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
-
Why can't they just say yes or no ffs9
-
FFS stop talking riddles and get to the point.7
-
Hard to see how grant if injunction would put the club at further risk. Embargoes in place before the SPA signed and arose out of ESI, not LD. Mihail does not explain what continuation of embargo caused by injunction. We also know club has begun season.0
-
Not followed a match thread this closely.... ever1
-
No explanation of how embargoes would be lifted if the injunction is refused. Gallen's evidence is that would affect transfer windows, but no ability of club's ability to pay for any players if the injunction is lifted.0
-
Or we cling to the hope that the EFL are right now approving TS and his takeover through Rolandmascot88 said:So basically TS has to Pony up millions to these cunts that deserve cancer, or the club will run out of money in no time...
this fucking incompetent cunt judge can fuck off as well0 -
Sounds like hea covering his own arse for the decision he is about make on us.Covered End said:0 - Sponsored links:
-
What???? How does the judge expect the club to run until November, there’s no money leftCovered End said:5 -
There needs to be an almighty “however..” forthcoming for this to turn the other way13
-
Gallen gave evidence that performance and income would improve but no evidence that this would happen. Unsafe to assume that loss of income translates pound for pound into share value.0
-
Bollocks, see this for what it is a SHAKEDOWN, you idiot!!0
-
Feels like a slow death.1
-
I feel the judge has done a lot of poking at MM today, and very little towards PE.2
-
Basically ESI created the embargo, and because there was no direct evidence of the TS takeover, the injunction would make no difference...2
-
Because these bellends all like a bit courtroom drama. Never mind what’s at stake....mattinfinland said:Why can't they just say yes or no ffs0 -
Time for a Bauer at the back post moment !4
- Sponsored links:
-
Can we leave the bloody asides and follow what is actually happening please.0
-
So basically PM haven't actually submitted any evidence into how this entire ordeal has fucked the transfer embargo and how TS is there waiting to buy us, and as such there's no evidence it's actually fucking our club sideways, even though it plainly is2
-
Mihail does not give any evidence about how the issues could be resolved in the time between now and the trial in November. Would be a "bold move" to expel the club while Elliott's OADT its under appeal.0
-
"Hard to see how grant if injunction would put the club at further risk."
"No explanation of how embargoes would be lifted if the injunction is refused. "
THEY'D BE FREE TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO IS LEGITIMATE AND WEALTHY ENOUGH TO PASS THE EFL TESTS.
OK, MM's evidence is crap but what's so hard to figure out Judges?
As I posted earlier:
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.
FFS6 -
this time it feels like he headed overHorsfield9 said:Time for a Bauer at the back post moment !1 -
oh well0
-
Anyone still think MM is a great guy?6
-
No proof of anything we based our arguments on so far, in other words.2
-
Lewison says judge adopted the wrong legal hypothesis in deciding against the injunction. Judge muddled the hypothesis put forward by Mihail and the basis on which he was entitled to decide. The judge's analysis was wrong.0
-
This doesn’t feel good1
This discussion has been closed.
