 Yn yr hyn y gallai llwyddiadau yma o'i wneud o'r cyfnod ychydig yn dda y sgwyl. Felly ond nid oedd y gallai gallai gandd-draeth yn ddiddorol. Nid oedd y gallai gandd-draeth yn ddiddorol? Mae'n gandd-draeth o'r perffyn yn cael eu bod yn eistedd. Nid oes y gallwn amser ffaint o'r hyffredd, ond mae'n rhan o'r holl yn yr hyffredd am gyfnod o'r llwen o'r cyffreddau yma. Client journalists and stuff like that, so favoured journalists is what I think I put in a MTAG article I did about it. Clearly the focus needs to be on the process and my words, not anybody else's, what appears to be the overreliance on one or two EFL cases and I think the judgement seems to have weighed quite heavily on Sheffield Wednesday for example who ended up with a 12 point deduction but reduced to six on appeal. And they were very naughty boys in comparison with whatever we think about them, which is we've done our best to respect the process and stay compliant even if we've ultimately ended up failing it. We haven't been backdating stuff, we haven't been hiding stuff and so on. So I think the procedural side, I think we said this actually on channel before, that almost straight away clearly we're going to appeal and our appeal should focus on procedural and policy, that's within the judgement, not on we're innocent because clearly we're not. And I think the club recognised that and again, whether it's journalists being influenced or whatever it is, people talk about, and we've had this today I think perhaps it will come on to it, but people talk about, well you know, Everton said they were innocent then they changed their minds, right? Well Premier League said the loss was smaller than it was then they changed their minds. That was the nature of the process. You hear what the other party has to say, if you're trying to be fair and equitable you go oh I see where you're coming from now and so on. But there's still a gap between the football club and between the league about how big this breach is. And that's not a gap, that's necessarily going to get resolved is it, because it's a matter of opinion, a bit like VAR, opinion based VAR, the judge has drawn an opinion from it, and then there'll be another judge in the appeal process who may or may not have the same opinion. But the reality is, and this is someone like Andy Burnham who's coming from is, and he calls it regulatory malpractice, right, which is very subtle, you know something, is that from the journey in March, I mean the chronology almost is, in March referred to an independent commission, was it April or May, chair of independent commission has secret meeting with Everton and other clubs who want financial compensation but they actually wanted that meeting because they wanted to contribute to the case, you know, if you like the trial, because they called it pre-trial didn't they, pre-trial meetings. And he said no, but if they're guilty then you may have a case, right. So there's a recurring theme here, words like may and if and so on are being forgotten in clickbait wars with legacy media, who this is the easiest show in town to focus upon and no doubt Sean will get some questions in his press conference today and so on. But once that was set aside, the next thing of course is the actual judgement itself which we've had and it appears between those two bookends, the Premier League according to the judgement, adopted a policy for calculating a sanction, right, which the Premier League in the current process are denying through their chair. Who's trying to react to and he burned him going in two-footed knee-high sort of thing and he's not wrong to do that. I've spoken to quite a number of national journalists, you know, legacy if I want to be critical of calling them that and they say but he's right. A broadsheet journalist said but he's right, yeah. Now the broadsheet journalist is necessarily going to say that publicly because that might not be the editorial of his newspaper but privately that's what he thinks. And I think one of the things that Everton finds in the round need to consider is what's going on in public is spin. What's going on behind the scenes is something we need to let it play out. Andy has clearly had a letter in response to his letter from the chair. Clearly the chair of the Premier League wasn't sufficiently confident in what she said to make that an open letter where Andy was confident in his to make it an open letter and Andy has said I think this morning, maybe a few hours ago now, he'll respond at the weekend. So he's going to publicly say at the weekend what the Premier League have said in response to his letter. So this is all getting a bit, ooh, this can't be what the Premier League expected, right? We are being robust. These are naughty people. We have them bang to rights. We're going to punish them. Look, we don't need independent regulation. And of course they're of course going to refute any claims that this is influencing the outcome, the threat. It's not a threat. It's going to happen. It's in the King's speech. It's got cross party support. And what we see in the dialogue with people like it, in burn and people like that, is that it's made an independent regulator more likely, not less likely. But they still, they being the Premier League, would still presumably try and minimise its influence as much as they can. So it's become a big political game now.