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
-
It certainly seems that crucial information hasn't been included in the submissions, for one reason or anotherKentishAddick said:
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:1 -
All this cloak and dagger NDA shit is pissing me off. Be open - we have a buyer lined up - he will take the £50m liabilities - an injunction threatens it.
Job done.
But instead almost all of the above is on hearsay!5 -
Several...Arsenetatters said:Anyone fancy a pint?5 -
Both are wronguns the judges know thatkillerandflash said:
It certainly seems that crucial information hasn't been included in the submissions, for one reason or anotherKentishAddick said:
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:
1 -
I don't get it. Surely it's fairly basic to provide evidence to back up what you're saying?ElliotCAFC said: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 Lawyers0 -
Yet LD today are pushing with the notion that CAFC are a third party to this case.i_b_b_o_r_g said: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.0 -
LK: £1.7m or more due depending on net property valuation and deferred contingent payments on status.1 -
That’s how I felt all through the first case, and then “we” won.KentishAddick said:
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:0 -
Neither have LD, I am surprised they haven't both been laughed out tbhKentishAddick said:
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:2 - Sponsored links:
-
I don't remember the £50m SL/Valley payment coming up in the original trial as evidence or even a mention without evidence so presumably they (the CoA) can't allow that to sway their decision on Judge Pearce's original decision. But then I'm an IKN (I know nothing - not a typo).i_b_b_o_r_g said: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.
This is gripping and nice to not have the swearing over Teams this time.0 -
But Nimer sent a message last week saying how we would all be hearing this week how he had saved the club... I guess he did that by submitting NO evidence and leaving LK fighting alone.4
-
Panorama have either submitted a lack of evidence or incorrect evidence on too many occasions.3
-
Just shows how shit both companies are. Somehow the club is caught in the middleCafc43v3r said:
Neither have LD, I am surprised they haven't both been laughed out tbhKentishAddick said:
I really don't feel like PM/CAFC have put forward good enough evidence to support our case.Covered End said:4 -
The Panorama evidence has been an absolute shambles from start to finish. Anyone who thinks Marian Mihail is not towards the top of the current league table of CAFC culpability is crackers.12
-
Or at least a rebuttal of the claims that PE has put in £500K to help keep the club running. If that’s actually true, and it seems it is, wouldn’t it actually be fairer for LD to receive the money from the sale rather than PM?MattF said: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 club1 -
My nerves are shredded beyond belief right now....2
-
1
-
He's a Romanian lawyer.ElliotCAFC said: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 Lawyers
Probably got his papers from 'Futurelearn'0 - Sponsored links:
-
PM/MM have done us no favours in either of the court cases. They've left LK to make claims without any evidence to back them up. Absolute fucking joke.7
-
LJ Lewison says that LD offering to indemnify PM against these liabilities. LJ Males says that these are repeated in the June SPA. LK says her point os that this is about more than the purchase of something for £1.2
-
Would rather PM win this but I still think TS has something up his sleeve2
-
PM have been absolute shite. No disrespect to Lauren intended but I expected more, particularly around the sale to TS. However, I've seen nothing from LD that suggests the decision from Judge Pearce should be overturned.2
-
I’m confused why the judge is saying this is the first he’s heard of any liabilities due to the club purchase. Surely he realises the club and its full content isn’t actually only worth a pound.7
-
Surely its not up to PM though to provide much more evidence
The issue is LD proving that the decision Judge Pearce made was wrong and they've not exactly provided much further evidence themselves13 -
LK asks court to reject submission that it is a certainty that refusal to grant an injunction will deny the applicant any damages. Not a basis on which to overturn the first instance decision.3
-
Maybe because PM couldn't be bothered to provide evidence?stoneroses19 said:I’m confused why the judge is saying this is the first he’s heard of any liabilities due to the club purchase. Surely he realises the club and its full content isn’t actually only worth a pound.0 -
Give me the nervous tension of a football match over this any day!7
This discussion has been closed.
