The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the License Committee and the Appeal Committee have carried out the proceedings on the withdrawal of the License of Vitesse with great urgency and under high pressure, “while the” greatest possible care “should have been exercised,” because their decision -making relate to – and has been imposed in the most comprehensive sanction of the Licentiereglicentrecal of the Licentions license. ”

The Court of Appeal concludes that the KNVB would have wanted to have completed the withdrawal of the license before the start of the Kitchen Champion Division and was rushed.

Stronghold

In addition, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the takeover plans of the strongholds should have been taken into account in the opinion of license and appeal committee. The KNVB is blamed for “the current developments surrounding Vitesse (in particular the intended takeover of control by Sterkhouders BV and the redevelopment plan 2025) in that decision -making, although Vitesse has kept the license committee and the appeals committee on it and wanted to involve them.”

The Court of Appeal indicates the opinion of the license and appeal committee to be able to withdraw the license with regard to the non-compliance with the information obligation by Vitesse. “This is not only about matters from the further past, but also about the state of affairs regarding the sale of the claim of Common Sport GP LLC (formerly Common Group LLC, hereinafter: Common Group) to five others and the information provision at the KNVB in the period from December 2024 to June 2025.” ”

Sidewar

But the Court of Appeal adds to Vitesse to be substantially assessed by Vitesse. This relates, among other things, to the sider letter in the agreement between Coley Parry and the then intended new owner Guus Franke. The license and appeals committee have charged the Vitesse that the club has not provided any information about this. This was an important part of the pattern of deception, bypassing and undermining the licensing system for the license and professional committee.

The court looks at it differently. ,, In the preliminary judgment of the Court, the Vitesse cannot be blamed for Vai’s sight of Vitesse to keep a sider letter with Common Group and apparently managed to keep it secret for Vitesse. […] The Court of Appeal understands that this course of affairs has affected the trust of the License Committee that Vitesse would find a solution in accordance with the requirements of the license regulations and the restructuring plan 2024. The consideration of the Professional Commission that Vitesse has concealed the sider getter against the KNVB does not find any support in the set facts. Vitesse, the moment she – in mid -October 2024 – got access to the sideretter, immediately shared it with the KNVB. The Court sees no starting points for reproach that this state of affairs would be part of a pattern of deception, bypassing and undermining the licensing system at Vitesse. ”

E-mail from Parry

The reproach from the license committee that Vitesse has not provided information quickly enough about an e-mail from Coley Parry is also assessed by the Court of Appeal. “In the preliminary judgment of the Court, it is wrongly blamed for Vitesse “Not immediately“The License Committee has informed the E-mail of Common Group of 2 July 2025. This is in any case not so culpable for Vitesse that it can be a load-bearing ground for the unconditional withdrawal of the license. […] A period of six days to seek advice on this, to consult between lawyers and to respond negatively to Common Group is a reasonable, non -detailed period. The next day, and therefore a week after receiving the e-mail in question, the message from Common Group with the response sent to the License Committee of the KNVB was forwarded. This fits within the obligation of the aforementioned article to immediately right and complete to submit information. The Court of Appeal sees no starting points for reproach that this state of affairs would be part of a pattern of deception, bypassing and undermining the licensing system. ”

A lot of patience

The Court of Appeal considered the argument of the KNVB that the credibility of the licensing system is at stake. ,, The court endorses that interest. The Court of Appeal recognizes that Vitesse has made wrong choices in the past and acted more than once in violation of the license regulations. In addition, the Court of Appeal also sees that the license committee has had a lot of patience in Vitesse in the past and has taken more than once coulant by starting a constructive conversation with her and to think along with them about measures aimed at a future of Vitesse within professional football. But it is also clear that Vitesse has been repeatedly punished for its mistakes in the recent and further past with fines and a significant reduction in competition points. Because of those sanctions, she has been seriously affected. This undoubtedly also applies to the earlier withdrawal of the license in 2024 that was undone due to positive developments. For the fear that the licensing system would become a toothless tiger if the mistakes made now would not be connected to the ultimate sanction of an unconditional withdrawal of the license, the Court does not see good grounds. ”

After the ruling of the Court of Appeal, the KNVB is considering any follow -up steps. The football association could go to the Supreme Court in cassation. The KNVB has three months to make a decision about this.

Due to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Vitesse was able to flow into the Kitchen Champion Division. The Arnhem club has now played two games. In the away match against RKC Waalwijk, Vitesse took a point on Tuesday through a late equalizer of Marco Schikora. On Saturday, Vitesse will play the first home game against Helmond Sport in a sold -out Gelredome.

ttn-2