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
-
Goodbye Bowyer2
-
That’s good to know. At least those with the clubs best interests at heart have done all they can.blackpool72 said:
Not her fault at all.Laddick01 said:Genuine question, could Kreamer have done more here or was she pretty much destined to lose considering circumstance?
PM came up with no new evidence when it Wes needed1 -
Out of 100 persons surveyed: 100 answered PM is run by a fuckwit or fuckwits.BrentfordAddick said:
Couple of possibilities spring to mind:randy andy said:
PM have royally fucked this and presumably LK would have been begging them for evidence to help her, so we can only assume they've fucked it deliberately. The question is why, I can't see why they'd bother going to court if they didn't want to win.
1. PM have been advised by TS to keep quiet and none of this matters.
2. PM legal team, I forget the name, didn't ask because they felt it wasn't helpful.
3. PM is run by a fuckwit or fuckwits.3 -
She was always on bit of a hiding to nothing with no new evidence.blackpool72 said:
Not her fault at all.Laddick01 said:Genuine question, could Kreamer have done more here or was she pretty much destined to lose considering circumstance?
PM came up with no new evidence when it Wes needed
0 -
All all I want to know is do we all graduate with legal degrees after reading weeks of legal jargon,who the hell needs to go to law school after this,0
-
If TS is still confident, id imagine we'll hear something from him in the near future2
-
A nice victory for the man against the club he says he has the best interests of at heart.
You’ll eventually get what’s coming to you.36 -
Maybe costs?randy andy said:
The problem is that none of PM's evidence says that. The judges weigh up the evidence before them. PM have failed to produce even the most basic explanation of why an embargo is bad, why we need a new owner, how LD not having anybody who's passed EFL tests will lead to further punishments, that TS is on the verge of buying, etc.PeanutsMolloy said:"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?
PM have royally fucked this and presumably LK would have been begging them for evidence to help her, so we can only assume they've fucked it deliberately. The question is why, I can't see why they'd bother going to court if they didn't want to win.
Praying they did not want to say anything about sale because of what is happening behind the scenes. The last thing we would have wanted is Judges getting involved. That’s the end of Elliott and his lawyer until November.1 -
What does this injunction mean?
Does it mean Tommy can't buy the club?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
This injunction prevents ESI selling the club, it does not prevent RD from selling the club. In order for RD to sell the club, there needs some be some legal basis for it being returned to him. All we can do is wait and see and hope that if there is some kind of back door deal, that the legal side of it is watertight, because you can bet these pricks will do their best to challenge it in court.king addick said:If TS buys from RD directly, does this injunction mean Elliott will be entitled to something back from the money hes put in?
Or literally he cant buy the club until its over? Sorry I know its been covered at some point but brains shot now!4 -
Everyone still want Mihal to stay on under TS?4
-
I always thought that a fundamental problem for Panorama is that they've put NOTHING into the club. It's really hard to mount a convincing case against Lex and the financial impact of an injunction when they've put some money in and you haven'tmeldrew66 said:Wow......just, wow. I bloody told you that our defence failed to present a single scrap of factual evidence to support their 'fears' about the impact on the club. They failed the first time round and failed to learn from their mistake this time. Where is the 'whatever' from the EFL about the embargo, the OADT updated position etc? Where is the statement about/from TS that he is ready to go but will talk away if delayed and place the club at risk? All/any of that would have made a difference to the outcome.
It's a joke.
1 -
I blame Roland and the EFL. RD for selling to selling to ESI 1 in the first place. EFL for delaying and bottling it. Sad day for the club and all football fans (except Millwall and Palace:)
1 -
I've prepared better for Employment Tribunals then PM did for this. She may be proper charlton, but she must have authorised off the bundle. Sorry it's unpopular, but she's culpable or complicit in what PM wanted from the Appeal.WestCountryAddick said:
She can only argue the points with the evidence she has been given.Laddick01 said:Genuine question, could Kreamer have done more here or was she pretty much destined to lose considering circumstance?3 -
Apologies if already said but did PM set out to lose?0
-
Agree. It feels to me that PM's legal team were reliant on the Appeal Judges only overturning Pearce's decision on an error of law, whereas they considered all the evidence again and came up with a different answer. "We" failed to provide evidence of an imminent sale and we failed to evidence the damage a continued injunction would do. On top of that, the judges clearly signalled the possibility of sale proceeds being frozen pending the outcome of the November trial, and we let that get away. Very poor.AFKABartram said:Gutted. Absolutely gutted.
the saddest thing of all is having heard the evidence I don’t see how they could have found another verdict.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply criticism of Lauren here. She was praised by the judges for the way she handled a particularly poorly evidenced case. It's entirely down to Nimer, Southall, Mihail and any one on their side.5 -
I'm trying again to get credible football investigative journalists involved at the Athletic - this is absolute bull shit
6 -
Does this mean we have to give our seven new signings back?12
-
Sponsored links:
-
1
-
meldrew66 said:
Wow......just, wow. I bloody told you that our defence failed to present a single scrap of factual evidence to support their 'fears' about the impact on the club. They failed the first time round and failed to learn from their mistake this time. Where is the 'whatever' from the EFL about the embargo, the OADT updated position etc? Where is the statement about/from TS that he is ready to go but will talk away if delayed and place the club at risk? All/any of that would have made a difference to the outcome.
It's a joke.
This
Time for Tommy to pull his rabbit out of the hat ......if the EFL let him have a rabbit0 -
Well Sandgaard said today's ruling was irrelevant.
Let's see what happens next.5 -
There was one telling comment from LJ Lewison on the sale situation surrounding Charlton Athletic. "Panorama must live with their decision to remain silent."8
-
Cheers West Country. I know this loopholes been mentioned before so heres to hoping TS law firm earn there money now!WestCountryAddick said:
This injunction prevents ESI selling the club, it does not prevent RD from selling the club. In order for RD to sell the club, there needs some be some legal basis for it being returned to him. All we can do is wait and see and hope that if there is some kind of back door deal, that the legal side of it is watertight, because you can bet these pricks will do their best to challenge it in court.king addick said:If TS buys from RD directly, does this injunction mean Elliott will be entitled to something back from the money hes put in?
Or literally he cant buy the club until its over? Sorry I know its been covered at some point but brains shot now!2 -
LJ Lewison said in his summing up that Judge Pearce supplied the "wrong legal hypothesis". We're now on to a discussion over costs.0
-
So Nimer and Southall are a fair few quid out of pocket this evening,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1
-
Yet the judge said otherwisebolloxbolder said:
I've prepared better for Employment Tribunals then PM did for this. She may be proper charlton, but she must have authorised off the bundle. Sorry it's unpopular, but she's culpable or complicit in what PM wanted from the Appeal.WestCountryAddick said:
She can only argue the points with the evidence she has been given.Laddick01 said:Genuine question, could Kreamer have done more here or was she pretty much destined to lose considering circumstance?1 -
Honestly if I read something bad had happened to him tomorrow I’d laugh. There’s very few people you can say that about.ValleyGary said:A nice victory for the man against the club he says he has the best interests of at heart.
You’ll eventually get what’s coming to you.
Good Egg though0 -
The very widely circulated idea that this hearing doesn't matter because has a workaround to acquire #cafc will now be put to the test.7
This discussion has been closed.
