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
-
If it ends up with a freezing of sale proceeds I’m not sure I can see TN going with that - too much uncertainty.0
-
Doesn't all this put to bed the idea that CAFC reverted back to Roland by default.
LK would have had to stated that, if it were the case.5 -
IF it's already agreed and signed with TS he won't have a choice.charente addick said:If it ends up with a freezing of sale proceeds I’m not sure I can see TN going with that - too much uncertainty.3 -
LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce was relying on Mihail's hypothesis which is not what the court should be looking at. LK submits that Pearce does refer to the consequences of an injunction being granted, not simply the outcome of a later trial.1
-
"Our evidence was shit, the judge knew that, and we still won"RedRyan said:
Thought this was a ballsy statement!i_b_b_o_r_g said:LK: court invited to reject proposition that Judge Pearce did not weigh extent to which he found MM's evidence deficient. Clear he did.
14 -
I think it means that, in assessing the financial damage done to the club by extending the injunction, they wouldn't actually count lost revenues (eg TV) but rather look to assess the reduction in value of the club as a whole. What it MIGHT have been worth compared to what it IS worth.Arsenetatters said:i_b_b_o_r_g said:LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.is that good?ive absolutely no idea what this all means yet im avidly following
I don't realistically see how that could be assessed though.2 -
If rumours are to be believed, i.e. that TN just wants rid and was willing to sell to PE for £1 then I can't see why TN wouldn't go with proceeds being frozen. It gets him out now and I doubt he'll even contest the case in November. TN wants out, and he wants out ASAP. He's fighting this case because it prevents him getting out. If freezing proceeds gets him out now then I think he'll jump at it.charente addick said:If it ends up with a freezing of sale proceeds I’m not sure I can see TN going with that - too much uncertainty.3 -
What the hell does that mean1
-
Sponsored links:
-
We’re in trouble here I think0
-
Why does it feel like every time I see a quote from one of the judges it favours LD.
Maybe just conditioned to bad news and it's all in my head.
Also, the problem with following via twitter and not actually watching you don't know the tone/context in which the judges are asking these questions or their body language.7 -
LK on nature of agreement: while consideration of only £1, buyer was also taking in liabilities in excess of £50m, via the January SPA.3
-
LK: significant liabilities in respect of which personal guarantees have been given by both the respondent and CAFC. So PM and club stands to lose a lot more if a willing buyer is lost. LJ Lewison didn't know about these liabilities. All new to him, he says.0
-
carly burn said:
At last. I made this point after the last court appearance.Covered End said:
I hope you said 500k not £500 !0 -
Once again Panorama have not submitted evidence.7 -
Sponsored links:
-
Anyone fancy a pint?
11 -
I think we all need to appreciate the judges ask questions to clarify the position of the parties, not because the are pre-judging anything. They'll raise a question about a key subject simply to get the barrister to state clearly their argument and any evidence for it.12
-
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:8 -
LJ Lewison says that he would have liked notice of these points. LK says that it shows CAFC as first guarantor and PM as second guarantor for these substantial amounts.1
-
It felt like that in the original hearing too tbf. Surely these judges are aware Judge Pearce basically rubbished MMs evidence so it has to be wrong for LD to use that. It harmed us rather than helped us.
What sticks in my throat is we have two crooks here fighting each other. The club is a community asset and surely is far more important than dishonest chancers. I think Judge Pearce saw the real danger and understood that.4 -
Yeah, that’s a good point. I think sitting here reading the tweets, the judges comments can come across overly negative, whereas they’re actually attempting to clarify a point.randy andy said:I think we all need to appreciate the judges ask questions to clarify the position of the parties, not because the are pre-judging anything. They'll raise a question about a key subject simply to get the barrister to state clearly their argument and any evidence for it.0 -
Doesn't sound like PM have submitted any evidence at all, I thought we were going to here this week how TN had saved the club0
-
The fact the ain't following the other party up can be seen as positive imo, as they are more thoroughly assessing LK argumentsrandy andy said:I think we all need to appreciate the judges ask questions to clarify the position of the parties, not because the are pre-judging anything. They'll raise a question about a key subject simply to get the barrister to state clearly their argument and any evidence for it.0 -
The lack of key evidence, again.... Why?0
-
IF PM hasn't submitted that evidence of liabilities but knew they were going to bring it up, we deserve to lose.
That sort of incompetence makes me wonder how some people become Lawyers3
This discussion has been closed.