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
-
Can't see what it's got to do with a court of law anyway, reckon Nimer should be free to sell to whoever he wishes and, if he is found to be in breech of any contracts, the appropriate action can then be taken.
Just seems like snakes using the court system to sort out their petty squabbles and wasting everyones time.
One of the main things pissing me off about this is that, in the eyes of the court, this ain't any longer about Charlton Athletic, it's about a bunch of Mancs vrs a bunch of foreigners and what they can milk an American Dane for. The future of the institution in the middle, don't seem to much matter32 -
I agree, but things are rapidly coming to a head. There is no way that Nimer is ever going to pay anybody £50m, and there's no way that Elliott is going to pay anybody £50m. So TS can rightly say to RD that he's the only game in town, that RD can do a deal with him and get some money. If Nimer wins then he'll sell the club to TS and it'll be the same deal TS and RD could easily agree among themselves. If Elliott wins then it's likely administration, the carcass being picked clean and RD left holding the baby that is worth a lot less than £50m.se9addick said:
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.
I have no faith the RD will see sense, but I've said before that this all comes down to RD being "right". That is only true if he either gets £50m for the assets now, or keeps them on his books with a book value of £50m and somebody paying ongoing costs. If the club vanishes then he has assets the aren't worth anything close to that to anybody else and nobody to pay taxes, security, maintenance, etc. It'd cost him a 6 figure sum each year just to have the assets sitting there doing nothing. That doesn't look like a win for RD, and that's what he cares about, how it looks.5 -
Agree with your general point, but the reason to refuse the initial injunction was only about the future of the club in the widest interpretation of that word.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Can't see what it's got to do with a court of law anyway, reckon Nimer should be free to sell to whoever he wishes and, if he is found to be in breech of any contracts, the appropriate action can then be taken.
Just seems like snakes using the court system to sort out their petty squabbles and wasting everyones time.
One of the main things pissing me off about this is that, in the eyes of the court, this ain't any longer about Charlton Athletic, it's about a bunch of Mancs vrs a bunch of foreigners and what they can milk an American Dane for. The future of the institution in the middle, don't seem to much matter4 -
Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?1
-
As soon as Farnell saw that Nimer was an easy push over, he wrote out a honey trap contract for Nimer to sign, exactly the same as Southall did to Nimer and RD (because Southall and Farnell are both cut from the same Northern spunk sock, so therefore naturally use the same MO). Elliott ETC ETC ETC, never had any intention of owning the Club for longer than it would take to "flip it", if at all e.g. get payed out of the honey trap contract, so a proper businessman can come in a do a proper job
Farnell may be a solicitor, but all he does is look for loopholes to capitalise on and that's how he makes the larger part of his income, by being a massive c***
The turd that attracted all these flies in the first place was RD's Jim White interview, when he said he'd let the Club go for £1. Amis listened in, the wheels started turning and Guy Salmon Land Rover were on the phone the next day
That's how I see it, in a nutshell32 -
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?0 -
100%.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Can't see what it's got to do with a court of law anyway, reckon Nimer should be free to sell to whoever he wishes and, if he is found to be in breech of any contracts, the appropriate action can then be taken.
Just seems like snakes using the court system to sort out their petty squabbles and wasting everyones time.
One of the main things pissing me off about this is that, in the eyes of the court, this ain't any longer about Charlton Athletic, it's about a bunch of Mancs vrs a bunch of foreigners and what they can milk an American Dane for. The future of the institution in the middle, don't seem to much matter
I'm absolutely convinced Elliott/Farnell's sole aim is to cause as much delay as possible so TS makes them an offer to fuck off.
If TS hadn't come on the scene we wouldn't even be at this point, Nimer would've given us away for a quid.5 -
I'm slightly concerned that LD's QC & legal team will be working on this vigorously and could have a fair sized amount of people assisting.
I've attended cases where residents & the council have been up against property developers and their QC.
The QC's whilst usually outstanding also have so many people to assist them.
I am concerned as to who is providing our evidence.
Is it solely down to Lauren & MM?
Does Lauren have the time or is she working on other business (as you may well expect with this unexpected development).
I know some people have said that the level/quality of your legal team makes no difference, but this is clearly nonsense as otherwise everyone would appoint the cheapest representation.
Lauren has done an excellent job and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am concerned as to the resources that LD are throwing at this and I've seen for myself that some QCs can almost prove that black is actually white.7 -
Might be worthwhile keeping an eye on this, I’m assuming it’s a civil casehttp://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-appeal-civil
2 -
What about shitting in his letterbox? 😉Chizz said: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.2 - Sponsored links:
-
I think this concerns about 90pc of our fan base at present.Covered End said:I'm slightly concerned that LD's QC & legal team will be working on this vigorously and could have a fair sized amount of people assisting.
I've attended cases where residents & the council have been up against property developers and their QC.
The QC's whilst usually outstanding also have so many people to assist them.
I am concerned as to who is providing our evidence.
Is it solely down to Lauren & MM?
Does Lauren have the time or is she working on other business (as you may well expect with this unexpected development).
I know some people have said that the level/quality of your legal team makes no difference, but this is clearly nonsense as otherwise everyone would appoint the cheapest representation.
Lauren has done an excellent job and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am concerned as to the resources that LD are throwing at this and I've seen for myself that some QCs can almost prove that black is actually white.1 -
ozaddick said:
What about shitting in his letterbox? 😉Chizz said: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.
This is just wrong ?
Best to use a bucket first
1 -
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?
0 -
Does Sir Stephen Richards carry a Singapore cain? Or does he have the right to sensor?CharltonKerry said:Might be worthwhile keeping an eye on this, I’m assuming it’s a civil casehttp://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-appeal-civil2 -
Did Mihail or Farnell actually speak in the hearing on the 1st?0
-
No.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Did Mihail or Farnell actually speak in the hearing on the 1st?1 -
Cheers mate0
-
Covered End said:I'm slightly concerned that LD's QC & legal team will be working on this vigorously and could have a fair sized amount of people assisting.
I've attended cases where residents & the council have been up against property developers and their QC.
The QC's whilst usually outstanding also have so many people to assist them.
I am concerned as to who is providing our evidence.
Is it solely down to Lauren & MM?
Does Lauren have the time or is she working on other business (as you may well expect with this unexpected development).
I know some people have said that the level/quality of your legal team makes no difference, but this is clearly nonsense as otherwise everyone would appoint the cheapest representation.
Lauren has done an excellent job and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am concerned as to the resources that LD are throwing at this and I've seen for myself that some QCs can almost prove that black is actually white.
Lauren isn't independent.
https://radcliffechambers.com/profile/lauren-kreamer/
1 -
I'm not so sure,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.
The injunction was to stop Panorama Magic selling ESI. I didn't hear anything around ESI not be able to sell anything.....2 -
Would be great if they went all the way to the highest court and ended up owning an empty shell company lolRob7Lee said:
I'm not so sure,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.
The injunction was to stop Panorama Magic selling ESI. I didn't hear anything around ESI not be able to sell anything.....
Bit like the DVD players with no gubbings in, the travellers used to sell2 - Sponsored links:
-
I think MM was just doing what Farnell told him to at that stage.red10 said:
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?1 -
All part of Farnell's plan?Cafc43v3r said:
I think MM was just doing what Farnell told him to at that stage.red10 said:
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?1 -
Agree with this up to a point. I once was on a Jury at the Old Bailey for a murder trial and the defendents Silk made me genuinely question the outcome although it was pretty open and shut.Covered End said:I'm slightly concerned that LD's QC & legal team will be working on this vigorously and could have a fair sized amount of people assisting.
I've attended cases where residents & the council have been up against property developers and their QC.
The QC's whilst usually outstanding also have so many people to assist them.
I am concerned as to who is providing our evidence.
Is it solely down to Lauren & MM?
Does Lauren have the time or is she working on other business (as you may well expect with this unexpected development).
I know some people have said that the level/quality of your legal team makes no difference, but this is clearly nonsense as otherwise everyone would appoint the cheapest representation.
Lauren has done an excellent job and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am concerned as to the resources that LD are throwing at this and I've seen for myself that some QCs can almost prove that black is actually white.
My point about legal representation was that it didn't alter the facts of the case and Lauren clearly understood them probably better than her opponent.
That evened the dynamic in my view.2 -
Yeah it was to drag along Southall for a quid and probably a drink in it for Nimer at a later date.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
All part of Farnell's plan?Cafc43v3r said:
I think MM was just doing what Farnell told him to at that stage.red10 said:
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?
Was being the important word.1 -
Makes sense, geting a statement and verbal confirmation "out there" to support elliotts claims as there seems nothing else to substantiate this otherwise imho.Cafc43v3r said:
I think MM was just doing what Farnell told him to at that stage.red10 said:
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?
0 -
I think this could be significant to the case overall as if Farnell was instructing MM to do things as the clubs solicitor at the time and then changed sides, I think most judges would take a dim view of this to say the least.Cafc43v3r said:
I think MM was just doing what Farnell told him to at that stage.red10 said:
Thanks, I had forgitten about that. I think there is a possibility that MM jumped the gun with the release and comments and that the sale has not yet taken place. I struggle with the concept that the contract is in the state that it is to be binding, plus companies house not being updated within 14 days, failure to do so is an offence. Pity we cant get elliotttt on the hook for that since he seems so sure ....Cafc43v3r said:
That there is a letter, on CAFC headed paper, that says the shares in ESI have been transfered from Panarama to LD and Southall has been dragged along. As well as MM saying that this has been done?red10 said:Can anyone explain how PE has been able to be in a position of control at CAFC and be in a position to attempt this injunction?. He is not an officer or person of significant control of CAFC according to companies house, it has been stated in court that panorama have beneficial and controlling interest of the shares in question and there is an unsigned and undated SPA which has not been executed (no consideration has changed hands and stock transfer not completed). What have I missed ......?
Also, in the public demain, that Farnell and Elliott have both said its done pending EFL approval, which they both now say is not the case?Of course with any luck this will be immaterial to CAFC if the temporary injunction expires next week with a rejected application for an appeal. Then with any luck by the time Elliot and Panorama slug this out in the full hearing CAFC could be owned by TS. Fingers still crossed for this outcome.1 -
There will be many, I'm sure, where a legally binding contract has not been fulfilled to avoid, on balance, a significantly worse outcome. Exactly the reasons why Judge Pearce found in PM's favour.Cafc43v3r said:
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......".
In those cases legal redress is damages for breach of contract rather than forcing the contract to be enacted.2 -
Whoever drew up the contract between LD & PM and whoever advised anyone to sign it, should be in court for professional negligence. It shouldn't be this difficult to work out if the terms of that contract have been met................ absolute shambles.7
-
I imagine you are thinking of planning inquiries and the like and agree with you that local authoity v property developer resources are often unbalanced. BUt this doesn't really apply in the Court of Appeal. In a planning inquiry, there will be lots of expert evidence (from planners, heritage experts, property valuers, environmental specialists etc). They often take a week or more to get through and require a lot if preparation from a lot of people. Court of Appeal hearings are limited to points of law and are usually for one or two days. There is no new factual evidence and no expert evidence. It is very much one barrister versus another, although solicitor support can be important.Covered End said:I'm slightly concerned that LD's QC & legal team will be working on this vigorously and could have a fair sized amount of people assisting.
I've attended cases where residents & the council have been up against property developers and their QC.
The QC's whilst usually outstanding also have so many people to assist them.
I am concerned as to who is providing our evidence.
Is it solely down to Lauren & MM?
Does Lauren have the time or is she working on other business (as you may well expect with this unexpected development).
I know some people have said that the level/quality of your legal team makes no difference, but this is clearly nonsense as otherwise everyone would appoint the cheapest representation.
Lauren has done an excellent job and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but I am concerned as to the resources that LD are throwing at this and I've seen for myself that some QCs can almost prove that black is actually white.3 -
Did Farnell write the contract? Did he expect to benefit from it?He was the club lawyer and a Director, did I hear that he was a Director of the company that he set up and then passed onto Elliott, a long term standing associate, to buy the club?If so, would any Judge want to be responsible for the loss of community assets and all that a football club stands for, only for it to be established that it all came about because of an unprofessional lawyer?11
This discussion has been closed.
