UPDATED: " NATHANIEL MENDEZ-LAING LEAVES CARDIFF CITY "

If he had been arrested, charged, and been in court, surely it would have been picked up by a paper, any paper. as we have seen in the past. Similarly, id be surprised if a player was sacked before being found guilty of a crime (correct me if im wrong, but i dont think Adam Johnson was sacked until found guilty? and ched evans?)

Wait and see i guess, it will all come out eventually.

thats my take on it.... there was the Derby drink drive incident and more recently that fella fighting coppers in Greece because random Albanians poisoned his sister generally whatever they do clubs stick with them , at least until the case is resolved.. bizarre.

yeah i didnt like the Derby incident myself, because they stuck by the two of the assets that were worth money and sacked the injured 33 year old club captain.

I hope when this all comes out in the wash that the club were justified in doing what theyve done here.

There was a good reason for that.

The two players they stuck with could play again soon. The player they sacked couldn’t. In his contract it stated that if injured from his own actions that were basically stupid (like getting in a drunk drivers car) they had every right to sack him. Notice news of his appeal went quiet. I think Derby were generous offering him reduced terms if I’m honest.

He got in that car when the driver was drunk. He got injured and was out ages. Why should derby pay him for his foolishness?

its the disparity of the treatment... it wasnt the one that did the most wrong. .but the one that was worth least that got the worse out of it... makes business sense but morally wrong surely ?

Nah I don’t think so. It was based on him not being able to play for over a year. Why should Derby pay his wages when he got in a car driven by drunk drivers, crashed and then he was injured unable to play. It wasn’t based on the crime.

He was in breach of contract.

And in breach of his own moral compass, Neil

Morally too.

If I die driving a car under the influence or as a passenger in a car that is being driven by someone under the influence then any insurance becomes invalid. I’m pretty sure this would be the case there ergo Derby offered him a lower contract which he turned down so they got rid. No sympathy.

If he had been arrested, charged, and been in court, surely it would have been picked up by a paper, any paper. as we have seen in the past. Similarly, id be surprised if a player was sacked before being found guilty of a crime (correct me if im wrong, but i dont think Adam Johnson was sacked until found guilty? and ched evans?)

Wait and see i guess, it will all come out eventually.

thats my take on it.... there was the Derby drink drive incident and more recently that fella fighting coppers in Greece because random Albanians poisoned his sister generally whatever they do clubs stick with them , at least until the case is resolved.. bizarre.

yeah i didnt like the Derby incident myself, because they stuck by the two of the assets that were worth money and sacked the injured 33 year old club captain.

I hope when this all comes out in the wash that the club were justified in doing what theyve done here.

There was a good reason for that.

The two players they stuck with could play again soon. The player they sacked couldn’t. In his contract it stated that if injured from his own actions that were basically stupid (like getting in a drunk drivers car) they had every right to sack him. Notice news of his appeal went quiet. I think Derby were generous offering him reduced terms if I’m honest.

He got in that car when the driver was drunk. He got injured and was out ages. Why should derby pay him for his foolishness?

its the disparity of the treatment... it wasnt the one that did the most wrong. .but the one that was worth least that got the worse out of it... makes business sense but morally wrong surely ?

Nah I don’t think so. It was based on him not being able to play for over a year. Why should Derby pay his wages when he got in a car driven by drunk drivers, crashed and then he was injured unable to play. It wasn’t based on the crime.

He was in breach of contract.

indeed... not based on what he was doing wrong.. but the fact he was injured more than the other 2..
im not saying it was not a good business decision.. but wrong is wrong..not its fine providing your not the one hurt

If he had been arrested, charged, and been in court, surely it would have been picked up by a paper, any paper. as we have seen in the past. Similarly, id be surprised if a player was sacked before being found guilty of a crime (correct me if im wrong, but i dont think Adam Johnson was sacked until found guilty? and ched evans?)

Wait and see i guess, it will all come out eventually.

thats my take on it.... there was the Derby drink drive incident and more recently that fella fighting coppers in Greece because random Albanians poisoned his sister generally whatever they do clubs stick with them , at least until the case is resolved.. bizarre.

yeah i didnt like the Derby incident myself, because they stuck by the two of the assets that were worth money and sacked the injured 33 year old club captain.

I hope when this all comes out in the wash that the club were justified in doing what theyve done here.

There was a good reason for that.

The two players they stuck with could play again soon. The player they sacked couldn’t. In his contract it stated that if injured from his own actions that were basically stupid (like getting in a drunk drivers car) they had every right to sack him. Notice news of his appeal went quiet. I think Derby were generous offering him reduced terms if I’m honest.

He got in that car when the driver was drunk. He got injured and was out ages. Why should derby pay him for his foolishness?

its the disparity of the treatment... it wasnt the one that did the most wrong. .but the one that was worth least that got the worse out of it... makes business sense but morally wrong surely ?

Nah I don’t think so. It was based on him not being able to play for over a year. Why should Derby pay his wages when he got in a car driven by drunk drivers, crashed and then he was injured unable to play. It wasn’t based on the crime.

He was in breach of contract.

And in breach of his own moral compass, Neil

Morally too.

If I die driving a car under the influence or as a passenger in a car that is being driven by someone under the influence then any insurance becomes invalid. I’m pretty sure this would be the case there ergo Derby offered him a lower contract which he turned down so they got rid. No sympathy.

Having worked in the insurance business for over 30 years i can advise you if you die in a car what ever the circumstance other than suicide within first year of a policy Your insurance would pay out

If he had been arrested, charged, and been in court, surely it would have been picked up by a paper, any paper. as we have seen in the past. Similarly, id be surprised if a player was sacked before being found guilty of a crime (correct me if im wrong, but i dont think Adam Johnson was sacked until found guilty? and ched evans?)

Wait and see i guess, it will all come out eventually.

thats my take on it.... there was the Derby drink drive incident and more recently that fella fighting coppers in Greece because random Albanians poisoned his sister generally whatever they do clubs stick with them , at least until the case is resolved.. bizarre.

yeah i didnt like the Derby incident myself, because they stuck by the two of the assets that were worth money and sacked the injured 33 year old club captain.

I hope when this all comes out in the wash that the club were justified in doing what theyve done here.

There was a good reason for that.

The two players they stuck with could play again soon. The player they sacked couldn’t. In his contract it stated that if injured from his own actions that were basically stupid (like getting in a drunk drivers car) they had every right to sack him. Notice news of his appeal went quiet. I think Derby were generous offering him reduced terms if I’m honest.

He got in that car when the driver was drunk. He got injured and was out ages. Why should derby pay him for his foolishness?

its the disparity of the treatment... it wasnt the one that did the most wrong. .but the one that was worth least that got the worse out of it... makes business sense but morally wrong surely ?

Nah I don’t think so. It was based on him not being able to play for over a year. Why should Derby pay his wages when he got in a car driven by drunk drivers, crashed and then he was injured unable to play. It wasn’t based on the crime.

He was in breach of contract.

And in breach of his own moral compass, Neil

Morally too.

If I die driving a car under the influence or as a passenger in a car that is being driven by someone under the influence then any insurance becomes invalid. I’m pretty sure this would be the case there ergo Derby offered him a lower contract which he turned down so they got rid. No sympathy.

Having worked in the insurance business for over 30 years i can advise you if you die in a car what ever the circumstance other than suicide within first year of a policy Your insurance would pay out

Every car insurance document I have had says invalid if driving under the influence.

If he had been arrested, charged, and been in court, surely it would have been picked up by a paper, any paper. as we have seen in the past. Similarly, id be surprised if a player was sacked before being found guilty of a crime (correct me if im wrong, but i dont think Adam Johnson was sacked until found guilty? and ched evans?)

Wait and see i guess, it will all come out eventually.

thats my take on it.... there was the Derby drink drive incident and more recently that fella fighting coppers in Greece because random Albanians poisoned his sister generally whatever they do clubs stick with them , at least until the case is resolved.. bizarre.

yeah i didnt like the Derby incident myself, because they stuck by the two of the assets that were worth money and sacked the injured 33 year old club captain.

I hope when this all comes out in the wash that the club were justified in doing what theyve done here.

There was a good reason for that.

The two players they stuck with could play again soon. The player they sacked couldn’t. In his contract it stated that if injured from his own actions that were basically stupid (like getting in a drunk drivers car) they had every right to sack him. Notice news of his appeal went quiet. I think Derby were generous offering him reduced terms if I’m honest.

He got in that car when the driver was drunk. He got injured and was out ages. Why should derby pay him for his foolishness?

its the disparity of the treatment... it wasnt the one that did the most wrong. .but the one that was worth least that got the worse out of it... makes business sense but morally wrong surely ?

Nah I don’t think so. It was based on him not being able to play for over a year. Why should Derby pay his wages when he got in a car driven by drunk drivers, crashed and then he was injured unable to play. It wasn’t based on the crime.

He was in breach of contract.

And in breach of his own moral compass, Neil

Morally too.

If I die driving a car under the influence or as a passenger in a car that is being driven by someone under the influence then any insurance becomes invalid. I’m pretty sure this would be the case there ergo Derby offered him a lower contract which he turned down so they got rid. No sympathy.

Having worked in the insurance business for over 30 years i can advise you if you die in a car what ever the circumstance other than suicide within first year of a policy Your insurance would pay out

Every car insurance document I have had says invalid if driving under the influence.

you mentioned if you died Your life insurance will pay out 100%