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)

13334363839175

Comments

  • meldrew66 said:
    Rossman92 said:
    Jesus don't know why I bother with Twitter. Everyone on there is already acting like the club is gone....... A lot of people don't seem to realize that both sides get to speak in a situation like this

    hopefully...………………..eventually...…………….
    Do you believe it?
  • edited September 2020
    meldrew66 said:
    RedChaser said:
    Our Barrister is s Charlton fan and a lot closer to the club than anyone in that courtroom and will be giving it her best shot don't you worry #teamLauren keep the faith 😘xxx

    However, this a contract law matter, not an emotive, passionate fan-related motion.
    Oh I'm well aware of that but she'll still be giving it her best shot.
  • Will we find out who owns the Range Rovers at the end on this (as well as the football club)? 
  • Jints said:
    Chaisty turning to "adequacy of damages" - damages would not be adequate.

    "We will not have the share. It would make it a complete nonsense to have a trial when the shares have already gone."
    Don't understand this unless he is saying that damages not adequate remedy because no way of securing payment against a shell company. 
    You got it. That was the point he was making. What was unsaid of course was that Elliott would like to make a profit on selling on to TS rather than Nimer doing that.
    That could be dealt with by the proceeds of the sale being paid into court pending resolution of the contract issue. 
  • CAFCsayer said:
    Probably blind optimism, but reckon LK has something up her sleeve here... Kept smirking throughout that last bit
    Agree - doesn't seem too concerned.
  • Blimey he drones on...... Good Luck Lauren, I’m out 👍🏻
  • Is anyone else sitting there fidgeting,rocking bak & forth,whilst biting there fingernails...n I keep having to go for a pee...my nerves are shot...🥺
  • RedChaser said:
    meldrew66 said:
    RedChaser said:
    Our Barrister is s Charlton fan and a lot closer to the club than anyone in that courtroom and will be giving it her best shot don't you worry #teamLauren keep the faith 😘xxx

    However, this a contract law matter, not an emotive, passionate fan-related motion.
    Oh I'm well aware of that but she'll stillbe giving it her best shot.

    Indeed. I just hope she can PROVE that there is no case to answer.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Can’t tell how confident Lauren is feeling. She smiles at many of the points Chaisty has made but maybe that is her game face.
  • One like for my reply. From Thomas Sandgaard. He's not going anywhere



    Yeah but what’s to say Elliot has the same idea of value as Roland and ask for £300m for the club?
  • Makes no difference to TS I'm sure. He either pays Elliott or pays Nimer. 
  • i've lost Lauren and the judge. Is this everybody? or have I done something? 
  • Chaisty says he's almost finished. LK smiles again.
  • CAFCsayer said:
    Probably blind optimism, but reckon LK has something up her sleeve here... Kept smirking throughout that last bit
    Me an all mate
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chaisty doth protesteth about MM's skeleton response too much IMHO.
    Sure PE has a case and MM has fucked up a lot, giving ammunition to Elliottttt's brief, but this laborious, repetitive and sneering picking apart of MM's response smacks of throwing the kitchen sink at it and trying to over-egg a valid but far from a slam-dunk argument.
    Sock it to him LK.

  • Makes no difference to TS I'm sure. He either pays Elliott or pays Nimer. 
    Depends. If Nimer is asking for 500k and Elliott is asking for 5m it makes a difference.
  • RedChaser said:
    Our Barrister is a Charlton fan and a lot closer to the club than anyone in that courtroom and will be giving it her best shot don't you worry #teamLauren keep the faith 😘xxx
    Sutton Utd v Coventry City 1989
  • If she can explain that Elliott has been offered his money back and compensation, and get it in the judges  mind they he ain't got any money to take the Club forward, won't that help show that he must have an alterior motive for wanting to own the Club?
  • edited September 2020
  • meldrew66 said:
    There is one single, simple decision for the judge: Is there (yes or no) a legally binding agreement for ESI to buy the club from Panorama Magic?
    I don’t think that’s true - I think the judge needs to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that the ownership is in doubt to grant an injunction pending a full trial to examine this properly. 

    Could be wrong.
  • How long is this bloke allowed to chat for while effectively making the same three or four points repeatedly? Bloody hell...
    if he is doing that then he knows he hasn't got anything of substance to go on.

    If PE had a cast iron, watertight contract, with no conditions on it then Chaisty would have said that straight away & then sat down. Case closed. He didnt & has been waffling on because he knows PE hasnt a case.
    Hope you're right.

    Anxious to hear LK's argument now.
  • If LK wins this for us...we should name one of the Dug outs after her...ie-: sitting on the LK bench
  • When does Elliot have to put on the glove?
    When @ElfsborgAddick it’s about to pop his poo cherry.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!