Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

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

12627293132175

Comments

  • Options
    Chaisty: the EFL said on Aug 7th that the agreement was not conditional (as Mihail asserts) and that Elliott's application was rejected due to claims he mislead the EFL.
  • Options
    anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk. 
  • Options
    So we want this answered and dealt with quickly, yet dont want this answered and dealt with quickly!!
    This. Just more stalling from PE.
  • Options
    Judge has just put a black cap on top of his wig what does this mean?.
    Not in the least bit funny
  • Options
    edited September 2020
    If defendant is now arguing that there was a requirement for the EFL approval to be in place at completion then Nimer had no business allowing Elliott put money into the club subsequently, says Chaisty.
    Turn that on it's head - Elliott had no business putting money in then?
  • Options
    Chaisty says that this is a serious argument that needs to go to trial, hence need for the injunction to be granted. Only at end of July did Panorama start talking about terminating the agreement.
  • Options
    anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk. 
    Don't much care about all the talk.  Just want to read the line "Injunction refused".
  • Options
    anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk. 

    Basically, Chaisty is saying that there is a firm contractual agreement between ESI2 and Panorama Magic to sell them the club and that they want to go to trial to enforce that sale. (I think)
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Bless You
  • Options
    Chaisty says that this is a serious argument that needs to go to trial, hence need for the injunction to be granted. Only at end of July did Panorama start talking about terminating the agreement.

    Will Sandgaard wait that long?
  • Options
    meldrew66 said:
    anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk. 

    Basically, Chaisty is saying that there is a firm contractual agreement between ESI2 and Panorama Magic to sell them the club and that they want to go to trial to enforce that sale. (I think)
     Think you are right. And that there are so many holes in the agreement between 1&2 there is definitely a case ...for a case.
  • Options
    Chaisty says that this is a serious argument that needs to go to trial, hence need for the injunction to be granted. Only at end of July did Panorama start talking about terminating the agreement.

    Will Sandgaard wait that long?
    Wonder if this is when he'll increase his pay off
  • Options
    Relax, its just one side of the story, OFC his lawyer is going to say anything to convince the judge.
  • Options
    Chaisty: Elliott put "hundreds of thousands of pounds" into the club to keep it afloat.
  • Options
    Chaisty says that this is a serious argument that needs to go to trial, hence need for the injunction to be granted. Only at end of July did Panorama start talking about terminating the agreement.
    So Elliott understands the need to resolve this quickly........but is perfectly happy for a long drawn out trial.

    Bloke doesn't give a shit about the club at all.
    There wont be anything to sell if the club gets expelled from the league Eliottt,you fucking scumbag
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    If defendant is now arguing that there was a requirement for the EFL approval to be in place at completion then Nimer had no business allowing Elliott put money into the club subsequently, says Chaisty.
    Turn that on it's head - Elliott had no business putting money in then?
    yep. His lawyer is trying to blame Nimer for letting PE put money in when he knew he didnt own it 
  • Options
    Even if it is a poorly constructed agreement, Elliott entered into it - he can’t now cry wolf about it - he made his bed etc
  • Options


    Chaisty: It wasn't until the 12 of August (2.5 months after signing the agreement) that the defendant claimed the deal could be terminated.
  • Options
    Has anyone anywhere seen any proof that PE has put any money into the club?
  • Options
    meldrew66 said:
    anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk. 

    Basically, Chaisty is saying that there is a firm contractual agreement between ESI2 and Panorama Magic to sell them the club and that they want to go to trial to enforce that sale. (I think)
     Think you are right. And that there are so many holes in the agreement between 1&2 there is definitely a case ...for a case.
    There is also a case for them to just sue.
  • Options
    Relax, its just one side of the story, OFC his lawyer is going to say anything to convince the judge.
    Seriously, people panic when we got 1-0 down after about 5mins on the pitch, you got no hope ;)
  • Options
    Yes. Need to here Nimers/our side of things.

    It is a complete f****g mess though.
  • Options
    edited September 2020
    If defendant is now arguing that there was a requirement for the EFL approval to be in place at completion then Nimer had no business allowing Elliott put money into the club subsequently, says Chaisty.
    Or Elliot shouldn’t have put money in
  • Options
    Chaisty says the EFL letter of August 7th deals with Elliott and insists the sale and purchase agreement not conditional. Mihail provided statement to EFL that sale was complete on June 8th.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!