Gallen says that clubs lose out financially through lower television income if they are not successful, so detriment derives from continuation of embargo, as well as ST income, potential for redundancies, loss of reputation.
LK: Gallen is correct that LD haven't been able to satisfy the EFL on source on sufficiency, contrary to Chaisty. Clear that PM will never do it, and as long as that continues these effects go on. Necessarily connected to financial situation.
That's new isn't it? Thats implying that they have tried and failed.
I appreciate that Kreamer admits that PM has faults in certain places, as in source of funds, yet Chaisty continues to state Elliott is perfect and has done nothing wrong.
LJ Lewison asks about liberty to vary any injunction if PK was "oven-ready" deal on table. LK says court already has evidence from Elliott on this point about press releases showing Thomas Sandgaard's intention to take over ESI.
Why ain't the EFL been asked to outline thier view???
Would they have even responded? Probably would have got 'we don't comment on ongoing club issues' if you heard back from them at all. Silence is their biggest weapon
“ LJ Lewison asks about liberty to vary any injunction if PK was "oven-ready" deal on table. LK says court already has evidence from Elliott on this point about press releases showing Thomas Sandgaard's intention to take over ESI.”
Boom, evidence of imminent sale already offered. Do the judges have to notice that this contradicts Chaisty’s earlier points about no sale on the table?
The injunction and this case itself is causing damages to the club and it's financial and sporting standing, for LD to suggest there is no evidence a sale is close when you have TS literally waiting in the wings is laughable
It's a shame PM couldn't provide their own evidence that a deal with TS is close to being completed. Why are they relying on evidence from PE to support their claim?
Comments