If Nimer was coerced into unknowingly selling the club to a company owned by the lawyer (Farnell) who was supposed to be representing his interests, then I cannot see how that contract can be legally binding. If Elliott is out of pocket, he should seek damages from Farnell. Contrary to what their Barrister is saying, I think Farnell s role in this is extremely relevant.
EFL board found that Elliott had been owner since June 8th.
Yet even Sandgaard said that the EFL had told him that it was Nimer who was the owner?
Does anyone remember if the question of 'Who actually owns the football club?' was discussed or confirmed during the ESI/Farnell/Southall hearing on July 17th?
If Nimer was coerced into unknowingly selling the club to a company owned by the lawyer (Farnell) who was supposed to be representing his interests, then I cannot see how that contract can be legally binding. If Elliott is out of pocket, he should seek damages from Farnell. Contrary to what their Barrister is saying, I think Farnell s role in this is extremely relevant.
Reckon Lozza gonna pull something like this out the bag mate
Chaisty: Elliott has made the point that Nimer has "washed his hands of the club"
That first sentence is a crock of shit. We are currently under a transfer embargo. As every day passes more harm is done by not being able to bring in players. That lawyer needs stringing up for that sentence alone.
Kreamer says Mihail a director of Panorama and ESI. Says he has "relevant expertise" and that he is liaising with EFL and is involved day-to-day running of the club.
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.
QC arguing that damages are no good because Panorama is a shell company based in Abu Dhabi and have no assets to pay any damages.
Tough. PE should have thought about that before trying to buy us then.
Kreamer defends Mihail’s “expertise” on this matter as director of CAFC and the person dealing with the EFL after Chaisty pointed out that he was not a director of Panorama. Nimer’s English not good enough, hence Mihail bearing witness for him.
Comments
If Elliott is out of pocket, he should seek damages from Farnell.
Contrary to what their Barrister is saying, I think Farnell s role in this is extremely relevant.
We hate millwall and we hate millwall.
Judge loves it.
Kreamer batting now
Seems he can't really be arsed to be there.
Fingers crossed