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
-
and why didn't LK point out that having 12m is all well and good but it won't let him pass the EFL tests and subsequently get their approval.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.1 -
Despite MM and PM shit show of evidence , I still don't see major reasoning to change the original verdict, I'm predicting this will absolutely fine.1
-
I think the opposite. If there is an injunction preventing PM from selling the club, how could the EFL possibly say TS is free to take over the club. They will shit themselves and prevent TS from taking over (and actually rightly so).roseandcrown said: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.
For me, I don't blame them for not passing TS given the court case. I absolutely blame them for sitting on their arse and letting it get this far when they've already rejected Elliott once.2 -
A deal is no good if EFL won’t approve him until this is over0
-
Wouldn't it have made sense for any NDA to have been torn up coming into this? LK could've just said here you go, contract signed and ready to go. I'm sure someone can explain why but I don't get the need for secrecy at this point.0
-
But then they are saying that teh TS deal with Roland is not legal or prevent this. Surely that would open them up for legal action form TS and RD not to mention the media shit storm it would case.cafcfan1990 said:
I think the opposite. If there is an injunction preventing PM from selling the club, how could the EFL possibly say TS is free to take over the club. They will shit themselves and prevent TS from taking over (and actually rightly so).roseandcrown said: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.
For me, I don't blame them for not passing TS given the court case. I absolutely blame them for sitting on their arse and letting it get this far when they've already rejected Elliott once.0 -
if that deal is legal. We don't know yet so I'm not saying either way, but the lack of information on it is concerning.roseandcrown said:
But then they are saying that teh TS deal with Roland is not legal. Surely that would open them up for legal action form TS and RD not to mention the media shit storm it would case.cafcfan1990 said:
I think the opposite. If there is an injunction preventing PM from selling the club, how could the EFL possibly say TS is free to take over the club. They will shit themselves and prevent TS from taking over (and actually rightly so).roseandcrown said: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.
For me, I don't blame them for not passing TS given the court case. I absolutely blame them for sitting on their arse and letting it get this far when they've already rejected Elliott once.0 -
Both parties here have "dirty hands", hence MM has been coy about giving the full facts and Chaisty has been able to make assertions that we (and anyone vaguely knowledgeable about football) know to be utter tosh. LK has done her best to challenge them but the verdict has to be in the balance right now.
Judge Pearce had both the gumption and balls to look beyond the sparse evidence and do the right thing in his assessment of balance of convenience.
If LD obtains the injunction until the trial, it will be because the Appeal Judges haven't be given the full picture in the evidence and don't appear to have either of those qualities.
Yet this would all be redundant and LD would not have a leg to stand on if the EFL had grown some and announced, at any time prior to 10.30am today, that PE's OADT appeal was denied.
They bear not sole but nonetheless much responsibility for the consequences.7 -
PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?
0 -
If you 100% trust Sandgaard on that then nosillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
THIS 10000%PeanutsMolloy said:Both parties here have "dirty hands", hence MM has been coy about giving the full facts and Chaisty has been able to make assertions that we (and anyone vaguely knowledgeable about football) knows to be utter tosh.
Judge Pearce had both the gumption and balls to look beyond the sparse evidence and do the right thing in his assessment of balance of convenience.
If LD obtains the injunction until the trial, it will be because the Appeal Judges haven't be given the full picture and don't appear to have either of those qualities.
Yet this would all be redundant and LD would not have a leg to stand on if the EFL had grown some and announced, at any time prior to 10.30am today, that PE's OADT appeal was denied.5 -
Maybe the EFL believe it does matter what the Judges decide.sillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?1 -
A huge thank you to @i_b_b_o_r_g for not only copying all the tweets here, but pasting the actual text too, an absolute godsend for those of us that can't access twitter.10
-
Is he though? He’s hardly going to be panicking online for all to seesillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?2 -
I am from the school of thought that if the above was true then the deal would have already been done …………..cant wait to be proved wrong.sillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?
1 -
Elliotts appeal to the EFL has been with them for weeks. This on an admin error!
As far as we know they have not responded.....or have they??2 -
I think Sandgaard is just a naturally confident individual, and usually operates in the US where a can-do attitude is much more expected than it is here. Also, he has no prior experience of dealing with the shambles that is the EFL, so I'm not putting much weight on his confidence here.sillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?
5 -
Well their approach is that they dont comment on individualscarly burn said:Elliotts appeal to the EFL has been with them for weeks. This on an admin error!
As far as we know they have not responded.....or have they??
So they may well have rejected Elliott already
He and Chaisty may well know that but they're keeping quiet as dont want it to count against them in court0 -
What if the EFL have come to the conclusion that Elliott's appeal against his rejection under OADT should be upheld, they just haven't announced it yet? In that case I suppose I could see them watching this intently, sitting on both the appeal outcome and the approval on Sandgaard for fear that they could be sued for not approving Elliott as owner. If the injunction is rejected then the EFL have a court outcome saying essentially that it's fine to move the club around, their hands are clean and Elliott's appeal outcome is essentially meaningless, if not then they fear getting embroiled in a legal dispute by allowing Sandgaard to take over when under their rules Elliott should have been accepted as a valid owner.sillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
But would the club, CAFC, not have to be notified as it affects them?ForeverAddickted said:
Well their approach is that they dont comment on individualscarly burn said:Elliotts appeal to the EFL has been with them for weeks. This on an admin error!
As far as we know they have not responded.....or have they??
So they may well have rejected Elliott already
He and Chaisty may well know that but they're keeping quiet as dont want it to count against them in court1 -
Maybe they have passed him now. Has anyone considered that as a possibility? He was saying that he failed the first time due to an administrative 'technicality' so it's possibly in our favour that him now passing the OADT has not been made public.PeanutsMolloy said:Both parties here have "dirty hands", hence MM has been coy about giving the full facts and Chaisty has been able to make assertions that we (and anyone vaguely knowledgeable about football) know to be utter tosh. LK has done her best to challenge them but the verdict has to be in the balance right now.
Judge Pearce had both the gumption and balls to look beyond the sparse evidence and do the right thing in his assessment of balance of convenience.
If LD obtains the injunction until the trial, it will be because the Appeal Judges haven't be given the full picture in the evidence and don't appear to have either of those qualities.
Yet this would all be redundant and LD would not have a leg to stand on if the EFL had grown some and announced, at any time prior to 10.30am today, that PE's OADT appeal was denied.
They bear not sole but nonetheless much responsibility for the consequences.
1 -
If anything should be made public then it's that. The judge should ask to hear from the EFL with immediate effect.ForeverAddickted said:
Well their approach is that they dont comment on individualscarly burn said:Elliotts appeal to the EFL has been with them for weeks. This on an admin error!
As far as we know they have not responded.....or have they??
So they may well have rejected Elliott already
He and Chaisty may well know that but they're keeping quiet as dont want it to count against them in court0 -
I am off to Ashford to clean up the fire that has been raging down there for three days. So going to miss the result, where's CEEFAX when you need it?7
-
Why, Elliott has nothing to do with the club at present?Eynsfordaddick said:
But would the club, CAFC, not have to be notified as it affects them?ForeverAddickted said:
Well their approach is that they dont comment on individualscarly burn said:Elliotts appeal to the EFL has been with them for weeks. This on an admin error!
As far as we know they have not responded.....or have they??
So they may well have rejected Elliott already
He and Chaisty may well know that but they're keeping quiet as dont want it to count against them in court0 -
I am not saying this has, or hasn't happened.Garrymanilow said:
What if the EFL have come to the conclusion that Elliott's appeal against his rejection under OADT should be upheld, they just haven't announced it yet? In that case I suppose I could see them watching this intently, sitting on both the appeal outcome and the approval on Sandgaard for fear that they could be sued for not approving Elliott as owner. If the injunction is rejected then the EFL have a court outcome saying essentially that it's fine to move the club around, their hands are clean and Elliott's appeal outcome is essentially meaningless, if not then they fear getting embroiled in a legal dispute by allowing Sandgaard to take over when under their rules Elliott should have been accepted as a valid owner.sillav nitram said:PWR
Sandgaard has always been confident of a deal regardless of todays outcome. So from that perspective, does it really matter what the Judges decide?
If Elliott logged the appeal as an individual, not through CAFC, unless he tells the club, would they know if its been rejected, passed or not yet delt with?
I can't imagine he would be screaming from the roof tops if he failed. Also if it wasn't done through a club would the EFL be legally able to announce it as he isn't a person with control or influence with one of their members?1 -
I think Chaisty would have been trumpeting that from the rooftop had it happened - regardless of whether it is admissible as evidence or not.meldrew66 said:Maybe they have passed him now. Has anyone considered that as a possibility? He was saying that he failed the first time due to an administrative 'technicality' so it's possibly in our favour that him now passing the OADT has not been made public.14 -
I live 25 minutes away from Ashford and this is the first I've heard of a three day fire. 😬cfgs said:I am off to Ashford to clean up the fire that has been raging down there for three days. So going to miss the result, where's CEEFAX when you need it?1 -
So you don't want him to stay at the club then?ISawLeaburnScore said: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.
But he is good at tweeting though.2 -
I doubt the EFL have even set a date for Paul Elliott's appeal5
This discussion has been closed.
