For me, the original Etihad sponsorship (2014-2024, £60m/year) was always the biggest concern. Despite CAS202O, it seemed 115/130 would be based on another all-out attack on Etihad.
The likes of Delooney and Twat have always attempted to illegitimise the entire deal, this was picked up by the MSM and then spread like wild fire via social media. For example, I thought I was once having a reasonable chat with a rag about Etihad, until he uttered something like "but Etihad isn't a real airline, is it, its an elaborate ploy to pump money into City". Obviously, that was the end of that exchange.
However, because of the APT case, we know, for certain, we informed the PL of a 10 year renewal with Etihad.This is THE important point. The PL did NOT say either of the following..
1 The APT/FMV assessment of the renewal is never going to happen because of the 115/130 charges.
2 The APT/FMV assessment of the renewal is postponed until the outcome of the 115/130 charges.
No, the PL completed a full assessment (now set aside, due to an unlawful process) but blocked the deal because of some index linking that would see the value grow over the ten year period.
This can only be interpreted as an implicit acceptance of the ten year renewal, believed to be around £80m/annum. That's only approx 1% of Etihad's annual revenue.
Could it be THE core issue (Ethihad Airways) we all assumed 115/130 would include was, in fact, NEVER relevant to the charges. That would only leave the minor issues, Etisalat, Mancini, Fordham with potential sporting sanctions and Non-Coop. Would it take 10 weeks to resolve that lot ?. This would add weight to the rumours that the hearing has finished.