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
-
Yes but bet you it wasn’t his (or all his) money - I wonder if some unpleasant people gave him money to put into club, and he is now Def Con Brown that it’s not coming back.....cafcfan1990 said:
ESI are getting a lot more than £1 from TS. Unbelievable but true.Richard J said:Surely if TS buys us for £1 that is the size of the pot.
Personally I don't want Southall getting anything. If he had not try to do his con we would never have heard of Farnell and Paul Elliott would be an ex players name not a con mans.
The damages could stretch further because ESI let Elliott put money in. I think Elliott has a strong case against them but I also don't care because we should be owned by TS by then
0 -
Hopefully not.killerandflash said:
If PE has loaned/given money to the club to pay wages, I imagine TS will return it to him?Cardinal Sin said:The appeal will have no consequences for Thomas Sandgaard if he is owner before then. It will simply be a case of ESI2 fighting for some of the lucre ESI1 have grabbed from the sale. Nimer can run away but Matt Southall can't. There is now a strong incentive for Nimer selling the club for a relatively small fee as that might persuade ESI2 to drop their interest given the costs involved and lack of certainty that those could be awarded as well.0 -
Somebody copied a tweet up earlier where "John burke" ridiculed NLA "who at the most has 5 GCSEs & is trying to take on qualified lawyers. Haha I know who my monies on" Well where was your money burke ? You chose the wrong option just like your criminal mates chose the wrong club.bobmunro said:Scoham said:
They thought they could make a profit quicklyrememberbillybonds said:So much to read, many bits missed.
but what I cannot understand is why Elliott and Farnell wanted to put so much effort into a project in plain view of an enquiring audience ( ie Charlton fans). We are all convinced their motives are suspicious, their assets not sufficient. What did they want and expect?
and easily. They also seriously underestimated Charlton fans.Didn't Farnell also ridicule fans for being unintelligent and illiterate?Hmmm - think on that Chris!4 -
F5
F5
F50 -
big IF, and if he has I very much doubt it's his moneykillerandflash said:
If PE has loaned/given money to the club to pay wages, I imagine TS will return it to him?Cardinal Sin said:The appeal will have no consequences for Thomas Sandgaard if he is owner before then. It will simply be a case of ESI2 fighting for some of the lucre ESI1 have grabbed from the sale. Nimer can run away but Matt Southall can't. There is now a strong incentive for Nimer selling the club for a relatively small fee as that might persuade ESI2 to drop their interest given the costs involved and lack of certainty that those could be awarded as well.0 -
I think you just have to be devious.Lordflashheart said:Blimey it’s all so complicated - you clearly need some brains to work in the law
Makes me wonder how Farnell ever got to where he is !!!0 -
I don't believe he did.mattinfinland said:
Richard Crawley said on Twitter, that can't happen?Covered End said:
They want an appeal to get yesterday's decision overturned, so they get their injunction to prevent a sale.Leeds_Addick said:If we are sold in the meantime then what would be the point of an appeal?
That's what's confusing me
I think people were confident an appeal would not be granted.0 -
who boring fucker or the judge?Atletico Addick said:He's asking for an appeal..0 -
Let’s hope soLordflashheart said:
Yes but bet you it wasn’t his (or all his) money - I wonder if some unpleasant people gave him money to put into club, and he is now Def Con Brown that it’s not coming back.....cafcfan1990 said:
ESI are getting a lot more than £1 from TS. Unbelievable but true.Richard J said:Surely if TS buys us for £1 that is the size of the pot.
Personally I don't want Southall getting anything. If he had not try to do his con we would never have heard of Farnell and Paul Elliott would be an ex players name not a con mans.
The damages could stretch further because ESI let Elliott put money in. I think Elliott has a strong case against them but I also don't care because we should be owned by TS by then0 -
So Elliott has to get the money he did pay in, back from Nemer and Southall.Can we withhold the money due to be paid to Southall until the money he gave to his wife and other friends has been resolved? I am sure Nimer won’t mind progressing the ownership on those terms.
If he does win an amount we can send him a cheque dated for December to coincide with the conclusion of the appeal so Elliott gets his money back. That way they will have gained nothing.
Nemer disappears into the blue yonder whistling the tune of the sting.0 - Sponsored links:
-
You do know that they are not meeting in a courtroom don’t you!😊soapy_jones said:Has anyone run across the courtroom yet and dropped a roundhouse on Chaisty?2 -
Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".
4 -
Correct. The danger is if Pearce does grant an appeal, which is heard before a sale can go through.LargeAddick said:
if Pearce doesn't grant leave to appeal then they can appeal directly to the Court of Appeal but it will be too late to stop a sale to TS or another party. This is all about getting their 'fair' share of whatever ESI sell to TNS for.Covered End said:
They want an appeal to get yesterday's decision overturned, so they get their injunction to prevent a sale.Leeds_Addick said:If we are sold in the meantime then what would be the point of an appeal?
That's what's confusing me1 -
Blimey!ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".0 -
Why would he do that? He is only responsible for the club after he buys it, not before. Elliott has tried to prevent Sandgaard buying the club so he could jack the price up and make a killing.killerandflash said:
If PE has loaned/given money to the club to pay wages, I imagine TS will return it to him?Cardinal Sin said:The appeal will have no consequences for Thomas Sandgaard if he is owner before then. It will simply be a case of ESI2 fighting for some of the lucre ESI1 have grabbed from the sale. Nimer can run away but Matt Southall can't. There is now a strong incentive for Nimer selling the club for a relatively small fee as that might persuade ESI2 to drop their interest given the costs involved and lack of certainty that those could be awarded as well.3 -
Chaisty is. Got to be unlikely for the judge to U-turn his own decision, we would hope!roseandcrown said:
who boring fucker or the judge?Atletico Addick said:He's asking for an appeal..1 -
But it's under his name I imagine.LargeAddick said:
big IF, and if he has I very much doubt it's his moneykillerandflash said:
If PE has loaned/given money to the club to pay wages, I imagine TS will return it to him?Cardinal Sin said:The appeal will have no consequences for Thomas Sandgaard if he is owner before then. It will simply be a case of ESI2 fighting for some of the lucre ESI1 have grabbed from the sale. Nimer can run away but Matt Southall can't. There is now a strong incentive for Nimer selling the club for a relatively small fee as that might persuade ESI2 to drop their interest given the costs involved and lack of certainty that those could be awarded as well.
Either way I'm sure TS will want to start off with everything cleared up, and without the prospect of further action. No way would PE have invested/given/loaned money without some sort of paperwork, whether between him and CAFC or him and ESI.0 -
he's got that 100% rightForeverAddickted said:Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".2 -
Relax, nothing has changed.. Why on earth would the judge grant an appeal for a decision he made yesterday
0 -
He is probably right there.......ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".1 - Sponsored links:
-
I can dream.robinofottershaw said:
You do know that they are not meeting in a courtroom don’t you!😊soapy_jones said:Has anyone run across the courtroom yet and dropped a roundhouse on Chaisty?0 -
Trial will be a Pyrrhic victory for Lex Dominus even if they win, says Chaisty. Therefore court of appeal should consider balance of convenience.
1 -
Appeal not granted.42
-
Refused permission to appeal.22
-
Gutted you absolute mugs!!ForeverAddickted said:Chaisty describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian". Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic. Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".6 -
Refused permission to appeal!13
-
Like a few others on here I had to look that abbreviation up - I hope their use isn't going to proliferate.Cafc43v3r said:Got to lodge in 14 days iirc, could take months though to be heard.1 -
Judge Pearce doesn't feel his decision yesterday was "irrational" and he refuses the right to appeal.
24 -
Regardless of all the ifs, buts and maybes, I won’t rest comfortably until TS is announced as new owner. Until then we are in danger.10
-
Judge refuses permission to appeal.0
This discussion has been closed.
