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 know there’s been a lot of EFL bashing and defending over the TS takeover. But their real failure is the fact they’ve not handled the PE appeal. It’s really biting us on the arse I think.11
-
Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.0
-
And this should be the first thing that Lauren Kreamer says when its her turn. That there IS a serious buyer in place & he has passed all the tests.ForeverAddickted said:So Sandgaard has sorted out source of funds with the EFL and is just waiting for the ODAT
LD havent bothered sorting out the source of funds as they cant pass the first... Organised bunch arent they
All the rest is just flim flam.
3 -
A good analogy as cricket is a better simile than football. Each side has a go and you don't know how well it's going until both teams have battedAddicktion said:Saw a tweet that said to think of this like a game of cricket, they may be doing well now but we have to wait for Kreamer to step up and hit a few of her own 6's
0 -
Chaisty: We simply don’t know what kind of deals will be struck. #cafc0
- Sponsored links:
-
LJ Lewison suggets proceeds of sale could be frozen to protect LD's interest. Chaisty says hypothetical and we don't know what deals might be struck, including independently with Nimer, by which funds might be channeled.0
-
Exactly this. The efl have fucked us over. They should have heard elliotttts appeal weeks ago. Not fit for any purpose. Useless fucksRedRyan said:I know there’s been a lot of EFL bashing and defending over the TS takeover. But their real failure is the fact they’ve not handled the PE appeal. It’s really biting us on the arse I think.2 -
Chaisty: over-emphasis on seriousness of consequences, not to Panorama but to the club, but no evidence as to the likelihood of those consequences coming about.0
-
I don’t understand what this means?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.0 -
A motive for Farnelliott?i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison suggets proceeds of sale could be frozen to protect LD's interest. Chaisty says hypothetical and we don't know what deals might be struck, including independently with Nimer, by which funds might be channeled.0 -
Covered End said:
Doesnt this admit to LD/ Elliott not caring about the running of the club, something which he was quick to talk up in that shoddy press release about "making Charlton great again"? Surely that admission to not wanting the business for it's main purpose has to be considered, if not by the courts then at least the EFL.
0 -
Chaisty: over-emphasis on seriousness of consequences, not to Panorama but to the club, but no evidence as to the likelihood of those consequences coming about.0
- Sponsored links:
-
he has a point there imoi_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison making clear that EFL embargo is down to ESI not passing the governing body's criteria. Chaisty - source and sufficiency of funding for PE has not been dealt with yet. "Mr Gallen is confusing my client with ESI when he says they've had seven months to provide EFL."1 -
LJL coming in with a viable solution.
And Chaisty dismisses it immediately because...?1 -
That would be fantastic! Freeze the sale funds. Chaisty saying a deal could be done essentially illegally, very disrespectful to a man of Sandgaards's standing. He's treating him like he's Elliott or Southall.4
-
Pearce acknowledged that consequences might have been overstated, but has to be at least some risk that what Mihail says is correct, says Chaisty. So what? Lewison intervenes to say this finding is about damages, not balance of convenience.0
-
Yes, in LD's defence, the embargo was placed long before Elliott came on the scene. Nimer and Southall didn't fail the Directors test mind.0
-
Because it benefits the football teamRedRyan said:LJL coming in with a viable solution.
And Chaisty dismisses it immediately because...?
Elliott wants the opposite of that1 -
Unless an injunction is granted stopping a sale, Lex Dominus will be suing Panorama who will effectively have no assets, and so won't even bother attending the trial.ValleyGary said:
I don’t understand what this means?i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.3 -
Chaisty notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.0
This discussion has been closed.
