Tuesday's Court Case The details of Elliott's hearing requesting the injunction have finally been released: https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1299611926473908225 "COURT HEARING | Once again before Judge Pearce. Once again on
Microsoft Teams. Once again no recording/ screen shotting. This time
please follow the dress code and cover torso.
Lex Dominus (Elliott) v Panorama Magic (Nimer)
Kick-off 2pm Tuesday
#cafc"
Looks like we'll be getting a live-tweeted account of proceedings,
although for avoidance of confusion later on, Richard Cawley wasn't the
infamous Topless Man in the Southall v ESI hearing:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299615235318444032 "I'll be tuning in. And this time I'll definitely get dressed. Won't make that mistake again." (quoting this tweet from @CAStrust)
While it has been assumed for some time, this confirms that Lex
Dominus is the company that was supposed to be taking over ESI, which
means that the details in the case may provide evidence of the suspected
conflict of interest relating to Chris Farnell's involvement. For those
who've lost track @ISawLeaburnScore reminded us:
So Lex Dominus Limited, incorporated 29/10/18 and
left dormant thereafter. Farnell resigned as a director and transferred
his shares to Elliott on 06/06/20. PE now sole director and shareholder
since that date.
...the deal was announced on the 10th.
Farnell owned the company who have been alleged to own it until the 6th.
Marian said the deal had been done at least a week before it was announced. So at the latest the 3rd.
So therefor Farnell sold ESI to a company he was the only director of at the time.
It should be noted that Farnell claims he wasn't involved in the sale, although as
Airman Brown pointed out
Nixon was very clear at the time that Farnell was the
person calling the shots. He was quickly contradicted by the Mail, but I
think Nixon's source on this would be reliable.
I also think Elliott was called off the substitutes'
bench after the late May bank holiday because the original plan had been
to install Jenkins.
There was some question over Jenkins involvement, and some wondered if it was a tactic to thwart Bassini, but Airman Brown said
It's been stated in court that heads of terms were
agreed with Bassini in April. Farnell was already involved with Nimer at
that stage. Bassini then seems to have been involved in trying to
broker a sale of the club in May (at around the time it was reported he
was interested in buying it!).
Meanwhile the speculation over Elliott's motivation and likelihood of success continued. Gary Poole wondered:
Am I right in thinking that the application for an
injunction might be legal posturing on Paul Elliott’s behalf, ie the
injunction might not be granted to stop the sale, but the application
may help in a subsequent case to get proceeds from a sale to TS from TN /
ESI? If so and
the worst happens and the court does give the injunction, could this be
revoked if TS were to agree a price with both sides for purchasing CAFC
with the money held by solicitors and then paid to whichever side the
court rules in favour of?
Yes it might well be a tactical move to enhance their prospects in future litigation. And yes, if an injunction was granted, there could still be a subsequent
commercial deal agreed between the parties to settle the matter. Essentially
the injunction should be viewed as a legal pause button. If Elliott
wins on Tuesday he wins a pause on a sale of ESI/the club for a defined
period of time to a third party. This doesn't prevent (a) a consensual
settlement or (b) the period of time expiring.
@ISawLeaburnScore I’m getting worried that I might be
getting close to using up my free half hour of legal advice from you.
If that is the case I do have a contract written by my 7 year old that
says Paul Elliot will pay your bill, he hasn’t actually signed it but I
assume it will suffice - so feel free to bill him at leisure and I will
keep the questions coming
;-)
...I think it's important to remember that even if
Tuesday gives us the worst possible outcome and Elliott gets his
injunction, this is not legal recognition that he either presently or in
the future owns or will
own ESI or the club. It gives him two things : (1) time - time to
complete the transaction that he will have to convince the court he has
entered into in whatever manner specified in the contract and (2)
leverage - he gets a legal foot in the door that will cost money to
budge so it buys him a seat at the currently overflowing negotiating
table....
Fan Stuff The cover of the new Voice of The Valley was revealed:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1299653288917381122 "REVEALED: here's the front page of new VOTV160 which will be
landing on well over 600 UK doormats from Saturday (29/8) - and is also
winging its way to Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and the Far
East. You can order your own copy now at http://votvonline.com #cafc"
... Is there anyone who can lend a hand to the CL
sleuth team who might have specialist knowledge to help uncover what one
of them has termed "shadow property" ownership? Please DM me if so...
and Ben Hayes passed on reports back from the delegation that went to Sparrows Lane to see the team coach off:
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1299669880711663622 "Report from someone at Sparrows Lane this morning.
"Decent turnout - saw Andy Marshall at the front saying thank you.
LEE LEE LEE BOWYER ringing out as they left. Shouted for him to hold on in there."
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
More On The Transfer Embargo The squad for the preseason friendly against Palace was scrutinised
for indications of any long term changes, both by Richard Cawley:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299683377696694272 "Tom Lockyer not in the Charlton squad.
No injury, so looks like he is off.
He had a clause which allowed him to leave for nothing following
relegation - but there was only a month's window for that to trigger to
still apply."
He’s at an age where can’t mess about financially,
the only explanation is there’s a deal in principle for him, and that
can’t happen without takeover and embargo lifted etc etc. I’m off now
to temp fate and update the predicted XI for 20/21 thread.
and then eagle-eyed viewers spotted something in this tweet from Richard Cawley:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299718736912543746 "Dougie Freedman and Steve Gallen sat not far apart. Got slightly different budgets to work with...."
Sandgaard at Selhurst After Cawley posted up that picture of the Charlton contingent at Selhurst,
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299719780165922817 "Few people asking if person to Steve's right is Thomas Sandgaard. Can't completely tell from that picture."
There was a bit of questioning as to how Sandgaard was able to fly in and not have to isolate, but SoundAsa£ reckoned
He falls into an immigration category which allows
some business people not to have to comply with the 14 day isolation
requirement.
Something to do with urgent need to attend business meetings that
without doing so, may hinder the progress of a project being moved along
or completed.
I suspect Freshfields will have sorted that for him...
Personally I'm a tad worried about the lack of masks in that
picture. It'd be just our luck that he goes down with Covid while on the
verge of completing the takeover. AndyG was heartened by this appearance:
TS must be nearly there with the deal no way he would fly over if it wasnt nearly done. Please let it all go through !
For those who've forgotten, that's Andrew Muir and co, who never
quite got their takeover to go through, allegedly because negotiating
with Roland is an absolute nightmare. By the way, can you spot Paul
Elliott in that photo? Even so, Rothko was still positive:
I would take a wild guess that TS has been advised by
Freshfields that Tuesday isn’t going to be a problem. Suspect they’ve
been given access to all the papers that will be presented, and have
reassured their client that it’s all good
Note that on the right of that picture the guy in glasses is Chris Mort, former Newcastle chairman and solicitor at Freshfields.
Wouldn't be surprised if he joins our board if the takeover goes through.
WIOTOS
Per Freshfields website he has done 3 client
secondments, two banks and Newcastle United, would think this would fall
under the same bracket as Newcastle if he was to join our board to
stabilise us.
Meeting The Manager Richard Cawley had further information following the game:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299727596280786946 "Bowyer knew that Sandgaard was here.
Described Tuesday as big - and he wasn’t referencing the EFL Trophy tie.
That is when Elliott’s attempt to obtain an injunction will be heard in a Manchester court"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299736340507037698 "Lee Bowyer: “Hopefully things go our way [on Tuesday in the
court case] and from what I understand Thomas is hoping things go the
way so that he can step in. Something has to change – because at the
moment it’s not pleasant."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299736344068063234 "LB: “The things I’m hearing and seeing now, everything is showing he wants to be in control of this football club.
We need someone to come through and he’s putting his name forward
and saying the right things. Hopefully for the football club it happens
soon.”"
Voice of The Valley have published an explanatory article on the background to
Tuesday's court case to help people get the relevant details clear
before the hearing
A minor spat between @Airman Brown and Mihail on twitter led to the club ownership page FINALLY being changed just in time for the court case
The transfer embargo continues to affect the restructuring of the squad
So the idea that some were floating that Sandgaard's company would sponsor us hasn't come to fruition. Maybe next year?
More On The Court Case Pretty much everyone's feeling unsettled at the propsect of Tuesday's hearing:
https://twitter.com/JimmyStone_/status/1300136869083176961 "After five years of battling it’s impossible to feel comfortable
about the future of our football club being decided in court, but
that’s what’s happening.
Outrageous that it’s come to this, just so a few greedy men can make a quick buck. Desperate for a new start for #cafc 🙏"
I could probably fill several pages with speculation and theories of how it's all going to pan out, but a few things stood out. On the subject of TS having a plan for whatever the outcome on Tuesday, ISawLeaburnScore said:
I would say it would be entirely foolish not to. And people don't tend to turn start up businesses into quoted companies and make millions for themselves based on taking a foolish approach to strategy. If Tuesday was binary for Sandgaard's interest he will have been daft to fly over yesterday when he could have waited 4 days. What Tuesday will do is impact timing, who he deals with and what he pays.
...This injunction date has been agreed between both sets of solicitors and it means they have already exchanged their submissions (documents) to each other.
This means that a decision SHOULD be made very quickly on or shortly after the hearing.
But I'm not lawyer and with the law you can never be sure.
When it's on the court website
and while this from Ben Ransom was very appreciative, given he was present at the Bassini hearing last year, it's not really helping my nerves
https://twitter.com/BenRansomSky/status/1300481968736555013 "Tremendous job from @airmanbrown summing up where we are right now with regards to #cafc ownership ⬇ Tomorrow is a hugely significant day and there is a chance of resolution... but legal battles over EFL clubs are never pretty. Clock is ticking for Charlton’s future ⏱" (quoting this tweet from @"Airman Brown")
The closer we come to this hearing the more concerned I am that the injunction will be granted and may even stand.... If there is a period of exclusivity given, I wonder if Marian would've been smart enough to put an end-date on that, as in the courtroom I can see a judge being lenient towards that rather than the 'tough luck' stance. And if that's the case, I think Elliott will have at least grounds for delaying the sale going through....
I think the SPA was a cut and paste of the January one, which is why I have always thought the EFL satisfaction clause exists in the latter too. But RD has no incentive to activate it.
if I’m right there is no deadline.
If, as Airman suspects, the Sale and Purchase Agreement between the parties was a cut and paste of the January one with no deadline for Elliot to pass the EFL test, a court is likely to imply a term that this has to be achieved within a reasonable period. The EFL haven't done us any favours in not expediting the appeal (unless, of course, Elliot is likely to win) but the fact that the league season starts in less than two weeks has to be a highly relevant consideration, given the risk of expulsion, which would render the subject matter of the dispute worthless.... It is all speculative at present and we shall have to see what Elliot's company and Panoramic Magic have to say for themselves. It will also be interesting to see which solicitors are representing them.
The Airman Brown & Mihail Spat After the news that Dillon Phillips would no longer be first choice keeper, Mihail tweeted the following, presumably in an attempt to be supportive to Amos:
but it seems to have backfired massively
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300509877585014786 "Rather than tweeting about #cafc goalkeepers, @MMarian_lx, could
you explain why the @CAFCofficial site still says "East Street
Investments were taken over by a consortium led by businessman Paul
Elliott on June 10th 2020". That's not what you believe, is it?"
Unsurprisingly, that went down even less well:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300516736228364298 "It's said that for three months and it wasn't true when it was
posted. Clubs are required under @EFL rules to post a (truthful)
statement of ownership on their websites; in this case you have one
which contradicts Panorama's own legal argument. Amazing!"
particularly given it doesn't usually require an IT guy to update the website, as someone who used to be Head of Comms at Charlton would know all too well:
https://twitter.com/mattjobob/status/1300533844811091968 "Given the official #cafc website has published no fewer than 45 stories during August alone (yes, I am sad enough to have counted), including two interviews with you, not sure this "honest mistake" holds much water " (quoting this tweet from Mihail)
... I wish the fans would give him a little space as I imagine the this whole new experience could be a bit overwhelming. We all want updates, but I'm sure we'll find out whenever anything significant happens!
I can understand how time consuming it would be for a very busy man, but it is also reassuring for him to see the passion of our fans. He will have also learned a great deal about the club, where most neutral observers/advisers wouldn't have a clue.
I'm sure he will see it as a huge positive.
Bob Whitehand seems to be feeling a bit more positive about him too:
As for this from KBslittlesis, I'm not entirely convinced about the resemblance, but had to include it for the egregious pun:
We’re being taken over by Gary Barlow 😳
I’ll take that 😜
My dad saw a player this morning & apparently something of note happened yesterday. The said player said their sworn to secrecy, but
punched the air & said you'll be happy !
Court case live update: INJUNCTION REFUSED, Consequential Hearing Tomorrow
Massive online attendance with Panorama's solicitors and Paul Elliott struggling to get into the meeting
Started delayed due to people struggling to comply with clerks instructions (cameras/mics off etc)
Now the judge having trouble getting in to the meeting, so they're starting a new one.
Richard Cawley and @Airman Brown in new meeting. Looks like Ben Ransom from Sky will be too once they've sorted out sending him the link
3:15pm - public now in, judge making opening remarks
Paul Chaisty QC representing Lex Dominus says is seeking an interim order (surely he could've requested they held the hearing earlier if that was all was wanted? Smacks of timewasting)
Very critical of Mihail's evidence, and says he's not shown evidence about progress of sale to other parties
Also making a big thing of the money put in by Elliott as opposed to Nimer
Says deal was signed by both parties in May (Lex Dominus definitely owned by Farnell at this point, so may be important for conflict of interest complaint? ) and that Southall's shares would transfer over as part of "drag along"
Confirms Elliott has submitted appeal re ODT disqualification, but says Farnell's role should be disregard for the moment
Says Mihail claims agreement was subject to conditions and the defendent is able to say those have not been met so the agreement has come to an end.
Says the EFL said on Aug 7th that the agreement was not conditional (as Mihail asserts) and that Elliott's application was rejected due to claims he mislead the EFL. (should note this judge ruled it was conditional in the Southall v ESI hearing)
Says it wasn't until the 12 of August (2.5 months after signing the agreement) that the defendant claimed the deal could be terminated. (need to check dates in relation to ODT rejection)
Chaisty says needs to go to trial, and could be dealt with in weeks not months, then talks about November!
Argues damages would not be an adequate remedy, and says Panorama has no assets other than the ESI shares, so no reassurance they could be met.
Says my client chooses to sell those shares onto someone else, that's my client's prerogative. (basically sounds like they're fighting over who gets to flip it)
Says
there is no evidence from the EFL that they will not allow Charlton to
compete in League One or that there could be a points penalty. (even if this is the case, there are other detriments to this being allowed to drag on which he's ignoring)
Lex Dominus agreement is to buy ESI for £1.
No obvious connection with London, says Chaisty, in relation to Panorama attempt to transfer proceedings south. (erm, what?)
Mihail has asserted that matters leading to Elliott’s disqualification cannot be remedied. Chaisty says it’s nonsense
FINALLY finishes with "We are looking for a short-term remedy in order to solve the matter with a trial"
Lauren Kreamer for Panorama now up
Asks whether she's likely to get cut off tonight - says Chaisty has taken 90mins, she's aiming to take an hour. Judge and Chaisty can't make the morning so look like we're continuing
Says that Chaisty hasn’t referred to his own client’s evidence, which she describes as scant and incoherent.
Says Mihail a director of Panorama and ESI. Says he has
"relevant expertise" and that he is liaising with EFL and is involved
day-to-day running of the club.
Says Nimer's decision to sell the club came out of Southall's misspending
Listing the various parties represented by Farnell. Too long to type out, but it's pretty much everyone involved.
"Very clear conflict"
Says injunction is "an abuse". She
mentions the different roles performed by Chis Farnell, who was the sole
owner of Lex Dominus until June 5 or 6 when Elliott became the new
director and shareholder.
Application itself issued by IPS Law,
Farnell’s firm. New solicitors since instructed. Court should consider
this matter as relevant. Farnell had benefit of various pieces of
information that may have been obtained under duty of confidentiality
Making
the case that on two occasions in July the court - and the same judge -
made clear that the ownership of the club was still under the control
of Panorama Magic.
Also says that court has no details on why the EFL turned down Elliott
under the OADT.
Says May SPA has not been carried into effect. EFL view not binding on the court, just it’s opinion, and no evidence provided for it.
May SPA is undated, states that it relates to share capital of CAFC Limited, not ESI, and contact details for service of notices not competed.
Also says the £1 - which Lex Dominus were going to pay for the football club - has not been paid. (Am going to need to take a break here for a few minutes so I can stop crying with laughter)
Says Elliott and Farnell both the subject of disqualifying
conditions. Claims EFL said Elliott provided "misleading information".
Points to EFL rules that clubs will be disciplined for the involvement of individuals who have failed OADT
Sanctions facing #cafc
are of the most serious nature, says Kreamer. Judge interjects that
Mihail is the only one giving evidence on this and he is not sure what
weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about
appeal.
Argues it's wrong to question the rest of Mihail's evidence just due to the already aforementioned error
If
Panorama had had no interest in the OADT it wouldn’t have included it
in the SPA in the first place. Needed because you can legally buy the
club but not be allowed to play in the EFL.
Back to Farnell now.
He gave evidence on July 13th that Panorama owned the shares, legally
and beneficially. As a lawyer Farnell might be expected to say if they
were being held on trust for Lex Dominus, but he didn’t. Explicitly said
that the Lex deal had not been concluded.
Kreamer refers to the fate of Bury, making the point that damages awarded subsequently could not put loss right if #cafc expelled from the EFL, whereas Lex faces only a potential commercial loss.
Chaisty
repeatedly mentioned that Mihail didn't disclose info on potential new
buyers. Kreamer points out that Mihail can't release commercially
sensitive info.
Basically saying there is "a very material risk" the club's ceases to exist due to these wranglings over ownership.
Court should take course least
likely to cause least irremediable prejudice, says Kreamer, citing
precedent. Balance of convenience in favour of Panorama because of this,
says Kreamer. Basically, risk to #cafc outweighs commercial one.
Says I don't think there is any evidence in the submitted bundle on Elliott's appeal.
Says Mihael asserts there is a "very real risk" of serious sanctions - including expulsion - being imposed on the club.
Mentions Bury. "It is not pie in the sky to state a football club - as a matter of fact - be expelled and cease to exist."
Evidence
of intangible benefits to community, including CACT, in bundle and
importance of club to fans and community should not be underestimated by
the court when judging the balance of convenience.
If
court grants injunction proposed sale to the third party will be
incapable of completion. Chaisty’s claim speedy trial of claim is
possible is not realistic, says Kreamer. Nothing to suggest risks to
club could be avoided.
Judge says there is no “ imminent” sale to third party, which might be reason to refuse an injunction. Kreamer highlights impact of unresolved ownership on transfer embargo and therefore on the club being able to sign players before trial.
Judge Pearce believes the case could be tried in November. Does not believe October reflects a realistic timeline.
Elliott has said in evidence that he is willing to negotiate a sale with third parties. Kreamer says that is the sentiment of a man who sees this as a commercial transaction and nothing more, so can be dealt with by damages
Judge summing up
Each side has a respectable argument that damages are not sufficient and that it is a serious issue says judge, so decision on injunction will come down to the balance of convenience.
Chaisty arguing on balance of convenience
focusing on Mihail’s evidence of potential loss being inadequate. No loss to Panorama itself in commercial terms. Nothing from Mihail to show risk #cafc will cease to exist or that a refusal to grant an injunction will change the situation.
says Mihail’s evidence is tainted and flawed. Argues for status quo of shares remaining with Panorama pending a trial. Irremediable loss has not been made out to refuse application.
says defendant could come forward with new evidence between now and November to get an injunction lifted.
Someone's just shouted "Chris Farnell's a c***" into the hearing
Not sure why the attack has been launched against Farnell, says Chaisty. Farnell not a party to these proceedings. Kreamer’s rhetoric about him living and dying by the sword (!) is a meaningless soundbite, he says.
Chaisty saying Elliott "not turning a blind eye" to ways to assist everyone - including the club. He says interim order protects him being part of the procedure.
Judge Pearce is going to give judgment now...will then go to a consequential hearing in the near future
says I believe at the highest point we had over 200 people at the hearing
says There is clear need for judgment to be given now
says not obvious claimant would win summary judgement.
notes declaration in July hearing that shares remained with Panorama based on Farnell’s evidence. Says he has been intimately involved with applicant and has played different roles but cannot assert one thing in July and now support the opposite.
Conduct gives rise to questions as to whether he is conflicted, but judge far from convinced that renders claimant’s case unarguable.
says claimant would risk losing reputation and prestige attached to running the club. Far from clear defendant is good for damages.
says defendant loses prospect of selling club to third party if injunction granted. Mihail’s evidence has weaknesses, including incorrect claim about Elliott appeal. Causes judge to be cautious about his evidence about risks to club in general and ESI.
says he takes Mihail’s evidence about the threat to the club with a pinch of salt, but having read the rules and regulations from the EFL there has to be at least some risk he is correct.
says defendant can say damages would not be an inadequate remedy
Should be a speedy trial of the issues. Judge says fans will be appalled to hear their club described as a commercial asset. However interests of the club cannot be ignored. Court must have regards to the wider picture.
Judge says preserving the status quo can itself be a risk. In this case could put off potential buyer while Lex Dominus cannot proceed. Refuses injunction!
We'll be back tomorrow for a consequential hearing. Judge warns that it will be more boring than today...
Tuesday 1st September Part 1 - The Calm Before The Storm
SUMMARY FOR THOSE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS:
The Lex Dominus v Panorama Magic hearing was due to start
at 2pm but was beset with technical problems so didn't actually commence
til 3:15pm
CAST announced that Panorama Magic's barrister for the hearing would
be former CAST board member Lauren Kreamer, who had temporarily stepped
down to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest
Elliott was represented by an expensive QC who gave the impression
of being paid by the word, given he went on for 90 minutes and seemed to
repeat his points in a slightly different form several times.
Lex Dominus' case was mainly focussed on Mihail's flawed evidence,
the amount of money Elliott had put in, and saying the deal was not
conditional.
They also confirmed the agreement is to buy ESI for £1
Panorama's
case focused on the injunction being an abuse of process, Farnell's
conflict of interest, the SPA being flawed/incomplete, and the issues
around the EFL rules and processes
Lex Dominus wanted to go to trial, but that would not be heard until November!
Kreamer highlighted the very real risks to the club of delay in
resolving this issue (despite the judge being sceptical about Mihail's
evidence on this), and importance of the club to the community.
Judge said both sides have respectable argument so have to judge on
"balance of convenience" (ie course least likely to cause irredeemable
prejudice to parties)
Despite being unconvinced by Mihail's evidence, Judge has read EFL rules and regs so accepts there is a risk. Court must have
regard to the wider picture so refuses the injunction.
In other news Sandgaard was at Loftus Road for the AFC Wimbledon v
CAFC in the EFL Trophy, and apparently went around hugging people when
the court result came in.
Early on, some fans were still convinced that Elliott was holding out for a settlement, and at midday Scoham posted (riffing a common trope of the forum):
In terms of an out of court settlement the next two hours could be crucial.
However, as the meeting invitations began to trickle in to people's
inboxes they were becoming resigned to the hearing going ahead, and Chunes said:
I hope it makes sense, at least. The last time I went
to the High Court and listened to a case, I didn't have a clue what was
going on. And I was a law student! (That didn't last long)
Richard Cawley announced he'd be live tweeting the case:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300751793303977985 "It's set to be Paul Elliott v Tahnoon Nimer at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre this afternoon.
Case is due to start at 2pm. I'll do my best to try and provide updates on here."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300751794751123457 "Elliott is seeking an injunction to prevent Panorama Magic
(owned 65% by Nimer and 35% by Matt Southall) selling Charlton Athletic FC to anyone else.
Action is being brought by his company - Lex Dominus"
(although as he noted in a follow-up tweet, Southall owns 35% of ESI not Panorama Magic, which owns the other 65% of ESI)
and as we'd discover later, this tweet turned out to be spot on:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300751796101578755 "Don't think it is absolutely guaranteed the case gets heard and
resolved today. But we should have a clearer picture on things later
this afternoon."
As with the ESI vs Southall case, there were a lot of people
interested in the watching the coverage of the case, and issues
accessing the meeting quickly emerged, with people getting a variety of different error messages as they tried to connect,
leading ForeverAddickted to observe:
I think we've broken their Server
Even once people were able to access the session, there were technical issues of a different nature,
as red10 described:
I am in, unfortunately, not everybody has their mics or cameras off ....
and while the infamous Topless Man from the Southall v ESI case
seems not to have made another appearance, at least one person had
failed to learn from his example:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300781631104528391 "Another fella reclined on his bed...."
Meet The Participants At about 1:45pm, CAST tweeted out an unexpected piece of news:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300776959929180161 "COURT | Proceedings due to start at 2pm. Panorama Magic will be
represented by Lauren Kreamer, lifelong #cafc fan and member of
@CAStrust board, though Lauren stood down temporarily on 17 Aug to avoid
any perception of conflict during these proceedings."
...Gobsmacked, frankly. But she will have been all
over the detail from the get-go, whereas her oppo may or may not know
something about the business of football.
From the looks of things, he's acted for Wayne and Colleen Rooney
in a legal case over agents' agreements, and West Ham at the independent
tribunal versus Sheffield United in the Tevez case and the
arbitration panel for Alan Curbishley's constructive dismissal case. On
the plus side, West Ham lost both those cases, so he may be experienced,
but he's not invincible, and as Richard J said
Can we stop worrying about the experience level of the Barristers.
It does not matter as much as you think. It doesn't alter the facts of the case which is what this is about.
So QC for Elliott is Paul Chaisty and one of the instructing solicitors is Richard Cramer (I think he said)... Richard seems to be from FrontRowLegal whom are registered with the FA.
For those who are interested in that kind of things, Panorama
Magic's solicitors were Daniel Gleek and Toby Matthews of Axiom Stone,
but they were having a few technical problems too:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300782851001118723 "Still a delay as Lauren Kreamer says that her instructing
solicitors are struggling to connect to the meeting, due to the numbers
that are in attendance."
They don't. They will each have a brief fee for preparing for and attending the hearing.
Further Delays To Proceedings By this time it was 2:25pm,
and even the judge was having trouble accessing the meeting:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300786961884557312 "We’re still waiting for the judge who is now having joining problems of his own, so they are going to start another meeting."
I thought the whole idea of logging into a virtual
lobby is that the Clerk of the Court can pull in individuals to the
hearing in priority order. Those with Mics/cameras on can be immediately
evicted until they learn to read the instructions on using the service
properly. Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?
There's a limited amount of slots on Teams, say 200
people can join and theres 600 trying to log in, it creates a queuing
system, people that need to be there will get caught in the queue -
causing delays- you then have to take into consideration the courts
ability to host, connection speeds, bandwith, server...
And given the number of people I saw on twitter asking for the link to the feed,
this point from Scratchingvalleycat may also have been relevant:
If the fans shared the links to join it would be far
more than the 300 originally envisaged and the court ushers or clerk to
the court would have had a significant job to find who should or
shouldn't have been admitted. Therefore the "Clear the court"
instruction was the sensible thing to do to allow the case to be heard.
I used to play cricket with Richard Pearce. Decent player, batted, bowled and kept wicket to a decent standard too...
but there were still issues with people not turning their cameras and microphones off, as noted by siblers:
Some fella lying in his bed with his camera on, this is very surreal
and I'm not sure if Paige's Dad was actually having another meltdown or people were just taking the piss, but several people including se9addick reported:
It’s crazy - pretty sure someone’s playing bloody call of duty in the background there
Finally at 3:15pm we were under way:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300799681937715206 "There are 167 people on hearing. Judge Pearce saying the lobby
was so jammed it was not possible for people to join - including him and
some of the parties involved.
He apologises for considerable delay. Confident that all key people in attendance."
The Claimant's Case I'm not going to quote all the tweets that were the basis of the blow by blow report, because all the attributions will make the whole thing twice as long, and this is going to be pushing the character limit as things stand. Also not all of the information is quite in the order that it was presented to the court, as Mr Chaisty in particular had a bit of a tendency to go around in circles. If you want to read them in context, start with these tweets on the timelines of @Airman Brown, Benjy Nurick, Ben Ransom and Richard Cawley.
Mr Chaisty began the case for Lex Dominus by saying they were seeking an interim order to prevent Panorama Magic from dealing with the shares in ESI, and then spent a fair amount of time ripping Marian Mihail's evidence to shreds. As ISawLeaburnScore said:
Not a good start here. Nimer barely given any evidence and appears to have used Marian Mihail as his lawyer...
Chaisty said Mihail’s statement contained irrelevancies, errors and comments, and had failed to engage with issues raised by Lex Dominus - including the "considerable amount" of money Paul Elliott has put in and the failure of Nimer to put any money in. This last point led cafcfan1990 to snark:
Elliott must own it because he put money in.
That's a right result, I'm off to the Red Lion in a bit to let them know I own the fruit machine!
Chaisty also said Mihail provided no evidence at all that granting this injunction will cause any harm, dismissed much of his evidence as speculation, and said it should be treated with extreme caution and care. In addition, he said his clients are anxious to progress matters, but Mihail had not shown any evidence about the state of negotiations for a sale to others, just referred to third party press reports.
Claimant's Case - The Intricacies of The Deal According to Chaisty's presentation of the evidence, the contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. The deal was signed by both parties in May (given that Lex Dominus was owned by Farnell at this point according to Companies House, this may be germane to the SRA complaint regarding his conflict of interest), and Southall's shares would transfer over as a result of the "drag along" provisions, but he hasn't been included as a party in the case as there's no indication that he'd
resist the sale.
On the match thread, there was a definite cloud of gloom beginning to settle over a number of posters, but Garrymanilow tried to reassure us:
To those worrying, remember that the case a lawyer puts forward will always look very good before the other side has the opportunity to make their argument. Ultimately it will hinge on what the judge decides is pertinent to the injunction, so don't panic too much
that the QC is a good talker.
Jeepers, if I ever get done for murder I hope some of you lot are not on the Jury. Let's hear both sides submissions FFS 😉.
Chaisty stated that the issue is whether Panorama has a contractual obligation to sell ESI to Lex Dominus. In his evidence, Mihail asserted that the agreement was the subject of conditions that have not been met, but Chaisty argued the clause about EFL completion is not expressed in conditional terms, and there's a tension between different clauses. Chaisty confirmed that Elliott has submitted an appeal regarding the ODT disqualification, but said Farnell's role should be disregarded for the
moment. As aliwibble surmised
In other words he knows it's bloody dodgy and is hoping the judge will ignore it.
Apparently the EFL said on 7th August that the agreement was not conditional, as stated in Mihail's evidence (although you'd hope that this judge would remember that he himself ruled it was conditional in the Southall v ESI hearing) and provision of false or misleading information to the EFL was the reason for disqualification. In something of an understatement, carly burn said:
The EFL haven't obviously helped our case
Elliott has appealed the EFL decision to reject him under the ODT, and although Mihail has asserted that matters leading to the disqualification cannot be remedied, Chaisty said that’s nonsense and Mihail misunderstands rules. He also asserted that if Panorama is now arguing that there was a requirement for the EFL approval to be in place at completion, then Nimer had no business allowing Elliott to put money into the club subsequently.
Lex Dominus' agreement is to buy ESI for £1 according to the evidence in this case, and Chaisty referenced documentation that shows Mihail - acting on behalf of Nimer - had supplied confirmation on club headed notepaper on 8th June that Panorama had sold their shares to Elliott. I think it was at
this point on the match thread that PeanutsMolloy said
MM's scored more own goals that Stewart Balmer.
Chaisty said it wasn't until the 12 of August, 2.5 months after signing the agreement, that the defendant claimed the deal could be terminated. (This was less than a week after the ODT failures were
announced, and the day that Farnell was terminated as club lawyer and Mihail announced that the club would not be appealing the ODT failures, nor proceeding with the takeover.)
Claimant's Case - Remedies And Detriments Chaisty didn't feel the judge can make proper call on the case without a deeper dive into it, but when asked by the judge what he hoped to achieve with a trial, he said "With goodwill on both sides, a quick resolution" (as Richard Cawley tweeted at the time, not quite sure that answers the question). He suggested disclosure and statements could be made within days, so "this could be geared up and ready in weeks, not months - subject to the court having availability", but then added that there's court space in November!
Chaisty returned to the theme of Mihail's inadequacies at this point, saying there was "press speculation" over negotiations but Mihail had been "entirely silent" on what was happening to Lex Dominus. He also pointed out that Mihail could offer no assurances of the ability of Panorama to pay any damages,even if they were quantifiable, as it has no assets other than the shares in ESI. It was at this point that whoever was in charge of the CAST twitter feed got a bit irate:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300811751479488519 "Can't quantify potential damages? Well you bought #cafc for £1 so there's a clue for you."
Turning to the "adequacy of damages" Chaisty argued that damages would not be an adequate remedy as "We will not have the shares. It would make it a complete nonsense to have a trial when the shares have already gone." He also explored the possibility of Lex Dominus selling the shares on, saying "if my client chooses to sell those shares onto someone else, that's my client's prerogative", which led carly burn to conclude
It is all about who get to sell the shares to TS I think. Unless Farnell has another chancer in the cupboard.
At this point we were about an hour in, and people were beginning to flag a bit, particularly as Chaisty showed no sign of finishing, leading Chizz to joke
"The referee's assistant has indicated there will be a minimum of 60 minutes additional time".
Chaisty is actually starting to struggle now. Butting in on the Judge, putting forward suppositions and hypothetical scenarios and continue into waffling on, trying to put specific
questions for the Judge to ask.
It's a machine gun attack, but using the same bullets time and time again
Moving on to state that there was no evidence that this injunction would cause the club harm or deny it any benefits, Chaisty continued to give Mihail a metaphorical kicking, arguing that the errors in his evidence re the ODT threw doubt on his other points, and calling his evidence absolutely hopeless. Mihail had argued that the club could be expelled if Elliott owns it but remains disqualified, but Chaisty said there was no evidence from the EFL that they would not allow Charlton to compete in League One or that there could be a points penalty, and the reference to Bury was not relevant. Chaisty also referred to the transfer embargo being imposed in January, and said that at no stage has Panorama put any funds into the club and does not say it will now if the injunction is not granted. The repetition during this bit left the newbie thinking:
It sounds like Chaisty has got two or three decently strong arguments but hopes by saying each in five slightly different ways it will sound more impressive
Claimant's Case - Trial Location And Summing Up Possibly the weirdest bit so far was in relation to Panorama attempting to transfer proceedings south, with Chaisty saying there was "no obvious connection with London" (does he think we're Chorlton Athletic?), and then finally during his summing up, LeaburnForEngland (and many others) noticed
Someone just unmuted and yawned
(I don't think it was the judge)
Interestingly, during the summing up segment Chaisty was apparently saying that the argument that Elliott/Lex Dominus doesn’t have the money is not enough to prevent an injunction being granted, which is an odd thing to say if your client can demonstrate that they actually have
the money. Bodes well for passing the EFL's source and sufficiency of funds test then. 🙄 Then, 80 minutes after he started, Chaisty FINALLY finished with "We are looking for a short-term remedy in order to solve the matter with a trial".
Approaching half time I think.
I'd say about 3-0 down.
Need a mendonca like performance from our girl.
The Defendant's Case The first piece of business for Lauren Kreamer was to confirm whether she'd be able to finish her argument in the current sitting, or whether she'd have to continue in the morning due to the delays in the hearing starting and Chaisty taking so long. However, as both Chaisty and the Judge were unavailable on Wednesday morning, the Judge said they would continue and try to finish that evening. Kreamer said that Chaisty, who had conclusively picked apart Mihail, hadn’t referred to his own client’s evidence, which she described as "scant and incoherent". She did admit there was an error in Mihail’s evidence where he said the ODT appeal to the EFL has to be
brought by the club. As Chaisty had pointed out that Mihail was not a director of Panorama, she outlined the structure of ESI and said Mihail was "clearly authorised" to give evidence on behalf of Panorama, and said he was bearing witness for Nimer who is not a fluent English speaker. Kreamer also defended Mihail’s "relevant expertise" on this matter as a director of ESI and CAFC, and said that he is liaising with the EFL and is involved in the day-to-day running of the club. She said Nimer's decision to sell the club came out of Southall's misspending.
Defendant's Case - Farnell's Role Kreamer described the injunction as "an abuse", and explained that a major aspect of their argument was the conflict of interest by Farnell, who was the sole owner of Lex Dominus until June 5 or 6 when Elliott became the new director and shareholder. She pointed out that he (Farnell) was the subject of two SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) complaints, at which point on the match thread CAFCsayer, who was the source of one of those complaints chimed in with
A few weeks ago I reported Farnell to the SRA over a specific issue. Received an email today saying that after initial investigations it has been found there is a case to answer and it’s been passed to an Investigations Officer....
so depending on whether that initial approach had been taken into account when the evidence was submitted, it might actually be three active complaints.)
Kreamer questioned how Farnell could have kept confidentiality rules given the multiple roles he'd performed for the various parties involved. I'm not sure any of the various commentators managed to capture them all, but not only had he been Panorama's solicitor, ESI solicitor and director, but the Lex Dominus application for the proceedings was itself issued by IPS Law, Farnell’s firm. She also
pointed out how Chaisty had conveniently left this information out of his argument, and how Lex Dominus had quietly changed solicitors for this case when the conflict was pointed out. Even though
new solicitors have since been instructed, she argued that the court should consider this matter as relevant, as Farnell had benefit of various pieces of information that may have been obtained under duty of confidentiality, and there was a "very clear conflict".
This last thread of evidence met with a great deal of approval on the match thread, most of which I will draw a veil over so as not to embarrass the poor woman, but it inspired this terrible pun from Callumcafc
Might have a different opinion after ninety minutes of waffle but Lauren is so much easier to listen to than Chaisty!
Defendant's Case - The Sale and Purchase Agreement Referring back to July's Southall v ESI court case, Kreamer pointed out that the while the July court case had different parties, the same “cast of characters” were involved. She made the case that the court, including this same judge, had already determined who owned the shares on 13th July, which was Panorama Magic. The parties agreed that a sale had not completed, and nothing has changed since then, and she added that the applicant was now trying to circumvent that decision with this
injunction. At this, ForeverAddickted exclaimed:
If this is the Play-Off Final it feels like Purrington has equalised!!
Kreamer returned to this point again later, saying that Farnell gave evidence on July 13th that Panorama owned the shares, legally and beneficially. As a lawyer, Farnell might be expected to say if they were being held on trust for Lex Dominus, but he didn’t, and instead said that the Lex Dominus deal had not been concluded.
Kreamer then went on to refute the claims of Chaisty that the shares were purchased in May. The Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) has not been carried into effect she said, and the EFL view of the status of the purchase was not binding on the court, just its opinion, and no evidence was provided for it. She submitted that the SPA document is undated, states that it relates to share capital of CAFC Limited not ESI, and contact details for service of notices was not completed. The transfer form for shares was not executed, and evidence of EFL approval was needed on completion date but not provided. Lex Dominus is yet to actually pay the £1 sale price, which caused a great deal of hilarity,
and the newbie reckoned:
If true that torpedoes their whole case. And raises the question of Elliotttt having thousands of pounds for wages but can't find a quid to seal the deal??
The Defendant's Case - Issues Around EFL Processes Kreamer then went on to discuss the Owners and Directors Test, and said that Elliott and Farnell were both the subject of disqualifying conditions. The live commentary is slightly confusing on this point, as at one stage it seems she said that the court had no details on why the EFL turned down Elliott under the ODT, and at another that the EFL said Elliott provided "misleading information". It might be that the misleading information was one issue, but we can't know for certain that it was the only issue due to the lack of documentation from the EFL. I suspect ForeverAddickted spoke for us all:
Nice of the EFL to not provide the court with such important information!!!
Kreamer noted that if Panorama had had no interest in the ODT it wouldn’t have included it in the SPA in the first place. It was needed because you can legally buy the club but not be allowed to play in the EFL. In addition, she pointed to EFL rules that clubs will be disciplined for the involvement of individuals who have failed the ODT. Given that no evidence had been provided to the court in respect of Elliott’s appeal or when it might be heard, Kreamer later said that it couldn't therefore be factored into court’s decision, and source and sufficiency of funds had still not been proven to the EFL, which meant a risk of serious
sanctions.
Tuesday 1st September Part 3 - Final Legal Arguments, The Judgment, and Sandgaard at Loftus Road
The Defendant's Case - Risk To The Club Of Delay Kreamer then emphasised that the sanctions facing the club were of the most serious nature and wide-reaching. The regulations refer to disciplinary proceedings and "It's not overstating it... that there is a very real risk to the football club if this matter is not resolved." At this point the judge interjected that Mihail was the only one giving evidence on this and he was not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about Elliott's EFL appeal, but she argued that it was wrong to question the rest of Mihail's evidence just due to the already aforementioned error. I think it was about then that Addickted noticed:
Chaisty interrupting now, then hiding behind legal documents, like a child pretending it wasn't him that farted.
Kreamer made the case that it would "doubtless be possible" for a court to come up with compensation for Lex Dominus in the future, and damages would be a perfectly adequate remedy, but there would be huge damage caused to the club if an injunction was obtained. She referred to the fate of Bury, making the point that damages awarded subsequently could not put loss right if the club was expelled from the EFL, whereas Lex Dominus faces only a potential commercial loss. She said there was
"a very material risk" the club would cease to exist due to these wranglings over ownership. Citing precedent, Kreamer stated that the court should take the course likely to cause least irremediable
prejudice, and the balance of convenience is in favour of Panorama because of this. Evidence of intangible benefits to the community, including CACT, were included in the bundle, and the importance of the club to fans and the community should not be underestimated bythe court.
The Defendant's Case - Final Points And Summing Up By this stage the judge was making noises about not thinking they could reach a conclusion today, after Chaisty had continued to endear himself to the watching Charlton fans with Addickted noting:
Chaisty pointing at his watch in a dramatic manner.
and Kreamer was concerned that they'd struggle to get everyone back on at a different time. She went on to outline the risk that if the court granted an injunction, the proposed sale to a third party would be incapable of completion, and pointed out that although Chaisty repeatedly mentioned that Mihail didn't disclose information on potential new buyers, Mihail can't release commercially sensitive info.
Kraimer also harked back to Chaisty saying that he referred to the trial being resolved in weeks, but then mentioned November, which is months, and emphasised "No matter how quickly matters progress, I invite the court to be realistic. There is nothing to suggest the timeline would be short enough to avoid risk to Charlton". She went on to add "a further urgency to take into consideration is that the season starts in 11 days. While these various issues are not resolved the club is not able to buy players" and that if the issue was not resolved until November that would prevent the club signing players as the transfer window closes in October.
Unfortunately the judge said there was no “imminent” sale to third party, which might be reason to refuse an injunction. He also thought the case could be tried in November, but not any earlier as "I doubt the necessary procedural steps could be taken for October. I'd have thought allowing for six weeks and speedy witness statements and limited disclosure the case could reach a stage to be tried in November." This set hearts sinking again, with the CAST twitter account having a bit of a wobble:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300837484587134977 "No, no, no we can't wait till November!! #SaveCAFC"
Hope he swerves at last minute and says trial but no injunction.
Kreamer then drew her evidence to a close by noting that Elliott had said in evidence that he is willing to negotiate a sale with third parties, and that is the sentiment of a man who sees this as a
commercial transaction and nothing more, so it can be dealt with by damages. She concluded by stating the balance of convenience falls very heavily towards Panorama Magic.
Whatever the verdict, LK couldn't have made a better case for Panorama and by extension for CAFC and all of us. Great job. Fingers crossed.
Claimant's Rebuttal The judge said that each side had a respectable argument that damages are not sufficient and that it is a serious issue, so the decision on the injunction would come down to the balance of convenience (ie the course least likely to cause irredeemable prejudice to parties).
Mr Chaisty then returned to his attack on Mihail's evidence, saying there was no loss to Panorama Magic itself in commercial terms. He questioned the validity of the supposed "doomsday scenarios", saying there was nothing to show a risk Charlton would cease to exist or that a refusal to grant an injunction would change the situation. He argued that the balance of convenience should favour the status quo, which he claimed would see the shares remain with Elliott.
Chaisty went on to describe Mihail's evidence as tainted and flawed, and said that he had not done anything to show the balance of convenience was tipped over to Panorama, arguing if there was no evidence of any imminent sale, "where is the risk in a temporary injunction?" This caused a fair amount of irritation on the match thread, and as LeaburnForEngland said:
So frustrating the case seems to now be around "no evidence of any imminent sale" when everyone in the world apart from this judge knows we have an imminent sale waiting on this result...
I don't understand why we didn't provide some evidence to show a sale is under way.
Chaisty said that iremediable loss had not been made out to refuse the application, but the defendant could come forward with new evidence between now and November to get an injunction lifted. Turning to Elliott's ODT appeal, he seemed to suggest it's imminent, but would not disclose information on private proceedings. I think it was at this point that this happened:
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300841814392537089 "We've just had a shout of "Chris Farnell's a c***" from the audience #cafc #SaveCAFC"
This was immediately addressed by Chaisty, who said he wasn't sure why the attack had been launched against Farnell, who was not a party to the proceedings. He described Kreamer’s rhetoric about Farnell living and dying by the sword as a meaningless soundbite, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually a nod to the Charlton fans watching. He concluded by saying Elliott was not turning a blind eye to ways to assist everyone, including the club, and that an interim order protects
his role as part of the procedure.
The Judgment Judge Pearce said he would return the judgment immediately, and then go to a consequential hearing in the near future. He began by thanking those watching, and implored people not to interrupt his judgement. He said "I believe at the highest point we had over 200 people at the hearing" which would have gratified sammy391, who said at about 2:30pm, during the initial chaos
Hopefully the amount of Charlton fans interested via teams can be used to show to the judge that this is momentous for the club
This is Charlton FFS.
We all know where this is going
The judge said it was not obvious that the claimant would win a summary judgement, and noted the declaration in the July hearing that shares remained with Panorama based on Farnell’s evidence. He added that Farnell had been intimately involved with the applicant and had played different roles, but cannot assert one thing in July and now support the opposite. Farnell’s conduct gives rise to questions as to whether he is conflicted, but the judge was far from convinced that rendered the claimant’s case unarguable. The judge also believed that claimant would risk losing the reputation and prestige ttached to running the club, and noted it was far from clear that the defendant is good for damages.
At this point, the match thread was fairly equally divided between gloom and recrimination, with some clutching at straws such as this from ct_addick
Hope the judge was a Bury fan
and would not have made happy reading for Mihail, even before the judge got around to discussing the defendant's case. The judge said the defendant would lose the prospect of selling the club to a third party if the injunction was granted. Mihail’s evidence had weaknesses, including the incorrect claim about Elliott's appeal, which Causes judge to be cautious about his evidence about the risks to the club in general and ESI. The judge said he took Mihail’s evidence about the threat to the club with a pinch of salt, but having read the rules and regulations from the EFL there had to be at least some risk he is correct.
So, probably not a Bury fan then. With the tension ramping up, some on the match thread returned to Play-off Final analogies, with fat man on a moped going with
Feels like its going to be a last minute Barnsley goal
The judge continued that the defendant can say damages would not be an inadequate remedy, and considered there should be a speedy trial of the issues. He said fans would be appalled to hear their club described as a commercial asset. However the interests of the club could not be ignored as the court must have regards to the wider picture. He added preserving the status quo can itself be a risk, and in this case it could put off a potential buyer while Lex Dominus cannot proceed.
Sandgaard At The Wimbledon Match Of course during the later stages of the court hearing, there was also a match going on, namely the first of the EFL trophy matches against AFC Wimbledon, which was being played at QPR's ground.
@LouisMend was covering it in place of Richard Cawley who was stuck doing legal livetweeting, and spotted a familiar face:
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300830394808512514 "Your boy @SandgaardThomas has just rocked up at Loftus Road #cafc"
The incongruity of the situation was not lost on some:
https://twitter.com/iamross85/status/1300843834620944393 "Remember when you got taken to your first #cafc game and you couldn’t wait for the future when you were hanging on every word of a court case to see if the club continues to exist instead of watching an actual game that’s going on at the same time?"
A little later, just as Wimbledon went 2-1 up, the news came in that the injunction had been refused, and as Benjy noted from wherever he'd been livetweeting the hearing: https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300853851323617280 "Today's ruling means that Panorama Magic can now sell the club to a third party...there happens to be a third party currently watching from the stands at Loftus Road 👀
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
That prompted this reaction from former defender Steve Brown:
https://twitter.com/S66Brown/status/1300874916724699139 "Now this is good news....fingers crossed Thomas Sandgaard is the real deal, Peter Varney CEO, Alan Curbishley Head of football operations, that would be my advice, great experience and a huge step up in support for the current staff."
(quoting this tweet from @LouisMend)
and Ben Ransom from Sky had had a similar conversation with Sandgaard:
https://twitter.com/BenRansomSky/status/1300859043960049664 "BREAKING: Charlton Athletic takeover can go ahead after Paul Elliott denied an injunction against the sale.
@SandgaardThomas has told me that he now hopes to have a deal finalised this week #cafc 🤘🏻"
A Brief Diversion Into Transfer Embargo Discussion In addition to all the court case and takeover chat, in Lee Bowyer's post match interview, there was one slightly concerning piece of news about the on-going effects of the transfer embargo:
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300872079580041221 "Just to ruin everyone's evening a little bit, Adam Matthews isn't as done a deal as we hoped. Bowyer says the full-back is assessing his options now #cafc"
Tuesday 1st September Part 4 - Court Case Aftermath
More Fan Reaction After the immediate confusion, relief and joy at the result of the court case, the fan reaction continued:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300852799069192194 "Last minute winner in court!! No injunction. Time for Tommy @SandgaardThomas
? Nice one, Judge Pearce - though you didn't half have us on tenterhooks!! #cafc"
Former Fans' Director Ben Hayes had warm words for CAST and Lauren Kreamer:
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1300859750012407808 "Not a member of @CAStrust (I won't join any club that would have me as a member) but they have done themselves, and #cafc fans in general, a power of good today with Lauren Kreamer winning the fight to stop the injunction and open the door to a @SandgaardThomas takeover."
and a warning for those who underestimate our fanbase:
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1300860666555793408 "Too many, including Southall, Elliot, Farnell, Duchatelet, Meire, @itsagoldfinch and Greenwich council in 1990 have underestimated the collective intelligence, creativity and determination of #cafc fans at their peril.
First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then we win."
while former CAFC Comms guy Jimmy Stone was a bit more combative:
https://twitter.com/JimmyStone_/status/1300896315723874307 "We’ve raised tens of thousands of pounds, we’ve protested outside boardrooms, we’ve stopped countless games, made podcasts, hired planes, been on the pitch, destroyed a sofa, been to stormed offices and we’ve beaten ESI in court.
Leave us the keys on your way out. 👋
#cafc"
What a superb outcome. Many congratulations to Lauren Kreamer and all those who have fought for our club, either publicly or by investigating and compiling information behind the scenes and to those who have kept it going from within... Let's hope this is a significant step towards supporting a viable, sustainable, charitable, transparent, united and ENJOYABLE football club once again. Please get it done Mr Sandgaard!
That was the worst afternoon I've ever had supporting Charlton
God knows how it must have felt waiting to hear if the club would survive those last few mins back in the 80s
At least I could rely on the internet
Having watched Elliott’s QC huff, puff, slam pens down, pick his teeth, lay back in his chair, cough at every opportunity, look at his watch, look at his phone and show an appalling amount of disrespect throughout Lauren’s statements, makes this win is even more sweeter! ...
I think it's about costs.
At the Southall trial they did the injunction hearing and gave Southall a 12 month injunction and then had a bit after where he was fined £20k for the trouble. I think this is what they're doing tomorrow as they ran out of time this evening.
... Just a word of caution though, at the consequential hearing tomorrow the judge will consider any application (if there is one) by Elliot for permission to appeal his decision...
Tomorrow will largely be devoted to procedure - primarily submissions and an assessment on how the parties' costs should be attributed and LDL/Elliott may also seek permission to appeal. He may instead elect to apply directly to the Court of Appeal for his permission (he has 21 days to do so), or he may not bring an appeal. I would say he's unlikely to appeal. It is pushing the expense higher and the likelihood now seems to be that by the time any appeal would be heard, the club will have been sold meaning that he is still merely left with his claim against Panorama/Nimer.
Obviously, being Charlton fans there were still one or two of us with nagging doubts. As Chef_addick put it:
Anyone else nervous now Louis has put words "done deal" in his headline?
Very true, but while we can't take winning the war for granted, I think taking a little time to celebrate winning this particular battle is justified. If nothing else, it fortifies us for the battles ahead.
The Lauren Kreamer Fan Club Following the result of the hearing Lauren Kreamer received praise and thanks from many quarters for her performance as ESI's barrister:
https://twitter.com/TraceyLeaburn/status/1300913473812074496 "Thank you Lauren for your amazing dedication to saving our Club 🙌 Thank you also @CAStrust So many people quietly working behind the scenes saving our Club. Together we are one 💪 #cafc"
Everyone bracing themselves now for the username reveal when you realise you've previously had a 2am drunken slanging match with her on the favourite cheeses thread.
Don't worry Lauren, if you are on here, your secret's safe with us!
and Benjy Nurick (formerly interning with the club Comms Team)
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300912546556325895 In the end the decisive argument essentially came down to this: Charlton is too important to ruin
Only a true Addick like Lauren could fully grasp what the club means and portray it in such a convincing way to the judge.
👏👏👏
#cafc #SaveCAFC
(quoting this tweet from LaurenKreamer)
And Finally... Last word of the day goes to @CAFCFansForFans:
https://twitter.com/CAFCfansforfans/status/1300916097529544712 Time for reflection. Look at the journey and Look how hard we fought for today's result. Each and every single one of us deserves a 👏. This is about unity and strength because one thing is for sure we will not be beaten. Good night my fellow addicks. That includes 👇
❤🤍💯👏
Wednesday 2nd September - Court case update - Consequential Hearing Live Update
SUMMARY: Judge
refuses leave to appeal, but Lex Dominus will be applying direct to the
Court of Appeal, so he's granted an interim injunction of 7 days to
allow them to do that. Panorama Magic have been awarded costs of just
over £20k, but that will be deferred for 21 days or until completion of
the appeal.
Full cast of characters have turned up for the #cafc consequentials hearing, including Matt Southall and Mohamed El Kashashy.
About 50 people altogether in the room for Lex Dominus v Panorama part two so far.
Chaisty up again
complaining about comments made on Twitter yesterday including personal comments towards him
raising that Kreamer is a former member of the@CAStrust board and complaining that she had not disclosed she was a supporter.
bringing up fact that the press were reporting last night that a deal with Sandgaard is just a matter of days away.
He's also brought up Kreamer's tweet last night.
" It was surprising to see what we saw last night. But maybe I'm a different generation." (what's that got to do with anything?)
Judge Richard Pearce:
says it is completely unacceptable that those listening in to
hearing should subject applicants to abuse and that is a matter which in
certain circumstances the court can take action.
saying it isn't a matter he can treat as a contempt - even
though can exercise those powers - because there hadn't been a warning.
But he'll obtain information and consider that matter.
On
Kreamer's previous relationship with CAST, he says it comes "as a
complete surprise".
"I'm not sure that is a matter for me. I'm not expressing any view at
the moment whether Ms Kreamer has or hasn't acted inappropriately."
Pearce asks if Kreamer wants to say anything - makes clear she doesn't have to justify herself.
Kreamer says she is surprised point about her has been raised but won’t waste the court’s time on it.
Chaisty now on to trial process, submission of an appeal and some
relief pending an appeal - whether the judge grants one or not.
said in light of press releases last night there is no likelihood of a sale not taking place before November.
(wish he wouldn't keep using double negatives, as I end up having to
read it twice to be sure of the meaning. Also, marked contrast to what
he was saying yesterday on this point)
He says the trial in November will be a "non-event" - the shares will be
sold and Panorama will have "disappeared into the ether'.
saying
Panorama is a shell company and will have no interest in the case.
But he's still asking for a speedy trial in case their pessimism is
misplaced or some form of relief from the court of appeal which still
makes a trial effective.
saying the trial will take 4-5 days
Kreamer says court can’t proceed to speedy trial on basis that
Panorama might disappear as there are provisions available to deal with
that. Supports speedy trial.
wants trial transferred to London. Says suggestion it doesn’t
matter as hearing is remote not an adequate reason for case to commence
in Manchester. Respondent in London so proceedings should have been
issued there. Should be transferred.
Chaisty now
arguing the case should stay in Manchester. Says location of the
assets is irrelevant to where hearing should be. Appeal would be in
London but that is inevitable. Manchester court can accommodate trial in
November
Judge ruling on transfer.
Court has power to do so. Agreed with Chaisty that none of
usual criteria apply to this particular case. May be case should not
have been issued in Manchester, but appropriate matters to consider are
consequences of transfer.
In normal times interest of #cafc
fans might make transfer to London sensible, but because of Covid
accommodating even 20 fans unlikely. Sees advantage of it being remote
and therefore not a factor in favour of transfer. Judge not in charge of
lists in London.
Unlike London, Manchester could take trial in
November so in order to achieve a speedy trial strong argument to hold
it in Manchester. Declines transfer.
asks if parties have a view on whether he should be judge in trial. Chaisty seeks advice on WhatsApp. Both sides are content.
Week of November 23rd available for trial. Judge says he will list it for that week.
A couple of side notes from the journos
Cawley: Few people confused. The hearing today doesn't change
the fact that Panorama Magic can sell the football club.
They are likely to discuss trial schedule and Lev Dominus suing Panorama
for alleged breach of contract. Could also lodge an appeal on judge's
ruling.
Everitt: Just a reminder that of #cafc
has been sold by November, the parties will be contesting damages. The
ownership of the club won’t be on the table. What we’re interested in is
any appeal.
Discussion about cost and case management and disclosure going on. Nothing of interest to fans!
Chaisty asking for permission to appeal yesterday’s refusal of the injunction.
describes the judge's decision yesterday as "draconian".
Says they'll be "chasing shadows" to recover any damages they win off Panorama Magic.
Says it isn't "a risk they will be prejudiced - but a certainty".
says judge has balanced a certainty of loss for Lex Dominus against a possible risk for #cafc. No evidence risk will not continue to be suffered anyway.
saying if a sale of the football club takes place in the next week or two his client has no remedy.
Trial
will be a Pyrrhic victory for Lex Dominus even if they win. Therefore
court of appeal should consider balance of convenience.
Judge Pearce doesn't feel his decision yesterday was "irrational" and he refuses the right to appeal.
Chaisty requests a "further restraint on the defendent for seven days" so his client can get in front of the Court of Appeals.
concerned that even a short delay in getting leave to appeal might mean #cafc could be sold to @SandgaardThomas before that.
Judge says he hasn’t seen material in public domain re @SandgaardThomas and wonders if he should be.
Chaisty suggests that he Googles it.
Judge not keen.
Judge looking at webpage from Football League World - not an original source!
Mihail’s @cafcofficial quotes on yesterday now being read to court by judge.
Judge believes he has the power to make an injunction pending an intervention by the court of appeal.
Kreamer raising the fact that Chaisty's point of law (in which
he is seeking a short-term injunction) relates to a Family Court - she
is saying it is in relation to a change of situation to children.
says Chaisty is seeking the injunction that he sought yesterday
by the back door. Refused injunctions and appeals common but Chaisty has
produced no relevant precedent.
says Mihail’s comments are exactly the same as those before the court yesterday in his evidence.
says Chaisty will be attempting to "obtain relief by the back door and is not to be encouraged"
Judge ruling on injunction pending application to appeal.
Says unusual having decided not to grant injunction for longer period.
believes appeal will not be successful.
considers
precedent cited by Chaisty. Acknowledges about a child. Says appeals in
that context give rise to different considerations. But says he will
apply same principles.
Balance of convenience is different therefore grants seven day injunction.
judge has effectively said that he doesn't believe Sandgaard's interest in buying Charlton will be affected by a short delay.
Each party given liberty to apply to vary the injunction but judge says he doesn’t encourage it.
Says it has to be a short injunction, otherwise it would be "tantamount to overturning his original decision".
Interim injunction granted (to allow appeal to Court of Appeal), expiring 4pm on 9th Sep
Discussion of Costs
Panorama seeking £25k costs
Chaisty objecting to increase from £16k since original submission and highlighting individual items.
Uncertainty over Lex Dominus costs (Cawley says 24, Airman says 42, so one of them's typo'd it)
Lex Dominus legal fees doubled in the space of a few days.
First statement was at £12,500. (which would tally with the 24k figure)
Kreamer notes that Chaisty more senior than her.
Judge awards Panorama costs of £20,430.
Chaisty asks for stay on costs pending a final determination
based on an appeal, if allowed, as recovery from Panorama would be
difficult if the decision was overturned.
Judge orders costs to be deferred for 21 days or on determination of appeal.
Following Tuesday's hearing Sandgaard did a bunch more positive TV interviews, several of which only got aired after the consequential hearing.
Marian Mihail also put out a positive statement on the OS about the hearing
Lee Bowyer says he wants to send Josh Davison out on loan, but can't until the transfer embargo is lifted.
The consequential hearing was held at 3pm to discuss leave to appeal, subsequent trial date and location, and costs.
There
were further Teams etiquette failures from observers, but mainly brief
microphone issues by the sounds of things, including another cameo from
Paige's Dad. (this'll make sense once the more detailed versions are up)
Chaisty
(Lex Dominus's barrister) complained that Kreamer (for Panorama Magic)
hadn't disclosed that she was a supporter, but Judge Pearce said she
didn't have to justify herself.
Judge Pearce said it was
unacceptable for applicants to be subjected to abuse by those observing,
but couldn't treat it as contempt, as he hadn't issued a warning, but
will consider further.
Kreamer requested the trial be moved
to London, while Chaisty requested it be kept in Manchester. Judge
Pearce said as it'll be a remote hearing anyway, it makes more sense to
hear it in Manchester as it can be listed more quickly.
Judge
Pearce will also be the judge for the trial, and it's listed for the
week beginning 23rd November. It's expected to last 4-5 days.
Chaisty requested permission to appeal, but Judge Pearce refused
Chaisty
then requested an injunction for 7 days to allow time to go to the
Court of Appeal, citing it was necessary due to media reports of
imminent sale to Sandgaard (despite having rubbished similar media
reports as evidence in the previous day's hearing)
There was
a slightly surreal interlude involving Chaisty attempting to bring
Google, the Football League World website, the CAFC Official Site and
the SLP into evidence.
Judge Pearce said he didn't think the
appeal to the Court of Appeal would be succesful, but granted a short
injunction until 4pm on 09/09/2020 to allow time for LD to apply.
Panorama
Magic have been awarded £20,430 costs, but this has been deferred for
21 days to allow determination of the appeal, as costs would go the
other way if the decision is overturned.
Paul Elliott wrote an open letter to supporters, which was published on the SLP website to almost universal derision
Sam Cooke from CAST spoke to the Football Today podcast about our situation
CAFC
also got a few mentions in the interview with Tom Greatrex of the
Football Supporters Association about their Sustain The Game campaign,
on the Price of Football Podcast.
Sandgaard showed up at the Swindon game, and actually got to see us win!
The
Court of Appeal has granted Lex Dominus's appeal against the decision
not to grant an injunction until the court case in November.
The
temporary injunction has been extended until the appeal is heard, and
although there isn't a confirmed date for the hearing yet, it's thought
likely to be the week beginning the 14th September or 21st September
Rumours are circulating on the Sandgaard takeover front but there's nothing concrete yet.
Sandgaard was spotted out near Sparrows Lane, and then paid
a visit to the Rose of Denmark pub. It's assumed he went to the Valley
too, but there's no evidence of this.
Speculation continues as to what exactly is going on with the possible takeover, but there's still no concrete evidence.
19
year old Manchester United midfielder Dylan Levitt has signed on a
season long loan, which takes us back to having a full squad under the
terms of our current transfer embargo.
The case details for the injunction appeal were updated, initially showing a hearing date of 17th October, but this was a typo apparently. It's actually going to be on 17th September.
The Arsenal loanee we couldn't sign due to the embargo was Tyreece John-Jules who's gone to Doncaster.
Sandgaard continues his love-in with the fanbase, although there are one or two sceptics, which he seems to be handling with some grace
Takeover speculation continues, as more people vie to be added to @Dazzler21's list of ITK offenders.
Some fans were getting twitchy about Sandgaard's absence from the Crewe game, but he was clearly following in real time going by his twitter feed
Bowyer continues to be frustrated by the time the embargo has dragged on for
Sandgaard has returned to the US - I don't know if he's coming back for the West Ham game, but if not I hope he can get coverage locally, as the livestream service for the Carabao cup is only available in the UK and Ireland
The Turkish bidders for the club have officially dropped out
In his post match interview Bowyer says he has between 3 and 5 players lined up ready to go once the embargo is dropped
There's been a slightly odd development on the court case front, in that the Court of Appeal have sent another letter requesting the Bundles of documents from the Applicant.
No real news from Sandgaard, but according to Benjy Nurick he's still waiting on the EFL, and has sent a message saying "We’ll get it done!”
Lex Dominus's appeal against Judge Pearce's refusal to grant them an injunction until the 23rd November trial will be heard remotely by Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Males in the Court of Appeal from 10:30am.
There's been further criticism of the EFL following Macclesfield's winding up, and CAFCFansForFans are threatening further protests against them.
There are rumours that Sandgaard is coming over for the Doncaster game, although opinion is divided as to whether this indicates a successful takeover or just wanting to see the Valley with fans inside.
Thursday 17th September - Court of Appeal Hearing live tweets
Opening comments from those observing (RC=Richard Cawley, BN=Benjy Nurick, RE=Rick Everitt)
RC: I'm in the Court of Appeal hearing. Able to tweet unless judges tell media otherwise. Reporting has to be fair and balanced.
BN: We’re gonna get started in a couple mins. Lauren Kreamer representing Panorama Magic and Paul Chaisty representing Lex Dominus.
RE: Ready to go at the Court of Appeal. Can see some familiar initials present - PE, MM, RC... #cafc
RC: Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Males presiding over matters.
RE: Lauren Kreamer is representing Panorama Magic, with Paul Chaisty for the applicant, Lex Dominus, as before. Judges are in. Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Males.
Judges have read statements from and are aware that #cafc have played two matches this season...
Paul Chaisty (representing Lex Dominus) kicks things off.
says that CAFC, CACT and CAST not represented here. Evidence submitted from Steve Gallen.
arguing that Gallen evidence is not relevant (Judges confirm they have read it and if it makes any difference they will say so.)
calls Judge Pearce’s initial decision the “wrong decision”
says Judge Pearce fell outside of reasonable disagreement. Failed to apply law on balance of convenience properly and made findings of fact not supported by the evidence.
says evidence on Manchester was all on paper, so this court equally well placed to see if the original case made out and assess the risk if injunction granted. Witnesses didn't appear in person in either case.
Respondent has produced no evidence whatsoever to explain state of negotiations with third party in any sale - the current state of play
No evidence as to what contract, price or date of completion or identity of third party, says Chaisty. Extremely important if respondent says irremediable damage if injunction granted. No evidence third party would disappear either.
There is no evidence from the respondent as to what it might lose in terms of financial consideration if an injunction is granted until November. There is total silence in respect of that. No evidence from respondent to show what the position is going to be if an injunction is refused.
"There is a lot of speculation from Mr Mihail of risks to the club and wider community. But nothing cause/effect on flip side."
No evidence to show what the position is going to be if injunction is refused. Mihail's evidence is speculation about what risk to the club is in injunction granted, but nothing to show what happens if it isn't
No evidence put forward to show club has spoken to @EFL about the position which might prevail in a range of scenarios.
Doomsday scenario disproved by the fact that the club has started the season. Court left with speculation about potential consequences but with no evidence to form a view as to likelihood.
Intervention from Lord Justice Lewison
says Mihail sets out hypothesis that injunction is granted and LD succeed at trial then ties consequences to that scenario. So to determine whether damages are an adequate for Panorama is that injunction is grated by LD lose at trial.
says that Judge Pearce's ruling may be based on the wrong hypothesis.
Back to Chaisty
says that MM assumed that Elliott's disqualification is final ruling, which is false.
Elliott pursuing right of appeal with arbitration panel, says Chaisty. EFL disqualification based on misleading evidence provided by Elliott about the SPA. MM's evidence has no foundation because there is an appeal process.
"If he succeeds at trial we know damages will not be an adequate remedy. Panorama is a company based in Abu Dhabi with no money."
LJ Males says more fundamental point is whether Mihail has given any evidence about what will happen if injunction granted and claim ultimately fails.
Back to Chaisty
says Elliott has “appealed in good time” and that MM was wrong to think only Charlton Athletic could appeal EFL decisions.
Mihail evidence says EFL disciplinary proceedings include Elliott's action, Chaisty says no evidence for that. Embargoes in place before Elliott appeared. Hard embargo in place since April.
says there’s no evidence to say what will happen in regards to sanctions to the club if the injunction is rejected.
RC: Both judges have wanted Chaisty to focus on Mihail's witness statement, that's why we're on that subject now.
Back to Chaisty
all of MM’s testimony ignores Elliott’s “commercial interest” in the club.
saying Mihail's evidence that these proceedings were the cause of the embargo "was wrong".
"No evidential basis to say the defendent was going to suffer any damage/loss at all."
Only statement re third party is that Nimer remains committed to finding a buyer. Court unable to find evidence from Mihail that ESI would suffer any harm from injunction
Steve Gallen's evidence criticised for making statements as if they are based on fact. Gallen not now a director of the club, Chaisty tells judges. Gallen explains reason for embargoes, and suggests that cause of them remaining is Elliott's disqualification.
says again there’s no evidence as to what would happen to the embargoes if the injunction was rejected.
LJ Lewison says not down to Elliott, underlying documents show that ESI has failed to satisfy source and sufficiency of funds. LD hasn't reached that stage with the EFL.
Chaisty again
says there is no failure on Elliott’s part in terms of providing proof of funds as they haven’t gotten to that point with the EFL yet.
"Mr Gallen is confusing my client with ESI when he says they've had seven months to provide EFL."
LJ Males asks what happens if Panorama does suffer damages by losing sales, what evidence do we have that LD would be good for any damages? Not a difficult question. Does it have any assets?
Chaisty again
says difficult to understand. LD dependent on the support of Elliott. Chaisty says that Heller offered £100k for the shares of ESI at one point. Elliott offered guarantee of £50k, presumably against damages.
says that they suggested granting the injunction with liberty to apply for a variation if there is a change of circumstances for Panorama, which would be an indulgence, but wasn't addressed by Judge Pearce at all.
wholly wrong on that basis to grant no injunction at all, when he saw the problem with damages. No protection for LD in Judge Pearce's decision.
says balance of convenience is “overwhelmingly” in favour of his client.
says that unless no deal with a third party is struck between now and November, LD will be pursuing completely empty vehicle. Suggests Panorama wouldn't even participate in the speedy trial. Has no interest in defending it.
LJ Lewison flags up that could freeze proceeds of sale. "There are methods - some form of security that can be obtained."
Chaisty says hypothetical and we don't know what deals might be struck, including independently with Nimer, by which funds might be channeled.
over-emphasis on seriousness of consequences, not to Panorama but to the club, but no evidence as to the likelihood of those consequences coming about.
Pearce acknowledged that consequences might have been overstated, but has to be at least some risk that what Mihail says is correct, says Chaisty. So what? Lewison intervenes to say this finding is about damages, not balance of convenience.
notes that Pearce said history of the club is something he can take into account. No precedent for taking into account third party interests, he says. Not a public interest case, just parties interested in the outcome.
says Pearce has unreasonably included some risk of consequences to third party (CAFC) and balanced that against interests of applicant, which is not the course likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.
Even if there equality of harm, Judge Pearce did not consider the status quo properly. Hasn't been a sale of shares, asking for an injunction, happy to have a speedy trial and strength of claim was not considered at all in the balance of convenience.
Pearce did not take account of £500k put in by Elliott in June, says Chaisty. Ruling outside reasonable disagreement, factors including fate of #CAFC given unreasonable weight, failure to consider absence of evidence on key points from Mihail.
saying there’s no evidence as to “what difference it would make” if an injunction was given.
says this is an appropriate case for this court to look again and grant the injunction. Winds up.
Lauren Kreamer (LK) on now.
quoting "authorities" around levels of risk. Appellant court should only interfere between two imperfect solutions when judge has exceeded generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.
says the function of appellant court is not to exercise its own discretion just on the basis that current judges would have exercised their discretion differently
bringing up precedent which says the appeals court should only intervene if the judge’s decision was clearly wrong.
evidence of Gallen has been filed and responded to by Elliott, so appellant has had that opportunity. LJ Lewison doesn't want to hear argument on that point.
Back to Mihail's evidence about consequences now. LK argues that is valid hypothesis.
LJ Lewison says question of law is whether damages would be adequate if claim ultimately fails.
LJ Males doesn't understand how Mihail's evidence could have been compiled before the claim became clear.
LJ Lewison asking about risks such as a points deduction or expulsion.
Kreamer says just because the season has started doesn’t mean the EFL can’t/won’t impose greater sanctions.
“The risk of sanctions is an ongoing one.”
LJ Lewison explores LD losing at trial became binding contract not extant. In that case PE not a relevant person at any point, so what sanction could EFL impose from anything to do with LD. Transfer embargo not about PE.
Kreamer continues
says what will have been lost by PM is time and various knock-on effects on the club. Clear that ESI intends to sell. Part of reason is in Gallen's statement. PM can't satisfy EFL about source and sufficiency. LD must satisfy EFL in advance of taking over.
says it's very clear Panorama intent on selling their share of the club. That would force Southall to part with his 35 per cent stake as well.
says the reason the embargo has been imposed is due to the Jan takeover being completed before satisfying source and sufficiency of funds tests.
Says that also applies to Elliott who also hasn’t provided proof of funds yet.
says that Panorama unable to provide source and sufficiency of funds and now it's abundantly clear it won't be able to.
She says Gallen's evidence shows the effect that is having.
bringing up Gallen’s testimony where he talks about 10 players leaving the club and only 2 arriving.
“The footballing effects are no doubt connected to the financial effects.”
Gallen says that clubs lose out financially through lower television income if they are not successful, so detriment derives from continuation of embargo, as well as ST income, potential for redundancies, loss of reputation.
arguing that the ongoing nature of the dispute is itself a detriment. If injunction is granted both sides will be exposed to that loss.
LJ Lewison asking about Chaisty’s suggestion to give an injunction with an option to return to court sooner if Panorama have an “oven ready deal”
Kreamer turns to Lex Dominus evidence from Sept 2 and press releases about Thomas Sandgaard. Mentions Sky reporting about how close a deal is.
References Sky articles that TS is 99.9% certain of buying the club. Kreamer using this testimony from Elliott to show that a deal for TS could be “over-ready”
also mentions Sandgaard registering a company at Companies House.
LJ Lewison asking why have to rely on press reports and social media for that information.
Kreamer saying that Mihail views that process as a confidential matter.
LJ Lewison says doesn't say anywhere in evidence that "we've got a buyer, here are the terms of the deal."
Lord Males challenges Mihail's evidence on this point. No evidence provided that a particular deal will be lost if an injunction is granted.
Kreamer says
evidence is provided by Elliott that matters have already moved forward.
injunction was initially asked for to deny any sale. Now Chaisty arguing that no sale is close. Finds this rather contradictory.
LJ Males says that court has no idea what current circumstances are, so would struggle to know if there had been changes if there was an application to vary a conditional injunction that it granted today.
LJ Lewison asking if Panorama would put money into account from sale that could be available if Lex Dominus win case.
"The judge is clear - your clients aren't good for the money."
Kreamer admits that would avoid the risk of loss.
She says Chaisty hasn't said why that wouldn't be of any comfort to his client.
LJ Males: "They'd be shooting in the dark. A freezing order is a very uncertain weapon."
Kreamer continues
says PM have been responding to appeal, so court not entitled to assume negative connotations from freezing proceeds not being offered, as they won in lower court.
says there is no evidence that LD is good for the damages. Has no assets. Chaisty said was dependent on support of PE. LK: no evidence of Elliott's means, assertion he has a net worth of £12m.
LJ Lewison: no challenge to evidence that £500k has been put into the club.
Kreamer says no evidence it come from PE. Could have put evidence before the court about the provenance of those sums and hasn't.
says theres a question of where the £500k Elliott put into the club came from. Says it would have been very easy to provide the lower courts with bank statements.
now questioning who the consortium is that Elliott was initially announced to be working with.
no evidence that PE is good for the damages
LJ Males reminds court offered £50k guarantee so asks if there is any evidence that is inadequate re damages to PM.
LK quoting Gallen on TV revenue, cites £250k in Championship. Accepts is sparse evidence. Says even on that basis it's clear that £50k is unlikely to be sufficient.
LJ Lewison says loss would be calculated on diminution of the value shares rather than lost income to the club. Notes that people don't always buy football clubs to make money.
Thursday 17th September - Court of Appeal Hearing live tweets part 2
Have hit the character limit, so am continuing here:
LK says the fact that PE puts forward £50k doesn't give her client any
comfort that he has the money to cover its damages and even if he was
found in contempt that wouldn't assist PM.
now speaking about the quality of MM’s evidence.
Says Judge Pearce already said he was taking MM’s evidence with a “pinch of salt”
Says this shows Judge Pearce weighed the value of MM’s evidence alongside other submissions.
says a reason for some of MM’s lack of clarity is that this is a situation with many hypotheticals.
asking the court to reject the proposition that Judge Pearce did not weigh the deficiencies in MM’s testimony. Says he clearly did.
says part of what Judge Pearce had in mind was the club being under a transfer embargo while these proceedings (the interim injunction) continue.
Nothing in appellant's case on appeal provides evidence that judge was wrong to say that damages would not be adequate remedy for PM if an injunction was wrongly granted.
LJ Lewison says that Judge Pearce was relying on Mihail's hypothesis which is not what the court should be looking at.
Kreamer submits that Pearce does refer to the consequences of an injunction being granted, not simply the outcome of a later trial.
LK on nature of agreement: while consideration of only £1, buyer was also taking in liabilities in excess of £50m, via the January SPA.
LK: significant liabilities in respect of which personal guarantees have been given by both the respondent and CAFC. So PM and club stands to lose a lot more if a willing buyer is lost.
LJ Lewison didn't know about these liabilities. All new to him, he says. LJ Lewison says that he would have liked notice of these points.
LK says that it shows CAFC as first guarantor and PM as second guarantor for these substantial amounts. £1.7m or more due depending on net property valuation and deferred contingent payments on status.
LJ Lewison says that LD offering to indemnify PM against these liabilities.
LJ Males says that these are repeated in the June SPA.
LK says her point is that this is about more than the purchase of something for £1.
asks court to reject submission that it is a certainty that refusal to grant an injunction will deny the applicant any damages. Not a basis on which to overturn the first instance decision.
says Judge Pearce was "far from convinced" that summary judgement would likely be in favour of LD. Accepted that a speedy trial was required but did give weight to issues being considered in refusing injunction.
Chaisty said undue consideration was given to Charlton Athletic, but LK argues that court may have regard to other connected parties. Chaisty argues that #cafc is at heart of dispute but then says it should not be given such weight, she says.
says it can not be said that too much weight was given to Charlton Athletic (the football club). Says the club is the underlying thing that’s being fought over, so can’t overweight it’s importance in the case.
Nothing in Judge Pearce's ruling goes outside deciding between two imperfect outcomes. Not the role of the Court of Appeal to revisit that. LK finishes.
Chaisty responding
says considerable reliance placed by LK on Gallen's evidence. Concerned about that if appeal is rejected. Gallen has sought to explain what Mihail was saying. PM shouldn't be allowed to rely on evidence that should have been before court below.
Less worried if it is admitted if Lex Dominus are successful with appeal. "His evidence could - and should - have been before the court below (in Manchester). It was there, readily available, at all times."
"For some reason or another her client has chosen to remain absolutely silent over where negotiations are with a third party."
"We can only look at the press - it looks as if something is going on which could be detrimental to us in terms of a third party sale.
"It's no answer to say it's confidential. That's an extraordinary proposition that we can't tell you the core, key factors considered."
says injunction should be granted until trial or until further order. .
LJ Lewison says that's standard wording anyway
Chaisty continues
says Elliott's evidence is clear that he has put £500,000 in. Net assets of £12m. I haven't seen anywhere his statement has been challenged. Unhappy that Kreamer questioning if it is true. "That is unfair - to say the least."
Says his client should not be expected to provide bank details/details of assets.
says a speedy trial is neither here nor there if he doesn’t get protection (an injunction)
LJ Levison saying court will adjourn and resume again at 2pm. "I hope by then we'll be in a position to give you an answer."
RE: Personal opinion would be that the judges appeared to more sympathetic to LD there. Mihail's weak evidence looks to have left LK with a difficult case to argue.
RE: Feels to me like there is a game of bluff going on from all sides - PM put forward no evidence of imminent takeover that could be imperilled - are they simply here to try to avoid costs? LD no obvious intention to operate #cafc but want the proceeds of sale.
RE: One takeaway was that Elliott claims to have assets of £12m - assuming they are not all liquid that isn’t likely to be enough on its own to get past the @EFL. Claims he hasn’t got as far as source and sufficiency yet.
Thursday 17th September - Court of Appeal judgement live tweets
Summary - Appeal allowed, injunction granted til November.
Again, commentary lifted from the tweets of those observing (RC=Richard Cawley, BN=Benjy Nurick, RE=Rick Everitt)
RE: We're back in court for the ruling. Then we can try to work out what it means for #cafc, which may be the difficult bit.
LJ Lewison giving the ruling.
This is a case about the control of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
PM has agreed to sell its shares in ESI to LD, he says. Elliott sole shareholder in LD. Says he has sufficient means up to £12m. Parties in dispute as to whether SPA is extant. PM says it has been terminated or is incapable of performance.
talking about OADT
says SPA provides that the buyer shall deliver to the seller written confirmation that the EFL does not consider any relevant person to be subject to a disqualifying condition and is satisfied by future financial provisions.
Principal contention is whether SPA is conditional or whether as EFL decided it was unconditional. EFL decided that by paying money in Elliott acted as a relevant person and required the club to remove him as such.
LJ Lewison: where there is doubt as to the adequacy of remedy of damages that balance of convenience arises. Course should take whatever course seems like to take the least irremediable prejudice.
Judge was right to conclude that if injunction refused LD will have lost opportunity to buy unique asset. Ownership brings intangible benefits that cannot be compensated in damages.
Appeals turns on whether Panorama could be adequately compensated by damages. At first sight, judge's conclusion is counter-intuitive.
finds judge's view that it would lose opportunity to sell difficult to understand. Panorama has provided no evidence of impending sale or its terms. Nearest is saying that it is committed to finding a buyer, who would also have to pass EFL tests
"Panorama must live with its decision to remain silent".
Any difference between current price of £1 and value of subsequent sale easy to define. LD has offered personal guarantee of £50k. No direct evidence that amount is inadequate.
What impressed previous judge was evidence of Mihail about potential consequences for the club itself.
ESI that has not shown it was not able to finance the club sustainability. Quite unclear how grant or refusal of injunction would affect EFL sanctions.
Mihail's evidence depends on scenario that Elliott wins at trial and can't operate club. Should look at what happens if LD fails at trial. Difficult to see how Elliott can fall into relevant person category in that situation.
There is no doubt that if the club were expelled from the EFL it would be devastating. What isn’t clear is how the granting of an injunction would lead to that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appeal allowed. Injunction is granted until the case on November 23. LJ Males agrees with LJ Leveson's verdict.
Chaisty asks for costs. Kreamer not opposing. Will include today as well as previous hearing.
Huge discrepancy between costs on each side, says Lewison.
LD costs for the appeal are £48k, Chaisty wants an interim payment of £30k.
(RE: The very widely circulated idea that this hearing doesn't matter because Thomas Sandgaard has a workaround to acquire CAFC will now be put to the test.)
Interim costs payment of £25k in respect of appeal agreed.
RE: Judge paid tribute to Lauren Kreamer's efforts in his judgement - I think he was acknowledging that she did the best she could against an experienced QC with very inadequate evidence from Marian Mihail and Panorama Magic. No reflection on her.
BN: In every hearing it’s been clear that Lauren Kreamer has been hugely let down by Marian Mihail’s testimony. Each judge took their turn criticizing his evidence.
RC: It doesn't need me to tell you that by the time this case goes to court the transfer window is gone.
And there are no indications yet how ESI would fund the club beyond the end of this month without someone else taking control.
RC: It's a gamble to rely on sell-ons coming in for the likes of Karlan Grant.
I'm not saying that is a tactic - but it would be a way to bring external funds in.
RC: If this doesn't get resolved somehow - and very quickly - the player deals Charlton have lined up are gone. There were four ready to go, in terms of incomings. But that pales into insignificance if club goes into administration.
RC: I've got to say that this mess all started back in January.
ESI did a deal for the football club - and Roland let them have it - fully understanding they had no agreement from the EFL.
And the EFL were absolutely right to put those blocks in place.
Comments
- CAST announced the ESI2 v ESI1 court hearing (more correctly known as Lex Dominus v Panorama Magic) will be 2pm Tuesday
- The team coach send-off went down well apparently
- Sandgaard was in the Director's Box at Selhurst!
- Tom Lockyer has signed for Luton, so that means we now have space in the squad for Adam Matthews
-----------------------------------------------------------------The details of Elliott's hearing requesting the injunction have finally been released:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1299611926473908225
"COURT HEARING | Once again before Judge Pearce. Once again on Microsoft Teams. Once again no recording/ screen shotting. This time please follow the dress code and cover torso.
Lex Dominus (Elliott) v Panorama Magic (Nimer)
Kick-off 2pm Tuesday
#cafc"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299615235318444032
"I'll be tuning in. And this time I'll definitely get dressed. Won't make that mistake again."
(quoting this tweet from @CAStrust)
Farnell owned the company who have been alleged to own it until the 6th.
Marian said the deal had been done at least a week before it was announced. So at the latest the 3rd.
So therefor Farnell sold ESI to a company he was the only director of at the time.
Meanwhile the speculation over Elliott's motivation and likelihood of success continued. Gary Poole wondered:
If so and the worst happens and the court does give the injunction, could this be revoked if TS were to agree a price with both sides for purchasing CAFC with the money held by solicitors and then paid to whichever side the court rules in favour of?
And yes, if an injunction was granted, there could still be a subsequent commercial deal agreed between the parties to settle the matter.
Essentially the injunction should be viewed as a legal pause button. If Elliott wins on Tuesday he wins a pause on a sale of ESI/the club for a defined period of time to a third party. This doesn't prevent (a) a consensual settlement or (b) the period of time expiring.
Fan Stuff
The cover of the new Voice of The Valley was revealed:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1299653288917381122
"REVEALED: here's the front page of new VOTV160 which will be landing on well over 600 UK doormats from Saturday (29/8) - and is also winging its way to Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and the Far East. You can order your own copy now at http://votvonline.com #cafc"
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1299669880711663622
"Report from someone at Sparrows Lane this morning.
"Decent turnout - saw Andy Marshall at the front saying thank you.
LEE LEE LEE BOWYER ringing out as they left. Shouted for him to hold on in there."
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
"Lovely touch too by @TraceyLeaburn and the club to remember @jeanking33 who we lost yesterday."
More On The Transfer Embargo
The squad for the preseason friendly against Palace was scrutinised for indications of any long term changes, both by Richard Cawley:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299683377696694272
"Tom Lockyer not in the Charlton squad.
No injury, so looks like he is off.
He had a clause which allowed him to leave for nothing following relegation - but there was only a month's window for that to trigger to still apply."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299694372850675714
"A little more on Tom Lockyer here.
He didn't train with Charlton yesterday and misses their pre-season friendly at Palace today.
Looks set to announce a move to a new club in the next few days.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/tom-lockyer-set-for-charlton-athletic-exit-as-defender-misses-crystal-palace-friendly/"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299727200191754240
"Tom Lockyer is signing a three-year contract at Luton Town."
"Quotes from Lee Bowyer on Tom Lockyer's move to Luton Town.
He says that should mean Charlton can sign Adam Matthews.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/luton-town-land-charlton-defender-tom-lockyer-but-defenders-exit-set-to-lead-to-adam-matthews-signing/"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299736347465388033
"Bowyer saying that five or six deals ready to go if Charlton's embargo gets lifted."
More On Sandgaard
Saturday morning seemed to be a fairly average one by Sandgaard's recent standards, bigging up the fanbase:
https://twitter.com/SandgaardThomas/status/1299650581494104064
"The greatness of Charlton is inherent in every fan’s story.
https://charltontimes.co.uk/this-is-our-club-stories-from-our-fans"
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1299679688135266304
"Pleased to receive an order for Battle for The Valley from @SandgaardThomas - went out yesterday with several others, including one to Romania (from a long-standing #cafc fan, before anyone asks!). You can still order copies at http://votvonline.com."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299718736912543746
"Dougie Freedman and Steve Gallen sat not far apart. Got slightly different budgets to work with...."
After Cawley posted up that picture of the Charlton contingent at Selhurst,
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299719780165922817
"Few people asking if person to Steve's right is Thomas Sandgaard. Can't completely tell from that picture."
"It looks like Sandgaard from my angle in the press box. He did say could be in London this weekend."
https://twitter.com/Dan_Neve92/status/1299720852099997698
"It is Thomas Sandgaard sat in the directors' box at Selhurst Park. Just got confirmation."
Like so many of our fans.
Proper Charlton 😎
Post Match Discussion
After the game had finished Paul Edwards got a better angle:
https://twitter.com/pedwards72/status/1299726709575626752
Wouldn't be surprised if he joins our board if the takeover goes through.
WIOTOS
Meeting The Manager
Richard Cawley had further information following the game:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1299727596280786946
"Bowyer knew that Sandgaard was here.
Described Tuesday as big - and he wasn’t referencing the EFL Trophy tie.
That is when Elliott’s attempt to obtain an injunction will be heard in a Manchester court"
"Lee Bowyer said after the match he hadn't met Thomas Sandgaard.
But I just had a chat with TS outside the main reception at Selhurst Park, and it sounded as if he was about to be introduced to LB by @ollygroome."
"More here on Thomas Sandgaard stepping up his attempts to buy Charlton.
Flew to the UK earlier today. Going to be here a minimum of eight days as he tries to knock a takeover into shape.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/thomas-sandgaard-jets-into-uk-to-try-and-push-through-deal-for-charlton-athletic/"
"Lee Bowyer: “Hopefully things go our way [on Tuesday in the court case] and from what I understand Thomas is hoping things go the way so that he can step in. Something has to change – because at the moment it’s not pleasant."
"LB: “The things I’m hearing and seeing now, everything is showing he wants to be in control of this football club.
We need someone to come through and he’s putting his name forward and saying the right things. Hopefully for the football club it happens soon.”"
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1299737740746031107
"Thomas Sandgaard has told me he did manage to speak to Lee Bowyer after the game. #cafc"
"Sandgaard says of Bowyer “Yes, great manager I think. We'll talk more in the future obviously” #cafc"
A Few Random Reactions
Harking back to @Airman Brown's post about Sandgaard ordering a copy of Battle For The Valley (see part 1), Solidgone joked
And finally, Henry Irving was lucky not to get a ban, simply fined one of his promotes for this joke
Media Coverage:
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/tom-lockyer-set-for-charlton-athletic-exit-as-defender-misses-crystal-palace-friendly/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/luton-town-land-charlton-defender-tom-lockyer-but-defenders-exit-set-to-lead-to-adam-matthews-signing/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/thomas-sandgaard-jets-into-uk-to-try-and-push-through-deal-for-charlton-athletic/
- New shirt sponsors have been announced
- Voice of The Valley have published an explanatory article on the background to
Tuesday's court case to help people get the relevant details clear
before the hearing
- A minor spat between @Airman Brown and Mihail on twitter led to the club ownership page FINALLY being changed just in time for the court case
- The transfer embargo continues to affect the restructuring of the squad
-----------------------------------------------------------------The club announced new shirt sponsorship:
https://twitter.com/CAFCofficial/status/1300387957224939520
"👕 Charlton are excited to announce a new partnership with KW Holdings and Vitech Services as the club’s new front-of-shirt principle partners for the 2020/21 season"
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5f4cbab48d546/kw-holdings-and-vitech-services-names-as-new-shirt-sponsors-for-202021
"KW Holdings and Vitech Services are family-owned businesses who have been long-standing Charlton fans for many years
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/5f4cbab48d546/kw-holdings-and-vitech-services-names-as-new-shirt-sponsors-for-202021"
More On The Court Case
Pretty much everyone's feeling unsettled at the propsect of Tuesday's hearing:
https://twitter.com/JimmyStone_/status/1300136869083176961
"After five years of battling it’s impossible to feel comfortable about the future of our football club being decided in court, but that’s what’s happening.
Outrageous that it’s come to this, just so a few greedy men can make a quick buck. Desperate for a new start for #cafc 🙏"
This means that a decision SHOULD be made very quickly on or shortly after the hearing.
But I'm not lawyer and with the law you can never be sure.
When it's on the court website
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300445532347867137
"NEW FROM VOTV: season at stake as Addicks come up in court: Rick Everitt sets the scene for tomorrow's #cafc injunction hearing in Manchester. Read it now at http://votvonline.com"
https://twitter.com/BenRansomSky/status/1300481968736555013
"Tremendous job from @airmanbrown summing up where we are right now with regards to #cafc ownership ⬇ Tomorrow is a hugely significant day and there is a chance of resolution... but legal battles over EFL clubs are never pretty. Clock is ticking for Charlton’s future ⏱"
(quoting this tweet from @"Airman Brown")
if I’m right there is no deadline.
The Airman Brown & Mihail Spat
After the news that Dillon Phillips would no longer be first choice keeper, Mihail tweeted the following, presumably in an attempt to be supportive to Amos:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300509877585014786
"Rather than tweeting about #cafc goalkeepers, @MMarian_lx, could you explain why the @CAFCofficial site still says "East Street Investments were taken over by a consortium led by businessman Paul Elliott on June 10th 2020". That's not what you believe, is it?"
https://twitter.com/MMarian_lx/status/1300512582957232131
"IT guy is on furlough, honest mistake 🤓"
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300516736228364298
"It's said that for three months and it wasn't true when it was posted. Clubs are required under @EFL rules to post a (truthful) statement of ownership on their websites; in this case you have one which contradicts Panorama's own legal argument. Amazing!"
https://twitter.com/mattjobob/status/1300533844811091968
"Given the official #cafc website has published no fewer than 45 stories during August alone (yes, I am sad enough to have counted), including two interviews with you, not sure this "honest mistake" holds much water "
(quoting this tweet from Mihail)
More On Sandgaard
Richard Cawley had some quotes from Lee Bowyer about meeting Sandgaard on Saturday:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300446708229451776
"Lee Bowyer did briefly meet Thomas Sandgaard on Saturday.
The Charlton boss had a message for the Danish businessman, who was in directors' box for the friendly at Palace.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-boss-lee-bowyer-on-his-introductory-chat-with-potential-new-addicks-owner-thomas-sandgaard/"
We’re being taken over by Gary Barlow 😳
I’ll take that 😜
More On The Transfer Embargo
Richard Cawley had a further update on the effects of the transfer embargo:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300355968883191808
"Lee Bowyer reckons Adam Matthews will be allowed to sign a deal at Charlton once Tom Lockyer has completed his move to Luton Town.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-boss-confident-of-defender-deal-but-dependent-on-lockyer-sealing-luton-switch/"
And Finally...
I_RiserAddick had positive, if vague, news
Media Coverage:
Voice Of The Valley: http://www.votvonline.com/home/the-2019-20-blogs/31-8-season-at-stake-as-addicks-come-up-in-court/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-boss-confident-of-defender-deal-but-dependent-on-lockyer-sealing-luton-switch/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-boss-lee-bowyer-on-his-introductory-chat-with-potential-new-addicks-owner-thomas-sandgaard/
- says I believe at the highest point we had over 200 people at the hearing
- says There is clear need for judgment to be given now
- says not obvious claimant would win summary judgement.
- notes declaration in July hearing that shares remained with Panorama based on Farnell’s evidence. Says he has been intimately involved with applicant and has played different roles but cannot assert one thing in July and now support the opposite.
- Conduct gives rise to questions as to whether he is conflicted, but judge far from convinced that renders claimant’s case unarguable.
- says claimant would risk losing reputation and prestige attached to running the club. Far from clear defendant is good for damages.
- says defendant loses prospect of selling club to third party if injunction granted. Mihail’s evidence has weaknesses, including incorrect claim about Elliott appeal. Causes judge to be cautious about his evidence about risks to club in general and ESI.
- says he takes Mihail’s evidence about the threat to the club with a pinch of salt, but having read the rules and regulations from the EFL there has to be at least some risk he is correct.
- says defendant can say damages would not be an inadequate remedy
- Should be a speedy trial of the issues. Judge says fans will be appalled to hear their club described as a commercial asset. However interests of the club cannot be ignored. Court must have regards to the wider picture.
- Judge says preserving the status quo can itself be a risk. In this case could put off potential buyer while Lex Dominus cannot proceed. Refuses injunction!
- We'll be back tomorrow for a consequential hearing. Judge warns that it will be more boring than today...
----------------------------------------------------------------- The Lex Dominus v Panorama Magic hearing was due to start
at 2pm but was beset with technical problems so didn't actually commence
til 3:15pm
- CAST announced that Panorama Magic's barrister for the hearing would
be former CAST board member Lauren Kreamer, who had temporarily stepped
down to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest
- Elliott was represented by an expensive QC who gave the impression
of being paid by the word, given he went on for 90 minutes and seemed to
repeat his points in a slightly different form several times.
- Lex Dominus' case was mainly focussed on Mihail's flawed evidence,
the amount of money Elliott had put in, and saying the deal was not
conditional.
- They also confirmed the agreement is to buy ESI for £1
- Panorama's
case focused on the injunction being an abuse of process, Farnell's
conflict of interest, the SPA being flawed/incomplete, and the issues
around the EFL rules and processes
- Lex Dominus wanted to go to trial, but that would not be heard until November!
- Kreamer highlighted the very real risks to the club of delay in
resolving this issue (despite the judge being sceptical about Mihail's
evidence on this), and importance of the club to the community.
- Judge said both sides have respectable argument so have to judge on
"balance of convenience" (ie course least likely to cause irredeemable
prejudice to parties)
- Despite being unconvinced by Mihail's evidence, Judge has read EFL rules and regs so accepts there is a risk. Court must have
regard to the wider picture so refuses the injunction.
- In other news Sandgaard was at Loftus Road for the AFC Wimbledon v
CAFC in the EFL Trophy, and apparently went around hugging people when
the court result came in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------For those of us who were following Charlton in the mid 80s, the day had a bit of a familiar feel:
https://twitter.com/CHATHMuseum/status/1300366480647827456
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300751793303977985
"It's set to be Paul Elliott v Tahnoon Nimer at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre this afternoon.
Case is due to start at 2pm. I'll do my best to try and provide updates on here."
"Elliott is seeking an injunction to prevent Panorama Magic (owned 65% by Nimer and 35% by Matt Southall) selling Charlton Athletic FC to anyone else.
Action is being brought by his company - Lex Dominus"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300751796101578755
"Don't think it is absolutely guaranteed the case gets heard and resolved today. But we should have a clearer picture on things later this afternoon."
As with the ESI vs Southall case, there were a lot of people interested in the watching the coverage of the case, and issues accessing the meeting quickly emerged, with people getting a variety of different error messages as they tried to connect, leading ForeverAddickted to observe:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300781550448017408
"Someone was massively telling off their kids...."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300781631104528391
"Another fella reclined on his bed...."
Meet The Participants
At about 1:45pm, CAST tweeted out an unexpected piece of news:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300776959929180161
"COURT | Proceedings due to start at 2pm. Panorama Magic will be represented by Lauren Kreamer, lifelong #cafc fan and member of @CAStrust board, though Lauren stood down temporarily on 17 Aug to avoid any perception of conflict during these proceedings."
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300781774637797376
"Paul Chaisty QC is representing Lex Dominus"
https://www.kingschambers.com/all-silks/paul-chaisty-qc/
1st time I have been a bit concerned.
It does not matter as much as you think. It doesn't alter the facts of the case which is what this is about.
Athletico Charlton had a bit more information about Elliott's legal team.
Richard seems to be from FrontRowLegal whom are registered with the FA.
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300782851001118723
"Still a delay as Lauren Kreamer says that her instructing solicitors are struggling to connect to the meeting, due to the numbers that are in attendance."
https://twitter.com/BenRansomSky/status/1300783417995464704
"Paul Elliott the latest person unable to access the #cafc hearing according to his QC Paul Chaisty. It sounds like it’s a busy lobby."
The delays were starting to make people a bit twitchy, particularly once Jints said:
Further Delays To Proceedings
By this time it was 2:25pm, and even the judge was having trouble accessing the meeting:
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300786961884557312
"We’re still waiting for the judge who is now having joining problems of his own, so they are going to start another meeting."
Is there a qualified judge in the stands this afternoon?
Letting people in one by one wouldn't have taken that long. 5-10 minutes?
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300786961884557312
"We’ve all been kicked out so the court can start another Teams meeting and admit the parties first. Must have been organised by the @EFL it was such a shambles. #cafc"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300793313239486469
"Never refreshed my email so much."
https://twitter.com/airmanbrown/status/1300795810419011584
"Back in with a little help from our friends. Nothing happening. #cafc"
"The judge is here as well!
They are attempting to identify people from the press before they open the lobby to all members of the public.
They'll get as many in as they can."
While we were waiting for the press to be admitted, Leeds_Addick asked:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300796144528879618
"The Sky journalist they need to add is @BenRansomSky. Judge has just asked for his name...."
https://twitter.com/odeddy17/status/1300796904838754305
"@BenRansomSky bumped for the big names at South London Press. It's not what you know..."
Finally at 3:15pm we were under way:
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300799681937715206
"There are 167 people on hearing. Judge Pearce saying the lobby was so jammed it was not possible for people to join - including him and some of the parties involved.
He apologises for considerable delay. Confident that all key people in attendance."
I'm not going to quote all the tweets that were the basis of the blow by blow report, because all the attributions will make the whole thing twice as long, and this is going to be pushing the character limit as things stand. Also not all of the information is quite in the order that it was presented to the court, as Mr Chaisty in particular had a bit of a tendency to go around in circles. If you want to read them in context, start with these tweets on the timelines of @Airman Brown, Benjy Nurick, Ben Ransom and Richard Cawley.
That's a right result, I'm off to the Red Lion in a bit to let them know I own the fruit machine!
Claimant's Case - The Intricacies of The Deal
According to Chaisty's presentation of the evidence, the contract to sell is signed and not in dispute. The deal was signed by both parties in May (given that Lex Dominus was owned by Farnell at this point according to Companies House, this may be germane to the SRA complaint regarding his conflict of interest), and Southall's shares would transfer over as a result of the "drag along" provisions, but he hasn't been included as a party in the case as there's no indication that he'd resist the sale.
Chaisty didn't feel the judge can make proper call on the case without a deeper dive into it, but when asked by the judge what he hoped to achieve with a trial, he said "With goodwill on both sides, a quick resolution" (as Richard Cawley tweeted at the time, not quite sure that answers the question). He suggested disclosure and statements could be made within days, so "this could be geared up and ready in weeks, not months - subject to the court having availability", but then added that there's court space in November!
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300811751479488519
"Can't quantify potential damages? Well you bought #cafc for £1 so there's a clue for you."
It's a machine gun attack, but using the same bullets time and time again
Claimant's Case - Trial Location And Summing Up
Possibly the weirdest bit so far was in relation to Panorama attempting to transfer proceedings south, with Chaisty saying there was "no obvious connection with London" (does he think we're Chorlton Athletic?), and then finally during his summing up, LeaburnForEngland (and many others) noticed
(I don't think it was the judge)
I'd say about 3-0 down.
Need a mendonca like performance from our girl.
The Defendant's Case
The first piece of business for Lauren Kreamer was to confirm whether she'd be able to finish her argument in the current sitting, or whether she'd have to continue in the morning due to the delays in the hearing starting and Chaisty taking so long. However, as both Chaisty and the Judge were unavailable on Wednesday morning, the Judge said they would continue and try to finish that evening. Kreamer said that Chaisty, who had conclusively picked apart Mihail, hadn’t referred to his own client’s evidence, which she described as "scant and incoherent". She did admit there was an error in Mihail’s evidence where he said the ODT appeal to the EFL has to be brought by the club. As Chaisty had pointed out that Mihail was not a director of Panorama, she outlined the structure of ESI and said Mihail was "clearly authorised" to give evidence on behalf of Panorama, and said he was bearing witness for Nimer who is not a fluent English speaker. Kreamer also defended Mihail’s "relevant expertise" on this matter as a director of ESI and CAFC, and said that he is liaising with the EFL and is involved in the day-to-day running of the club. She said Nimer's decision to sell the club came out of Southall's misspending.
Defendant's Case - Farnell's Role
Kreamer described the injunction as "an abuse", and explained that a major aspect of their argument was the conflict of interest by Farnell, who was the sole owner of Lex Dominus until June 5 or 6 when Elliott became the new director and shareholder. She pointed out that he (Farnell) was the subject of two SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) complaints, at which point on the match thread CAFCsayer, who was the source of one of those complaints chimed in with
Defendant's Case - The Sale and Purchase Agreement
Referring back to July's Southall v ESI court case, Kreamer pointed out that the while the July court case had different parties, the same “cast of characters” were involved. She made the case that the court, including this same judge, had already determined who owned the shares on 13th July, which was Panorama Magic. The parties agreed that a sale had not completed, and nothing has changed since then, and she added that the applicant was now trying to circumvent that decision with this injunction. At this, ForeverAddickted exclaimed:
The Defendant's Case - Issues Around EFL Processes
Kreamer then went on to discuss the Owners and Directors Test, and said that Elliott and Farnell were both the subject of disqualifying conditions. The live commentary is slightly confusing on this point, as at one stage it seems she said that the court had no details on why the EFL turned down Elliott under the ODT, and at another that the EFL said Elliott provided "misleading information". It might be that the misleading information was one issue, but we can't know for certain that it was the only issue due to the lack of documentation from the EFL. I suspect ForeverAddickted spoke for us all:
Kreamer then emphasised that the sanctions facing the club were of the most serious nature and wide-reaching. The regulations refer to disciplinary proceedings and "It's not overstating it... that there is a very real risk to the football club if this matter is not resolved." At this point the judge interjected that Mihail was the only one giving evidence on this and he was not sure what weight to give his evidence, given he was wrong in his evidence about Elliott's EFL appeal, but she argued that it was wrong to question the rest of Mihail's evidence just due to the already aforementioned error. I think it was about then that Addickted noticed:
The Defendant's Case - Final Points And Summing Up
By this stage the judge was making noises about not thinking they could reach a conclusion today, after Chaisty had continued to endear himself to the watching Charlton fans with Addickted noting:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300837484587134977
"No, no, no we can't wait till November!! #SaveCAFC"
Fingers crossed.
Claimant's Rebuttal
The judge said that each side had a respectable argument that damages are not sufficient and that it is a serious issue, so the decision on the injunction would come down to the balance of convenience (ie the course least likely to cause irredeemable prejudice to parties).
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300841814392537089
"We've just had a shout of "Chris Farnell's a c***" from the audience #cafc #SaveCAFC"
The Judgment
Judge Pearce said he would return the judgment immediately, and then go to a consequential hearing in the near future. He began by thanking those watching, and implored people not to interrupt his judgement. He said "I believe at the highest point we had over 200 people at the hearing" which would have gratified sammy391, who said at about 2:30pm, during the initial chaos
We all know where this is going
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300852394289434631
"NO INJUNCTION!"
Sandgaard At The Wimbledon Match
Of course during the later stages of the court hearing, there was also a match going on, namely the first of the EFL trophy matches against AFC Wimbledon, which was being played at QPR's ground. @LouisMend was covering it in place of Richard Cawley who was stuck doing legal livetweeting, and spotted a familiar face:
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300830394808512514
"Your boy @SandgaardThomas has just rocked up at Loftus Road #cafc"
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300832242520989696
"Here’s a better photo of @SandgaardThomas telling @TraceyLeaburn all about the Metallica t-shirt he’s currently wearing.
@pedwards72 #cafc"
"Bowyer and Jackson both waved at Sandgaard as they walked across the pitch. The Dane gave a thumbs up back #cafc"
https://twitter.com/iamross85/status/1300843834620944393
"Remember when you got taken to your first #cafc game and you couldn’t wait for the future when you were hanging on every word of a court case to see if the club continues to exist instead of watching an actual game that’s going on at the same time?"
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300853851323617280
"Today's ruling means that Panorama Magic can now sell the club to a third party...there happens to be a third party currently watching from the stands at Loftus Road 👀
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1300853769169666051
"Anyone know someone interested in buying CAFC?"
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300853269498036224
"Sandgaard dishing out hugs in the posh seats 👀 #cafc"
Post Match Reaction
After the match, Tracey Leaburn tweeted out this picture of @LouisMend with Sandgaard:
https://twitter.com/TraceyLeaburn/status/1300860375571877888
"@LouisMend is now interviewing @SandgaardThomas
Been a stressful time for us all so be great to hear what he has to say #cafc"
https://twitter.com/louismend/status/1300871166865936385
"🗣 📝 Thomas Sandgaard: I think it's a done deal, I want my takeover of Charlton completed this week after failed injunction hearing
READ ➡️ https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/thomas-sandgaard-i-think-its-a-done-deal-i-want-my-takeover-of-charlton-completed-this-week/
📸 @pedwards72 #cafc"
https://twitter.com/S66Brown/status/1300874916724699139
"Now this is good news....fingers crossed Thomas Sandgaard is the real deal, Peter Varney CEO, Alan Curbishley Head of football operations, that would be my advice, great experience and a huge step up in support for the current staff."
(quoting this tweet from @LouisMend)
https://twitter.com/BenRansomSky/status/1300859043960049664
"BREAKING: Charlton Athletic takeover can go ahead after Paul Elliott denied an injunction against the sale.
@SandgaardThomas has told me that he now hopes to have a deal finalised this week #cafc 🤘🏻"
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300884212598345728
"🗣 📝 Lee Bowyer gives his reaction to court verdict as Paul Elliott is denied an injunction - paving the way for Thomas Sandgaard to try and complete Charlton takeover
READ ➡ https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/lee-bowyer-gives-his-reaction-to-court-verdict-as-paul-elliott-is-denied-an-injunction-paving-the-way-for-thomas-sandgaard-to-try-and-complete-charlton-takeover/
📸 @pedwards72 #CAFC"
A Brief Diversion Into Transfer Embargo Discussion
In addition to all the court case and takeover chat, in Lee Bowyer's post match interview, there was one slightly concerning piece of news about the on-going effects of the transfer embargo:
https://twitter.com/LouisMend/status/1300872079580041221
"Just to ruin everyone's evening a little bit, Adam Matthews isn't as done a deal as we hoped. Bowyer says the full-back is assessing his options now #cafc"
After the immediate confusion, relief and joy at the result of the court case, the fan reaction continued:
https://twitter.com/CAStrust/status/1300852799069192194
"Last minute winner in court!! No injunction. Time for Tommy @SandgaardThomas ? Nice one, Judge Pearce - though you didn't half have us on tenterhooks!! #cafc"
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1300859750012407808
"Not a member of @CAStrust (I won't join any club that would have me as a member) but they have done themselves, and #cafc fans in general, a power of good today with Lauren Kreamer winning the fight to stop the injunction and open the door to a @SandgaardThomas takeover."
https://twitter.com/BenHayes77/status/1300860666555793408
"Too many, including Southall, Elliot, Farnell, Duchatelet, Meire, @itsagoldfinch and Greenwich council in 1990 have underestimated the collective intelligence, creativity and determination of #cafc fans at their peril.
First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then we win."
https://twitter.com/JimmyStone_/status/1300896315723874307
"We’ve raised tens of thousands of pounds, we’ve protested outside boardrooms, we’ve stopped countless games, made podcasts, hired planes, been on the pitch, destroyed a sofa, been to
Leave us the keys on your way out. 👋
#cafc"
Back on the match thread ISawLeaburnScore was very pleased:
God knows how it must have felt waiting to hear if the club would survive those last few mins back in the 80s
At least I could rely on the internet
There was a bit of confusion about what the next stage of the proceedings was all about though, and ME14addick asked
At the Southall trial they did the injunction hearing and gave Southall a 12 month injunction and then had a bit after where he was fined £20k for the trouble. I think this is what they're doing tomorrow as they ran out of time this evening.
Obviously, being Charlton fans there were still one or two of us with nagging doubts. As Chef_addick put it:
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300886625887629318
"Hope everyone’s enjoying their night as much @CAStrust 😂😂😂
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
The Lauren Kreamer Fan Club
Following the result of the hearing Lauren Kreamer received praise and thanks from many quarters for her performance as ESI's barrister:
https://twitter.com/TraceyLeaburn/status/1300913473812074496
"Thank you Lauren for your amazing dedication to saving our Club 🙌 Thank you also @CAStrust So many people quietly working behind the scenes saving our Club. Together we are one 💪 #cafc"
"Huge 👏👏👏 to Lauren Kreamer...did her club proud
#cafc #SaveCAFC"
https://twitter.com/Firebrill/status/1300852476439130112
Back on the forum, PragueAddick received a surprising message from Mihail on the subject
Later on in the evening, Lauren tweeted out her thanks for all the support, along with some photos with her Charlton supporting family (including one from Wembley last year)
https://twitter.com/LaurenKreamer/status/1300898309805146117
https://twitter.com/ollygroome/status/1300910075293372421
Amazing isn’t it, our fanbase? Charlton Athletic...bloody hell! 🙌 #cafc
(quoting this tweet from LaurenKreamer)
https://twitter.com/BenjyNurick/status/1300912546556325895
In the end the decisive argument essentially came down to this: Charlton is too important to ruin
Only a true Addick like Lauren could fully grasp what the club means and portray it in such a convincing way to the judge.
👏👏👏
#cafc #SaveCAFC
(quoting this tweet from LaurenKreamer)
Back over on the main thread, aliwibble had a question relating to the range rovers, MattF noted that one of them was still shown as being for sale and PragueAddick had an update from the dossier team
And Finally...
Last word of the day goes to @CAFCFansForFans:
https://twitter.com/CAFCfansforfans/status/1300916097529544712
Time for reflection. Look at the journey and Look how hard we fought for today's result. Each and every single one of us deserves a 👏. This is about unity and strength because one thing is for sure we will not be beaten. Good night my fellow addicks. That includes 👇
❤🤍💯👏
Media Coverage:
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-get-new-ownership-boost-as-judge-decides-not-to-impose-injunction-blocking-sale/
BBC Sport: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53990632
Sky Sports: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11684/12061265/charlton-takeover-on-after-paul-elliott-fails-in-bid-to-get-injunction-against-sale
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/thomas-sandgaard-i-think-its-a-done-deal-i-want-my-takeover-of-charlton-completed-this-week/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/lee-bowyer-gives-his-reaction-to-court-verdict-as-paul-elliott-is-denied-an-injunction-paving-the-way-for-thomas-sandgaard-to-try-and-complete-charlton-takeover/
SLP: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/tom-lockyers-charlton-departure-is-confirmed-but-addicks-target-adam-matthews-future-is-now-up-in-the-air-as-right-back-assesses-his-options/
Sandgaard: Sky Sports, Evening Standard
Injunction: VOTV, BBC Sport, Sky Sports (somewhat garbled update on Tuesday's story)
Embargo: SLP
Elliott: SLP
Podcasts: Football Today, Price of Football (apple), Price of Football (spotify)
Embargo etc: SLP (Bowyer), SLP (Pearce)
- Sandgaard showed up at the Swindon game, and actually got to see us win!
- The
Court of Appeal has granted Lex Dominus's appeal against the decision
not to grant an injunction until the court case in November.
- The
temporary injunction has been extended until the appeal is heard, and
although there isn't a confirmed date for the hearing yet, it's thought
likely to be the week beginning the 14th September or 21st September
- Rumours are circulating on the Sandgaard takeover front but there's nothing concrete yet.
Media Coverage:Elliott: VOTV
Embargo issues: SLP (Lynch uncertainty), SLP (Arsenal loanee missed), SLP (Barker)
Sandgaard: SLP
Embargo issues: SLP (Barker plans), SLP (Levitt signing), Evening Standard (Levitt signing), The Sun (Levitt signing)
The Whole Sorry Saga: Telegraph (paywalled), (local)
General Chat: Charlton Live podcast
Embargo: SLP (Bowyer Interview), SLP (Bowyer on Gallagher), Evening Standard (Bowyer Interview)
Embargo: SLP (Bowyer Interview)
Sandgaard: BBC
General Chat: Charlton Live
Takeover: SLP (Turkish withdrawal)