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
-
For me its simple... Has anything changed from the Southall case when the judge said that PE didnt own the club?
If Yes then what is that... If No then the injuncture can so fuck itself14 -
Desperation, hopefullyDRAddick said:
Farnell has complained that this is a conflict of interest.roseandcrown said:
Yesi_b_b_o_r_g said:May be a silly question, but is LK a Charlton supporter?
0 -
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The fact that it is the same judge involved here, I would imagine that is a pretty strong arguementForeverAddickted said:For me its simple... Has anything changed from the Southall case when the judge said that PE didnt own the club?
If Yes then what is that... If No then the injuncture can so fuck itself
1 -
Kreamer argues that parties agreed on July 13th that a sale from Panorama had not completed and court accepted that. Nothing has changed since then.
31 -
boring fucker looks uncomfortable9
-
That made me piss!! 🤣ricky_otto said:
I’ll kick her in the ****Todds_right_hook said:
What if she calls out chaisty’s name?ricky_otto said:If Lauren pulls this off, Mrs Otto better get used to me calling her Name out when we are having our monthly bunk up. The good news is Mrs Otto is called Lauren as well - so I can’t go wrong.1 -
Does Chaisty look it's squeaky bum time 🤣0
-
I need to get to PC World for a replacement F5 key and beat the rush.15
-
I asked about that on page 40. That's the answer we needed.ForeverAddickted said:Panorama argues that while the July court case had different parties, the same “cast of characters” is involved. Court held then that shares were still owned by Panorama. Judge was same.0 -
35 yeard screamer from KreamerForeverAddickted said:Kreamer argues that parties agreed on July 13th that a sale from Panorama had not completed and court accepted that. Nothing has changed since then.17 - Sponsored links:
-
He's getting frustrated he hasnt spoken for so long in all his life!!roseandcrown said:boring fucker looks uncomfortable2 -
Kreamer: The court already determined who owned the shared on July 13 (Panorama). Nothing has changed since then. Adds the applicant now is trying to circumvent that decision with this injunction.7
-
Helpful it is the same judge I suppose.6
-
ForeverAddickted said:For me its simple... Has anything changed from the Southall case when the judge said that PE didnt own the club?
If Yes then what is that... If No then the injuncture can so fuck itself
Said this on the main thread, one thing has happened since then - Elliott officially FAILED the OADT3 -
Maybe I underestimated our new best friend. Keep it going!ForeverAddickted said:Kreamer argues that parties agreed on July 13th that a sale from Panorama had not completed and court accepted that. Nothing has changed since then.2 -
If this is the Play-Off Final it feels like Purrington has equalised!!21
-
someone get the girl some more water
3 -
Kreamer making the case that on two occasions in July the court - and the same judge - made clear that the ownership of the club was still under the control of Panorama Magic. Also says that court has no details on why the EFL turned down Elliott under the OADT.
May SPA has not been carried into effect, says Kreamer. EFL view not binding on the court, just it’s opinion, and no evidence provided for it.
2 -
YesMuttleyCAFC said:Helpful it is the same judge I suppose.0 -
Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!3
- Sponsored links:
-
Love that it is a Hoegaarden Belgian beer glass. Do you think Lauren picked it up on the protests?meldrew66 said:someone get the girl some more water
16 -
i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Desperation, hopefullyDRAddick said:
Farnell has complained that this is a conflict of interest.roseandcrown said:
Yesi_b_b_o_r_g said:May be a silly question, but is LK a Charlton supporter?
LK, in being on the board of CAST, has the best interests of Charlton Athletic Football Club at heart. In saying that this would be a conflict of interests suggests that Farnell does not... why is he seeking an injunction to the sale of CAFC if he does not have it's best interests at heart?
16 -
Exactly.ForeverAddickted said:Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!3 -
It looks like he's trying to be as distracting as possible to meroseandcrown said:boring fucker looks uncomfortable0 -
Purry B is the man for September on the official calendar. It's a sign!ForeverAddickted said:If this is the Play-Off Final it feels like Purrington has equalised!!
3 -
Kreamer: May SPA is undated, states that it relates to share capital of CAFC Limited, not ESI, and contact details for service of notices not competed.
Kreamer saying agreement was not complete. Refers to the SPA and where there are blanks to be filled in.
I'm shocked that Chaisty forgot to mention this...
28 -
I need a replacement keyboard,mines a bit,ahem,damp......1905 said:I need to get to PC World for a replacement F5 key and beat the rush.2 -
Elliott hasn't even paid his pound for the Club10
-
I know being passionate and emotive as a fan in this case won't bring any bonus points from the judge but I'm so glad we have a fan up there going into bat and she is doing a grand Job.
24 -
I thought the conflict of interest statement was a joke. I mean her interest is the club not being rinsed by crooks.1
This discussion has been closed.
