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 briefly considered studying Law at university and this thread makes me so glad I didn’t.17
-
I know LK still has to give her side of things but this isn't looking good to me5
-
Chaisty says there’s no evidence that the club is under any sanctions due to the actions of his client. The embargoes were in place well before my client “came onto the scene”. #cafc1
-
Didnt look good at the start of the first hearingKentishAddick said:I know LK still has to give her side of things but this isn't looking good to me5 -
I know it's early but feels like it'll be MM that fucks us again.5
-
sillav nitram said:
I’ve already said that so any LOL you get automatically transfer to me, don’t do it again!Solidgone said:
Do away goals count as double?soapboxsam said:ValleyGary said:How likely are two judges going to overturn a decision already made by a judge?
It will be 1-1 which should go in favour of Judge Pearce's original decision.
I feel really nervous.
0 -
Lack of transparency from EFL?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty says there’s no evidence that the club is under any sanctions due to the actions of his client. The embargoes were in place well before my client “came onto the scene”. #cafc2 - Sponsored links:
-
Very true my friendForeverAddickted said:
Didnt look good at the start of the first hearingKentishAddick said:I know LK still has to give her side of things but this isn't looking good to me3 -
Mihail evidence says EFL disciplinary proceedings include Elliott's action, Chaisty says no evidence for that. Embargoes in place before Elliott appeared. Hard embargo in place since April.0
-
4 -
Yeah......I thought the while point was that Judges were impartial. But then again, all part of the old boys club.RedRyan said:
Don’t like this LJ seemingly agreeing with Chaistyi_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis. Chaisty says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.3 -
Im too scared to step away from this thread in fear of never,ever catching up with it.3
-
The judges are focusing on MM statement at the moment, because that was the main part of LD case by th esounds of it0
-
No evidence put forward that EFL embargo will change if the injunction refused, says Chaisty. Mihail suggests club will be expelled if Elliott owns club but cannot be a relevant person under EFL rules. Chaisty says this ignores commercial position for LD.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Only statement re third party is that Nimer remains committed to finding a buyer. Court unable to find evidence from Mihail that ESI would suffer any harm from injunction, says Chaisty.0
-
Nope. Not unless she can show clear evidence that there's danger to the club, which they clearly haven't got.KentishAddick said:I know LK still has to give her side of things but this isn't looking good to me2 -
“No evidence put forward that EFL embargo will change if the injunction refused, says Chaisty. Mihail suggests club will be expelled if Elliott owns club but cannot be a relevant person under EFL rules. Chaisty says this ignores commercial position for LD.“
wasn’t the evidence of an imminent sale the reason we had to have the short term injunction in place? And now there’s no evidence that things will change - when a sale taking place would stop the embargo. Slimy flip flopping fucker.2 -
Feels like we are 2-0 down with 15 mins gone. The trouble is, I am not sure we have enough fire power to claw that back.
2 -
Chaisty outlining Gallen's job. "He was not, and was only for a short time, a director in a legal sense.130
-
Au contraire Mr Chastity neither has your client managed to get the sanction lifted 😈.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty says there’s no evidence that the club is under any sanctions due to the actions of his client. The embargoes were in place well before my client “came onto the scene”. #cafc0
This discussion has been closed.
