Reminds me of that time Kanu scored for Arsenal when they beat Sheffield United in the cup after playing the throw on back to keeper. Meaningless replay and hopefully the same outcome.
No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
It’s so ducking annoying. The damage done is to the team - the fact that an injunction prevents transfers - which has a direct impact on value and long term prospects of club - how can this not be seen? An injunction damages the club and therefore the saleability of the club, not least to mention the potential damage administration, exclusion etc would deal to the community. Grr!
Doomsday scenario disproved by the fact that the club has started the season, says Chaisty. Court left with speculation about potential consequences but with no evidence to form a view as to likelihood.
Comments
Great school, that is where I went
Told ya!
BUT he got the seven day injunction whilst they went to appeal because he provided evidence of there being an imminent takeover?