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…2223252728…175

Comments

  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Chaisty says Mihail's evidence should be treated with extreme caution and care. He says his client wants speedy resolution. Although they are seeking interim order at this juncture.
  • WSSWSS
    carly burn said:
    Elliott's Lawyer concentrating on mistruths in Mihails statement.

    Nimer failed to put any finance into the club. Elliott did in June
    Bit stupid when you don't own the club.
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    A QC might know his gravy, but not if he gets told a load of bollocks by his client
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Chaisty says his clients understand the necessity for a speedy conclusion and are extremely anxious for this matter to proceed quickly. #cafc #SaveCAFC
  • Cafc43v3rCafc43v3r
    I know you only judge a wicket after both teams have had a knock, but this isn't a great start. 
  • JoshrewCAFCJoshrewCAFC
    I hope I'm wrong here but can't see Elliott losing this case...
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Chaisty says his clients are anxious to progress matters, but Mihail has not shown any evidence about state of negotiations for sale to other, just referrred to third party press reports.
  • swords_aliveswords_alive


    Chaisty: "I ask you to treat his (Mihail's) evidence with extreme caution.
  • Sponsored links:


  • SoundAsa£SoundAsa£
    Carry on Courting.
  • mistrollingin62mistrollingin62
    Where's NLA when you need him B)
  • carly burncarly burn
    Sounds like there is some paperwork stating the transfer of shares from ESI1 to 2?
  • Valley11Valley11
    edited September 2020
    Indeed. Elliot seems to be arguing that he believed the deal with him was watertight and as such, put money into the club.
    That sounds quite a strong defence to me??
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
  • cafcfan1990cafcfan1990
    Valley11 said:
    Indeed. Elliot seems to be arguing that he believed the deal with him was watertight and as such, put money into the club.
    That sounds quite a strong defence to me??
    It does yes. So why is he not listed as the owner of ESI on Companies House. I'm sure we'll hear that question soon. 
  • carly burncarly burn
    Southall effectively out of the picture
  • Sponsored links:


  • Valley27000Valley27000
    CL_Phantom said:
    Surely Elliott putting money in (dubious) and Nimer not putting any in is irrelevant. The club was operating financially, yes?
    He has not got the funds too run Charlton FC .
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited September 2020
    Valley11 said:
    Indeed. Elliot seems to be arguing that he believed the deal with him was watertight and as such, put money into the club.
    That sounds quite a strong defence to me??
    Yes, it does sound pretty strong if there is paperwork relating to the transfer of shares. 
  • ChunesChunes
    Seems like the legal defence is that granting the injunction will cause harm to the club? But ESI lawyer saying no proof presented that any other negotiations are close to being completed. 
  • robinofottershawrobinofottershaw
    Will wait to hear Laura Kreamer speak for Panorama Magic but........
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    No necessity to join Southall to the action as no indication he will resist sale.
  • ozaddickozaddick
    Valley11 said:
    Indeed. Elliot seems to be arguing that he believed the deal with him was watertight and as such, put money into the club.
    That sounds quite a strong defence to me??
    Not necessarily. It’s like test driving a car and replacing a bald tyre that went flat on the test. Doesn’t mean you own the car. 
  • carly burncarly burn
    The EFL haven't obviously helped our case
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Chaisty says deal was signed by both parties in May and that Southall's shares would transfer over as part of "drag along". Also says no indications Southall would try to sell his stake - which he can't do legally anyway.
  • StigStig
    guinnessaddick said:
    Don’t remember crown court being like this.

    "You, the jury, decide" - I wish.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!