ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

Chunes

"It seems as if someone's just popped in wearing a Panama hat."  

swords_alive

Benjy Nurick

@BenjyNurick

·

21s

Matt Southall has just announced in the public chatroom that he is present at today's hearing.

WestCountryAddick

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, but we are only hearing half the story at the moment.  Once our barrister starts putting across the other side of the argument you will see a clearer picture emerge.

ProperCharlton

I've got a bad feeling about this. Think Elliott is on to a winner.

mattinfinland

Elliot is going to win this, can see it already 
this is gonna drag on and on.
This Lawyer is V-good.

ffs

ForeverAddickted

Elliott has appealed the EFL decision to reject him under OADT.

carly burn

Someone on a tractor enters proceedings!

ElfsborgAddick

Fumbluff said:

Leeds_Addick said:

How strict are these things with timings usually? Can we do 3-5 now or will the judge have to be somewhere at 4?

he’s got 4-430 pencilled in as helping @ElfsborgAddick with his poo-spoon...

He'll need more than 30 minutes.

golfaddick

ForeverAddickted said:

Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.

not in dispute by whom ?  Nimer or Elliott.

All the rest is just guff. The main issue is does Elliott have a signed  agreement tat says he has the exclusive right to buy.

Garrymanilow

To those worrying, remember that the case a lawyer puts forward will always look very good before the other side has the opportunity to make their argument. Ultimately it will hinge on what the judge decides is pertinent to the injunction, so don't panic too much that the QC is a good talker.

Richard J

Hearings always sound as though their side has a strong case. That is why Barristers are paid the big bucks. 

RedChaser

Jeepers, if I ever get done for murder I hope some of you lot are not on the Jury. Let's hear both sides submissions FFS 😉.

BansteadAddick

The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 

Lordflashheart

Surely it all hinges on the paperwork signed between ESI 1 and ESI 2 - all other wind and guff being spouted is irrelevant 

ForeverAddickted

Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.

Redrobo

Whenever a lawyer is talking it seems to be all clear cut, then the other one starts and you think they are right. 

PassItToLeaburn

BansteadAddick said:

The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 

But one of these crooks has a payday coming from Thomas and they each want it to be them.

Garrymanilow

BansteadAddick said:

The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 

It's two blind men fighting over a pair of glasses

guinnessaddick

Chunes said:

"It seems as if someone's just popped in wearing a Panama hat."  

Masons.

Jints

Richard J said:

Hearings always sound as though their side has a strong case. That is why Barristers are paid the big bucks. 

Absolutely. Impossible to take a view on basis of just hearing one side. 

Fumbluff

How do people still have mics and cameras on....good grief

i_b_b_o_r_g

ForeverAddickted said:

Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.

For the moment, but reckon LK might bring it up

Redrobo

ForeverAddickted said:

Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.

He would.

FishCostaFortune

Is everyone having a meltdown already and think Charlton are going to lose after hearing 10 minutes of one side of the argument.

I mean that might just be the case, but come one, it's a game of two halves people.

mascot88

It’s all about solidifying their position so they can demand more from TS.

fuck the club 
fuck the fans
just give me the money

aliwibble

ForeverAddickted said:

Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.

Can anyone explain this in simple English for me please

ozaddick

golfaddick said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.

not in dispute by whom ?  Nimer or Elliott.

All the rest is just guff. The main issue is does Elliott have a signed  agreement tat says he has the exclusive right to buy.

Exactly this. This all depends on the documents and contracts. If elliottttt has a signed contract saying the club is his, that’s it in a nutshell. 

ricky_otto

Garrymanilow said:

BansteadAddick said:

The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 

It's two blind men fighting over a pair of glasses

I can’t see it myself. 
 

kentaddick

ForeverAddickted said:

Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.

Why?? Can’t see a judge agreeing with that.

Rothko

Never want any of you on a jury, decision made on the first statement