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)

1…120121123125126…175

Comments

  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    edited September 2020
    ozaddick said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Panamera  I guessed. 
    No I think it's Panorama mate


    ;)
  • ozaddick
    ozaddick Posts: 2,852
    edited September 2020
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    ozaddick said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Panamera  I guessed. 
    No I think it's Panorama mate


    ;)
    I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write! 
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,335
    ozaddick said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    ozaddick said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Panamera  I guessed. 
    No I think it's Panorama mate


    ;)
    I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write! 
    Sorry to hear that.
  • thenewbie
    thenewbie Posts: 11,018
    cafcfan1990 said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Boris



  • Gary Poole
    Gary Poole Posts: 1,874
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,061
    edited September 2020
    Gary Poole said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.
    He was too busy tweeting his naive fans who were lapping it up.
    Ooh let's keep MM if TS takes over, he's such a great bloke.
    It doesn't matter that he's part of a massive fraud and he's not qualified in the UK.
    We want the Romanian lawyer to stay at CAFC, because he's a great tweeter.
  • foresthillred
    foresthillred Posts: 1,436
    Redrobo said:
    Alwaysneil said:
    Once had lunch with Farnell May well work in our favour 😂 
    Exactly. We know who would have paid.
    From what we heard yesterday, it must have been Elliott
  • ozaddick
    ozaddick Posts: 2,852
    Redrobo said:
    ozaddick said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    ozaddick said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Panamera  I guessed. 
    No I think it's Panorama mate


    ;)
    I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write! 
    Sorry to hear that.
    Dad...??? 🤗
  • Rudders22
    Rudders22 Posts: 3,876
    So he claims itvis an admin error. Why did EFL say itvis down to the club to REMOVE Farnell and Elliott? That was unprecedent plus with all that fantastic knowledge that Farnell has when dealingvwith Bury could not provide the so called correct information. 
  • Rudders22
    Rudders22 Posts: 3,876
    I was very elated Tuesday night, angry Weds and extremly angemry Thurs night. However, having seen the ES article I have relaxed thinkingbif it goes to trial our barrister can show thatvin court and rip that article tovshreds.  Full of holes. He hasn't passed the test. Did not attempt to get it resolved. 3 months on?  He can't satisfy that his source can provide the money. This is his only communication ever since in his own head "he has bought the club". Hasn't paid the sale price at all. Why not? Oh yeah because if it goes tits up he is liable for the debt etc. TS has shown more interest into CAFC than he ever will and is keen to get a deal done. Why has PE done this considering he had 1st dibs?

  • Sponsored links:



  • Rudders22
    Rudders22 Posts: 3,876
    And another thing... why is he so keen to "reach out and listen to ideas and investment from TS?" We all know why. 
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,502
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Paul McCartney.
  • RedChaser
    RedChaser Posts: 19,888
    SoundAsa£ said:
    carly burn said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    ozaddick said:
    mendonca said:
    MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

    There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
    That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side? 
    Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.
     Who's PM?
    Paul McCartney.
    'The mist rolling in from the Thames my desire, Is always to be found at Valley Floyd Road' 😉
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,446
    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-boss-frustrated-by-further-delay-as-court-enforces-interim-injunction-to-block-any-takeover-deal/
  • charltonkeston
    charltonkeston Posts: 7,374
    Scoham said:
    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-boss-frustrated-by-further-delay-as-court-enforces-interim-injunction-to-block-any-takeover-deal/
    "I want to make Charlton Athletic great again"
    Next we'll have red baseball caps with MCGA slapped on the front.
    Elliottttt and co have no idea what our club stands for.
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,499
    Has chaistys insistence on using media reports to make his claim in court not opened a can of worms for his clients.

    Sounds like fair game now.
    Would hate for the long list of past wrong doings of Elliott and Farnell to come up in the appeal.
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,335
    Airman Brown said:
    Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. 

    On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.
    Thanks for clearing that up. 🤪
  • PeanutsMolloy
    PeanutsMolloy Posts: 6,726
    edited September 2020
    Airman Brown said:
    Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. 

    On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.
    Absolutely. No way that RD's lawyers would have permitted such a simple evasion of ESI's liability.
    Bizarre to see Bob Whitehand (one of the ex-Ds who, as we know, had been planning their own injunction to void RD's sale to ESI) wonder in a tweet the other day why ESI simply didn't sell CAFC. 
    Not that it matters to the price of fish.

  • Sponsored links:



  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,967
    Airman Brown said:
    Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. Moreover debt - or something at any rate - is secured by a charge in favour of RD over CAFC Limited, not ESI.

    On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.
    It's hardly surprising that there's confusion when you get official statements like this from Nimer in June

    "You will all be aware of recent boardroom events which, this this announcement, we can now put behind us.
    "I have made the difficult decision, having received advice and listened to fans' wishes, to hand the club over to a consortium that will have sufficient time and be in a position to take the club forward."

    With the website changing ownership to PE and co.

    The court case in November will be fascinating (as long as we're just bystanders)
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Like the Jeremy Kyle of corperate lawsuits
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,772
    Ultimately, another week shouldn't be a big deal. Given the decision has been made, the chances of undermining the authority of the judge via the appeal has very little chance of success from what I can gather. So rather than us having to wait until November, we have to wait until Wednesday. And of course, the club still has to be sold. If it is sold say on Thursday or Friday next week, the delay surely hasn't even been a delay.
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,474
    Airman Brown said:
    Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. Moreover debt - or something at any rate - is secured by a charge in favour of RD over CAFC Limited, not ESI.

    On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.
    Now that the steam has stopped coming out of my ears, going back to the open letter, it definitely looks like Elliott is under the impression he's just buying the club from ESI, not buying ESI itself:
    It is my argument, and that of the barrister that drafted it, that we have a legally binding agreement that only permits my company, Lex Dominus, to acquire Charlton Athletic Football Club from ESI.
    Doesn't that mean all those issues that @Airman Brown outlines up there about why ESI can't sell the club to subvert the injunction, also apply to the sale agreement he thinks he has, at any time, injunction or not? Has he been an idiot and not understood what he's trying to buy, or tried to pull a fast one and instead accidentally brought Roland into the scope of the case because the sale affects those agreements? Or do those obligations fall on ESI as the selling party?
    Why is this all soo bloody complicated?
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,499
    edited September 2020
    MuttleyCAFC said:
    Ultimately, another week shouldn't be a big deal. Given the decision has been made, the chances of undermining the authority of the judge via the appeal has very little chance of success from what I can gather. So rather than us having to wait until November, we have to wait until Wednesday. And of course, the club still has to be sold. If it is sold say on Thursday or Friday next week, the delay surely hasn't even been a delay.
     Not unless you count Bowyer not being allowed to get bodies in before the season starts?

    This is already having an effect. Elliott will be doing all he can to slow things down now. Expect this appeal to be lodged at the last possible moment. That gives him more time for the fan base to give him pelters and improve his chances.


    He told us he lodged his appeal to the EFL within hours of being rejected. Why the delay now?
  • PeanutsMolloy
    PeanutsMolloy Posts: 6,726
    edited September 2020
    Reflecting on a point made by Judge Pearce on the question of the location of the Nov trial, although LK's request for a transfer to London was declined, the Judge did say (and this was after Chaisty QC had had his major kvetch about abuse from CAFC fans) that a point that, in normal times, would be materially in favour of a move to London would be the public's ability to physically attend the hearing and that he would, in such times, have taken into account the legitimate interest of CAFC fans in witnessing the proceedings first hand.
    i.e. he clearly understands that this matter is about the future of CAFC and not solely about the narrow factual case for LD vs PM. 
    Doesn't change anything now that the CoA is the focus of attention but, though the decision on Wed wasn't ideal from our perspective, any thought that Judge Pearce, as a result of Chaisty's arguments and moaning, was any less able or inclined to see the wood for the trees is misplaced, I think. 
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,820
    They can lodge the appeal super late, just means the temp injunction will lapse, and the likelihood of Pearce allowing an extension, sounded vanishingly small
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,499
    Rothko said:
    They can lodge the appeal super late, just means the temp injunction will lapse, and the likelihood of Pearce allowing an extension, sounded vanishingly small
     So if by some remote chance they lodged an appeal now how quickly would it be heard?
  • HardyAddick
    HardyAddick Posts: 1,638
    Just hope Thomas and Freshfields are working hard behind the scenes to tie deal up once the temporary injunction lapses. 
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,772
    Yes, ideally we would want the club sold now for the reason you have stated. What I said was that if the club isn't sold immediately after the appeal is ruled out, there hasn't been a delay.  
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”