The whole court proceding seems to revolve around the injunction smu had already filed and the validity of the u sports agreement. It has nothing to do with whether eligibility issues were present or not. It is strictly about legal presedence.

Does not mean that smu was in the right, contrary to whst is being posted on here. It simply means that from a legal position, u sports had entered a binding agreement and the court upheld it.

The court does not rule on whether u sports had the right to hold up aus rulings, whether their was in fact an ineligible player with the corresponding forfeiture to be entered into the record or anything else.

Once again u sports is a dupe and caused a loop to let smu off