There's no need for secrecy with VAR, either. Other sports manage to allow viewers and spectators to hear the deliberations when an on-field decision is referred to be determined with the assistance of video replays. The same point applies, really.
Anyway, in terms of its investigatory remit and ability to pursue disciplinary proceedings against clubs it suspects of committing breaches, the PL has long been trying to beef up its powers. I came across a copy on my PC of a version of the PL Handbook I'd downloaded several years ago and the rules differ noticeably from those in the current version. Off the top of my head, the right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law has now been excluded, and that whole section about assisting the regulator with obtaining evidence from third parties.
Both the changes I quote seem directly targeted at the investigation into MCFC, while the Panel's determination after our first APT hearing shows the organisation singling out our club for unduly onerous treatment. Then I recall the way Masters was reportedly interviewed by a couple of influential clubs before his appointment and the circumstances of the resignation of a previous incumbent. I struggle to see this regulatory body as one that can, automatically be relied on to act impartially, fairly and in good faith.
Forest, Everton and Leicester have already seen themselves pursued for PSR breaches with zeal, while Manchester United's vast losses are mitigated by deductions that, ostensibly, are puzzling in their magnitude. Newcastle and Villa have seen PSR used to stymie their hopes of challenging the supposed elite. Surely there'll be, at a minimum, a blocking minority against these draconian proposals?