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)
Comments
-
And legally it matters not.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.1 -
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 TS3
-
In other words he knows it's bloody dodgy and is hoping the judge will ignore it.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.
13 -
If the majority share holder agrees to sell, other share holders have to follow.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.0 -
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.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.
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...2 -
He is a boring fucker3
-
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.1 -
Again, irrelevant.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.0 -
In fairness it's irelevant to whether Elliott has a legally binding contract with Nimer & Co.kentaddick said:
Why?? Can’t see a judge agreeing with that.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.2 -
-
Sponsored links:
-
no it doesn’t.JoshrewCAFC said:
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.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.
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...0 -
I think that came down this morning...JoshrewCAFC said:
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.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.
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...3 -
It's been changed.JoshrewCAFC said:
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.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.
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...0 -
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
4 -
EFL approval ?aliwibble said:
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
0 -
Chaisty saying the issue is where Panorama is subject to a contractual obligation to transfer over to his client.
0 -
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.0
-
Chaisty making a long technical point, but concludes that the issue is whether Panorama has a contractual obligation to sell ESI to Lex Dominus.
0 -
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.ct_addick said:
EFL approval ?aliwibble said:
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.0 -
because by this evening TS will be our new owner.GoOnYouHaddocks said:
It's been changed.JoshrewCAFC said:
Unfortunately this is all entirely irrelevant.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.
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...2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Seriously EFL, you could have avoided all this had you dealt with the ODAT and Appeals long before now!!10
-
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 compensationForeverAddickted said:Chaisty saying the issue is where Panorama is subject to a contractual obligation to transfer over to his client.0 -
No but Farnell and Elliott have always said any deal was pending EFL approval.ozaddick said:
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.ct_addick said:
EFL approval ?aliwibble said:
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.0 -
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.aliwibble said:
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.
They got rejected by EFL and now we are here. All one huge mess.1 -
They do if the deal if dependant on EFL approval.ozaddick said:
Unfortunately that doesn’t matter. EFL have no say who the owner is.ct_addick said:
EFL approval ?aliwibble said:
But if the contracts were signed in May, why have we not been sold by September?Sage said:
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%.aliwibble said:
Can anyone explain this in simple English for me pleaseForeverAddickted said:Chaisty says contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. Drag along provisions re Southall activated in May.1 -
Chill for now people, this is what lawyers do right? Use a few slick words and narrative, judges hear this nonsense all the time.4
-
@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)10
-
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.
0 -
We need LK to have some of that we’ll known phrase....”Bouncebackability”...1
-
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.20
This discussion has been closed.
