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
-
Whens this coming out on DVD?
17 -
Kreamer also says the £1 - which Lex Dominus were going to pay for the football club - has not been paid. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣1
-
Sanctions facing #cafc are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about appeal.
0 -
Imagine if the injunction doesn't get granted all because Elliott couldn't even be bothered to stump up a quid. He'd be below even Southall on the league table of not having a pot to piss in.
11 -
Yep, MM has (at best) done our case no favours
3 -
Hes lost his head0
-
-
No everyone matecafckev said:Hang on, 90 minutes ago everyone said we were dead!1 - Sponsored links:
-
The EFL haven't helped us here....3
-
Nuff said.ForeverAddickted said:1 -
Kreamer: It's not just "crocodile tears" to suggest there is very real risk to the football club if this situation is not resolved0
-
The judge has stepped in to raise the concern of what "weight" he can place on Mihail's evidence. Kreamer had already said MM apologised for "an error" on his views on how the OADT system works. Says it has been corrected and rest of his evidence should be taken "at face value".
0 -
Is the case that PE already owns the club (which now seems very doubtful) or that he should have first dibs at buying it because he has an agreement with ESI to do so.
The first point seems to have been blown out the water, the second one not so much, although it might depend on the "conditions" that have been mentioned.
Definitely think it's back to 1-1. Later winner anyone....?0 -
Jints said:
He qualified in 1982 so must be close to retirement by now. Possibly doesn't care all that much any more...Addickted said:Oi Chaisty.
Preparation, preparation, preparation.
And doesn't mean an orange highlighting pen and a few notes in the paragraph.
And this bloke is a QC?
Probably expecting Potless Elliot to knock him for his fee anyway
0 -
Chaisty interrupting now, then hiding behind legal documents, like a child pretending it wasn't him that farted.14
-
Judge asked for evidence that the club would be in danger, Lauren struggling a bit on the reply, saying he should trust Mihail's submission that that's so0
-
Kreamer speaking up for Mihail’s evidence, wrong to disregard it because of admitted error.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
It's actually the instructing solicitors who are on the hook. If I were them, I'd have insisted on having the money up front.IdleHans said:Jints said:
He qualified in 1982 so must be close to retirement by now. Possibly doesn't care all that much any more...Addickted said:Oi Chaisty.
Preparation, preparation, preparation.
And doesn't mean an orange highlighting pen and a few notes in the paragraph.
And this bloke is a QC?
Probably expecting Potless Elliot to knock him for his fee anyway0 -
-
Shut up Chaisty you mug4
-
Sounds like MM has screwed us here.2
-
Addickted said:Chaisty interrupting now, then hiding behind legal documents, like a child pretending it wasn't him that farted.
"You're crazy". Pretty sure that's what he said, his wifi signal isn't great.0 -
If Panorama had had no interest in the OADT it wouldn’t have included it in the SPA in the first place. Needed because you can legally buy the club but not be allowed to play in the EFL.
3 -
The fact that the pound was never "paid" is not relevant. The pound represents a consideration. Not paying the pound doesn't void the contract, it merely opens up a separate action in debt. In other words, Elliot not paying the pound simply means he owes a pound.
Further: DICHAND v HYDRAREDOX TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED2 -
Just because you got 1 thing wrong shouldn't mean the rest of what you say is wrong.ForeverAddickted said:Sanctions facing #cafc are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about appeal.0
This discussion has been closed.
