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
-
My point on the first hearing was based on Baristers (Advocates).The fact she won on the day was remarkable given the lack of evidence and heavyweight opponentCovered End said:The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced.
What clearly happened was that PM didn't submit all of the evidence that they had. The Judge seemed to imply if they had then it would have been a different verdict.0 -
Nothing to suggest Elliott/Farnell will do anything than asset strip.se9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
But, yes I believe Elliott deserves more money than Nimer or Southall. I don't think Elliott will ask for a realistic price from Sandgaard though, and that's the biggest problem.1 -
It could be that TS is waiting for the EFL to approve him before taking over (as per the way it should be done). He told us this and said the court case was irrelevant so we need to wait for that announcement and see what happens. How long do you wait for the EFL though?0
-
To an extent I couldn't care less whether Panorama or Lex are our owners, as whoever is the owner will want to sell us to TS anywayse9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
The problem is the delay their battle is causing. If the main case was next week instead of November, it would be far less of a roadblock0 -
We need TS to come to a figure with both Elliott and Nimer. Hopefully Nimer got back involved because he thought he could make a few quid, but now things fuck it and walks off with pennies. And Elliott accepting a realistic price from TS to do the same. Not sure it's going to happen.0
-
se9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
I don't think it really matters who we back, none of them are above reproach, none of them have the club's best interests at heart, it's all about what they are going to get out of it. All we can hope is that it comes to an end sooner rather than later.3 -
The judge misses the point though. Several tens of thousands of fans must live with the decision that Panorama stayed silent and that two appeal judges felt that on the balance of convenience one ex bankrupt spiv from Manchester was more worthy of their support.ross1 said: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 -
No he doesn't. At all. PM were the ones who should have provided evidence, they didn't and that caused the legal judgment. Which is all that actually matters in a court of law.Athletico Charlton said:
The judge misses the point though. Several tens of thousands of fans must live with the decision that Panorama stayed silent and that two appeal judges felt that on the balance of convenience one ex bankrupt spiv from Manchester was more worthy of their support.ross1 said:There was one telling comment from LJ Lewison on the sale situation surrounding Charlton Athletic. "Panorama must live with their decision to remain silent."4 -
PE won't get EFL approval for the takeover even if he passes the OADT because he's only worth 12m (yeah, right) and that isn't enough to pass the 'sufficiency of funds' test.ct_addick said:Problem is now that the crook PE has TS over a barrel. PE has no inclination to run the club and especially with the lack of goodwill from the fans however he is a crook and will blackmail TS to a point where I am afraid he will walk away.1 -
Covered End said:The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced.
Freshfields are top trumps according to all research.
If, If, One more for luck, IF Thomas Sandgaard continues his quest of owning CAFC, then their performance will be pivotal in dealing with the 666 of Charlton fans nightmares, ES1, ES2, and if it ever gets that far, Duchatelet.
Not sure what Panorama magic's raison d'être was today but it didn't appear to be keeping an injunction at bay.0 - Sponsored links:
-
It’s a shame as Judge Pearce made a stirring remark originally that this case was about our community asset and how best to protect it, todays judges seemed intent on ensuring neither PM or LD were unfairly left out of pocket.Athletico Charlton said:
The judge misses the point though. Several tens of thousands of fans must live with the decision that Panorama stayed silent and that two appeal judges felt that on the balance of convenience one ex bankrupt spiv from Manchester was more worthy of their support.ross1 said:There was one telling comment from LJ Lewison on the sale situation surrounding Charlton Athletic. "Panorama must live with their decision to remain silent."4 -
I'm a few pages back so it might have already been said, but:
1) FFS people, don't start having a pop at Thomas Sandgaard because the English legal system came down on the side of one set of crooks over the other. He's doing everything he can to take over our club and he still looks like by far the best, if not the only, option we've got. He's made some bold statements and now we'll see if they were reality or posturing. But give the guy some space.
2) No point at all in having a dig at NLA or any other fans. It's no more their fault that ESI1 are useless pricks than it's TS's.
Reserve your anger for the despicable arseholes in both ESI camps and in the terminally incompetent and toothless EFL.13 -
Aren’t LD on minus £500K at this point with a transfer window (assuming selling off players is what you’re getting at) rapidly closing without a single player sold? If they are in it for asset stripping purposes then they are doing a terrible job.cafcfan1990 said:
Nothing to suggest Elliott/Farnell will do anything than asset strip.se9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
But, yes I believe Elliott deserves more money than Nimer or Southall. I don't think Elliott will ask for a realistic price from Sandgaard though, and that's the biggest problem.
Also, wouldn’t selling to Sandgaard be a better route to riches than trying to eek some money out of our threadbare squad in a fire sale?1 -
What he said.AFKABartram said:
With the greatest respect, it could equally be asked on your agenda, as you have only emerged on here since this has started and seem to have an for stirring these internal divisions (just an observation).KentishAddick said:It amuses me that Fans4Fans/Dodger/NLA are all about coming together as a fanbase, but they soon turn on people outside their group when things go wrong. Funny that.
Theres a hell of a lot of side showing going on. Ultimately this now boils down to 4 parties, ESI 1 and 2, Roland and Sandgaard. Any ‘insider knowledge’ is directly or indirectly stemmed from some angle of this.
Painful as it is we’ve just got to let this ride out and not give so much scrutiny on what third party fan said what.
No LOLs to be had here, I'm off to the "ITK list of offenders" thread...0 -
se9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
Would ideally like them all to lose, but you are right. Nobody has seriously even tried to challenge in court that Nimar and Southall have given even less to the club than Elliot.
1 -
Nice try, but I capitalised your "if" when I made the text bigger and bolder, but yeah, I should have also capitalised my "if".Redrobo said:
It is why my IF is in capitals. Surprised you didn’t 😉GoOnYouHaddocks said:
Unfortunately until we differently, that is a very big "if".Redrobo said:
What sale? IF Rolly has repossessed CAFC Ltd EIS are not selling anything.robinofottershaw said:
I am not competent to judge her performance either way. Presumably though, in preparing for today she must have counselled PM and their solicitors on the pros and cons of not being prepared to provide more details of a potential imminent sale, notwithstanding any NDAs.Clem_Snide said:I do wonder whether the lack of engagement from PM is down to the fact that they believe the deal/loophole TS has found is sound and renders the whole process moot.No point going off at the deep end, wait until the key player in this has his say.As for the people saying LK is culpable, what a fucking joke. Even the judge acknowledged that she had been hung out to dry and that she did a good job in the circumstances. What is she supposed to do if she has radio silence from TN and MM? She can hardly phone the court and say she isn't coming.....0 -
Oh absolutely - I hope PM & LD both get £0, please don’t misinterpret anything I’ve written as being in support of either (that was my concern before I made that post).killerandflash said:
To an extent I couldn't care less whether Panorama or Lex are our owners, as whoever is the owner will want to sell us to TS anywayse9addick said:I’m really confused - based on the undisputed evidence in court today have we been backing the wrong horse? Surely if Elliott has (somehow) been funding the club financially for the past however long and PM/Nimer/whoever haven’t put a penny in, shouldn’t we want LD to win and then they do a deal with Sandgaard?
**those are genuine questions btw**
The problem is the delay their battle is causing. If the main case was next week instead of November, it would be far less of a roadblock0 -
Perhaps now we'll see what Sandgaard is made of(I'm still behind him). In the the next 10 days we'll see he has paid off this mob and taken over, or he'll pull out and we're doomed.Belv said:I think people need to let go of the idea of TS swooping in and saving the day.
It’s clear that a lot of what is leaked to the “ITKers” comes from Mihail and Southall and we’ve seen first hand how reliable they both are.
There is no “done deal” behind the scenes, it was all a smoke screen and LD have called TS’ bluff.
TS either pays them off or we hope and pray we make it to November and our luck changes.
The harsh reality.
1 -
As you are a few pages back I think it's best you read them & then you'll find that NLA is virtually blaming Tracey Leaburn & Olly Groom for all this.Davo55 said:I'm a few pages back so it might have already been said, but:
1) FFS people, don't start having a pop at Thomas Sandgaard because the English legal system came down on the side of one set of crooks over the other. He's doing everything he can to take over our club and he still looks like by far the best, if not the only, option we've got. He's made some bold statements and now we'll see if they were reality or posturing. But give the guy some space.
2) No point at all in having a dig at NLA or any other fans. It's no more their fault that ESI1 are useless pricks than it's TS's.
Reserve your anger for the despicable arseholes in both ESI camps and in the terminally incompetent and toothless EFL.3 -
Blaming fans/employees for throwing Southall out. I worry F4F seem to have gotten too close to that slimy prick and it is affecting judgement.Scoham said:
18 - Sponsored links:
-
Lets be honest,TS does not need all this crap in his life,he has chosen to get involved.He could well make Elliott an offer,which he thinks is fair,if Elliott says no then TS says bye bye and Elliott is stuck with a worthless football club,which he will not have a clue what to do with,he certainly will not cone to the Valley for fear of his safety.So no need for TS to offer big bucks.0
-
0
-
All now down to the EFL to pass PE as fit & proper & confirm source & sustainability of funds and then Bows can get on & re-build the squad.
What about it Paul.8 -
Not sure it was best legal team. That starts to blame LK which I am very uncomfortable with. MM and TN are to blame for no statements /evidence and what was given having inaccuracies. A QC can only play the cards they are dealt.Covered End said:The best legal team won. Anyone still think it makes no difference?
It does if your evidence is wrong & half of it wasn't produced.3 -
I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen).1
-
How’s that dossier on Elliott coming along and more importantly, when’s it going to land on the desk of the numpty at the EFL who’s looking at Elliott’s appeal2
-
That's my understandingKINSELLA7 said:I could say a lot but I won't. The key here has nothing to do with RD taking back control or shares. The injunction (so far as I have seen it published) stops Panorama selling or disposing of their shares in East Street but does not stop East Street selling their assets or their shares in CAFC. East Street are not in fact party to these proceedings (again as far as I have seen).0 -
That attempt of a defence was so bad, it almost looks deliberate. Our own barrister rubbished our own evidence.
Didn't contest costs. Don't you do that even if you know your going to fail so you can say to your employer that you tried?
Very strange.9 -
I am with @Davo55, emotions will be running high after todays appeal, things will be tweeted in anger, they are not helpful and it's best, if possible to try to ignore/overlook them if you can, I know its hard, especially for those being referenced.
At the start of the day my hopes were with Thomas Sandgaard, nothing changes, they still are.
I don't have a list ranking anyone involved with ESI from 'least worst to most worst', I just dont see any point to that, they are all crooks and have no place at our football club.
Until Thomas Sandgaard says 'deal off' he remains my only realistic hope of some return to normality.
Anyone else who has been involved in the ESI debacle can fuck right off, its time we continue to dig them out, the lot of them, not each other.
10 -
Yeah I found that very oddCafc43v3r said:That attempt of a defence was so bad, it almost looks deliberate. Our own barrister rubbished our own evidence.
Didn't contest costs. Don't you do that even if you know your going to fail so you can say to your employer that you tried?
Very strange.3
This discussion has been closed.
