Would he then remain in custody for the duration of the trial?
Benjamin Mendy charged with eight counts of rape against five women | Released on Bail
- Thread starter TheReligion
- Start date
- Status
Is he still getting paid whilst in custody
Nope City have suspended him
Specifically without pay? Typically suspended means with pay.
Indeed.
I'd be surprised if they could suspended without pay. As grim as it all appears to be, until he's convicted he's innocent.
Aren’t they suing him for some damage to image rights? If that’s the case there is no way they are paying him.
He hasn't been found guilty so.I don't know how they can either sue him or not pay him.
They'd be on shaky legal ground both not paying him, and trying to sue him before he's been found guilty.
There was some crazy talk about suing him if he is guilty, as they in effect lose a huge value in him. Not sure if insurance of anything like that covers it, or whether you just suck up a 40-50m loss!
They almost certainly don’t pay it out - salary is likely only accrued till there is clarity. If he is found guilty, they will keep it, if innocent - accrued monies will be released to his account
Yeah this doesn't make any sense.
You can't keep someone's salary in escrow "just in case he's guilty".
If he is found guilty they can terminate the contract and go after him like Chelsea did to Mutu.
Yeah, he is almost certainly on pay. Only way he cannot be is if there is some clause about not being able to train/attend training, which he obviously cannot do at the moment.
He won't be getting paid.
Burns V Santander Plc (2011) santander withheld wages to Mr Burns after he was held on remand for six month. Mr Burns was charged and convicted and received a CS.
He was later suspended with pay until a disciplinary hearing where he was sacked.
Mr Burns took Santander to court for an illegal deduction of wage claiming that although he was on remand, he was ready and willing to work but was unable to do so and this was not his choice. However, the judge ruled that as he was convicted of criminal activities that he willingly entered into, his inability to work was all his own doing and his claim was dismissed.
So, City could well hold off Mendys wage until the outcome of any hearing is reached.
Burns V Santander Plc (2011) santander withheld wages to Mr Burns after he was held on remand for six month. Mr Burns was charged and convicted and received a CS.
He was later suspended with pay until a disciplinary hearing where he was sacked.
Mr Burns took Santander to court for an illegal deduction of wage claiming that although he was on remand, he was ready and willing to work but was unable to do so and this was not his choice. However, the judge ruled that as he was convicted of criminal activities that he willingly entered into, his inability to work was all his own doing and his claim was dismissed.
So, City could well hold off Mendys wage until the outcome of any hearing is reached.
Depends what his contract says, but I disagree.
No employment contract I have ever seen (I am a Solicitor, based in the UK) allows an employer to "retain" money in these circumstances.
I never knew we had so many members who had inside information about the intricate details of Benjamin Mendy’s contract 
Interesting. That decision appears to have been after conviction, and as such, seems to be a different scenario here. Based on the above he seemed to have been arguing that he was due money for the period pre-conviction.
He was arguing for monies pre conviction as afterwards he was suspended on full pay, common as the employee is able and willing to work so must be paid. Withholding monies when the employee is no longer able (remanded) or willing due to their voluntary guilty action or 'actus reus' translates to them choosing not to be able or willing to work.
I can see how it looks to be different to the Mendy case but it isn't. Mendy is on remand because of his own actions, he is remanded because he broke his bail conditions and that would be deemed as he is unable to work because of his own actions regardless of the outcome of his court case. If he was placed on bail then City would have to make the choice to suspend him on full pay or continue as normal as Mendy would be able and willing to work.
But he was suspended by City. That might be a legal reason to retain monies (as long as they are accrued).
It isn't usually though. Suspension ordinarily means "with pay".
I shocked he has been remanded in custody for this long. It speaks to the seriousness of the charges as there clearly is little risk of flight or failure to attend court.
Given the COVID delays to the criminal justice system, the fact his trial is in January also means that it is being massively fast-tracked.
Given the COVID delays to the criminal justice system, the fact his trial is in January also means that it is being massively fast-tracked.
Official criminal charges are not a “usual reason” for suspension - it’s quite rare. And here it’s not just a criminal investigation, but also - potentially - a very serious crime (punishable by double digits of years in prison)
My thoughts exactly.
Don't really care about his pay. The fact he's being remanded for months is the real headline here. Not sure that's happened to a premier league player before?
if he is found guilty, he will get 15+ years in jail, it’s not a joke at all
I had a quick search...
Joey Barton was remanded on assault and affray charges:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/29/football.ukcrime
Adam Johnson was given bail:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/23/adam-johnson-charged-sex-offences-sunderland
Cantona spent three hours in prison before being bailed, so not sure that counts.
Depends on if he's found guilty on all charges doesn't it?
As for him being on remand, it's because he broke his bail conditions by having parties at his house and allegedly reoffended twice whilst on bail. He's remanded for the safety of the public.
Who says it's a joke? Not sure what you're on about
Thanks for the clarification. That makes much more sense now.
An aside, but I suspect City will be within their rights to discipline him for the breach of bail conditions (the partying) even if there is a not guilty verdict.
Did Mutu ever pay back Chelsea? What’s the situation with that after his breach of contract @duffer
A civil suit could easily follow even if innocent.
It's a much lower burden of proof, or the suit could even be entirely unrelated to "rape" as a crime.
I am just reading this thread in its entirety and I had no idea of the details in regards to how long it (the investigation) had been going on for, and that City as a club were well aware yet carried on as normal.
Makes it all the more baffling (well, actually, not really seeing the calibre of cretins on there) why Bluemoon were talking about Ronaldo’s situation being kept under wraps ‘because he plays for the rags again’
Makes it all the more baffling (well, actually, not really seeing the calibre of cretins on there) why Bluemoon were talking about Ronaldo’s situation being kept under wraps ‘because he plays for the rags again’
I'm not an employment lawyer specifically, and would defer to anyone with more detailed knowledge of the case law in that field, although do have to understand and review those contracts from time to time. My initial point was that I have never seen a contract where this would be covered.
It may well be that City choose not to pay him, and happily defend any claims which may follow.
I'm definitely not an expert but one day, maybe
I came across the case of Burns V Santander PLC in my studies (I'm currently studying my bachelors with honours, second year)
I'm also a 40-year-old hospitality manager that had an employer who made a deduction from my wage. I did a little research and used the findings to force them to pay me before I raised a civil case against them.
This doesn't mean I know the ins and outs of employment law but I believe what I wrote to be a good base to use in similar circumstances.
Using the Westlaw database to read through the judgment it could be argued that a president has been made.
Last edited:
Being accused of sex offences doesn't automatically make you president. That was just the last one.
no idea if he's being paid or not but since he broke his bail conditions to be remanded in custody then I sincerely hope that allows for the club to withhold payment of salary. I've also no idea if the club knew he was on bail or not, as an employee I doubt I'd tell my employers that I was on bail.
Nope. As of 2018 he still owes us. I've not seen any real updates since then.
He's appealed to lots of different courts/ruling bodies, none of them have gone against Chelsea.
Timeline from the BBC....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45719451
- August 2003 - Joins Chelsea for £15.8m from Parma
- October 2004 - Sacked by Chelsea after positive test for cocaine and banned for seven months
- January 2005 - Signs for Livorno and is then contemporaneously sold to Juventus
- May 2005 - Mutu appeals against Premier League's decision to allow Chelsea to seek compensation, later rejected by Court of Arbitration for Sport
- May 2008 - Fifa orders Mutu to pay Chelsea damages, Mutu appeals to Cas
- July 2009 - Cas rejects Mutu's appeal
- June 2010 - Swiss Federal Supreme Court upholds Fifa and Cas rulings, Mutu appeals to European Court of Human Rights
- October 2013 - Fifa orders Juventus and Livorno to pay part of compensation
- January 2015 - Cas annuls Fifa ruling that Juventus and Livorno owe Chelsea compensation
- October 2018 - ECHR rejects Mutu's appeal against Cas ruling.
Probably can't even pay.
If I've read correctly he is accused of multiple rapes and sexual assualt of 4 different women.
He was on bail while he allegedly committed some of the offences - so clearly a threat to the public.
Mutu spent a decade in Serie A, he was certainly in a position to sort something out back then but didn't.
Owing Chelsea isn't some new issue for him now that he's skint (if he even is skint), he was earning big money and still chose not to pay a penny.
I have little sympathy for Chelsea though, we don't need the money.
There is presedence in CAS in Chelsea v. Mutu.
The case is still ongoing. A generation later.
It was an obscene amount they wanted wasn't it? 15 million quid or something That's a lot for any player of that era and could conceivably wipe him out. No surprise he's not paid it considering he probably saw all his teammates doing the same thing every week and getting away with it. It always struck me as odd that they went after him so hard.
It was pretty much the transfer fee Chelsea went for.
I get why he's not paid it back, I'd do the same. Seemingly nobody gives a shit about Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights decisions though, which is wild.
Always struck me as Chelsea wanting their money back for a bad transfer and then they dug their heels in rather than give it up. There's no way we would've sacked Lampard if he got done for the same.
- Status