Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

1…4041434546…175

Comments

  • Options
    i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    DRAddick said:
    roseandcrown said:
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    May be a silly question, but is LK a Charlton supporter?
    Yes 


    Farnell has complained that this is a conflict of interest.
    Desperation, hopefully

  • Options
    meldrew66meldrew66
    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
    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 arguement
  • Options
    ozaddickozaddick
    ricky_otto said:
    Todds_right_hook said:
    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.
    What if she calls out chaisty’s name?
    I’ll kick her in the ****
    That made me piss!! 🤣
  • Options
    CheshireAddickCheshireAddick
    Does Chaisty look it's squeaky bum time 🤣
  • Options
    Paddy PowellPaddy Powell
    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.
    I asked about that on page 40. That's the answer we needed. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    roseandcrown said:
    boring fucker looks uncomfortable 
    He's getting frustrated he hasnt spoken for so long in all his life!!
  • Options
    CL_PhantomCL_Phantom
    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 OADT 
  • Options
    ProperCharltonProperCharlton
    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.
    Maybe I underestimated our new best friend. Keep it going!
  • Options
    meldrew66meldrew66
    someone get the girl some more water
  • Options
    ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    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.
  • Options
    ross1ross1
    MuttleyCAFC said:
    Helpful it is the same judge I suppose.
    Yes
  • Options
    ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    RedroboRedrobo
    ForeverAddickted said:
    Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!
    Exactly.
  • Options
    ChunesChunes
    roseandcrown said:
    boring fucker looks uncomfortable 
    It looks like he's trying to be as distracting as possible to me
  • Options
    GarrymanilowGarrymanilow
    ForeverAddickted said:
    If this is the Play-Off Final it feels like Purrington has equalised!!
    Purry B is the man for September on the official calendar. It's a sign!
  • Options
    RedvalleyeastRedvalleyeast
    1905 said:
    I need to get to PC World for a replacement F5 key and beat the rush.
    I need a replacement keyboard,mines a bit,ahem,damp......
  • Options
    MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited September 2020
    I thought the conflict of interest statement was a joke. I mean her interest is the club not being rinsed by crooks.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!