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
-
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 23 -
*Wilshere2
-
PWR ... if he wins, will he be putting another £500k in to pay the wages each month? That £12m ain’t gonna last very long, is it0
-
tell Darren New please someone that a deal hasn't been done as it hasn't been announced or gone through yetdickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 25 -
Is that one of Elliottt's T's you've nicked?jacob_CAFC said:7 -
For balance, maybe so, I wouldn’t say mountains of evidence as there are holes in each of his statements. Chaisty provided an article in press before to say how close a deal is with Sandgaard, which is what swayed the original judge to allow an interim injunction. Now, they claim to have no evidence of a sale being close.Covered End said:Chaisty provided mountains of evidence.
Panorama provided some good evidence, some incorrect evidence and quoted Sky Sports news.
Why should they be allowed to use press releases as evidence and it be acceptable but when it done by PM, it’s unacceptable?11 -
This is the problem with the EFL. Their lack of transparency and accountability means that Chaisty could continually say there’s no evidence relating to Elliott causing the embargo, impending additional sanctions and/or the outcome of Elliott’s OADT appeal. If we had answers to these questions this case would be a slam dunk. They are causing this mess and then punishing us for being in itgolfaddick said:I think "our side" have been very poor imo. No criticism of LK (although surely its in her power to ask for more evidence) but wouldn't you go into bat with ;
A sworn statement by TS about the sale. NDA is rather irrelevant at this time I would think.
A statement from the EFL about where there are in relation to the OADT for both TS and PE, as well as source of funds etc.
Just seems rather amateurish.4 -
This. MM may have been a good or bad witness, but it was for the lawyer to decide what they needed to provide to the judge to swing the case our way.Vfrf said:We're slating Mihail rightly for piss poor evidence. But items such as a financials and deal stage - wouldn't that be for Lauren to say X Y and Z will help if you can provide it?1 - Sponsored links:
-
Agreed, it's astounding that we have had a trial and an appeal and there has been no concrete evidence as to whether there is a signed sale document.Cafc43v3r said: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.
Presumably, the judges have it submitted as evidence.
I think they said last time there was an unsigned agreement.3 -
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 20 -
Bear in mind that hopefully these judges will remember that their role today isn't to give LD another crack at getting the decision they want, but to rule on whether or not Judge Pearce arrived at a decision outside of his remit or the law as it should be applied. In that sense it doesn't matter really what they think of Marian, it matters what they think of Pearce's decision and its grounds. Ideally we'll get both some digs at PM and still the result we want
8 -
It felt strange that so little time was spent arguing the point on which Pearce decided the caseGarrymanilow said:Bear in mind that hopefully these judges will remember that their role today isn't to give LD another crack at getting the decision they want, but to rule on whether or not Judge Pearce arrived at a decision outside of his remit or the law as it should be applied. In that sense it doesn't matter really what they think of Marian, it matters what they think of Pearce's decision and its grounds. Ideally we'll get both some digs at PM and still the result we want0 -
Rejecting Elliott's appeal would have been massive though.ForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 2
The EFL are a scapegoat and get some unnecessary stick. But why they haven't heard his appeal when they knew the future of the club was reliant on it is an absolute joke.6 -
Cue the EFL sitting on their hands until NovemberForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 25 -
Got to remember this was an appeal Court, not a retrial, it would need the Appeal Court to overturn everything Judge Pearce stated for this Court to continue the ban of sale.Mal said:I think personally the outcome will be to allow the sale of the club to Thomas, but freezing the money until the November court date. Only sensible option to take.0 -
@KentishAddick you seem to find much of what I say funny. Care to have an adult debate on the situation we find ourselves in or put your opinion across on matters I comment on? Considering I only made a balanced view to what CE posted, and was not a dig, which I know he will appreciate.0
-
And if an injunctions granted?ForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 21 -
But that ship sailed 2 weeks ago. It was never going to change before today. If this does go to a full trial it would suicidal by PM to re submit it.ken_shabby said:
This. MM may have been a good or bad witness, but it was for the lawyer to decide what they needed to provide to the judge to swing the case our way.Vfrf said:We're slating Mihail rightly for piss poor evidence. But items such as a financials and deal stage - wouldn't that be for Lauren to say X Y and Z will help if you can provide it?0 - Sponsored links:
-
No, definitely 'Wilshere' (not Wiltshire or Wilshire!).jacob_CAFC said:0 -
I a surprised that Elliott was not asked to explain his consortium. At the moment his ‘company’ has no money so he is depending on his own money.2
-
Then TS either performs a miracle or walks.ValleyGary said:
And if an injunctions granted?ForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 20 -
if an injunction is granted I reckon they will sit on their hands until November. If it isn't then I expect things to move quickly and TS approved by the end of tomorrow latest, all imo of courseValleyGary said:
And if an injunctions granted?ForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 22 -
But would a potential sale agreement with Roland even be allowed into evidence as it is not with with either of the interested parties. And even if it could, would it breach whatever nda is in placeCovered End said:
Agreed, it's astounding that we have had a trial and an appeal and there has been no concrete evidence as to whether there is a signed sale document.Cafc43v3r said: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.
Presumably, the judges have it submitted as evidence.
I think they said last time there was an unsigned agreement.1 -
Remember this is only an appeal against judge Pearce’s decision to refuse the injunction. Hopefully these judges will back each other up and keep it a closed shop!1
-
I've said the same. If the consortium are the ones who are wanting to buy the club, why is it purely Elliott and not the consortium seeking the injunction.Redrobo said:I a surprised that Elliott was not asked to explain his consortium. At the moment his ‘company’ has no money so he is depending on his own money.
One reason could be that Elliott is going to add directors of LD at a later date. But if the consortium have a deal with PM to purchase the club, why aren't they all seeking the injunction. Very dodgy.2 -
"Our" side submitted no evidence that a sale is close.sam3110 said: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 laughable
"Our" evidence was it's on Sky Sports News, so it must be true.0 -
cafcfan1990 said:
Then TS either performs a miracle or walks.ValleyGary said:
And if an injunctions granted?ForeverAddickted said:
The EFL because they dont want to pass TS whilst all this court shit is ongoingValleyGary said:
So what’s the delay?dickplumb said:Darren New on Twitter
To me all of this is a charade both parties know that there has been a deal done with RD and TS it’s been all over Twitter for ten days , this is purely to see who picks up the costs of court case 1 and subsequently court case 2
think it would then put massive pressure on the EFL to act on passing TS.0 -
1
This discussion has been closed.
