Can LK use the football club, fans ... the season on a whole as part of a defence?
EG its not just between Elliot and Nimer, the whole club is at stake?
It's legally nothing to do with football ffs.
Disagree. ESI 1 can argue that delay diminishes the asset because of the imminent start of the season and potentially removes the chance of a sale. Therefore an interim injunction should not be awarded.
But that could be settle with damages at a later point.
My point was it doesn't matter legally, if its a football club, a house or a sweet shop. It's either been sold, has a contract of exclusiveity or it hasn't.
That's not what this hearing is about (at least I don't think it is). Breach of contract is normally remedied by damages. ESI 2 have to show that is not an adequate remedy should they be right about the contract and that an injunction is therefore necessary.
But you would only get the injunction if the 1st 2 were a serious possibility.
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
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.
I'm pretty sure you are right plus whether damages would be adequate remedy if wonership is in doubt
Clear provision of false or misleading information to the EFL is reason for disqualification on August 7th. Chaisty argues that right to appeal to arbitration panel is clear, but says Mihail misunderstands rules. Throws doubt on his other points re EFL.
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
EFL board found that Elliott had been owner since June 8th.
That can't be true. Since that date the EFL have told TS that ESI1 are the owners, and Farnell has stood up in front of this very judge and said that Elliott isn't the owner.
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
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?
Well, according to Farnell there is (was) but it was on condition that PE passed the EFL tests. And he should know as he was acting for PE at the time.
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.
I don’t this boring bloke is ever going to stop talking to allow her
Can’t the judge tell him to wind it up?
No but you could mate and l'd button it straight away 😉
EFL board found that Elliott had been owner since June 8th.
That can't be true. Since that date the EFL have told TS that ESI1 are the owners, and Farnell has stood up in front of this very judge and said that Elliott isn't the owner.
I dare say LK might bring that point up. Same judge, after all - he wont take kindly to having been lied to
Comments
Yet even Sandgaard said that the EFL had told him that it was Nimer who was the owner?
A quick profit and a nice clean exit.
When a lawyer says they will get through these last bits very quickly that is by no means true
Case closed.
I dare say LK might bring that point up. Same judge, after all - he wont take kindly to having been lied to