crossan]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

Suspension without pay will only be done where his contract states this is permissable, and even then it must be applied reasonably - if someone is in jail then it's reasonable, as he wasn't available to fulfil his obligations. Legally and morally, it would be less clear why he's not been paid since he was released in Jan 2022.

Whilst the nature of the allegations are repulsive, the blunt reality is that they have zero bearing on his ability to fulfil his contractual obligations to the club except for the period he was in jail. He could still make himself available to play, and the club could still choose not to select him if it was felt it would cause embarrassment.

As it is, I do feel city's reaction is somewhat prejudging his guilt - almost certainly as a result of adverse media about historic abuse allegations in the club, and if he's not guilty I reckon a lawsuit to recover deductions will very quickly follow.

The reason he went to jail was for not complying with his bail conditions and that seems to justify City's stance thereafter, even though he was allowed back home eventually.

[Im_Spartacus]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

Suspension without pay will only be done where his contract states this is permissable, and even then it must be applied reasonably - if someone is in jail then it's reasonable, as he wasn't available to fulfil his obligations. Legally and morally, it would be less clear why he's not been paid since he was released in Jan 2022.

Whilst the nature of the allegations are repulsive, the blunt reality is that they have zero bearing on his ability to fulfil his contractual obligations to the club except for the period he was in jail. He could still make himself available to play, and the club could still choose not to select him if it was felt it would cause embarrassment.

As it is, I do feel city's reaction is somewhat prejudging his guilt - almost certainly as a result of adverse media about historic abuse allegations in the club, and if he's not guilty I reckon a lawsuit to recover deductions will very quickly follow.

The reason he went to jail was for not complying with his bail conditions and that seems to justify City's stance thereafter, even though he was allowed back home eventually.

But once released, there's no reason he couldn't have been available to train and play

The issue is the length of time it takes things like this to come to crown court, an issue even the Judge has remarked on being an issue in this case.

For average Joe who ends up in magistrates court a week after the incident, justice and closure is quick and the employer can make the decision as necessary. But this guy could have lost 18 months' earnings out of a 15 year career which is proportionately like you or me losing our top 4 years earnings in the prime of our career. Its arguably irreplaceable

[Dimples]

The club will have consulted their lawyers. It would not surprise me at all if his unpaid wages have been put aside for him in case he is innocent. He could then retire on it and maybe go and live on a Caribbean Island with Harry Redknapp’s dog.

Forgive my intrusion, but why would the club have to pay him if found innocent?
He's unavailable to play (work) through no fault of MCFC. Its not like he got injured playing and had a lengthy lay off.
He should be paid fuck all.

Suspension without pay will only be done where his contract states this is permissable, and even then it must be applied reasonably - if someone is in jail then it's reasonable, as he wasn't available to fulfil his obligations. Legally and morally, it would be less clear why he's not been paid since he was released in Jan 2022.

Whilst the nature of the allegations are repulsive, the blunt reality is that they have zero bearing on his ability to fulfil his contractual obligations to the club except for the period he was in jail. He could still make himself available to play, and the club could still choose not to select him if it was felt it would cause embarrassment.

As it is, I do feel city's reaction is somewhat prejudging his guilt - almost certainly as a result of adverse media about historic abuse allegations in the club, and if he's not guilty I reckon a lawsuit to recover deductions will very quickly follow.

The reason he went to jail was for not complying with his bail conditions and that seems to justify City's stance thereafter, even though he was allowed back home eventually.

But once released, there's no reason he couldn't have been available to train and play

The issue is the length of time it takes things like this to come to crown court, an issue even the Judge has remarked on being an issue in this case.

For average Joe who ends up in magistrates court a week after the incident, justice and closure is quick and the employer can make the decision as necessary. But this guy could have lost 18 months' earnings out of a 15 year career which is proportionately like you or me losing our top 4 years earnings in the prime of our career. Its arguably irreplaceable

If found innocent, then in the eyes of the law he has been falsely accused and the people who made the false accusations should be made pay his lost wages.

[london blue 2]

Apparently found not guilty on six counts…

[Harry Dowd scored]

Apparently found not guilty on six counts…

Benjamin Mendy has been found not guilty on six counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.

Jury could not reach majority verdicts on one count of rape and one of attempted rape. Mendy is facing a retrial on those two counts.

[blues2win]

Jury couldn’t agree on one count of rape and one of attempted rape. Retrial on those charges. Found not guilty of all other charges.

[CTID Hants]

Apparently found not guilty on six counts…

Benjamin Mendy has been found not guilty on six counts of rape and one count of sexual assault.

Jury could not reach majority verdicts on one count of rape and one of attempted rape. Mendy is facing a retrial on those two counts.

Will be interesting to hear what the club will say...

Retrial won't be quick either way, will he go back on remand or be bailed?