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.
TBH don't care who owns the club get this out of the way and then TS negotiates with whomever....Tahoon/Southall or Elliot/Farnell makes out ? who cares as long as we have TS
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.
In other words he knows it's bloody dodgy and is hoping the judge will ignore it.
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.
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
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.
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.
In fairness it's irelevant to whether Elliott has a legally binding contract with Nimer & Co.
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.
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
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.
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
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.
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
Looks like he just got to the meat of his argument. That ESI still have a contractual obligation to transfer the title of CAFC to Elliott. And that Panorama are relying on an interim declaration from the EFL (OADT) to deny that contract.
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
EFL approval ?
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.
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.
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
Chaisty saying the issue is where Panorama is subject to a contractual obligation to transfer over to his client.
Would've thought a contract can be broken at any point, as long as the person breaking it is happy to defend their decision in court and / or pay compensation
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
EFL approval ?
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.
No but Farnell and Elliott have always said any deal was pending EFL approval.
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
Because the whole thing is a mess. We also found out that they did not own the club in the court hearing back in July. That’s not changed now.
They got rejected by EFL and now we are here. All one huge mess.
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
Lawyer saying that contracts were signed in May and as the terms of ESI, if Panaroma Magic (Nimer) agrees to sell his shares, Southall must do the same for the same price of the value of his 35%.
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?
EFL approval ?
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.
@CAFCsayer - think this bit is definitely of interest to you:
Chaisty says deal was signed by both parties in May and that Southall's shares would transfer over as part of "drag along". Also says no indications Southall would try to sell his stake - which he can't do legally anyway.
(given Lex Dominus was definitely owned by Farnell at that point)
Chaisty says Mihail claims agreement was subject to conditions and the defendent is able to say those have not been met so the agreement has come to an end.
Chaisty says Mihail asserts on behalf of the defendant that the agreement was the subject of conditions that have not been met. Argues that the clause about EFL completion is not expressed in conditional terms. Tension between different clauses.
If the contracts were signed in May, then Farnell was acting as lawyer for Nimer, while, at the same time, being a Director of the company to which the shares were scheduled to be sold. I think.
Comments
Only thing that matters is whether the club was sold to Elliott or not. And the fact that our club website still says that is this case, makes me think Elliott will win...
They got rejected by EFL and now we are here. All one huge mess.
Chaisty says Mihail asserts on behalf of the defendant that the agreement was the subject of conditions that have not been met. Argues that the clause about EFL completion is not expressed in conditional terms. Tension between different clauses.