So if people are saying that the injunction will be extended if the COA grant permission to appeal then surely TS will be more inclined to pay them off. Seems too risky otherwise.
Or more likely walk away
I don’t think TS will be giving up trying to take us on,doesn’t seem the type of bloke after all the quotes,speeches & the like...he has got the Charlton bug...this might take a little longer (I’m fooking raging right now) but the longer this battle goes on,I think the harder it will be for him to let go...he wants to be one of us,we want him to be one of us...this is a typical Charlton kick in the bollox...think we need to be a bit more patient,the next 7 days are crucial...🙄,but Tommy & us will be together...if he can find the other 0.01% that gets this deal over the line...he will...😬
FWIW, I don't think TS is going to walk away, but I don't see him paying off any of the protagonists either. I see him hanging around until a proper deal can be done, but I think we will be screwed by the COA & all this dragging on for months.
By the time TS officially takeover the transfer deadline will be done & dusted and we will be mid table at best. Players that we had earmarked to join us would have gone elsewhere & we will be playing the youngsters in defence like last night. We are probably ok in midfield & up front, but the back 4 will be so inexperienced, especially if we get injuries to Oshilaja & Purrington and Pearce's injury takes longer than estimated.
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.
With all fairness tho, Chaisty could be the sole reason why we no longer exist.
Ridiculous. That is at the door of Elliott, Farnell, Southall and Nimer in no particular order.
If Nimer had never got involved with Elliott in the first place, we would never have had this mess.
Nimer didnt get involved with Elliott, Farnell did. Worse thing that happened was Nimer & Southall falling out. Nimer wanted revenge & Farnell got involved (on the basis he had previously been screwed by Southall ?)
Nimer had the final say though, or should as seeing that Panorama controls ESI. Nimer didn't have to accept Farnell's opinion, or agree the sale to Elliott. OR could have got proper advice as to whether PE had the finances to buy the club and get approval
It's due to the fuzzy and ambiguous nature of what he agreed with Elliott that we have this mess, where it genuinely isn't clear what was actually agreed
I don't think the judge had much option but to agree the short injunction. However he doesnt think that they will get over the next hurdle. This is a minor setback.
FWIW, I don't think TS is going to walk away, but I don't see him paying off any of the protagonists either. I see him hanging around until a proper deal can be done, but I think we will be screwed by the COA & all this dragging on for months.
By the time TS officially takeover the transfer deadline will be done & dusted and we will be mid table at best. Players that we had earmarked to join us would have gone elsewhere & we will be playing the youngsters in defence like last night. We are probably ok in midfield & up front, but the back 4 will be so inexperienced, especially if we get injuries to Oshilaja & Purrington and Pearce's injury takes longer than estimated.
I think the ball is firmly in Nemer court. Stick or twist on the Court case, pay Elliott off with a % of the sale, agree to sell for a £1 and stuff the lot of them.
How do you think I feel? I've actually got to read all of them...
You mean some people don't read them all? Might have to take a leaf out of their books because trying to make any sense out of all this has seriously defeated me. I do know I feel a lot shitter than yesterday.
It says that tomorrow can be also used so that PE can put in an appeal.....
“Given the time and given the potential need to protect the position of any party who seeks to consider appealing my judgement, I will adjourn any application for permission to appeal to the consequential hearing [tomorrow] so that issue doesn’t have to be separately dealt with this evening.”
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?
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.
That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen.
Please God you are correct
He is, summarised perfectly
So what's the process of appealing to the Court of Appeals then? Does Chaisty/his team email for a hearing? Call them? Just turn up and wait in line? What are the chances of it being physically possible to have this heard within the allotted 7 day timescale?
So if people are saying that the injunction will be extended if the COA grant permission to appeal then surely TS will be more inclined to pay them off. Seems too risky otherwise.
Or more likely walk away
Please don't try and bring our mood levels down to yours.
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?
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.
That is the most optomistic post I have ever seen.
Please God you are correct
He is, summarised perfectly
So what's the process of appealing to the Court of Appeals then? Does Chaisty/his team email for a hearing? Call them? Just turn up and wait in line? What are the chances of it being physically possible to have this heard within the allotted 7 day timescale?
I would've thought that's unlikely. The judge today knows how long it will take and based his 7 days off of that I assume.
I don't think the judge had much option but to agree the short injunction. However he doesnt think that they will get over the next hurdle. This is a minor setback.
The problem is that it's most unlikely that this will only be a 7 day inconvenience. It opens yet another can of worms and creates numerous problems, particularly for Bowyer who was hoping to secure Mathews and bring in his target signings before they get snapped up elsewhere. It gives Elliott and his legal team critical time to strategise and find new ways of making things more difficult and dragging the case out still further, just as they managed to today. My faith in the legal system is back to where it was before yesterday's ruling. Todays hearing was supposed to be nothing but a formality in order to sort out costs, trial dates etc. No one in their wildest nightmare imagined that the judge would backtrack in this way. But it turns out that yesterday's ruling has been turned on its head. I have no faith either that the COA will reject the appeal. Crooks these days always seem to the upper hand, whether that is down to leniency or corruption I do not know, but the law no longer seems to favour justice or honesty.
So if people are saying that the injunction will be extended if the COA grant permission to appeal then surely TS will be more inclined to pay them off. Seems too risky otherwise.
Or more likely walk away
Please don't try and bring our mood levels down to yours.
Charming, I’m usually quiet chipper, I just fear this gets dragged out at every opportunity
Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.
Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.
Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...
If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
If the judge doesn’t think they have a case to appeal, has he granted the 7 day injunction as a tick box exercise? 7 days time, there is a sensible buyer at the door who has passed efl tests and provided source of funds.....sorry esi2, the sale is proceeding!
If the judge doesn’t think they have a case to appeal, has he granted the 7 day injunction as a tick box exercise? 7 days time, there is a sensible buyer at the door who has passed efl tests and provided source of funds.....sorry esi2, the sale is proceeding!
Thats what I reckon has happened - He's giving them the chance to appeal by basically just shutting them up, but he himself expects it to be rejected by the judge looking at the appeal
Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.
Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.
Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...
If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the club
Whilst this plays out we should all focus our attention back on EFL imho
I dont think they'll matter, if Elliott was the owner of the club then them refusing the ODAT appeal would just result in him being forced to sell the club by the EFL.
Honestly believe thats all he wants to do now anyway, he wants the one to be able to force terms with Sandgaard
Comments
Is this the case or not? -
By the time TS officially takeover the transfer deadline will be done & dusted and we will be mid table at best. Players that we had earmarked to join us would have gone elsewhere & we will be playing the youngsters in defence like last night. We are probably ok in midfield & up front, but the back 4 will be so inexperienced, especially if we get injuries to Oshilaja & Purrington and Pearce's injury takes longer than estimated.
It's due to the fuzzy and ambiguous nature of what he agreed with Elliott that we have this mess, where it genuinely isn't clear what was actually agreed
Nah, one I've known for along time. Sometimes it helps being a bit of a history buff.
Does anybody?
It opens yet another can of worms and creates numerous problems, particularly for Bowyer who was hoping to secure Mathews and bring in his target signings before they get snapped up elsewhere.
It gives Elliott and his legal team critical time to strategise and find new ways of making things more difficult and dragging the case out still further, just as they managed to today.
My faith in the legal system is back to where it was before yesterday's ruling.
Todays hearing was supposed to be nothing but a formality in order to sort out costs, trial dates etc. No one in their wildest nightmare imagined that the judge would backtrack in this way.
But it turns out that yesterday's ruling has been turned on its head.
I have no faith either that the COA will reject the appeal.
Crooks these days always seem to the upper hand, whether that is down to leniency or corruption I do not know, but the law no longer seems to favour justice or honesty.
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
Honestly believe thats all he wants to do now anyway, he wants the one to be able to force terms with Sandgaard