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
-
Good question. Wouldn't look good at all.MattF said:So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?0 -
Could a judge, theoretically, turn round to Elliott (or his reps) and ask what he's planning to do to fund the Club going forward, should the fact he's skint come to light, or is he just there to rule on the injunction?
0 -
That is what the balance of convenience was about. The judge took the view that a full injunction had a material risk of meaning the club would be kicked out the league.MattF said:So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?1 -
I would kindly request the laymen and women of CL to refrain from speculation on this question but we have members on here who are trained in the arts and skulduggery of Law who I would plead with to take time out from their financially rewarding occupation to answer a simple question on the next stage of the procedure ?
Q. Does the judge who will now read the paper work only have the bias, gut wrenching, economic with the truth, smoke and mirrors, fictional surrealism and Samuel Becketesque nonsensical version as lodged by the ugly, myopic, sperm of the devil, beastie boy Chaisty to peruse ?
Or does the new judge, who has been handed this case has the poetic proses and accurate, honest words of the elegant, articulate, attractive Lauren Kreamer to read as well, so he can have a balanced panoramic view of the Ying and Yang aspects of this bizarre yet vitally important ruling for all Charlton supporters where time is of the essence ?
And the answer to my succinct question is?
3 -
Would a statement from the EFL outlining the progression of sanctions then solidify the risk if a sale cannot be completed?Covered_End_Lad said:
That is what the balance of convenience was about. The judge took the view that a full injunction had a material risk of meaning the club would be kicked out the league.MattF said:So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?1 -
That was the case , CE.Covered End said:
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.
Whilst battling to catch up with so many pages on the thread, I was moved to post my thanks to Lauren only part way through the epic.
As for what happened the following day, it doesn't detract from the brilliant performance of this young lady for "the cause ".
BTW, still catching up.....8 -
But then all along it was made clear that he was leading a consortium. El Khashashy is a confirmed member of the consortium, but we know little else.Scratchingvalleycat said:
There may well have been evidence of Elliott putting money in, but it doesn't mean to say it was his own money.LargeAddick said:
surprised more of this wasn't made in court unless of course Lauren Kraemer has seen evidence of him putting money in. Could have made more of the fact that he hadn't even paid the £1.carly burn said:
I'd like to see some concrete proof of Elliott's financial investment?SomervilleAddick said:At any point in these hearings have we gout out explicitly why ESI2 haven’t completed the deal they claim to have? There’s obviously some contingency they have failed to satisfyWe assume it’s the EFL tests, but do we know that?
0 -
Why would Nemer want this? Why didn’t Elliott accept the offer of his money back and a bit?SteveKielyCambridge said:The idea was floated yesterday that any sale price could be placed into a court account and then be handed out as per the decision in the November trial - does anyone with more legal knowledge than me know if this is possible?If so, that would give me huge reassurance. Even if the process did start to drag, it would give TS the perfect ultimatum: 'offer this remedy or no deal'. In which case, ESI1 would definitely do so, and I cannot see any reasonable way for ESI2 to argue against it.Just a question of whether such an option exists?They both want the lot. All or nothing will cost one of them. They are as stupid as well as greedy.
Worth remembering that the deal was set up to put one over Southall so he got nothing in the first place. They deserve each other and I hope all the money goes in costs sorting it out.5 -
he'd have representations from both sidessoapboxsam said:I would kindly request the laymen and women of CL to refrain from speculation on this question but we have members on here who are trained in the arts and skulduggery of Law who I would plead with to take time out from their financially rewarding occupation to answer a simple question on the next stage of the procedure ?
Q. Does the judge who will now read the paper work only have the bias, gut wrenching, economic with the truth, smoke and mirrors, fictional surrealism and Samuel Becketesque nonsensical version as lodged by the ugly, myopic, sperm of the devil, beastie boy Chaisty to peruse ?
Or does the new judge, who has been handed this case has the poetic proses and accurate, honest words of the elegant, articulate, attractive Lauren Kreamer to read as well, so he can have a balanced panoramic view of the Ying and Yang aspects of this bizarre yet vitally important ruling for all Charlton supporters where time is of the essence ?
And the answer to my succinct question is?4 -
As I understand it the injunction was refused on the grounds that granting it would cause more harm to Panarama than not granting it would cause to LD.MattF said:
Would a statement from the EFL outlining the progression of sanctions then solidify the risk if a sale cannot be completed?Covered_End_Lad said:
That is what the balance of convenience was about. The judge took the view that a full injunction had a material risk of meaning the club would be kicked out the league.MattF said:So in a theoretical scenario where the leave to appeal is granted and an injunction until the end of November is put in place, if we become extinct as a result how would that reflect on the courts? Do they worry about perceived publicity in such cases?
In the final battle in court it will be does/did Elliott have an agreement that ment the sale to a third party would be a breach of contract. His ability to run the company, pass EFL tests etc don't matter. In the law.
Does anyone know of any case law where a judge has ruled "I agree your legally allowed to own something but I won't let you because......".
0 - Sponsored links:
-
The greater risk of that is in the 'Twitter-sphere', mate. Some of the stuff 'tweeted' on there is of the utmost muppetry and buffoonery. Not to mention, potentially undermining to the CAFC cause.Scratchingvalleycat said:Clarky said:
Thank you for this. So the Court of Appeal has to consider this within 7 days, any longer and ESI 1 can sell. Even if they do consider within 7 days they are unlikely to grant the appeal, so ESI 1 can sell. And even if they do grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal they might not extend the temporary injunction so ES1 1 could sell. So the odds are still in our favour.Scratchingvalleycat said:The judge has given them seven days to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to allow them to lodge an appeal. This will be one appeal judge hearing from a QC that another judge has misled himself to sufficiently misinterpret the situation in the decision he came to. Most of these fail since it is unusual for the appeal court judge to try and second guess the original judge. However, Judge Pearce did not give them the right to appeal to himself which means he has stood by his decision but has given Chaisty a chance to appeal to seek the right to appeal from another judge, but this must be heard within the seven days. Judge Pearce gave as part of his reasoning yesterday that the club itself was at risk if he granted their injuction. This will be noted by the appeal court jusge deciding whether to give Lex Dominus the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal (three judges sitting in several months time). However I think it may be possible for the appeal court judge to grant them right to an appeal but not extend the injunction on the grounds of the damage that would likely cause.
My guess is that this is buying time for his client to try and secure a payment from Sandgaaed to go away. Unintentional legalised blackmail?
I also hope that no idiot from here tries to threaten or upset the legal system by emailing or threatening the Lex Dominus QC or Judge Pearce as I have heard some suggestion of emails. That is called shooting yourself in the foot!2 -
Just been chatting to my Dad about everything
My parents own a timeshare in Canterbury - That company who owns everything got sold a couple of times and tried to wrestle the timeshares from the owners.
They failed on that occasion so took it to the CoA who them too rejected it, before they went to the Supreme Court where they also lost so wont be surprised if PE takes this course
He did question how much money they have though as mentioned its not cheap to take those actions by any means6 -
Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but does it become public knowledge as to when the decision on whether the appeal can progress will be made and how and when the outcome is communicated? Presumably there are just over four working days left for all of that to happen.
I think the LD QC mentioned the possibility of getting matters before a judge on Friday (tomorrow) during yesterday's proceedings.0 -
Thought we were about to evolve from house buying to time share analogies there!ForeverAddickted said:Just been chatting to my Dad about everything
My parents own a timeshare in Canterbury - That company who owns everything got sold a couple of times and tried to wrestle the timeshares from the owners.
They failed on that occasion so took it to the CoA who them too rejected it, before they went to the Supreme Court where they also lost so wont be surprised if PE takes this course
He did question how much money they have though as mentioned its not cheap to take those actions by any means5 -
Appears Nimer spends less than Roland's 1.5% on us.Valley27000 said:Nimmer sort them out.1 -
Fed up and pissed off but feel alot more at ease after reading the CAST statement, which made me then promptly pay for the membership.
Another irritation from the parasites, but hopefully one of their last.
This time next week i'm hoping for a whirlwind as the appeal is thrown out, TS gets it all completed for the takeover and 5 players sign..... Followed by a savage well deserved hangover.
5 -
I was following the thread and no one mentioned this.dickad1 said:Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but does it become public knowledge as to when the decision on whether the appeal can progress will be made and how and when the outcome is communicated? Presumably there are just over four working days left for all of that to happen.
I think the LD QC mentioned the possibility of getting matters before a judge on Friday (tomorrow) during yesterday's proceedings.If he did say this, maybe he meant the arguments must be in by close of play Friday to allow the Judge to rule before the end of the injunction.0 -
LargeAddick said:
he'd have representations from both sidessoapboxsam said:I would kindly request the laymen and women of CL to refrain from speculation on this question but we have members on here who are trained in the arts and skulduggery of Law who I would plead with to take time out from their financially rewarding occupation to answer a simple question on the next stage of the procedure ?
Q. Does the judge who will now read the paper work only have the bias, gut wrenching, economic with the truth, smoke and mirrors, fictional surrealism and Samuel Becketesque nonsensical version as lodged by the ugly, myopic, sperm of the devil, beastie boy Chaisty to peruse ?
Or does the new judge, who has been handed this case has the poetic proses and accurate, honest words of the elegant, articulate, attractive Lauren Kreamer to read as well, so he can have a balanced panoramic view of the Ying and Yang aspects of this bizarre yet vitally important ruling for all Charlton supporters where time is of the essence ?
And the answer to my succinct question is?
Cheers Large.
I assumed that would be the situation but after the consenus was just technicallities to be sorted on woeful Wednesday after Mardi gras Tuesday I'm not sure night follows day anymore !
Plus if there's a goalkeepers union, let's hope the judges union is still going strong and the appeal judge should back Judge Pearce and clear the way for TS.0 -
I'd imagine it would be read by a Judge sometime before next Wednesday and the decision communicated to the Solicitors involved. It will then get communicated to the wider public somehow.2
-
RD holds the power to resolve this whole issue. As it stands ESI1 can't be sold to anybody, there is no injunction on ESI1 selling any of it's assets (i.e. CAFC), however the common wisdom is that if CAFC is sold then the £50m becomes payable to RD immediately. Therefore if the purchaser of CAFC can get Roland to agree to rollover the current tenancy agreement then ESI1 is free to sell CAFC to whomever it so chooses and PE has an injunction preventing shares in an empty holding company from being sold.
RD, as always, is the key. If a deal can be struck with him then the whole farce with ESI1 and ESI2 is meaningless, it's 2 tramps arguing over and empty box.
4 - Sponsored links:
-
I suppose Lauren can just inform the Trust who'll be keeping the likes of AB / Rich Cawley updatedLargeAddick said:I'd imagine it would be read by a Judge sometime before next Wednesday and the decision communicated to the Solicitors involved. It will then get communicated to the wider public somehow.0 -
I think that was surmised by some of the folk on this thread more clued up about how these things work. If they leave it to the 11th hour the deal is delayed till Weds 4pm but there is the chance they miss their opportunity to get an extended stay.Redrobo said:
I was following the thread and no one mentioned this.dickad1 said:Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but does it become public knowledge as to when the decision on whether the appeal can progress will be made and how and when the outcome is communicated? Presumably there are just over four working days left for all of that to happen.
I think the LD QC mentioned the possibility of getting matters before a judge on Friday (tomorrow) during yesterday's proceedings.If he did say this, maybe he meant the arguments must be in by close of play Friday to allow the Judge to rule before the end of the injunction.
They need to allow enough time for the CoA judge to read the submissions and the original transcript* and come to a decision.
* Q : Do the interjections on Teams get added to the court record?0 -
Realistically BOTH sides will want to spend a couple of days getting their submissions in order, the relevant parties might have other cases to work on anyway.
I imagine both will submit early next week2 -
People have been trying to get RD to see sense for five years, I doubt it will happen in the next seven days.randy andy said:RD holds the power to resolve this whole issue. As it stands ESI1 can't be sold to anybody, there is no injunction on ESI1 selling any of it's assets (i.e. CAFC), however the common wisdom is that if CAFC is sold then the £50m becomes payable to RD immediately. Therefore if the purchaser of CAFC can get Roland to agree to rollover the current tenancy agreement then ESI1 is free to sell CAFC to whomever it so chooses and PE has an injunction preventing shares in an empty holding company from being sold.
RD, as always, is the key. If a deal can be struck with him then the whole farce with ESI1 and ESI2 is meaningless, it's 2 tramps arguing over and empty box.7 -
Some others have already made this point, but I want to re-iterate that no Charlton fan should ever send threatening communication to Chaisty, Pearce, Elliot or anyone else involved in the current (and future) actions. To do so would be illegal and harmful.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a claim that such communications have been received. If such a claim were made, I would be very interested to know how it could be proven that they came from Charlton fans and not from, for example, email accounts set up by some of the participants in the case, in order to further their cause.
I am not suggesting that someone like Elliot would ever do anything like that. But, equally, I would be interested to see how well he performed under cross-questioning, if allegations were put to him, such as facilitating, encouraging or rewarding others to send messages out across electronic media in bad faith. I wonder if he would be able to defend against such suggestions, effectively.
The point remains, however, that no Charlton fan should attempt to obstruct justice or send malicious communications to any of the participants, at any time.44 -
Surely ESI selling all its assets would be considered a breach of the injunction though?randy andy said:RD holds the power to resolve this whole issue. As it stands ESI1 can't be sold to anybody, there is no injunction on ESI1 selling any of it's assets (i.e. CAFC), however the common wisdom is that if CAFC is sold then the £50m becomes payable to RD immediately. Therefore if the purchaser of CAFC can get Roland to agree to rollover the current tenancy agreement then ESI1 is free to sell CAFC to whomever it so chooses and PE has an injunction preventing shares in an empty holding company from being sold.
RD, as always, is the key. If a deal can be struck with him then the whole farce with ESI1 and ESI2 is meaningless, it's 2 tramps arguing over and empty box.2 -
Correct.killerandflash said:
Surely ESI selling all its assets would be considered a breach of the injunction though?randy andy said:RD holds the power to resolve this whole issue. As it stands ESI1 can't be sold to anybody, there is no injunction on ESI1 selling any of it's assets (i.e. CAFC), however the common wisdom is that if CAFC is sold then the £50m becomes payable to RD immediately. Therefore if the purchaser of CAFC can get Roland to agree to rollover the current tenancy agreement then ESI1 is free to sell CAFC to whomever it so chooses and PE has an injunction preventing shares in an empty holding company from being sold.
RD, as always, is the key. If a deal can be struck with him then the whole farce with ESI1 and ESI2 is meaningless, it's 2 tramps arguing over and empty box.0 -
Depends on the wording of the injunction. Everything I read on this thread throughout both hearings way about shares in ESI. ESI2 have (correctly so far) presumed that ESI1 can't simply sell the club because RD will want his pound of flesh. Obviously ESI1 can sell some assets, we all assume that Philips will be sold shortly and for a lot more than the £1 that CAFC is supposedly worth. So the question is if the injunction allows the sale of an assets potentially worth millions, how does it prevent the sale of an asset worth £1?killerandflash said:
Surely ESI selling all its assets would be considered a breach of the injunction though?randy andy said:RD holds the power to resolve this whole issue. As it stands ESI1 can't be sold to anybody, there is no injunction on ESI1 selling any of it's assets (i.e. CAFC), however the common wisdom is that if CAFC is sold then the £50m becomes payable to RD immediately. Therefore if the purchaser of CAFC can get Roland to agree to rollover the current tenancy agreement then ESI1 is free to sell CAFC to whomever it so chooses and PE has an injunction preventing shares in an empty holding company from being sold.
RD, as always, is the key. If a deal can be struck with him then the whole farce with ESI1 and ESI2 is meaningless, it's 2 tramps arguing over and empty box.0 -
Chaisty mentioned Friday as an example - he was trying to make the point that the TS sale was imminent, quoting media articles etc, and that LD would move fast to request an appeal meaning the new injunction only needed to be for a very short time to prevent the real risk of an immediate sale that the day before he argued was hearsay / pie in the sky!Redrobo said:
I was following the thread and no one mentioned this.dickad1 said:Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but does it become public knowledge as to when the decision on whether the appeal can progress will be made and how and when the outcome is communicated? Presumably there are just over four working days left for all of that to happen.
I think the LD QC mentioned the possibility of getting matters before a judge on Friday (tomorrow) during yesterday's proceedings.If he did say this, maybe he meant the arguments must be in by close of play Friday to allow the Judge to rule before the end of the injunction.
Pretty soon after this the judge agreed to seven days. I don't think Chaisty requested seven days.0 -
The outcome will be communicated by the CoA judge who reviews the application to the parties to the proceedings (via their barristers) - assuming this doesn't progress beyond being reviewed "on the papers". As to how/how quickly it then becomes public or press knowledge it depends on how that information is passed on.Redrobo said:
I was following the thread and no one mentioned this.dickad1 said:Sorry if this has already been asked / answered, but does it become public knowledge as to when the decision on whether the appeal can progress will be made and how and when the outcome is communicated? Presumably there are just over four working days left for all of that to happen.
I think the LD QC mentioned the possibility of getting matters before a judge on Friday (tomorrow) during yesterday's proceedings.If he did say this, maybe he meant the arguments must be in by close of play Friday to allow the Judge to rule before the end of the injunction.1
This discussion has been closed.
