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)

194959799100175

Comments

  • Probably going to take the Judge a few mins just to bypass the advertising on that site...
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
    If we are sold in the meantime then what would be the point of an appeal?

    That's what's confusing me
    They want an appeal to get yesterday's decision overturned, so they get their injunction to prevent a sale.
    if Pearce doesn't grant leave to appeal then they can appeal directly to the Court of Appeal but it will be too late to stop a sale to TS or another party. This is all about getting their 'fair' share of whatever ESI sell to TNS for.
    Correct. The danger is if Pearce does grant an appeal, which is heard before a sale can go through.
    just means if an appeal was to be heard in two weeks the sale would need to go through by then. I don't think he'll grant it but leave it to them to go to the Court of Appeal which means it will take even longer.
    Correct, but most people didn't appear to understand that there was a danger that the judge could grant an appeal which would be heard before a sale and possibly then preventing the sale.

    The court of appeal option (a different appeal) was laways going to be further down the line and less of a concern.

    Anyway the judge has declined the appeal, so we now need TS to get the sale done, as there appears to be no legal reason to prevent it.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,033
    Good for Football League World, their day in the sun. 
  • Mihail’s @cafcofficial quotes on yesterday now being read to court by judge.
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,330
    Why didnt Chaisty take this approach yesterday?
    Because he is so arrogant that he thought it was in the bag. 
    Judge should ask him why he went with the opposite line yesterday if this is the case

    This. He is asking the judge to google but TS was in the country before yesterday. 
    I think the Judge knows, he just does not want it to appear he knows.
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    Mihail's statement on Football League World's website: “I imagine many of you will have seen pictures of Thomas Sandgaard at yesterday’s game and while I am sure you will appreciate we can’t go into detail, we can say that conversations with prospective buyers are progressing positively. I’d like to thank the staff directly involved, who are working tirelessly to provide information to support these ongoing discussions. There is still work to be done but yesterday’s decision allows us to focus on moving the club forward and putting these difficult times behind us.”
  • Oh this is getting quite amusing
  • IdleHans
    IdleHans Posts: 10,961
    I was struggling yesterday with why damages were not considered to be adequate remedy. Both ESI 1 & 2 are clearly only in it for (Sandgaard's) money. 
    So letting ESI 1 sell to TS and the crooks fight each other for the proceeds afterwards would seem an entirely reasonable course of action.
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    meldrew66 said:
    Mihail's statement on Football League World's website: “I imagine many of you will have seen pictures of Thomas Sandgaard at yesterday’s game and while I am sure you will appreciate we can’t go into detail, we can say that conversations with prospective buyers are progressing positively. I’d like to thank the staff directly involved, who are working tirelessly to provide information to support these ongoing discussions. There is still work to be done but yesterday’s decision allows us to focus on moving the club forward and putting these difficult times behind us.”
    ……...nothing (for once) from him to trip us up, I reckon re imminent timescales
  • Pearce saying there is a difference in a short-term injunction rather than a three-month one. Which is kind of obvious.
  • Sponsored links:



  • CAFCsayer
    CAFCsayer Posts: 10,223
    edited September 2020
  • "still work to be done"
    Not close, pure speculation 
  • Judge believes he has the power to make an injunction pending an intervention by the court of appeal.
  • Trial will be a Pyrrhic victory for Lex Dominus even if they win, says Chaisty. Therefore court of appeal should consider balance of convenience.
    Be honest, how many of you had to google "Pyrrhic". I know I did.
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    Is LK not speaking?
  • Are we fucked here...??
  • Are we fucked here...??
    This is similar chat to what the Judge came out with before passing judgement last night
  • Judge Pearce tends to state the obvious before passing judgement so everyone is fully aware of what he means
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    Are we fucked here...??
    No, I don't think so. 'Pure speculation' by Chaisty that the sale to TS is 'imminent'.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,488
    IdleHans said:
    I was struggling yesterday with why damages were not considered to be adequate remedy. Both ESI 1 & 2 are clearly only in it for (Sandgaard's) money. 
    So letting ESI 1 sell to TS and the crooks fight each other for the proceeds afterwards would seem an entirely reasonable course of action.
    I guess they would argue (a) they have no control over the sale price (b) Panorama could just be wound up immediately after the deal
  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,730
    Judge believes he has the power to make an injunction pending an intervention by the court of appeal.
    I have absolutely no idea what that means .
  • Are we fucked here...??
    This is similar chat to what the Judge came out with before passing judgement last night
    Yeah as it goes it was wasn’t it...but this is doing untold damage to my nerves here...
  • Well, this is marginally more stressful than I thought today would be
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,300
    edited September 2020
    Kreamer raising the fact that Chaisty's point of law (in which he is seeking a short-term injunction) relates to a Family Court - she is saying it is in relation to a change of situation to children.

    Kreamer says Chaisty is seeking to rely on a decision in the family court which is about an arrangement for a child. Is about welfare of the child and not an appropriate precedent.
  • Judge Pearce tends to state the obvious before passing judgement so everyone is fully aware of what he means
    He'd make a good football pundit
  • CAFCsayer
    CAFCsayer Posts: 10,223
    edited September 2020
    Court now being shown a video relating to the takeover

    <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ybW48rKBME">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ</a>

  • Who was it that mentioned VAR yesterday...😬😬😬
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,488
    Judge believes he has the power to make an injunction pending an intervention by the court of appeal.
    I have absolutely no idea what that means .
    Short term injunction while they try to get permission to appeal from Court of Appeal
  • Kreamer taking the piss out of Chaisty again!!
This discussion has been closed.