 Efo'r ffordd, mae'n sattu. Felly, rwy'n credu mae'n ddweud. A ti'n ddweud. A oedd y gallwn gwneud yn ddechrau'n gweithio'n ddweud. Mae o'n ddweud. Rwy'n meddwl i'n dechrau'n ddweud. Mae gennym 2 pwynt. 5 pwynt o'n ddweud. Mae gennym 5 pwynt o'n ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud. Yng nghymru'n gwybod nesaf yng ngherwydd yn y blynyddoedd. Yn y gweithio'r gwybod maewd, mae'r bydd yn ddigon'r twfyn defnyddol. Yn y gwybod, mae'n falch. Mae'r byd yn ddod, bo'n difnod am hynny'n ddysgu'r byd. A oes i, y ffordd rysgrif, mae'r byd yn 6 pwynt a 7 pwynt. Mae'r byd yn ddifenodol. Mae'r byd yn ddifenodol. Mae'r byd yn ddifenodol. Mae'n ddifenodol. is still if we don't want to use doubles jeopardy, that is still. That's if we're using that as just comment. I'm choosing to. Getting done twice for the same thing. You have got done twice for the same thing. Yeah, that kind of thing. Unless you can argue that actually the two points or whatever you've invented is for the year that wasn't in the previous. What I'm saying is, Evan, we know that these two charges are for two different finance years. Don't we? So therefore Evan have got six for one finance year. Yeah. Yeah. I personally don't think it's Dyma'r hyn yn ychydig yn cael eu llunio. Felly mae'r bwysig yn effeithio y six pwynt o'r gwaith, ac mae'r fwylltau tyfnol yn y gwaith. Epeil, mae'r 75. Mae ar hyn yn y llunio. Mae'r hyn yn y gweithio. Mae'n meddwl. Mae'n edrych fel y byddai y rhai. Mae'r bwysig yn gweithio'r ddweud o'r llei yn cyfrifolion. Mae'r ddweud o'r llei yn cyfrifolion. Mae'n ddweud o'n bwysig o'n bwysig. I already think the integrity of the league has gone anyway with the point of the course. Oh, masters and frankly let's not personalise it. The Premier League's board, which is nonexecs Alison Brittain and Richard Masters have had absolute mayor on this. Yeah, they have. So they've already, it's almost becoming like the COVID season now for looking at it and going. It's got six isn't it? They just want to be right now, whether it's fair or not they don't care. But it will be, in my argument, it will be even worse to do it again, because again, like you said. I agree, that's just said that, aren't I? Yeah, so you know, if it happens again, if everything needs a point of deduction, because that's what the commission says, for me the only fair and proper way will be evidently six points again next season or the suspended. What do you say to that argument? Do you bat it away? Do you accept it? I bat it away, right? That's fine. I bat it away for a couple of reasons. So one of them totally outside our control, right? Yeah, of course. The reason we're getting points of deduction for what you call two seasons in one season, you know, it's over four years. In fact, it's over five years, because of COVID there was two years. So we're talking about here getting a punishment for something that happened five years ago. Yeah. My logic would say we should have got the points of deduction last year. Yeah. Therefore, we'd then get another point of deduction this year. Actually, we probably wouldn't because we'd be in the championship, right? Yeah. And therefore, whose fault in quotes is it that we didn't get done last year answer the Premier League? It's not Evan's fault. I don't care what bloggers say. It's not Evan's fault. You know, if you have to pay tax, pay as late as you can, right? If you have to go to court and it's, you know, you're going to go to prison, stay free for as long as you can. And if the process and the mechanisms by the prosecutors are so absolutely poor, that it takes them a year to get you to court, that's their problem. That's their problem. And clearly, they have to collate their own evidence to get to this far. It doesn't look very good, does it? So that's one reason. The other reason is we are where we are and the judge in the appeal, which gave us benefit of four points, has set the precedent that if you get a point sanction, it should be applied immediately. And he talks about why a suspended points deduction is not appropriate. I could challenge that to be honest, because one of the things he does talk about is the whole ethos around this is to, again, not his words because he writes legal stuff, but I would say it's to scare the 20 clubs sufficiently that they don't breach. But don't scare them because there's so little transparency, anything can happen. Scare them because they conclude that the punishment for breaching is greater than the benefit they may get. And maybe, just maybe, that's what played out in January. I just think lots of clubs just concluded they didn't want to spend and it was an easy way to explain why. But hey, what do I know? But we are where we are and therefore get it done and get it behind us. However, I think we could argue to get to the same outcome, which is we don't get another point of deduction. Because I think this actually, a lot of this comes down on the prosecutor, which is the Premier League. Do you know why we've been referred to an independent commission? Because the Premier League process says we have to be. If they don't want us to go through this again. If Richard Masters Premier League, if we want to call it that, Alison Britton is a bit quiet in the shadow somewhere. But if the Premier League really want to get into a position where evidence could be issuing a statement a week after or two weeks after Nottingham Forest have issued a similar statement saying this punishment is both unjust and disproportionate. Having moved us from that to satisfied. They haven't learned anything, have they? No. So when the barrister stands up under the instruction of his client in front of the Nottingham Forest judge and then subsequently a different set under the Everton judge. And says, I want the maximum punishment available to you. They haven't learned anything, have they? No. So it could be it's a procedural case for us. He stands up and says, Your Honor, these guys have breached the rules. We think they've learnt the lesson. We request you give them the minimum sanction possible. And if at all possible, avoid a points deduction, for example. And would a judge if both the prosecution and the defence were happy with that, then give them something else? No, he wouldn't would he? No. Right. So it's all on the Premier League. Do you want a pound of flesh? Does Richard Masters or the Premier League Board want to perceive itself to be right? Does it want to still try to demonstrate to the wider world that it can self-regulate when it clearly can't? That boat has sailed, it's long since sailed. Or does Richard Masters and Alison Brittain and the non-execs want to be the people who decide who gets relegated? It seems like that. And when you have national journalists on national radio stations saying that's actually what it looks like that last bit. Avoid that like the plague. And the only way you can avoid that like the plague Premier League is get both Nottingham Forest and Everton not to appeal. Mad. Would you be happy not knowing anything else? Yeah, that both Nottingham Forest and Everton chose not to appeal? I think that would be fine. Even if that was a stupid points deduction for us and a stupid points deduction for them. It meant that there was overwhelming evidence that what we got we deserved. And I would still sit here and go, but points deductions guys, wrong answer. No it is the wrong answer. Wrong answer. It will never be a world where it's the right answer. You may have decided in similar circumstances with something which the Premier League claims it's going to adopt that the right answer is a fine. Hit these owners and maybe the owners not the football clubs, but hit these owners where it hurts most money.