Not bad, The Athletic seem to be getting better again which is good.
Two points, though:
First, sports journalists need to get away from the simplistic "who won" arguments. You can't score legal judgments like a football match. If they really want a football analogy, they should look at Arsenal's performance at the Etihad last year. They defended almost everything pretty well, City threw everything at them, they couldn't lose the game and they didn't. Defensive master-class maybe, but they lost the league as a result (the analogy would work better if both sides scored a couple of goals as well, but whatever ...)
Second, an important point they are missing about the 115 is the relative importance of direct witness testimony over circumstantial, out of context evidence. We have the perfect example in this case. There is an email from a Brighton executive days after the Newcastle takeover saying the PL has to respond by banning related party transactions until they can put rules in place to stop clubs from Gulf states. It clearly leads to an implication that the introduction of the APT rules was based on a principle of discrimination. Yet, this same executive said in front of the tribunal that it wasn't meant to be discriminatory, the reference to Gulf states was just a front of mind reference and the intention of the email was that the rules should be applied equally and fairly to all clubs. And they believed him! The point being that the out of context email was disbelieved, and the witness statement was believed. If ever there was a clear indication of how the 115 is likely to go, that is it.
www.football365.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
www.change.org