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)

14041434546175

Comments

  • DRAddick said:
    May be a silly question, but is LK a Charlton supporter?
    Yes 


    Farnell has complained that this is a conflict of interest.
    Desperation, hopefully

  • For me its simple... Has anything changed from the Southall case when the judge said that PE didnt own the club?

    If Yes then what is that... If No then the injuncture can so fuck itself
    Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The fact that it is the same judge involved here, I would imagine that is a pretty strong arguement
  • If Lauren pulls this off, Mrs Otto better get used to me calling her Name out when we are having our monthly bunk up. The good news is Mrs Otto is called Lauren as well - so I can’t go wrong.
    What if she calls out chaisty’s name?
    I’ll kick her in the ****
    That made me piss!! 🤣
  • Does Chaisty look it's squeaky bum time 🤣
  • Panorama argues that while the July court case had different parties, the same “cast of characters” is involved. Court held then that shares were still owned by Panorama. Judge was same.
    I asked about that on page 40. That's the answer we needed. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • boring fucker looks uncomfortable 
    He's getting frustrated he hasnt spoken for so long in all his life!!
  • For me its simple... Has anything changed from the Southall case when the judge said that PE didnt own the club?

    If Yes then what is that... If No then the injuncture can so fuck itself

    Said this on the main thread, one thing has happened since then - Elliott officially FAILED the OADT 
  • Kreamer argues that parties agreed on July 13th that a sale from Panorama had not completed and court accepted that. Nothing has changed since then.
    Maybe I underestimated our new best friend. Keep it going!
  • someone get the girl some more water
  • Kreamer making the case that on two occasions in July the court - and the same judge - made clear that the ownership of the club was still under the control of Panorama Magic. Also says that court has no details on why the EFL turned down Elliott under the OADT.

    May SPA has not been carried into effect, says Kreamer. EFL view not binding on the court, just it’s opinion, and no evidence provided for it.
  • Helpful it is the same judge I suppose.
    Yes
  • Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!
    Exactly.
  • boring fucker looks uncomfortable 
    It looks like he's trying to be as distracting as possible to me
  • If this is the Play-Off Final it feels like Purrington has equalised!!
    Purry B is the man for September on the official calendar. It's a sign!
  • 1905 said:
    I need to get to PC World for a replacement F5 key and beat the rush.
    I need a replacement keyboard,mines a bit,ahem,damp......
  • edited September 2020
    I thought the conflict of interest statement was a joke. I mean her interest is the club not being rinsed by crooks.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!