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)

1…133134136138139…175

Comments

  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    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.

    Ooh, that sounds positive for us: 1-2 now?
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Chaisty says this isn’t a “public interest case” in the broad sense of the term. #cafc
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,347
    Not a public interest case!! How fcking dare he
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Chaisty says Pearce has unreasonably included some risk of consequences to third party (CAFC) and balanced that against interests of applicant, which is not the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • randy andy
    randy andy Posts: 5,454
    LargeAddick said:
    i_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."
    he has a point there imo
    PE claims to have bought the club at the start of June, we're now in mid-September. I don't see how that doesn't qualify as several months. To claim Gallen is confused when PE has had over 3 months to pass tests that TS has passed in less than 1 is ridiculous.

    I'm hoping the judges are seeing through the delaying plans. They've already suggested freezing an sales revenue to protect LD and Chaisty's answer was far from convincing, more of a "but but but but" than a solid argument against freezing sale proceeds.
  • BigRedEvil
    BigRedEvil Posts: 11,070
    I have an inkling this will go in our favour based on what's been said so far 
  • Sponsored links:



  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,490
    Chunes said:
    ValleyGary said:
    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.
    I don’t understand what this means?
    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.
    This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
  • MattF
    MattF Posts: 3,797
    Chunes said:
    Not a public interest case!! How fcking dare he
    Someone will hopefully point out the attendance at the original hearing
  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,484
    Is it just me that isn't seeing posts from @Covered End? Normally tweets appear no problem. 
  • Dizzle
    Dizzle Posts: 5,190
    And the crowd chants “Chaisty, you’re a c*nt, chaisty chaisty you’re a c*nt”
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,623
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    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.
    I hope Kreamer has a quote from Bowyer.....

    " if a sale doesn't go ahead & the embargo lifted by the start of October then the team will not be strong enough to stay up.....and I'll be leaving"
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Chaisty: Even if there equality of harm, Judge Pearce did not consider the status quo properly. Hasn't been a sale of shares, asking for an injunction, happy to have a speedy trial and strength of claim was not considered at all in the balance of convenience.
  • RedRyan
    RedRyan Posts: 911
    “ Chaisty says Pearce has unreasonably included some risk of consequences to third party (CAFC) and balanced that against interests of applicant, which is not the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.”

    Right, but if CAFC is not relevant than it shouldn’t matter about a sale of the club going through. If their only interest is in PM, then they’re interested in buying the shell regardless. Or intending to indulge damaging the thing they’re trying to buy. Which makes it very clear they’re not interested in running the club (the argument they made in court case 1) but in selling it. This was why they didn’t accept solutions proposed in earlier case about money being put aside.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989


    You lying bastard! 
  • stoneroses19
    stoneroses19 Posts: 7,218
    I understand Chaisty is with LD, but I find it concerning all of his comments are about what’s good for LD only, there’s never any mention of what’s good for the club. 

    I hope this is where he’s slipped up, and todays judges will see the bigger picture. This is about saving a community asset, but keeping a company like LD afloat in the future. 
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
  • Sponsored links:



  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    Jints said:
    Chunes said:
    ValleyGary said:
    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.
    I don’t understand what this means?
    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.
    This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
    And with good reason I would say
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,623
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    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.
    That's the case in a nutshell. 

    Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,490
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Jints said:
    Chunes said:
    ValleyGary said:
    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.
    I don’t understand what this means?
    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.
    This has always seemed to be to be the cornerstone of their argument
    And with good reason I would say
    Yep, it's surely their strongest point. 
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    Chaisty now summarizing. Says factors around Charlton’s impact on the community was given “undue weight” #cafc
  • meldrew66
    meldrew66 Posts: 2,561
    stoneroses19 said:
    I understand Chaisty is with LD, but I find it concerning all of his comments are about what’s good for LD only, there’s never any mention of what’s good for the club. 

    I hope this is where he’s slipped up, and todays judges will see the bigger picture. This is about saving a community asset, but keeping a company like LD afloat in the future. 

    I see where you are coming from but, unfortunately, this is a corporate law case for the judges to rule over. I don't think community comes into it, unfortunately for us.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
    edited September 2020
    NLA says don't know why everyone worried as TS says court case has no bearing. 
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Chaisty now summarizing. Says factors around Charlton’s impact on the community was given “undue weight” #cafc
    Now that is a fuckin Wrongun
  • i_b_b_o_r_g
    i_b_b_o_r_g Posts: 18,948

    Pearce did not take account of £500k put in by Elliott in June, says Chaisty. Ruling outside reasonable disagreement, factors including fate of #CAFC given unreasonable weight, failure to consider absence of evidence on key points from Mihail.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,623
    Part of me hopes that LD does win, wins their case in November, Sangaard pisses off & Elliott ends up owning the club.

    Because then he'll find out what real vengeance is. So will the EFL.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 51,989
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”