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)

1…2324262829…175

Comments

  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    "It seems as if someone's just popped in wearing a Panama hat."   :D
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,257


    Matt Southall has just announced in the public chatroom that he is present at today's hearing.
  • WestCountryAddick
    WestCountryAddick Posts: 2,545
    Valley11 said:
    Indeed. Elliot seems to be arguing that he believed the deal with him was watertight and as such, put money into the club.
    That sounds quite a strong defence to me??
    It does, but we are only hearing half the story at the moment.  Once our barrister starts putting across the other side of the argument you will see a clearer picture emerge.
  • ProperCharlton
    ProperCharlton Posts: 2,254
    I've got a bad feeling about this. Think Elliott is on to a winner.
  • mattinfinland
    mattinfinland Posts: 1,096
    Elliot is going to win this, can see it already 
    this is gonna drag on and on.
    This Lawyer is V-good.

    ffs
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,303
    Elliott has appealed the EFL decision to reject him under OADT.
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,458
    Someone on a tractor enters proceedings!
  • ElfsborgAddick
    ElfsborgAddick Posts: 29,031
    Fumbluff said:
    Leeds_Addick said:
    How strict are these things with timings usually? Can we do 3-5 now or will the judge have to be somewhere at 4?

    he’s got 4-430 pencilled in as helping @ElfsborgAddick with his poo-spoon...
    He'll need more than 30 minutes.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,623
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
    not in dispute by whom ?  Nimer or Elliott.

    All the rest is just guff. The main issue is does Elliott have a signed  agreement tat says he has the exclusive right to buy.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Richard J
    Richard J Posts: 8,031
    Hearings always sound as though their side has a strong case. That is why Barristers are paid the big bucks. 
  • BansteadAddick
    BansteadAddick Posts: 1,116
    edited September 2020
    The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 
  • Lordflashheart
    Lordflashheart Posts: 5,619
    Surely it all hinges on the paperwork signed between ESI 1 and ESI 2 - all other wind and guff being spouted is irrelevant 
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,303
    Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,330
    Whenever a lawyer is talking it seems to be all clear cut, then the other one starts and you think they are right. 
  • PassItToLeaburn
    PassItToLeaburn Posts: 1,457
    BansteadAddick said:
    The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 
    But one of these crooks has a payday coming from Thomas and they each want it to be them.
  • Garrymanilow
    Garrymanilow Posts: 13,167
    BansteadAddick said:
    The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 
    It's two blind men fighting over a pair of glasses
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,612
    Chunes said:
    "It seems as if someone's just popped in wearing a Panama hat."   :D
    Masons.
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,490
    Richard J said:
    Hearings always sound as though their side has a strong case. That is why Barristers are paid the big bucks. 
    Absolutely. Impossible to take a view on basis of just hearing one side. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Fumbluff
    Fumbluff Posts: 10,125
    How do people still have mics and cameras on....good grief
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.
    For the moment, but reckon LK might bring it up
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,330
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.
    He would.
  • FishCostaFortune
    FishCostaFortune Posts: 10,773
    edited September 2020
    Is everyone having a meltdown already and think Charlton are going to lose after hearing 10 minutes of one side of the argument.

    I mean that might just be the case, but come one, it's a game of two halves people.
  • mascot88
    mascot88 Posts: 9,616
    It’s all about solidifying their position so they can demand more from TS.

    fuck the club 
    fuck the fans
    just give me the money
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,276
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
    Can anyone explain this in simple English for me please
  • ozaddick
    ozaddick Posts: 2,844
    golfaddick said:
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
    not in dispute by whom ?  Nimer or Elliott.

    All the rest is just guff. The main issue is does Elliott have a signed  agreement tat says he has the exclusive right to buy.
    Exactly this. This all depends on the documents and contracts. If elliottttt has a signed contract saying the club is his, that’s it in a nutshell. 
  • ricky_otto
    ricky_otto Posts: 22,600
    Garrymanilow said:
    BansteadAddick said:
    The whole thing seems so stupid. Elliott has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. Nimer has no funds, will not lift the embargo and cannot run the club. 
    It's two blind men fighting over a pair of glasses
    I can’t see it myself. 
     
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Confirms that Elliott has submitted an appeal in relation to his disqualification by the EFL. Chaisty says Farnell’s role should be disregarded for the moment.
    Why?? Can’t see a judge agreeing with that.
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 18,801
    Never want any of you on a jury, decision made on the first statement 
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”