Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)
Comments
-
All this legal bollocks really is in a different world.0
-
As in; can he buy the club at 4:01 next weds?Bedsaddick said:
Nobody can possibly answer that.Valley11 said:What does this mean for the TS deal?0 -
I assume Bowyer will bring in a defender this week, whether a RB or CBForeverAddickted said:
Only difference between this year and that is the fact we had quite a balanced squad to put out against Sunderlandkillerandflash said:
It really doesn'tBR7_addick said:
This, this week was massive regarding the squad and it’s gone now, Bowyer still toying between which under 17 will make the bench at crewe, this week injunction could set us back a season or two, you might think I’m being dramatic, but we now start the season with our worst squad for years.paulie8290 said:
No but our season will be.ForeverAddickted said:The judge has effectively said that he doesn't believe Sandgaard's interest in buying Charlton will be affected by a short delay.
Less time to get new players in
The 5 players Bowyer has lined up may ho elsewhere
Matthews may go elsewhere.
Seriously what is the point in holding up the sale, all its gonna do is mess up our season
There will still be 40 games to go by the time the window closes. And then there's the January window
We couldn't fill our bench when we played Sunderland 2 years ago, but brought in several players after the season started
This time we're badly short in Defence, you'd hope that against Crewe, Doncaster, Lincoln the team should be good enough
At least its not as tough a start as it was facing Sunderland, Peterborough, Shrewsbury
I agree the squad is currently very weak in defence, but when you consider we have Williams, Washington, Gilbey and Aneke to add to yesterday's side, that's a reasonable base to play Crewe2 -
I’m probably 90% pissed off 10% logic right now admittedly but I think it’s still a dent to 20/21, come end of the season we might be a few points off, after losing the first two, then I guess we could point to it.killerandflash said:
Of course it's not good news, but a delay of a few days is annoying rather than a catastrophe. It's not as the takeover was likely to happen before Friday at the earliestBR7_addick said:
Let’s take the Rose tints off for a sec, what bowyer did 18/19 was borderline miraculous. And he didn’t have a transfer embargo.killerandflash said:
It really doesn'tBR7_addick said:
This, this week was massive regarding the squad and it’s gone now, Bowyer still toying between which under 17 will make the bench at crewe, this week injunction could set us back a season or two, you might think I’m being dramatic, but we now start the season with our worst squad for years.paulie8290 said:
No but our season will be.ForeverAddickted said:The judge has effectively said that he doesn't believe Sandgaard's interest in buying Charlton will be affected by a short delay.
Less time to get new players in
The 5 players Bowyer has lined up may ho elsewhere
Matthews may go elsewhere.
Seriously what is the point in holding up the sale, all its gonna do is mess up our season
There will still be 40 games to go by the time the window closes. And then there's the January window
We couldn't fill our bench when we played Sunderland 2 years ago, but brought in several players after the season started
This was the week to get the squad ready (remember we had 5/6 waiting to be confirmed) and now it will not be ready, simple as that.
0 -
The Euphoria from yesterday's decision has ebbed away from me, At least my good friend Jose Cuervo has promised to be by my side to get me through this next week.0
-
It will be next Friday instead of this Friday.Valley11 said:What does this mean for the TS deal?0 -
But doesn't the appeal have to be on the narrow matter of yesterday's judgement, not the wider points? So, whether, on balance, waiting until what we now know to be the end of November damages the club more than a sale between now and then would Elliott.Vfrf said:
This is what makes me fear for the appeal being successful.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty went from arguing yesterday that there was no evidence of an imminent sale of #CAFC so no detriment from an injunction to pointing to media reports today that a sale was imminent meaning his client’s right to apply to appeal needed protection.
What I'm not clear about is what happens in the next week, and whether an appeal can and will be heard in that time and what happens if it isn't.
Today's injunction was given, while yesterday's wasn't, because of the very constrained time period it will be in operation.1 -
NoValley11 said:
As in; can he buy the club at 4:01 next weds?Bedsaddick said:
Nobody can possibly answer that.Valley11 said:What does this mean for the TS deal?
4:00:016 -
Will wait for LK to issue a statement0
-
Not to mention the legal precedent he relied was, as pointed out, pertaining to completely different Court and proceedings.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty went from arguing yesterday that there was no evidence of an imminent sale of #CAFC so no detriment from an injunction to pointing to media reports today that a sale was imminent meaning his client’s right to apply to appeal needed protection.
Oh never mind, it's Judge Mental, any fecking precedent will do.
I'm beyond apoplexy3 - Sponsored links:
-
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick0 -
unless...LawrieAbrahams said:
It will be next Friday instead of this Friday.Valley11 said:What does this mean for the TS deal?0 -
TS gives ESi more then £550,000
What should Nimmer get?.1 -
It might be worth us noting the following- over 1.5million civil cases were heard in 2011, only 1269 cases were filed in the Court of Appeal (Civil, not family or criminal)
It is possible but far from certain that the appeal will be granted.6 -
The appeal wont be heard next week......its if they have the RIGHT to an appeal. If the appeal judge thinks they do then he/she will set a date for an appeal.dickad1 said:
But doesn't the appeal have to be on the narrow matter of yesterday's judgement, not the wider points? So, whether, on balance, waiting until what we now know to be the end of November damages the club more than a sale between now and then would Elliott.Vfrf said:
This is what makes me fear for the appeal being successful.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty went from arguing yesterday that there was no evidence of an imminent sale of #CAFC so no detriment from an injunction to pointing to media reports today that a sale was imminent meaning his client’s right to apply to appeal needed protection.
What I'm not clear about is what happens in the next week, and whether an appeal can and will be heard in that time and what happens if it isn't.
Today's injunction was given, while yesterday's wasn't, because of the very constrained time period it will be in operation.
I think that's right.1 -
What happens if the EFL reject Elliott and the rest of ESI2 under the OADT in the next 7 days?6
-
robinofottershaw said:I am sorry but this guy annoys the hell out of me.
You can send him an email about it.
1 -
I will find the right thread!!
They have to get BOTH leave to appeal AND the decision not to grant the longer injunction overturned (or in practice the seven day injunction extended) or #cafc can be sold. That still reduces Lee Bowyer’s transfer headroom before September 12th.
1 -
Lol I did the exact same thingForeverAddickted said:I will find the right thread!!
They have to get BOTH leave to appeal AND the decision not to grant the longer injunction overturned (or in practice the seven day injunction extended) or #cafc can be sold. That still reduces Lee Bowyer’s transfer headroom before September 12th.2 -
Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour.Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
6 - Sponsored links:
-
I think the top thread kept changing so kept selecting the wrong oneCallumcafc said:
Lol I did the exact same thingForeverAddickted said:I will find the right thread!!
They have to get BOTH leave to appeal AND the decision not to grant the longer injunction overturned (or in practice the seven day injunction extended) or #cafc can be sold. That still reduces Lee Bowyer’s transfer headroom before September 12th.0 -
It just seems nonsensical to me that someone can be denied an injunction, have the appeal for that injunction denied, but then use the letter of the law to force the judge to approve an appeal at the Court of Appeals.GoOnYouHaddocks said:All this legal bollocks really is in a different world.7 -
Just putting them in italics helped as I realised you were relaying information and not just making a commentForeverAddickted said:
I'll put them in bold next time as well - Might help a bit moreMiserableoldgit said:
Thanks for the updates, though it was difficult to follow them inbetween all the speculation.ForeverAddickted said:Hearing is brought to a close by Judge Pearce.
😉
1 -
I seem to recall the EFL saying that upon rejection of appeal; CF and PE had fourteen days to remove themselves from the clubDizzle said:What happens if the EFL reject Elliott and the rest of ESI2 under the OADT in the next 7 days?
I guess they could argue that they should have the right to sell the club in that instance as they'll continue to claim that they own it1 -
There's this whole separate world going on called the legal profession, these people making fortunes out of others' misery, and they create absolutely nothing for the real world. Hate lawyers.1
-
So, on that basis all they have achieved is to delay things by a week? They get the appeal, but the shares are sold before it is heard.golfaddick said:
The appeal wont be heard next week......its if they have the RIGHT to an appeal. If the appeal judge thinks they do then he/she will set a date for an appeal.dickad1 said:
But doesn't the appeal have to be on the narrow matter of yesterday's judgement, not the wider points? So, whether, on balance, waiting until what we now know to be the end of November damages the club more than a sale between now and then would Elliott.Vfrf said:
This is what makes me fear for the appeal being successful.ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty went from arguing yesterday that there was no evidence of an imminent sale of #CAFC so no detriment from an injunction to pointing to media reports today that a sale was imminent meaning his client’s right to apply to appeal needed protection.
What I'm not clear about is what happens in the next week, and whether an appeal can and will be heard in that time and what happens if it isn't.
Today's injunction was given, while yesterday's wasn't, because of the very constrained time period it will be in operation.
I think that's right.
If they keep varying the injunction then effectively they have got what they didn't get yesterday in small increments.
Presumably there are some legal experts on here who can take us through the potential scenarios.0 -
That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen.Clarky said:
Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour.Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
Please God you are correct5 -
I think @Miserableoldgit was right though, Cawley and AB were tweeting so infrequently that when an italics post got made it was easy to miss itross1 said:
Just putting them in italics helped as I realised you were relaying information and not just making a commentForeverAddickted said:
I'll put them in bold next time as well - Might help a bit moreMiserableoldgit said:
Thanks for the updates, though it was difficult to follow them inbetween all the speculation.ForeverAddickted said:Hearing is brought to a close by Judge Pearce.
😉1 -
This will still be the UK Supreme Court. With the exception of Human Rights and the associated ECHR, the SC is the highest court in Britain.Cafc43v3r said:
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick1 -
Surely ECHR has no jurisdiction here post Brexit?WattsTheMatter said:
This will still be the UK Supreme Court. With the exception of Human Rights and the associated ECHR, the SC is the highest court in Britain.Cafc43v3r said:
What about the ECJ or its replacement?cafcfan said:
Nope. The Supreme Court replaced the House of Lords as the final arbiters in 2009.golfaddick said:
Yep, thought there was another strand to it all. Got an O level in Economic & Public Affairs 37 years ago but couldnt remember what was next after COA.Cafc43v3r said:
House of Lords, it won't get in front of the ECJ in time......LawrieAbrahams said:
The RCJ is the building where the Court of Appeal is based.golfaddick said:So, if I have this right.
PE wanted to stop the sale of the club so wants an injunction.
Injunction denied.
PE appeals that decision.
Appeal denied.
Appeals the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Granted.
Why the feck not just go straight to the top in the first place.
I hasten to add I don't think the Court of Appeal is the furthest they can go. Royal Court of Justice ??
Sorry that was in answer to @golfaddick0
This discussion has been closed.
