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
-
No I think it's Panorama mateozaddick said:
Panamera I guessed.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
0 -
I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
No I think it's Panorama mateozaddick said:
Panamera I guessed.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.13 -
Sorry to hear that.ozaddick said:
I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
No I think it's Panorama mateozaddick said:
Panamera I guessed.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.12 -
cafcfan1990 said:
Boriscarly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
3 -
The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
1 -
He was too busy tweeting his naive fans who were lapping it up.Gary Poole said:
The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.
Ooh let's keep MM if TS takes over, he's such a great bloke.
It doesn't matter that he's part of a massive fraud and he's not qualified in the UK.
We want the Romanian lawyer to stay at CAFC, because he's a great tweeter.16 -
From what we heard yesterday, it must have been ElliottRedrobo said:
Exactly. We know who would have paid.Alwaysneil said:Once had lunch with Farnell May well work in our favour 😂0 -
Dad...??? 🤗Redrobo said:
Sorry to hear that.ozaddick said:
I’m from St Mary’s Cray, it’s lucky I can even write!i_b_b_o_r_g said:
No I think it's Panorama mateozaddick said:
Panamera I guessed.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.7 -
So he claims itvis an admin error. Why did EFL say itvis down to the club to REMOVE Farnell and Elliott? That was unprecedent plus with all that fantastic knowledge that Farnell has when dealingvwith Bury could not provide the so called correct information.1
-
I was very elated Tuesday night, angry Weds and extremly angemry Thurs night. However, having seen the ES article I have relaxed thinkingbif it goes to trial our barrister can show thatvin court and rip that article tovshreds. Full of holes. He hasn't passed the test. Did not attempt to get it resolved. 3 months on? He can't satisfy that his source can provide the money. This is his only communication ever since in his own head "he has bought the club". Hasn't paid the sale price at all. Why not? Oh yeah because if it goes tits up he is liable for the debt etc. TS has shown more interest into CAFC than he ever will and is keen to get a deal done. Why has PE done this considering he had 1st dibs?1
- Sponsored links:
-
And another thing... why is he so keen to "reach out and listen to ideas and investment from TS?" We all know why.2
-
Paul McCartney.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.1 -
'The mist rolling in from the Thames my desire, Is always to be found at Valley Floyd Road' 😉SoundAsa£ said:
Paul McCartney.carly burn said:
Who's PM?Dazzler21 said:
Not ours, but Nimer's and for me that says he wants PM to win so TN gets a payday from TS.ozaddick said:
That concerned me. I’ve no basis on this, purely my thoughts, but MM cocking up like that could of seriously dented our case. Are we sure he’s on ‘our’ side?mendonca said:MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.
There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.1 -
"I want to make Charlton Athletic great again"Scoham said:
Next we'll have red baseball caps with MCGA slapped on the front.
Elliottttt and co have no idea what our club stands for.0 -
Has chaistys insistence on using media reports to make his claim in court not opened a can of worms for his clients.
Sounds like fair game now.
Would hate for the long list of past wrong doings of Elliott and Farnell to come up in the appeal.6 -
Well, I’ve known him for more than 20 years and you're completely wrong.Bedsaddick said:I might be out of order saying this but I have a feeling Cawley enjoys seeing us suffer .65 -
Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. Moreover debt - or something at any rate - is secured by a charge in favour of RD over CAFC Limited, not ESI.
On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.25 -
Thanks for clearing that up. 🤪Airman Brown said:Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations.
On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.8 -
Absolutely. No way that RD's lawyers would have permitted such a simple evasion of ESI's liability.Airman Brown said:Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations.
On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.
Bizarre to see Bob Whitehand (one of the ex-Ds who, as we know, had been planning their own injunction to void RD's sale to ESI) wonder in a tweet the other day why ESI simply didn't sell CAFC.
Not that it matters to the price of fish.0 - Sponsored links:
-
It's hardly surprising that there's confusion when you get official statements like this from Nimer in JuneAirman Brown said:Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. Moreover debt - or something at any rate - is secured by a charge in favour of RD over CAFC Limited, not ESI.
On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is."You will all be aware of recent boardroom events which, this this announcement, we can now put behind us.
"I have made the difficult decision, having received advice and listened to fans' wishes, to hand the club over to a consortium that will have sufficient time and be in a position to take the club forward."
With the website changing ownership to PE and co.
The court case in November will be fascinating (as long as we're just bystanders)4 -
Like the Jeremy Kyle of corperate lawsuits3
-
Ultimately, another week shouldn't be a big deal. Given the decision has been made, the chances of undermining the authority of the judge via the appeal has very little chance of success from what I can gather. So rather than us having to wait until November, we have to wait until Wednesday. And of course, the club still has to be sold. If it is sold say on Thursday or Friday next week, the delay surely hasn't even been a delay.2
-
Airman Brown said:Leaving aside what a court might make of it, under the interim injunction, ESI can’t sell CAFC in my opinion because it would retain obligations to Duchatelet without control of the entity that triggers them, for example status payments, tenancy and the famous guarantee. I believe the deal would have been put together by Teacher Stern in that way precisely to stop ESI moving CAFC Limited out of its purview to avoid the obligations. Moreover debt - or something at any rate - is secured by a charge in favour of RD over CAFC Limited, not ESI.
On the other hand everything about the Panorama-Lex Dominus contract appears to be a shambles. The EFL and the parties interpret its meaning differently (and the same party differently when it suits it), it references the share capital of CAFC Limited rather than ESI, it is incomplete. It seems likely it would fall apart in any trial but the trial isn’t the point. The injunction is.Now that the steam has stopped coming out of my ears, going back to the open letter, it definitely looks like Elliott is under the impression he's just buying the club from ESI, not buying ESI itself:It is my argument, and that of the barrister that drafted it, that we have a legally binding agreement that only permits my company, Lex Dominus, to acquire Charlton Athletic Football Club from ESI.Doesn't that mean all those issues that @Airman Brown outlines up there about why ESI can't sell the club to subvert the injunction, also apply to the sale agreement he thinks he has, at any time, injunction or not? Has he been an idiot and not understood what he's trying to buy, or tried to pull a fast one and instead accidentally brought Roland into the scope of the case because the sale affects those agreements? Or do those obligations fall on ESI as the selling party?Why is this all soo bloody complicated?7 -
Not unless you count Bowyer not being allowed to get bodies in before the season starts?MuttleyCAFC said:Ultimately, another week shouldn't be a big deal. Given the decision has been made, the chances of undermining the authority of the judge via the appeal has very little chance of success from what I can gather. So rather than us having to wait until November, we have to wait until Wednesday. And of course, the club still has to be sold. If it is sold say on Thursday or Friday next week, the delay surely hasn't even been a delay.
This is already having an effect. Elliott will be doing all he can to slow things down now. Expect this appeal to be lodged at the last possible moment. That gives him more time for the fan base to give him pelters and improve his chances.
He told us he lodged his appeal to the EFL within hours of being rejected. Why the delay now?0 -
Reflecting on a point made by Judge Pearce on the question of the location of the Nov trial, although LK's request for a transfer to London was declined, the Judge did say (and this was after Chaisty QC had had his major kvetch about abuse from CAFC fans) that a point that, in normal times, would be materially in favour of a move to London would be the public's ability to physically attend the hearing and that he would, in such times, have taken into account the legitimate interest of CAFC fans in witnessing the proceedings first hand.
i.e. he clearly understands that this matter is about the future of CAFC and not solely about the narrow factual case for LD vs PM.
Doesn't change anything now that the CoA is the focus of attention but, though the decision on Wed wasn't ideal from our perspective, any thought that Judge Pearce, as a result of Chaisty's arguments and moaning, was any less able or inclined to see the wood for the trees is misplaced, I think.
13 -
They can lodge the appeal super late, just means the temp injunction will lapse, and the likelihood of Pearce allowing an extension, sounded vanishingly small5
-
So if by some remote chance they lodged an appeal now how quickly would it be heard?Rothko said:They can lodge the appeal super late, just means the temp injunction will lapse, and the likelihood of Pearce allowing an extension, sounded vanishingly small0 -
Just hope Thomas and Freshfields are working hard behind the scenes to tie deal up once the temporary injunction lapses.5
-
Yes, ideally we would want the club sold now for the reason you have stated. What I said was that if the club isn't sold immediately after the appeal is ruled out, there hasn't been a delay.0
This discussion has been closed.
