 So just just to finish off on the event in case and before we before we finish off all together Sam Do you mind? and we spoke a bit in the last podcast about the possible avenues of appeal and we kind of called came to the common sense that Double jeopardy for lack of a better term would probably one that everton pushed and also the loss of the sponsorship of usm And you've spoke specifically about the loss of chance argument. I have any sanctions to hook that around Loss of chance. You may have seen is that he's a phrase that is used in in relation to usm as well in the commission's report So do you manage giving us a quick summary of the mitigation that was accepted for everton in in everton to in the way that you see it So, yeah, so I think as you point out this was something that was discussed the last time I was on The the commission effectively rejects the idea that the everton shouldn't have placed all its eggs in one basket Which is the what the Premier League said when it when it comes to relying on money from usm And what the Premier League was saying was that mr. Uzmanov had a heightened risk profile And so it was silly for them effectively to to rely so heavily upon him And on this point the Commission accepted the Exceptional I think an unforeseeable circumstances which led to the loss of the 20 million pounds in revenue and then they go on actually to draw attention to That credit beings being seriously limited by the business decisions made by everton during financial year 2023 So so on On the one hand they sort of they accept that the mitigation has put forward but and go on to say well actually there was some Some business decisions which left much to be desired which you'd go some way to it to not extinguishing but certainly Making up some of the ground that the mitigation removes So everton definitely had the stronger argument here I think the Premier League's position I Talked about previously about you know the invasion of Crimea the poisoning episodes in the UK that they were the necessary red flags that would have Given the the Everton board pause for thought That they were held to be kind of a nice point in hindsight Ultimately, though that it would be too much to ask that the Everton should should take those matters into account when they were considering kind of prudent management of Sponsorship risk that that I think has to be right And so the position we find ourselves in is that in summary Everton's mitigation in relation to firstly that the loss of the revenue They would have received pursuant to what's been called the Finch farm agreement, which is effectively all of the stuff coming from USM and Secondly that they're guilty plea that they were taken together to result in a further reduction of one point Which is then how you get from the five down to the three and then to the two points Which were which were finally imposed as a sanction Yes, absolutely. And yeah, so the yeah the double jeopardy argument is why it was essentially that the the commission did a bit of a Calculation didn't they and worked out that if take 16.5 million breach. It was just under 50 percent So just under 50 percent of five points is two points. I think that's fair enough to say and and that got taken off as well So so the the sanction really starts with a double jeopardy argument Yes, this is this is an interesting and probably just worth me exploring it briefly The Commission made clear in the in the Decision that the FL guidelines which set out the position that the FL would take where sanctions been imposed previously That they were helpful benchmark, but couldn't be transposed directly into the premier league was not least because The Premier League had made no provision for such guidelines and as we discussed earlier, it's a it's a joint venture And it could have done that if the clubs had wanted to As far as double jeopardy goes the Commission held that it was incumbent on On it to acknowledge that any sanction on Everton in respect of the financial year 2023 Needed to be reduced in order to reflect the fact that Everton had already been sanctioned for for years Which are also included in the current PSR calculation for financial year 2023 And so the two-point sanction was arrived at they arrived at that by determining that Everton had already received a penalty for just under 50 percent of the loss Which has now led to its it being in excess of the upper loss threshold and so The maths effectively followed that it would be appropriate to reduce the penalty by a half Now they in fact went from five to three because they were dealing with whole numbers and and they Then the additional point was removed for the further reasons of mitigation i.e. the early plea the the USM point which we spoke about