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
-
It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.2 -
Disagree I sent an upbeat article......makes me feel betterAdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.0 -
Hardly. Elliott, Farnell, their solicitors, the EFL, the decision by a court of appeal, the decision by the judge today.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.8 -
Apology Denied but you can appeal @JamesSeed 😺JamesSeed said:
Sorry @sillav nitram all I know is I've given up trying to keep up with the threads, and your name is written backwards. No intense offended.sillav nitram said:
We've already discussed this, this is my department and please don't lump me in with those wankers, @JamesSeed!JamesSeed said:blackpool72 said:Yet another week goes by with our transfer embargo in place.
Fuck off Elliott and die a painful death you corrupt peice of shit.
If he’s closed down and asset stripped a girls‘ boarding school he won’t bat an eyelid at destroying an historic London club to make himself a few million quid. I suspect he has a personality disorder.Psychopath.6 -
No he couldn't be the "sole reason" at all. Ridicilous to throw so much abuse at him.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.5 -
i am not letting myself believe this until it's done now. Everyone assumed today was nothing to worry about yet here I am angry and shitting myself.cafcfan1990 said:It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.2 -
To be fair to the judge, he denied the injunction yesterday, and denied the appeal today.WattsTheMatter said:
Hardly. Elliott, Farnell, their solicitors, the EFL, the decision by a court of appeal, the decision by the judge today.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.20 -
Understandable. It's a small win for them, but our win yesterday was far bigger.roseandcrown said:
i am not letting myself believe this until it's done now. Everyone assumed today was nothing to worry about yet here I am angry and shitting myself.cafcfan1990 said:It's disappointing but let's all calm down and assess things.
Personally I still think it's unlikely they will get a longer injunction and so I truly believe that TS will be the owner of the club by Friday 11th September.3 -
Worded wrong shouldn't say "sole reason" I apologise. But it feels like he is bringing us down in the mud along with farnell elliott etc. I know it's his job. But that still doesn't help me and makes me f#####g raging our club could be no more.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.0 -
Spot on. Chaisty has been given the right to go to the Court of Appeal, hardly a win, more of a legal right.stoneroses19 said:
To be fair to the judge, he denied the injunction yesterday, and denied the appeal today.WattsTheMatter said:
Hardly. Elliott, Farnell, their solicitors, the EFL, the decision by a court of appeal, the decision by the judge today.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.7 - Sponsored links:
-
What bearing will yesterday's decision have on the judge at the court of appeal? Will he have to acknowledge that the injunction was refused twice? Do they get to submit new evidence to the court of appeal?0
-
WishIdStayedinthePub said:He has really not enjoyed being bested by a young girl, has he. It's really eating his noodle.
Show some respect. She's a woman, not a young girl. Didn't her tweets refer to having a daughter going off to university?
4 -
I would like it made clear, I have no objection to that and I agree with you. I am purely objecting to the argument that Chaisty could be the 'sole reason'- that's without getting into all the individuals involved from day one of Duchatelet onto ESI v2.stoneroses19 said:
To be fair to the judge, he denied the injunction yesterday, and denied the appeal today.WattsTheMatter said:
Hardly. Elliott, Farnell, their solicitors, the EFL, the decision by a court of appeal, the decision by the judge today.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.
2 -
Ok, put it this way for example. Say TS is prepared to pay £6m for the club and says to ESI 1 and 2 sort it out amongst yourselves as to who gets what . Do you then think they would want the expense of going to trial in November when one of them could end up with nothing?cafcpolo said:
I don't think PE wants paying off, otherwise he'd be gone by now and this would be over. If he does, he wants a hell of a lot more than to cover his loses.Clarky said:
I could add that TS could pay off PE within 7 days, and ESI 1 can sell.blackpool72 said:
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 correct1 -
It should be independent but the CofA will know the judge's verdict (twice). I expect them to direct Elliott through the court for damages against Nimer and Co.MattF said:What bearing will yesterday's decision have on the judge at the court of appeal? Will he have to acknowledge that the injunction was refused twice? Do they get to submit new evidence to the court of appeal?
The facts are the judge has awarded this against Chaisty. Like any appeal, it can be reversed but Elliott lost the injunction and has to pay Panorama's costs. The fact he is appealing is the important bit, he's appealing because he LOST. Let's all remember that.6 -
Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.
2 -
I think that was brought up today though and it didn't hold enough water for the judge to allow them to appealSteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.0 -
ForeverAddickted said:Unlike London, Manchester could take trial in November so in order to achieve a speedy trial strong argument to hold it in Manchester. Declines transfer.
Well, we are under an transfer embargo so I'm not surprised.
3 -
Then why not grant the injunction yesterday? If this injunction is extended it's the same thing isn't it?SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.2 -
That's besides the point though. At this moment in time there's nothing saying that Nimer owes Elliott one penny. No Judge should award an injunction on the basis that Nimer will run with the money because legally, he doesn't owe Elliott one penny yet.SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Agree with you too.WattsTheMatter said:
I would like it made clear, I have no objection to that and I agree with you. I am purely objecting to the argument that Chaisty could be the 'sole reason'- that's without getting into all the individuals involved from day one of Duchatelet onto ESI v2.stoneroses19 said:
To be fair to the judge, he denied the injunction yesterday, and denied the appeal today.WattsTheMatter said:
Hardly. Elliott, Farnell, their solicitors, the EFL, the decision by a court of appeal, the decision by the judge today.AdTheAddicK said:
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.WattsTheMatter said:Seriously, no point in anyone emailing Chaisty abuse or anything for that matter. All is does is assist Elliott and co casting our fanbase in a bad light.
He is a barrister. He is paid to represent clients. He doesn't necessarily have to agree with them, but it is his job to represent whether he agrees or not.
Regardless of that, nothing warrants him being emailed, abused or the like. It achieves nothing and just makes us look bad.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.0 -
They were always going to appeal, they said. The judge can't stop them going to the Court of Appeal, that's what it is there for (he denied them the right to take it to another judge). The new thing is the 7 day injunction and the possibility, however small, that this could be extended at some stage, preventing the sale of the company that owns the football operations of CAFC.stoneroses19 said:
To be fair to the judge, he denied the injunction yesterday, and denied the appeal today.
I don't believe he is allowed to deny the appeal to Court of Appeals which Chaisty brought up at the end. Judge has probably helped as much as possible by only offering a 7 day rule, I'm sure Chaisty would have wanted longer.0 -
I fear the worst now3
-
I do not know if it is possible or legal, but if TS agrees a fee with Panorama to buy the club, the deal goes through, but the money is paid into an independent account until after the trial in November. After the result of that, the winner takes the money, less expenses for the lawyer who has been holding the moneySteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.3 -
I'm more concerned as to whether we will have a club to support, rather than which U17 will make the bench at Crewe.BR7_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 season3 -
cafcfan1990 said:
That's besides the point though. At this moment in time there's nothing saying that Nimer owes Elliott one penny. No Judge should award an injunction on the basis that Nimer will run with the money because legally, he doesn't owe Elliott one penny yet.
I most certainly hope that you are right, and I am definitely no legal expert so you probably are.
0 -
Exactly. My opinion is that Elliott has not provided enough evidence to prove he owns the club. I'd really like to see the EFL reject him ASAP now!Talal said:
Then why not grant the injunction yesterday? If this injunction is extended it's the same thing isn't it?SteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.3 -
So the big issue is more wether they are allowed to extend the injunction, something they have been advised against?1
-
I do get what you are saying. I do think if Nimer sells the club then Elliott will never see or hear from him again. Panorama Magic will disappear and so he's got zero chance of recovering any costs.SteveKielyCambridge said:cafcfan1990 said:
That's besides the point though. At this moment in time there's nothing saying that Nimer owes Elliott one penny. No Judge should award an injunction on the basis that Nimer will run with the money because legally, he doesn't owe Elliott one penny yet.
I most certainly hope that you are right, and I am definitely no legal expert so you probably are.
BUT, let's not forget that no judgement has been passed that said Panorama owe Elliott a penny. It's dangerous for a judge to assume what Nimer might do, it's essentially throwing accusations around.2 -
THIS!!!! Why can’t this be done? Or can it? Surely it’s problem solved this way?!ross1 said:
I do not know if it is possible or legal, but if TS agrees a fee with Panorama to buy the club, the deal goes through, but the money is paid into an independent account until after the trial in November. After the result of that, the winner takes the money, less expenses for the lawyer who has been holding the moneySteveKielyCambridge said:Worst thing, for me, is that this is obviously correct. We all know that the minute TS pays Panorama, Panorama is going to transfer the money to Nimar's account and then fold, leaving Lex Dominus to try and sue the former director of a no-longer-existent business in the UAE's courts. I honestly cannot see how the injunction will not be extended until the trial on that basis, because otherwise you are offering a remedy that everyone knows is not really a remedy.0
This discussion has been closed.
