Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
That's the case in a nutshell.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?
Chaisty: over-emphasis on seriousness of consequences, not to Panorama but to the club, but no evidence as to the likelihood of those consequences coming about.
I hope Kreamer has a quote from Bowyer.....
" if a sale doesn't go ahead & the embargo lifted by the start of October then the team will not be strong enough to stay up.....and I'll be leaving"
Important to us but not relevant to the court or indeed the EFL
Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
That's the case in a nutshell.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?
Chaisty is heavily attacking the weight of thought given to the lack of evidence of us potentially hitting troubles if an injuction is placed, however surely that should be balanced by him providing proof that it will not? The injunction certainly does not have any positive effects on the club nor community and it has POTENTIAL negatives.
Always going to be tough to listen to the LD case, but the one, somewhat optimistic, thing that I would say is that there does not appear to be any new bombshell here. Hopefully this means that all the counter-arguments are ready to go.
LK quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
Chaisty now summarizing. Says factors around Charlton’s impact on the community was given “undue weight”
#cafc
Now that is a fuckin Wrongun
To put it another way, his only concern is Paul Elliott. Should Elliott's presence at Charlton cause the demise of the club, as it may given he still hasn't paid his pound or passed the ODT test, this is of no concern to the court. I hope our side point out that this point of view is precisely why Elliott shuld be nowhere near ownership of a football club, or recieve compensation once he gets removed. Guy is a Leach, and his lawyer defends that position.
LK quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
Basically, neither solution are perfect so we should stick with the one that’s been decided unless there is an extremely good reason to change it?
There is a distinct lack of evidence from both sides the whole thing sounds like it's based on rumour and innuendo. There is either a valid sales document. Or there isn't.
The function of appellant court is not to exercise its own discretion just on the basis that current judges would have exercised their discretion differently, says LK.
Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
That's the case in a nutshell.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?
Chaisty already said, the clubs expulsion doesnt matter as LD are still interested in the commercial aspect. I take that as meaning "Paul Elliot doesn't care if charlton get thrown out of the football league as he thinks he can knock down the stadium and build some flats, and sell off the silverware, or hold the club ransom to a serious buyer which is the most important thing"
It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.
Comments
C'mon Lozza!
NLA should talk and listen to Lee Bowyer.
no....that's an unaffordable price we, the fans, would all have to pay. It can't go down that route.
Half-time oranges anyone?
I hope our side point out that this point of view is precisely why Elliott shuld be nowhere near ownership of a football club, or recieve compensation once he gets removed. Guy is a Leach, and his lawyer defends that position.