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
-
Chaisty says this is an appropriate case for this court to look again and grant the injunction. Winds up.0
-
He's wound me up!i_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty says this is an appropriate case for this court to look again and grant the injunction. Winds up.
C'mon Lozza!5 -
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?golfaddick said:
That's the case in a nutshell.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.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.5 -
Christ. I enjoy a bit of vengeance but that scenario is far too much for me!golfaddick said: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.9 -
Is this the same NLA + TS who said the deal would be announced already?Covered End said:NLA says don't know why everyone worried as TS says court case has no bearing.7 -
Important to us but not relevant to the court or indeed the EFLgolfaddick said:
I hope Kreamer has a quote from Bowyer.....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.
" 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"1 -
Lauren Kreamer (LK) on now.2
-
Covered End said:NLA says don't know why everyone worried as TS says court case has no bearing.
NLA should talk and listen to Lee Bowyer.5 -
golfaddick said: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.
no....that's an unaffordable price we, the fans, would all have to pay. It can't go down that route.4 -
Sponsored links:
-
My thoughts exactly, eloquently explained!randy andy said:
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?golfaddick said:
That's the case in a nutshell.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.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.0 -
CMON KREAMER6
-
I'm not overly worried, useual repeating delaying tactics from ld0
-
Chaisty is heavily attacking the weight of thought given to the lack of evidence of us potentially hitting troubles if an injuction is placed, however surely that should be balanced by him providing proof that it will not? The injunction certainly does not have any positive effects on the club nor community and it has POTENTIAL negatives.
Half-time oranges anyone?
0 -
COME on LAUREN !!!!!0
-
Always going to be tough to listen to the LD case, but the one, somewhat optimistic, thing that I would say is that there does not appear to be any new bombshell here. Hopefully this means that all the counter-arguments are ready to go.
6 -
LK quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Well, Chaisty's only spoken for about half the time he did last time. Perhaps I won't be up until 1am again!
7 -
What does that mean2
-
So just what was LD's case for appeal then? - Other than repeating that Pearce was wrong in denying the injunction?5
-
To put it another way, his only concern is Paul Elliott. Should Elliott's presence at Charlton cause the demise of the club, as it may given he still hasn't paid his pound or passed the ODT test, this is of no concern to the court.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Now that is a fuckin Wronguni_b_b_o_r_g said:Chaisty now summarizing. Says factors around Charlton’s impact on the community was given “undue weight” #cafc
I hope our side point out that this point of view is precisely why Elliott shuld be nowhere near ownership of a football club, or recieve compensation once he gets removed. Guy is a Leach, and his lawyer defends that position.
2 -
Basically, neither solution are perfect so we should stick with the one that’s been decided unless there is an extremely good reason to change it?i_b_b_o_r_g said:LK quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.7 -
There is a distinct lack of evidence from both sides the whole thing sounds like it's based on rumour and innuendo. There is either a valid sales document. Or there isn't.4
-
The function of appellant court is not to exercise its own discretion just on the basis that current judges would have exercised their discretion differently, says LK.3
-
Chaisty already said, the clubs expulsion doesnt matter as LD are still interested in the commercial aspect. I take that as meaning "Paul Elliot doesn't care if charlton get thrown out of the football league as he thinks he can knock down the stadium and build some flats, and sell off the silverware, or hold the club ransom to a serious buyer which is the most important thing"randy andy said:
Chaisty is surely making an error here. CAFC aren't a third party, they are the primary and only asset of PM. If the judges are forced to ignore the club, then maybe they should ask Chaisty what else about PM it is they want to buy? If the club is such an irrelevance, then what else about PM is so desirable that an injunction against it's sale is necessary?golfaddick said:
That's the case in a nutshell.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.
Doesnt matter about what's owned by ESI (the club) just who owns it.
2 -
It means an appeal court cannot reopen the entire situation and start again - it is assessing the appropriateness and reasonableness of the original judgment, not the whole matter.mattinfinland said:What does that mean6
This discussion has been closed.
