I was just about to comment similar to
@Ric .
Stefan has to use the judgment to make a professional opinion. From the publicly available information it would be quite easy to build a narrative of a win for either side, it does depend on the lens and which points you deem more important. If you look around, many lawyers have been cautious to lean either way.
City will say 'we won the most important arguments which now allow us to put sponsorships through, see FMV judgments and seek compensation'.
The PL will say 'we managed to defend the majority of the legal arguments, clubs will still need APT approval prior to the deal taking place etc...'.
This City letter sent out isn't public, so impossible for Stefan to add that to the equation, especially when it was barely known about when he jumped on TS this morning. He has to use the facts available, his reputation depends on it.
For example, the Chelsea situation, he wasn't to know that the PL's rules were so poorly drafted that they were essentially allowed to sell a hotel to themselves. (If you read this Stefan, I'm aware that the process was more complex than that and perplexing that it took them so long to ratify the deal).
He technically did say on TS a score draw, maybe slightly in City's favour.
Personally I'd lean towards City getting the more favourable decision as they've managed to show the PL acting improper which may help us in the short and long term. I think we got the key areas ruled for us which is what we wanted, the rest may have been a smokescreen to keep the PL busy. However, I can fully understand somebody saying it wasn't a perfect judgment for either party as we don't know that for sure.
City going strong with the letter suggests they believe the PL are well out of line but again they have more information than us. It is promising that the club have reacted this way.