it depends if they believed whether that evidence would be viewed in good faith and whether it was commercially sensitive or not.
Of course. And if it IS the case that they didn't provide it for that or any other reason, than the non-cooperation charge should arguably be upheld. And all else cleared, if the evidence so shows it. And that would be ok, if the club took a conscious decision that protecting commercial interests is more important than what the PL consider cooperation, I'd have zero issue with that. IF that is what went on, goes without saying.
Last edited: