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
-
I don't know about anyone else but I'm cream crackered from all of this!7
-
Because they are vermin of the highest order ! They smell the chance to make money, that's all there is to it. I'm living in hope that this will financially ruin them, the thought of these people profiting from the misery they cause makes me feel sick. Obviously they will earn money out of it because these type of people always do. I just pray karma will come into play and eventually they suffer far worse than anything they cream off can compensate for. If any owner plays the game fairly and then earn a decent payday then good luck to them it's their money they risk. But this lot have basically robbed the club for 6 months and still want a payday. May they all rot in helli_b_b_o_r_g said:So you've got Elliott who is eager to take over a loss making football Club even though he ain't got a post to piss in, and the fans of which obviously detest him, and the powers-that-be don't smell a rat?
Open your eyes up ffs. Any genuine multi millionaire businessman missing out, as they did, on the chance to buy a white elephant that is an Engish football club would surely have walked away at the first hurdle and maybe looked at it as a bullet dodged. These c**** however appeal every decision that goes against them, whether it be the EFL or a court of law (basically every decision that've faced so far) and no one that matters, is asking why? Ffs8 -
I guess by risk waiting for November, ypu sacrifice a season. Take over now and there's time to get players in and try bounce back up first time.Stig said:
Why would he want to? If he pays Elliott as a matter of choice, that's an extra expense for him. If he waits for the court to decide it may cost him nothing extra, at worst he'll have to do some re-negotiating.Covered_End_Lad said:Is there a chance TS will just pay off PE and buy the club before next week or is that not possible now?
0 -
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.aliwibble said:BrentfordAddick said:Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?0 -
TS has stated he will travel back to the U.S. On sunday does this mean he will have to return to sign takeover paperwork?.0
-
Chill... people claiming democracy is dead and why can't they see what's going on are missing the point, this is democracy - everyone has a right to seek an appeal, much as I don't like it! The time to be worried is if they are given permission to pursue the appeal in the COA2
-
Isn’t this just legal protocol? They are within their rights to request an appeal, which they have done. The judge has granted them 7 days to get their appeal request submitted, reviewed and decided upon. It sounds to me that the likelihood of the appeal being approved to go to the Appeals Court is remote but I’m no legal expert. But, wasn’t the judge legally bound to allow this request to be reviewed once it was made?6
-
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.aliwibble said:BrentfordAddick said:Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)0 -
Rob said:Isn’t this just legal protocol? They are within their rights to request an appeal, which they have done. The judge has granted them 7 days to get their appeal request submitted, reviewed and decided upon. It sounds to me that the likelihood of the appeal being approved to go to the Appeals Court is remote but I’m no legal expert. But, wasn’t the judge legally bound to allow this request to be reviewed once it was made?
Agree with this, not sure on the last sentence. I don't think he could've said no you cannot appeal, but what he did do was say whilst that is in play the club can't be sold.1 -
How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Very late to this special party due to family stuff (all good)Pico said:
With all very due respect to the dossiers (which are mighty impressive) they didn't play a part in this great victory. Their day will come elsewhere we hope.AFKABartram said:@PragueAddick out of interest, did any of the painstaking dossier work on Farnell & co find it’s way into Kreamer’s teams preparations for this?
Because if so, there are many many fans who should feel proud of the part they’ve played in this.
One great advantage of Lauren being instructed for the case was that she already had all the necessary facts at her fingertips, having studied and discussed them for hours within CAST and with other parties.
Add that to her phenomenal legal knowledge and razor sharp mind and you have an unstoppable force as Lex Dominus discovered.
But wanted to add my congratulations and sincere thanks for an awe inspiring performance yesterday .This could indeed prove to be the catalyst for an incredible era in the history of our famous football club.
I remember posting over 6 years ago that I was excited to have a female CEO at CAFC...but that didn't end well.
To have Lauren steering the good ship Charlton Athletic away from the dangers that ESI posed is a fantastic achievement. One might call her a true WARrior of the highest order.
THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart, lovely lady.
One of our own.1 -
We get it, but just for the record I stand by my rights to not piss on Elliott if I ever saw him on fire.jams said:Chill... people claiming democracy is dead and why can't they see what's going on are missing the point, this is democracy - everyone has a right to seek an appeal, much as I don't like it! The time to be worried is if they are given permission to pursue the appeal in the COA5 -
The judge agreed yesterday that a delay until November would seriously threaten the survival of the club, that was one of the key reasons why the injunction request was rejected.shine166 said:
I guess by risk waiting for November, ypu sacrifice a season. Take over now and there's time to get players in and try bounce back up first time.Stig said:
Why would he want to? If he pays Elliott as a matter of choice, that's an extra expense for him. If he waits for the court to decide it may cost him nothing extra, at worst he'll have to do some re-negotiating.Covered_End_Lad said:Is there a chance TS will just pay off PE and buy the club before next week or is that not possible now?
A week's delay is annoying and affects team building but doesn't put our survival at risk.
I imagine that whatever the result of the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the survival of the club will be a major factor, whereas our team to play Crewe on the 12th September won't be.7 -
It reads like you haven't read what happened today :-(Fanny Fanackapan said:
Very late to this special party due to family stuff (all good)Pico said:
With all very due respect to the dossiers (which are mighty impressive) they didn't play a part in this great victory. Their day will come elsewhere we hope.AFKABartram said:@PragueAddick out of interest, did any of the painstaking dossier work on Farnell & co find it’s way into Kreamer’s teams preparations for this?
Because if so, there are many many fans who should feel proud of the part they’ve played in this.
One great advantage of Lauren being instructed for the case was that she already had all the necessary facts at her fingertips, having studied and discussed them for hours within CAST and with other parties.
Add that to her phenomenal legal knowledge and razor sharp mind and you have an unstoppable force as Lex Dominus discovered.
But wanted to add my congratulations and sincere thanks for an awe inspiring performance yesterday .This could indeed prove to be the catalyst for an incredible era in the history of our famous football club.
I remember posting over 6 years ago that I was excited to have a female CEO at CAFC...but that didn't end well.
To have Lauren steering the good ship Charlton Athletic away from the dangers that ESI posed is a fantastic achievement. One might call her a true WARrior of the highest order.
THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart, lovely lady.
One of our own.1 -
No problem with Lex getting getting the wage money back.....out of Nimer and Southall's pocketkillerandflash said:
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.aliwibble said:BrentfordAddick said:Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)1 -
The Turks could move in?.0
-
Not disagreeing regarding Panorama’s finances and yes I would agree it seems likely that Lex have put some money into the club. But that is not proof of them having the ability to pay compensation that amounted to possibly several million. Despise both parties, but in this case I want Panorama to win as it seems this is in the best interests of the club. I think when on the back foot counter arguments can sometimes be quite successful and have seen this work before.killerandflash said:
If Lex have put in money to cover wages (something which has never been disproven), then that at least demonstrates they have some money. After all Lex isn't just PEGary Poole said:
No, I’m not convinced they do, but my point was Lex’s QC argued extensively about the likelihood of recovering any money from Panorama as being slim, surely the same could have been raised about Elliot? If you take out an injunction and then are unsuccessful in the following case, you are required to compensate the other side for any losses occurred by them due to the injunction. I did not mention anything about TS re the case itself.killerandflash said:
But then this case wasn't Lex vs TS, it was Lex vs Panorama and what are Panorama's finances? Nimer hasn't been seen for months, and has put nothing into the clubGary Poole said:
I was really hoping that LK was going to suggest this today, but I guess that might be tricky without your client instructing you to.aliwibble said:BrentfordAddick said:Would be good to know thoughts on who to lobby, what to do. It feels like the EFL would help us by saying that Lex Dominus or whatever can't be trusted to run a football club. Guidance from CAST etc welcome.Personally, I would be lobbying Mihail. He's always on about just trying to do what's best for the club, and now he can prove it. Instruct Lauren to inform the Court of Appeal that the proceeds of any sale will be lodged in an escrow account until such time as the trial at the end of November has been resolved. That demonstrates good faith on Nimer's part and moves the balance of risk away from LD, so there is no need for an injunction preventing the sale of the club until the trial. It's also a way for him to make up for him making a bit of a pig's ear of his evidence submission.Although whether he/Nimer would actually be willing to do it is another matter entirely...If they won't, is there any way that Sandgaard could attach himself to the case as a 3rd party, and request the court to make an order regardless of whether either party is in favour? Legal bods, any thoughts?
There was a lot made about not being able to get damages from Panorama Magic if the sale went ahead and even if costs awarded were payed. I would have liked Elliots’ finances to have been brought into it, in that if the buyer walks away due to ‘back door’ (oo er) injunction, does Elliot have the means to compensate Panorama Magic for their loss? Seems unlikely of a serial bankrupt who can’t even spell his own name.
Do Panorama have the finances to pay costs?
By contrast Panorama are Nimer (untraceable) and Southall (who prefers taking from the club)
0 -
Everything that has happened over the past few months is down to one person only.
The poisoned yellow toothed Wankpuffin from Belgium.
Had he not have separated the ground from the club none of this shit would have happened.
Whatever happens over the coming weeks I shall not be happy until doshitalot is out of our club.21 -
What has happened here is that the Judge has ruled against the injunction and declined to give leave to appeal. Panorama has won. Judges do not like getting appealed. I did wonder with the nature of his summing up yesterday whether he was setting his judgement up for scrutiny in case of appeal covering all bases , his thoughts and legal processes so that should an appeal come, he would not look foolish to a higher court. In English law, if a judge does not give leave to appeal then the appellant can apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. That’s all that will be happening in the next seven days - the respective legal teams will put down in writing why they are right and this will go to a senior judge - a lord justice of appeal and that judge will decide whether there has been sufficient in the hearing of the case to justify an appeal. There are set guidelines and timings and no face to face hearing. If there is and the trial judge has gone out of his way to say there isn’t (and put his head on the block a bit) then the matter will go to a hearing but by the time the Court of Appeal get around to hearing it - solely on the injunction - the main case in November will have been heard. Most appeals of this nature fail but what it does do is keep the appellant in the game.20
- Sponsored links:
-
I have a long history with lawyers and have reason to dislike them, especially "family" lawyers. In the U.S., if you're a particularly bad lawyer you go into family law as there's no way you can lose a case when representing the woman, no matter what.JamesSeed said:
What, all lawyers? Human rights lawyers, criminal lawyers who prosecute the worst people in our society? Family lawyers who look after the interest of children in family disputes?limeygent said:There's this whole separate world going on called the legal profession, these people making fortunes out of others' misery, and they create absolutely nothing for the real world. Hate lawyers.
I think you're being a bit harsh mate. Our democracy is based on law.1 -
This is from @Blucher ‘s very helpful post this morning.
“The difficulty which Elliot faces is that the ground upon which the application for an injunction failed - the balance of convenience - is very much a matter of impression for a Judge. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to over three hours of submissions, an appeal court is likely to be reluctant to overturn the conclusion which he has reached. On that basis, an appeal is unlikely to have a real prospect of success and nor is there is any other compelling reason for it to be heard.”
I take a lot of comfort from that and from Judge Pearce’s comment that, while he was not so arrogant as to completely dismiss the possibility of it succeeding, he thought it likely that LD’s appeal to COA would fail.43 -
Is that @ElfsborgAddick In a parallel universeblackpool72 said:Everything that has happened over the past few months is down to one person only.
The poisoned yellow toothed Wankpuffin from Belgium.
Had he not have separated the ground from the club none of this shit would have happened.
Whatever happens over the coming weeks I shall not be happy until doshitalot is out of our club.0 -
Of all the things for us to ponder over and worry about I don't think this is one of them.ME14addick said:How is Elliott going to pay Chaisty's fees if he loses.6 -
PE maxing out the credit cards chasing his losses here I reckon. Why else would he so readily twist again given the judge's assessment on their prospects? Smacks of desperation IMO.3
-
But hasn’t that changed with the ‘immanent buyer’ stuff being thrown around?PeanutsMolloy said:This is from @Blucher ‘s very helpful post this morning.
“The difficulty which Elliot faces is that the ground upon which the application for an injunction failed - the balance of convenience - is very much a matter of impression for a Judge. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to over three hours of submissions, an appeal court is likely to be reluctant to overturn the conclusion which he has reached. On that basis, an appeal is unlikely to have a real prospect of success and nor is there is any other compelling reason for it to be heard.”
I take a lot of comfort from that and from Judge Pearce’s comment that, while he was not so arrogant as to completely dismiss the possibility, thought it likely that LD’s appeal to COA would fail.0 -
had a little bit of time to calm down and feel a little bit better. As others with much more knowledge have said the judge has turned the appeal down, they are just rolling the dice one more time.It’s awful and I hate them with a passion but they was always going to appeal even if the judge turned the appeal down as he did as they have nothing to lose other than costs which they might seem is worth it in the scheme of things.5
-
I don’t think so, especially now that a trial date has been set for late November.Rothko said:
But hasn’t that changed with the ‘immanent buyer’ stuff being thrown around?PeanutsMolloy said:This is from @Blucher ‘s very helpful post this morning.
“The difficulty which Elliot faces is that the ground upon which the application for an injunction failed - the balance of convenience - is very much a matter of impression for a Judge. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and listened to over three hours of submissions, an appeal court is likely to be reluctant to overturn the conclusion which he has reached. On that basis, an appeal is unlikely to have a real prospect of success and nor is there is any other compelling reason for it to be heard.”
I take a lot of comfort from that and from Judge Pearce’s comment that, while he was not so arrogant as to completely dismiss the possibility, thought it likely that LD’s appeal to COA would fail.
Judge Pearce made it clear that his 7 day injunction, granted today, was based upon a different assessment of the balance of convenience over that 7 day timeframe (being unlikely to jeopardise CAFC’s future).
The appeal is about an injunction to trial date (end Nov) and Judge Pearce reiterated today that his assessment yesterday still stands over that sort of timeframe as it was not irrational.7 -
I have to add, James, that I have no personal experience of lawyers in The U.K., so could indeed be being harsh on them there. The other thing is over here, the loser doesn't pay the winners legal costs, that's why there are so many frivolous suits.limeygent said:
I have a long history with lawyers and have reason to dislike them, especially "family" lawyers. In the U.S., if you're a particularly bad lawyer you go into family law as there's no way you can lose a case when representing the woman, no matter what.JamesSeed said:
What, all lawyers? Human rights lawyers, criminal lawyers who prosecute the worst people in our society? Family lawyers who look after the interest of children in family disputes?limeygent said:There's this whole separate world going on called the legal profession, these people making fortunes out of others' misery, and they create absolutely nothing for the real world. Hate lawyers.
I think you're being a bit harsh mate. Our democracy is based on law.2 -
Seems a bit much that yesterday Chaisty was representing he needed a three month injunction on the basis that there was no evidence of an imminent transfer and today he was pushing for a 7 day injunction on the basis of evidence he admitted to the court himself (which he had prevented Lauren Kreamer from doing yesterday).
Still, if the Appeal Court Judge in reviewing the evidence turns him down, that seems to be that (unless there’s some European angel).
if they get right of appeal having shown there is a good chance of winning the appeal, I reckon they could get an extension of the temporary injunction as well but it would be down to Panorama Magic to demonstrate the potential harm to the assets it owns from further.
Probably worth trying to clarify the EFL position on Elliot and Bowyer and Gallen’s view on not being able to sign players if that’s possible at all.1
This discussion has been closed.
