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)
Comments
-
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.0
-
anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk.3
-
This. Just more stalling from PE.ForeverAddickted said:So we want this answered and dealt with quickly, yet dont want this answered and dealt with quickly!!4 -
Not in the least bit funnyIndianaaddick said:Judge has just put a black cap on top of his wig what does this mean?.2 -
Turn that on it's head - Elliott had no business putting money in then?ForeverAddickted said: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.2 -
You would hope so, wouldn't you?carly burn said:
Thinks she's a very tough cookie with a good background in law.AFKABartram said:So ESI 1 are being represented by one of the Supporters Trust board???
Blimey, Never saw that coming6 -
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.
0 -
Don't much care about all the talk. Just want to read the line "Injunction refused".mattinfinland said:anyone wanna summarise in simple terms what has been said so far? I really do not understand any of this fancy lawyer talk.0 -
mattinfinland 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)1 -
So Elliott understands the need to resolve this quickly........but is perfectly happy for a long drawn out trial.ForeverAddickted said: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.
Bloke doesn't give a shit about the club at all.15 - Sponsored links:
-
This Elliotttttt is literally about to collapse our club...needs fucking sorting11
-
Bless You1
-
ForeverAddickted said: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?3 -
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.meldrew66 said:mattinfinland 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)0 -
Wonder if this is when he'll increase his pay offMuttleyCAFC said:ForeverAddickted said: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?0 -
Thomas Sandguard has just burst into the courtroom.
At the top of his voice he screams.
Just sell the club and FUCK OFF25 -
How has this amazing football club ended up in this shit. Fucking scum.16
-
Relax, its just one side of the story, OFC his lawyer is going to say anything to convince the judge.3
-
Chaisty: Elliott put "hundreds of thousands of pounds" into the club to keep it afloat.0
-
There wont be anything to sell if the club gets expelled from the league Eliottt,you fucking scumbagChris_from_Sidcup said:
So Elliott understands the need to resolve this quickly........but is perfectly happy for a long drawn out trial.ForeverAddickted said: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.
Bloke doesn't give a shit about the club at all.2 - Sponsored links:
-
yep. His lawyer is trying to blame Nimer for letting PE put money in when he knew he didnt own iti_b_b_o_r_g said:
Turn that on it's head - Elliott had no business putting money in then?ForeverAddickted said: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.1 -
Even if it is a poorly constructed agreement, Elliott entered into it - he can’t now cry wolf about it - he made his bed etc4
-
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.0
-
Has anyone anywhere seen any proof that PE has put any money into the club?4
-
There is also a case for them to just sue.carly burn said:
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.meldrew66 said:mattinfinland 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)2 -
Seriously, people panic when we got 1-0 down after about 5mins on the pitch, you got no hopemattinfinland said:Relax, its just one side of the story, OFC his lawyer is going to say anything to convince the judge.
1 -
Two bunches of crooks fighting each other for money neither should have. It is disgusting.28
-
Yes. Need to here Nimers/our side of things.
It is a complete f****g mess though.0 -
Or Elliot shouldn’t have put money inForeverAddickted said: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.2 -
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.
1
This discussion has been closed.
