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
-
I think it's possible he has failed it and its not public knowledge, I find it highly unlikely that it would be kept hush hush if he passed it.RichmondSE10Exile said:
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.2 -
RichmondSE10Exile said:
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.
Maybe the EFL have made their decision without telling anybody, including PE?0 -
Really surprised that PE claimed to have assets of £12m, and I can't imagine his lawyer lying about this at the COA, even if the valuations might be "sporty". It begs the question why he's been rejected by the EFL
As others have said, weird that this has become solely about PE rather than his consortium. Clearly there are other members as when the EFL rejected PE and Farnell, they mentioned that other people were still being processed - silence on this since then0 -
Well its straight away one issue Paul Elliott is going to have to overcome if he does want to own Charltonkillerandflash said:Really surprised that PE claimed to have assets of £12m, and I can't imagine his lawyer lying about this at the COA, even if the valuations might be "sporty". It begs the question why he's been rejected by the EFL
As others have said, weird that this has become solely about PE rather than his consortium. Clearly there are other members as when the EFL rejected PE and Farnell, they mentioned that other people were still being processed - silence on this since then
Doesnt he need £21m to cover two years to pass the Source of Funds requirement?1 -
Yup, if he’s hiding over £11.5m somewhere, then surely HMRC would be interested in that, especially considering how many failed businesses he’s headed in the past.Maccn05 said:So Elliott's worth £12m but all evidence suggests £400k... can we grass him up to the HMRC?
£12m is not football club owner money, just goes to prove he has no interest in "making Charlton great again"6 -
This is where I believe Kreamer did a better job than Chaisty today. She admitted several times to the failings of PM, yet Chaisty refused to acknowledge any negatives associated with LD.Garrymanilow 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 want1 -
The key to the permanent remedy for Elliott is the creditors from his last bankruptcy. I am sure they are intrested in how he has nested away over 10 million quid since he knocked them.stoneroses19 said:
Yup, if he’s hiding over £11.5m somewhere, then surely HMRC would be interested in that, especially considering how many failed businesses he’s headed in the past.Maccn05 said:So Elliott's worth £12m but all evidence suggests £400k... can we grass him up to the HMRC?
£12m is not football club owner money, just goes to prove he has no interest in "making Charlton great again"4 -
Just a quick google is very telling.stoneroses19 said:
Yup, if he’s hiding over £11.5m somewhere, then surely HMRC would be interested in that, especially considering how many failed businesses he’s headed in the past.Maccn05 said:So Elliott's worth £12m but all evidence suggests £400k... can we grass him up to the HMRC?
£12m is not football club owner money, just goes to prove he has no interest in "making Charlton great again"
I feel quite well off when I read how much his companies are worth.
Maybe he has all his wealth in the Nationwide super duper savings account0 -
OK, people, time to take a loo break, make yourselves a drink and get ready for the rollercoaster ride that is the judgment....
0 -
Will depend on how much we are losing. Before Covid I wouldn't have said it was going to be 10m a season in League 1, but the virus has probably changed that.ForeverAddickted said:
Well its straight away one issue Paul Elliott is going to have to overcome if he does want to own Charltonkillerandflash said:Really surprised that PE claimed to have assets of £12m, and I can't imagine his lawyer lying about this at the COA, even if the valuations might be "sporty". It begs the question why he's been rejected by the EFL
As others have said, weird that this has become solely about PE rather than his consortium. Clearly there are other members as when the EFL rejected PE and Farnell, they mentioned that other people were still being processed - silence on this since then
Doesnt he need £21m to cover two years to pass the Source of Funds requirement?0 - Sponsored links:
-
KentishAddick said:
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?
It ain't got to you yet.2 -
Who knows. What the EFL can or will say is the biggest mystery of all, possibly in the universe.Cafc43v3r said:
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 -
IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?0
-
So has the embargo!cafcfan1990 said:
Will depend on how much we are losing. Before Covid I wouldn't have said it was going to be 10m a season in League 1, but the virus has probably changed that.ForeverAddickted said:
Well its straight away one issue Paul Elliott is going to have to overcome if he does want to own Charltonkillerandflash said:Really surprised that PE claimed to have assets of £12m, and I can't imagine his lawyer lying about this at the COA, even if the valuations might be "sporty". It begs the question why he's been rejected by the EFL
As others have said, weird that this has become solely about PE rather than his consortium. Clearly there are other members as when the EFL rejected PE and Farnell, they mentioned that other people were still being processed - silence on this since then
Doesnt he need £21m to cover two years to pass the Source of Funds requirement?1 -
Surely you have got to trust TS 100% otherwise all is lost,hopefully heLeeds_Addick said:
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?
has a cunning plan up his sleeve!0 -
I think someone suggested they can go to the supreme courtChunes said:IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?0 -
A huge amount of tyres alight been burning since Tuesday afternoon.KentishAddick said:
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 -
Good luck mate, stay safecfgs said:
A huge amount of tyres alight been burning since Tuesday afternoon.KentishAddick said:
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?3 - Sponsored links:
-
Yeah they can... I guess they'll have to arrange something with Pearce to request another injunction whilst they go to the Supreme CourtLeeds_Addick said:
I think someone suggested they can go to the supreme courtChunes said:IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?
Means that if TS is doing a deal with ESI then he'll have a window (however slim) for the EFL to approve him and get it done0 -
Lets hope Judges come to the right decision, don't want to wade through another 500 pages tonite on the Throne.5
-
Was it challenged by LK ?Sage said:
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?0 -
Anyone spotted any subs warming up early?2
-
NLA has tweeted reminding people that EFL's board meetings are on Thursdays...1
-
Exactly this. Or one of Elliots twitter mates would have been posting about his acceptance every hour for a week!RichmondSE10Exile said:
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.2 -
Seems ridiculous the number of times you can appeal. You've lost twice but have another go.ForeverAddickted said:
Yeah they can... I guess they'll have to arrange something with Pearce to request another injunction whilst they go to the Supreme CourtLeeds_Addick said:
I think someone suggested they can go to the supreme courtChunes said:IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?
Means that if TS is doing a deal with ESI then he'll have a window (however slim) for the EFL to approve him and get it done5 -
This is what I mentioned yesterday. IMO, the EFL have been dragging their feet on this appeal. How long does it take to confirm there was an ‘admin’ error. This should be straight forward. Him and his mates either pas the OADT or they don’t. Shouldn’t take 5-6 weeks to decidecarly 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??
edit: the fate of CAFC is in the hands of Legal Eagles when it needn’t be. They should see right through Elliott and his cronies and what they’re trying to do0 -
Gets more and more expensive the higher they go though so better be worth it for them!!Talal said:
Seems ridiculous the number of times you can appeal. You've lost twice but have another go.ForeverAddickted said:
Yeah they can... I guess they'll have to arrange something with Pearce to request another injunction whilst they go to the Supreme CourtLeeds_Addick said:
I think someone suggested they can go to the supreme courtChunes said:IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?
Means that if TS is doing a deal with ESI then he'll have a window (however slim) for the EFL to approve him and get it done0 -
Have to remember though that each step up requires a greater burden of proof to overturn a lower courts decision and legal fees will be piling up as wellTalal said:
Seems ridiculous the number of times you can appeal. You've lost twice but have another go.ForeverAddickted said:
Yeah they can... I guess they'll have to arrange something with Pearce to request another injunction whilst they go to the Supreme CourtLeeds_Addick said:
I think someone suggested they can go to the supreme courtChunes said:IF (big if) we did win, can LD apply for yet another temporary injunction and another appeal?
Means that if TS is doing a deal with ESI then he'll have a window (however slim) for the EFL to approve him and get it done2
This discussion has been closed.
