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)

17374767879175

Comments

  • edited September 2020
    One thing that has still left me confused was the constant reference of there being no evidence to indicate a sale was imminent. 

    Was this part of a plan or a another MM amateurish oversight?!
  • JohnnyH2 said:
    Well, this is awkward...from LinkedIn messages


    Forwarded from Marian Mihail (linkedin.com/in/marian-mihail-04975751):
    If you hadn’t had pointed me towards the Trust, I would have never met Lauren. Thanks for that, you did have your part in today’s decision!
    Shows all of them including Mihail really were, out of their depth chancers

    Thanks Prague for getting them Lauren because god knows who they would have come up with on their own. 
    "They" come up with Lauren mate. Prague introduced them to CAST but only found out Lauren was acting for them 5 minutes before the hearing was meant to have started
    That’s right. I know very little about Lauren, not being on the CAST Board any more. And on Linked In I had an initial polite converation with MM way back on March 20, and nothing since, until now, but he surely knows by now that I am not his biggest fan ( and even less, his Romanian buddy).

    Just weird...

  • To the tune of Talal El Karkouri:

    La La La La...Lauren Kreamer

    (El Ka Ka Ka...
    El Karkouri)

    La La La La...Lauren Kreamer

    (El Ka Ka Ka...El Karkouri)


  • Sponsored links:


  • edited September 2020
    mendonca said:
    One thing that has still left me confused was the constant reference of there being no evidence to indicate a sale was imminent. 

    Was this part of a plan or a another MM amateurish oversight?!
    As MM has been saying there are other expressions of interest, a sale to TS  may not be a slam dunk. Until the ink is dry, Sandgaard has passed both the OAD and source and sufficiency of funds tests then it is unlikely to be complete. Therefore it is not wise to suggest that a deal is near, particularly as in the event that the  judge hadvupheld the injunction Farnell would have sought a bigger slice of  a bigger cake for himself. Having lost, he can only claim whatever TS pays  Panorama/Southall
  • Thanks...it's starting to make sense. 
  • I realise that MM witness statement was criticised / became a discussion point in the hearing BUT was I alone in thinking that seemed to be a relatively weak argument for  PE I.e.that MM hadn’t articulated and evidenced well enough the potential EFL sanctions? And surprised therefore it seemed to have such prominence. 

    Felt to me self evident that EFL sanctions are a real threat regardless of what was in his statement. 

    I would have felt very cheated if that had ultimately gone against us and been permitted as a credible reason to permit the injunction when common knowledge seems to outweigh that argument. 

    The case for the injunction took 90 minutes but I struggle to recall any compelling rationale yet the summing up really ebbed and flowed and kept us on  tenterhooks throughout.  

  • Sponsored links:


  • Great news. It's a relief it went our way. After the last few years I am finding it hard to get too excited just yet but hope TS completes the deal this week as he is looking to do. Can then start letting LB rebuild. Things certainly looking better than they were. Well done Lauren. Charlton. It's a way of life😁
  • KettsJohn said:
    Great news. It's a relief it went our way. After the last few years I am finding it hard to get too excited just yet but hope TS completes the deal this week as he is looking to do. Can then start letting LB rebuild. Things certainly looking better than they were. Well done Lauren. Charlton. It's a way of life😁
    Too right mate 
  • edited September 2020
    Incidentally, can anyone validate that I was correct in hearing during the proceedings today that Chris Farnell actually represented Lex Dominus Limited in filing the interim application for the injunction? I was on a work call at the same time so it became hard to juggle. If that is the case... my word is he in trouble.
    Yup that was mentioned as one of the conflicting interests, IPS Law filed the application for an injunction 
  • To the tune of Talal El Karkouri:

    La La La La...Lauren Kreamer

    (El Ka Ka Ka...El Karkouri)

    La La La La...Lauren Kreamer

    (El Ka Ka Ka...El Karkouri)


    “Don’t grab it unless you’ve got anecdote“
  • Who pays the clubs wages/bills until a takeover is complete? This will surely trigger esi (crooks 1) or esi (crooks 2) to now move quickly and avoid having to do so themselves?
  • mendonca said:
    Who pays the clubs wages/bills until a takeover is complete? This will surely trigger esi (crooks 1) or esi (crooks 2) to now move quickly and avoid having to do so themselves?
    I assume from a wages point of view it's the longest possible time until the next lot are due, as for bills I have no idea
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!