23.08.2026 12:30
Fenerbahçe Sports Club issued a highly comprehensive and stern statement regarding the usage rights of suite number 217, which caused a crisis between Acun Ilıcalı and the club. In the statement, which shared all the details of the legal process, it was claimed that Ilıcalı tried to bring Galatasaray fans into the suite.
A statement has been released by Fenerbahce regarding the loge of Acun Ilicali, who was wanted to be taken back by Aziz Yildirim at the beginning of the season but regained his loge through a court decision.
LOGE RETURNED TO ACUN ILICALI
The judicial process regarding the loge, which Aziz Yildirim wanted to take back at the beginning of the season at the yellow-navy club, has been completed. The court found Acun Ilicali justified in the lawsuit filed and decided that the loge should be returned to him.
CURRENT STATE OF THE LOGE
Subsequently, the current state of the loge was published, and it was claimed that the loge had been damaged from top to bottom and the area was rendered completely unusable.
STATEMENT FROM FENERBAHCE
According to the statement made by the yellow-navy club, the fuse of the events was lit when Acun Ilicali applied to the Istanbul Anatolian 9th Consumer Court on July 27, 2026, requesting that the loge in question be allocated to him. While Fenerbahce emphasized that there is no contract between Ilicali and the club regarding the use of this loge, it also stated that the court rejected this injunction request on the same day.
However, the course of the process changed when the Ilicali side appealed the decision. According to the club's claim, a panel temporarily assigned at the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 18th Civil Chamber issued an injunction decision without even waiting for Fenerbahce's legal response period. The club alleged that this decision was based on an unwritten, unsigned A4 document whose subject was not even specified. Arguing that this decision is completely contrary to law and judicial precedents, Fenerbahce announced that it would file a complaint with the Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) regarding the relevant panel.
"BAILIFFS COULD NOT FIND A CONTRACT"
It was stated that bailiffs came to the club on August 22, 2026, to implement the controversial injunction decision. During the process, it was noted that the bailiffs requested the contract proving that the right to use the loge belonged to Acun Ilicali from Ilicali's lawyers, but the lawyers could not provide such a contract. The Fenerbahce administration, announcing that this situation was recorded in the execution report, argued that this determination publicly proved that the injunction decision given was unlawful.
"GALATASARAY PASSOLIG" CRISIS
The most striking dimension of the crisis occurred during the Fenerbahce - Konyaspor match played on August 22. According to the statement, a list of 10 names was submitted to the club by Acun Ilicali to watch the match from loge number 217. During the examinations, it was determined that 2 people on this list did not have a Passolig card, while the other 2 people had Passolig cards as Galatasaray fans.
Upon this development, the Fenerbahce administration reacted with extremely harsh words, responding to the situation with the following statements:
"The attempt to include people with Galatasaray affiliation into a tribune area allocated to Fenerbahce fans through this method is an extremely serious and unacceptable situation in terms of tribune order and security. What is in question here is not the exercise of a right, but an effort to create a chaotic environment in the stands. Our club will never tolerate any attempt that could cause division, tension, or harm the sense of unity of the Fenerbahce community in our stands."
APPLICATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
In light of all these developments, Fenerbahce emphasized that it will exercise its legal complaint rights to the fullest extent. The club also announced to the public that it has made an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) in order to lift the controversial injunction decision issued by the Appeals Court.