Live (online) from the court !
Couhig & Howe are present
Judge giving direction to all those online to not record and keep quiet!
Our counsel talking about the clubs position in the league , onfield /off field detail, the risk of insolvency, and most importantly , us the fans..
Outlining Couhigs involvement with regard the cash flow / club
Dai's ownership gets a mention, inc. SBWD
Judge moves conversation towards injunction, takes our counsel out, doesn't want the back story he says he gets it - judge wants a sale.. judge wants to know , talking about the letter of intent , our counsel insists he gives a brief overview...
Our counsel claims dai was 'washing his face' with regard the sale price - $28m
Couhig tried to pull a fast one - Pang leveraged with a another interested bidder
Couhig claimed he only made the loans to the club on the understanding that he would get the club
And thats the basis for his claim re. the new ' secured' claim.
He alleges RFC gave a document to a broker for circulation to sell the club. RFC claim Couhig was well aware of teh document long beforehand.
Counsel claims Couhigs claim is 'thin & narrow'..
Judge sees arguments both ways - and doesn't think it can be resolved today
_ gotta drop - have a meeting

Back in the room
One interesting thing s the judge queried why the club couldn't be sold anyway. Tells counsel the claim can be handled , with a sum of cash put into escrow , to allow that to drag through the court system.
Also - EFL have insisted that Dai resign. (yesterday from EFL)
In effect counsel are leveraging that if that does happen the club folds. Defence argue this is a hijack of events - forcing Redwood to give ground.
Defence saying the club can be sold, but the amount is in query due to to ' An event of his own doing'
RFC's counter claim is due to Redwood the club cant be sold - and seeking damages, however judge points out Redwood is a SPV with no assets, so whats the point?
Redwood counsel justifying the security against the loan s was the purchase of the club - whcih protects them in the event of exclusivity being broken ( their argument)
Judge questioning Defences argument around the terms of the security
Defence counsel struggles to answer - Judge has picked a small hole in their argument , with regard the loi , and obligations therein .
This is the battle ground effectively , the wording, terms and intent of the wording.
June is the date for this argument
Redwood wont remove the security - as it holds value to their claim
Defence calls RFC 'outrageous' to ask the charge be removed, because they want to sell the club
Defence says DAi can sell the club for a lesser amount, Fight redwood in court , or 'burn his own house down' do nothing & fold the club
Defence calls out Couhigs asertion that the new interested buyer ' has other football interests ' and so there is no guarantee it can be sold,, so there is ' no hurry' to conclude this issue.
(Couhig being a c***)
Judge comments this is a very unusual case, with no known precedent
Dai getting a right good shoeing around mismanagement of the club
RFC Counsel -claims a broker sent the for sale notice out , and not RFC for his own gains!! ( we didnt break exclusivity)
RFC - again underlining the EFL's requirement for Dai to immediately divest -
And so this needs this be resolved quickly, and not in June, given the EFL's position
RFC would submit to an escrow if we sell the club!!
Redwood want 12m - Counsel asking the court to elect an amount - to a partial escrow solution
RFC querying the 12m profit Redwood claim they would have made - calling that ambitious with no business plan, or substantiation -
Judge agrees
Interim solution - 'measure of security' to release the liens
RFC are saying 6m is reasonable - instructions hot off the press
Judge summing up
....
Not sounding its on a positive path...
' Wider community impact' if it cant be sold - court should be sympathetic
Redwood still want to buy
Judge outlines the legal principles
Redwood has an arguable case
But the LOI isn't covered under the agreement around security (in RFC's favour)
Judge cannot say RFC would win that argument
Judge wont release the security - would be unfair at this point due to further legal arguments
12m appears too high / best case - but cannot say that it is overstated at present stage
Judge cannot understand why a sale cant take place - obvious route for it to happen with security in place, security would be the proceeds of the sale, replacing the security over the assets
confirmed that RFC counsel has offered 6m as security to allow sale
Judge re-iterates that the proceeds of sale should be made into an escrow , and no basis for the injunction being given, as it removes any security Redwood have with their claim
basically - the judge is telling both parties to sort it out, stop being assholes, and de-risk the future of the club
Judge dismisses our case.
Costs -
RFC argues costs should be shared - judge dismisses that as it was our action and we lost