Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.
They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI.
Would that be allowed under the injunction?
Can you stop it if you can't pay your debts and/or are trading insolvent? If PM can't pay the bills I can't see how a judge could rule that they could carry on racking up debts that they can't pay?
Panorama can't just enter into administration in this jurisdiction. I have absolutely no idea about UAE insolvency law but it's not straightforward to onshore a foreign entity here to take advantage of our insolvency regime particularly outside of EC.
They could liquidate, or threaten to, ESI.
Would that be allowed under the injunction?
Can you stop it if you can't pay your debts and/or are trading insolvent? If PM can't pay the bills I can't see how a judge could rule that they could carry on racking up debts that they can't pay?
I suppose a better question would have been would PE have the ability to seek a new injunction to prevent the winding up of ESI in that case? I assume not
Reckon even Elliotts "admin error" that failed the test was staged
I think that too. He doesn’t want to run a football club. Quite a coincidence to have an administration error on his papers whilst also knowing how to play EPL’s system. These people are no better than thieving scum.
Is it fact that Elliot has put in money to the club?
No. It is has not been denied that Lex D have put money into the club in 2 court cases, so widely assumed that they have. Proving they had not would have worked in PM's favor so seems likely they have.
OK guys, given we have 2 other threads going, at midnight this one turns into a pumpkin. Suggest taking further conversation on the subject back to the Shenanigans thread:
Is it fact that Elliot has put in money to the club?
No. It is has not been denied that Lex D have put money into the club in 2 court cases, so widely assumed that they have. Proving they had not would have worked in PM's favor so seems likely they have.
This is a major point. It has not been contested and one would assume that Elliott has put more money in than Nimer / Southall ever did. This kind of thing fell in LD's favour
You have to feel sorry for Lauren. She really was trying to defend the indefensible.
For the last few hours I have been thinking through the reasoning why Panorama Magic contested this injunction and were prepared to do so on the back of the most flimsy of evidence.
The general feeling is Nimer did have a deal with Elliott, set up by Farnell to cut Southall out of any future profit etc etc. I haven't seen anyone deny that, including Elliott, Farnell and Nimer.
The concensus seems to be that Nimer felt that Elliott was either stringing him along, had failed the EFL test so the deal wasn't valid or just saw Thomas's money and tried to welch. It doesn't actually matter which one of these is true. But it's obvious there is dispute between the two on the validity of the deal.
If Nimer had a "done deal" with Tommy wouldn't have been worth while actually get a proper legal firm to put their case together? Even if Tommy advanced the money? There are rumours that up to six million was on the line. That should be enough to focus even the dullest mind. A bit of a burden to place on a "print at home legal qualification" don't you think?
Now the benifit of winning the case for Panorama is quite clear, they could have sold to Tommy straight away. But what are the implications of loosing?
Well they now have a £50k liability that they need to pay. Due to limited liability it's the company that owes it, not Nimer or the other share holder. They have no UK assets other than 70ish % in ESI, who have booked assets valued at £1. Not disputed in 2 court cases, by either side.
So, as I see it there are 3 options.
Either Nimer, or his partner that we know nothing about, personally pay it. I think that is for the fairies tbh. Even if they could why would they.
CAFC, the only thing that Panorama own in the UK that could possibly have the cash on hand, pay it. Now why would Elliott take the cash out of what he wants to buy to pay his own legal costs? I don't doubt he would, but I would imagine it would harm his case in the November hearing.
Or Panorama refuse to pay, sighting lack of funds. If then go onto administration the deal with Elliott would no longer be valid. The mess that would cause with CAFC would probably mean Roland taking control due to the original sale. Which if contractly sound with disregard Elliott.
Added to that CAFC are obviously trading insolvent. Probably not legally, but almost certainly practically. Administration benifits none of the players in this horrible mess and should be avoided by all of them, although perversely in the long term could be a benifit to the well being of the club.
Back to the original hypothesis, I wouldn't be surprised now to see something like the following play out, very publicly, over the next week.
Offer from Nimer to not contest the November hearing if Elliott can complete inside a certain, probably unrealistic, time.
Then the threat of placing the whole lot into admin, again with out much warning.
An intervention from Roland saying he can reclaim if administration is on the cards. He does have that right.
Elliott is then put in a position where he has to either complete the deal, or foxtrot Oscar and I don't think he could actually do anything about it.
Maybe, just maybe loosing today wasn't that bad?
If Panorama was to go into administration, it would have a key asset 70% of ESI, couldn't someone just buy Panorama for that?
The winner then being Southall, if as a result either ESI now is 70% by someone decent, or someone (like Lex/PE) wanting to flog it for a decent price?
No matter who owns panorama they could still cut Southall out through drag along.
But that was when Nimer was happy to be shot of the club back in June.
If TS or Barclay bought the 70%, Southall would massively gain. If PE/Lex bought the 70% to try and flog it at a profit, how could they do that without Southall profiting too?
Roland must realise that for his own benefit, a solution to this unholy mess needs to be found PDQ. A mess predominantly created by his own stupidity.
He would never realize it was his own stupidity. Its is always someone else's fault. But the fact remains that he has mechanism to get out of it.
He won't publicly admit his mistake, but must surely be concerned that his best chance of getting a decent sum of money (TS) is being ruined by the Panorama/Lex shambles, and will want to help TS if he can. £40m or whatever from TS or nothing, that's an easy choice
I, and 99.9% of people agree with your logic. Roland is the 00.1% and is hell bent on revenge against the CAFC boys and girls. I hope that he likes money more than revenge and comes to his senses.
I've never felt that he was driven by revenge. He's driven on getting his money back and being proved right
Reckon even Elliotts "admin error" that failed the test was staged
You know what, I never even considered this. All these lawyers involved and you fail tests on ‘admin errors’? Really?
Great points,well made,too thought it was done to drag this out & the fact he made it well known only when it was brought up by themselves in court,not before...this also needs to be put out there for dissection...c***s the lot of them,I really hope they get what’s coming to them...Karma can be a bitch...!!
Comments
And if you are, do you go Millers of Bexley?
Quite a coincidence to have an administration error on his papers whilst also knowing how to play EPL’s system.
These people are no better than thieving scum.
This kind of thing fell in LD's favour
You have to feel sorry for Lauren. She really was trying to defend the indefensible.
If TS or Barclay bought the 70%, Southall would massively gain. If PE/Lex bought the 70% to try and flog it at a profit, how could they do that without Southall profiting too?
we will never forget