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
-
Gallen says that clubs lose out financially through lower television income if they are not successful, so detriment derives from continuation of embargo, as well as ST income, potential for redundancies, loss of reputation.1
-
If Gallen’s evidence saves us here then he’s become even more of a hero 🦸🏻♂️2
-
That's new isn't it? Thats implying that they have tried and failed.i_b_b_o_r_g said:LK: Gallen is correct that LD haven't been able to satisfy the EFL on source on sufficiency, contrary to Chaisty. Clear that PM will never do it, and as long as that continues these effects go on. Necessarily connected to financial situation.3 -
LK arguing that the ongoing nature of the dispute is itself a detriment. If injunction is granted both sides will be exposed to that loss.0
-
Why ain't the EFL been asked to outline thier view???7
- Sponsored links:
-
I appreciate that Kreamer admits that PM has faults in certain places, as in source of funds, yet Chaisty continues to state Elliott is perfect and has done nothing wrong.1
-
Probably have, I heard Jessica copy and pasted their reply.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Why ain't the EFL been asked to outline thier view???4 -
Kreamer now asked by LJ Lewison about liberty to apply if they have "an oven ready deal" to get the injunction lifted.0
-
LJ Lewison asks about liberty to vary any injunction if PK was "oven-ready" deal on table. LK says court already has evidence from Elliott on this point about press releases showing Thomas Sandgaard's intention to take over ESI.1
-
.0
-
Oh god not the oven ready deal8
-
Kreamer turns to Lex Dominus evidence from Sept 3 and press releases about Thomas Sandgaard. Mentions Sky reporting about how close a deal is.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Would they have even responded? Probably would have got 'we don't comment on ongoing club issues' if you heard back from them at all. Silence is their biggest weaponi_b_b_o_r_g said:Why ain't the EFL been asked to outline thier view???
2 -
How do we know they haven'tKentishAddick said:
It's a shame PM/CAFC couldn't put any evidence forward showing a deal with TS is close.i_b_b_o_r_g said:Kreamer now asked by LJ Lewison about liberty to apply if they have "an oven ready deal" to get the injunction lifted.0 -
My gut feeling is not a good one.6
-
She didn't use the words "oven ready deal" .......... My word0
-
“ LJ Lewison asks about liberty to vary any injunction if PK was "oven-ready" deal on table. LK says court already has evidence from Elliott on this point about press releases showing Thomas Sandgaard's intention to take over ESI.”Boom, evidence of imminent sale already offered. Do the judges have to notice that this contradicts Chaisty’s earlier points about no sale on the table?1
-
LK quoting Elliott's own evidence about against Chaisty's claim there is no evidence of imminen1
-
The injunction and this case itself is causing damages to the club and it's financial and sporting standing, for LD to suggest there is no evidence a sale is close when you have TS literally waiting in the wings is laughable3
-
It's a shame PM couldn't provide their own evidence that a deal with TS is close to being completed. Why are they relying on evidence from PE to support their claim?Covered End said:0
This discussion has been closed.
