#70. Maybe it isn’t all that bad?

Reasons to be cheerful. We look at why Everton are maybe not in such terrible shape, why the West Ham performance wasn't as bad as everyone seemed to think, and discuss whether six points is a fair punishment for Everton.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome to episode 70 of the Blues Brothers Everton
podcast.
I'm Austin, I come from.
New York and the other threeBosses are all perhaps together
in the Bwn Room in Mansfield,and we've got Adam, Ben and our
dads here as well, so I'll goAscending Age Adam, how are you
doing?

Speaker 2 (00:36):
I'm fine, thank you.
How are you?

Speaker 1 (00:39):
I'm good it's raining in New York.
That's my main problem.
You guys are all in the desertas we record this.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
So yeah, from a week you just heard a very loud ding
of a food, of eatable, yeah,yeah.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Like professional outfit, is always around here.
Three of us huddled around onelaptop eating food.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Whilst I've eaten a main, I've eaten pizza in the
podcast, I've eaten a dessertthat needs to do a starter.
Yeah, we, just we need to comeup on the next episode with soup
.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Yeah.
Just slurp just slurp, and thenwe've completed the full course
meal.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
And maybe in a moose.
Bush, ben, how you doing?

Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, I'm good.
So we're in the UK at theminute with Jude, so it means
that I get to see these guys butalso do the podcast from this
side of the Atlantic, which isalways fun.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
So yeah all very good and, last but not least, dad,
how you doing.

Speaker 4 (01:32):
Yeah, good for me.
Yeah, great Great having ananalogy here.
Yeah, so actions at the moment.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Great, awesome, all right.
And he's not here.
We don't know Is he is in Walessomewhere.
He hasn't got phone signal.
He's probably cost, god knows.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
Is he in?

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Yorkshire.
Maybe he's in Yorkshire, is he?

Speaker 2 (01:51):
I mean he made it sound like he's in Mordor by
France about his own signal,which I completely agree with,
by the way.

Speaker 3 (02:01):
Yeah, I'm doing was meant to be, but there's
apparently camped out in a placewith less phone signal than the
Sahara, so yeah, he can't.
When we got a spectacularAndrew rant about it, which
listeners to this podcast willknow is something you don't
never want to get in the middle.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
No, but they are fun to watch.
All right Sorry, Andy's nothere we're going to talk.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to talk about allthe kind of.
We're going to talk about PSRon point stuff, because we all
know a chance about that, andwe're going to talk about the
you know the West Ham game alittle bit.
We are going to talk about theWest Ham game, probably more
than a little bit, but in thecontext of however to do it and

(02:41):
I think maybe we have a bit ofdon't want to speak to the other
guys, but we'd be talking aboutthis a lot, I think.
Maybe we have a slightlycontrarian position on that, I
guess, but we'll get there.
When we get there, let's startwith the PSR.
So you know, since we last werewith you all, we've got four
points back, which I think wehad some gossip the day before
it was going to be two, so wewere all pretty pleased.

(03:03):
Ben, I'll start with you.
Here's my question.
We've been analyzed to deathand we've all been sort of upset
and you know we now know moreabout regulatory frameworks and
we talked a lot about thePremier League in the last part.
So I'm going to ask you this Ifyou accept let's say let's
accept as a principle thatEverton protocols by 20 million

(03:27):
pounds, but for the sake of anargument I'm taking the Premier
League's figure Do you thinklosing six points is a fair
punishment for that?

Speaker 3 (03:38):
Yes, I think what I would say let me let me frame it
this way, and I think I saidthis when they reduced the, we
got the appeal through.
I think if the initial sanctionhad been six points, I don't
think you would have seenanywhere near the level of
vitriol, protest, confusion,anger, frustration, you know,
pick, pick, whatever adjectiveyou like, because I think there

(04:01):
is a recognition that apunishment needs to be doled out
when you, when you, break therules.
Like that.
I think, if you look in thecontext, which is what the
Appeals Board did, if you lookin the context of other
sanctions that you get, forexample administration, or if
you look at examples from theEFL where there's been points
deductions four to six alwayssort of felt the realm that you

(04:28):
would end up in.
So I think if the initialAppeals, if the initial
commission, had said it's a sixpoint deduction, I still think
we would have appealed, becausethat's what you do, you always
appeal these things.
But I don't think you wouldhave.
Certainly myself I would havegone.
Yeah, that's probably aboutright, and I think there's quite
a lot of Evatonians.
I don't know, but two guyssitting next to me were disagree

(04:50):
vehemently, but I sort of feellike there'd be a lot of
Evatonians who probably wouldhave gone.
Yeah, that seems fair enough.
And then, and not had the wholesort of you know what followed
in terms of the protests andalso like, from the Premier
League's point of view, theywouldn't have put themselves in
such a dire position.
And I know it's an independentblah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

(05:11):
whatever.
But, like the Premier League,asked for 12 and got 10.
So you know, you make your bed,you've got a lie in it.
They created this problem forthemselves and Richard Masters
created the problem for himselfbecause they were incredibly
overzealous in the punishment.
And then, without wanting todive into the weeds of the
appeals boards too much, theappeals board made clear that

(05:34):
there were fundamental legalerrors, and you know none of us
on this call were lawyers, but Ithere are.
It was easy enough to identifythe fundamental legal areas that
had obviously been made in theinitial commission the appeal
board highlighted.
So long, long way of answeringsix feels about right in the

(05:55):
context of what you would getfor the sorts of punishments but
I'll hand over to.
I don't know, I don't know.
Do you feel like differently tothat or?

Speaker 2 (06:03):
No, I think.
I think six points was wasabout, was about right.
I was just having a little,just a quick chat.
I was talking there because Iremember reading something in
Athletic Boiland and he quoted a.
He quoted a sport sports lawyerwho said that the appeals board

(06:25):
interestingly basically youparaphrasing him slightly, but
he, he used the, the, the, theappeals, the appeals board use
the EFL guidelines and useSheffield Wednesdays, past
discresions, not discretion,sorry, misdemeanors or other

(06:45):
about relating to, likefinancial fair playing and all
that sort of stuff and theirrespective deduction as a sort
of a guideline.
And that's not one of the main.
The main issue we talked aboutthat podcast, about, you know,
the bias that's involved withthe Premier League stating,
before the appeal, before theindependent inverted commerce

(07:06):
panel had made their, made theirverdicts, and how they asked
for 12 points.
So that was unfair from thestart and you know we were all
surprised when we got as much as10 and the Premier League as
we've discussed in the lastpodcast, didn't have any
guidelines, so it's and.

Speaker 4 (07:24):
Ben.

Speaker 2 (07:24):
Ray correctly raises the point about how they made
for significant fundamentallegal areas which you can sort
of understand if they're beingthis new territory for them.
But you know these people arepaid to do that job.
You sort of think these thingsare very black and white.
You either have a, you have aninterpretation of the law that
the EFL managed to manage tonavigate with literally dozens

(07:47):
and dozens of examples ofdeductions that they've had to
make on teams.
And then the Premier League.
You know they've got a 0%success rate.

Speaker 4 (07:57):
No.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
So, yeah, I think I think six points was about right
.
I grew Ben, like I don't thinkmany of the Tony's would
necessarily complain about that.
I think, and it's I think thatwould have.
That would have set theprecedent, as we've seen now in
the January transfer window inparticular, and talk about the
summer spending being massivelyreduced as well for clubs, and I

(08:25):
think that would have shown thePremier League that actually
they've overriding, they've sortof overriding their pudding,
which for American listenersmeans the most British English
thing you'll probably hear onthis podcast ever which
basically means that they've,you know, they've gone too far,

(08:46):
far the other way of whatthey've tried to prove
themselves as being, you know,able to regulate themselves by
going look how you know, a bitof chest beating of a 10 point
deduction, and it's worth it'sworth also reflecting as well
that the two areas where we weresuccessful in the appeal the
first of which in the initial ofthe like commissions verdict

(09:08):
that were they there was thisaccusation, which they found to
be true, that we'd acted in badfaith, that we'd broken another
different rule because weweren't, we didn't act in good
faith in our representationsPremier League.

Speaker 3 (09:22):
Interestingly, the appeals board also make the
point that we were neveractually told that we were going
to be charged with that.
So Everton found out that we'dbeen in, we were in breach of
that when the originalcommission result came out,
which meant that the originalhearing.
We have no ability or noopportunity to defend ourselves
against that claim which just init, doesn't make any common

(09:45):
sense, let alone legal sense.
Like you can't, you can't actIf you imagine that in a, in a,
in a jury trial or a criminaltrial, that is like getting to
sentencing and go oh yeah, bythe way, we've also found it
guilty for this thing that wedidn't tell you we were charging
you for and we're adding fiveyears on to your sentence for
that as well.
But you could appeal.
It just obviously made no sensefor the, for the commission to

(10:07):
say, oh, we're finding youguilty of acting in bad faith,
when that was never part of itinitially, and the appeals board
quite rightly overturned that.
And then the second area wherethey found us to be without our
appeal was successful is MrsTwaddon's point.
In a legal sense you have tounder the terms of sort of

(10:28):
natural justice as much as Iunderstand it as someone who you
know nearly studied law atuniversity but didn't is the
sort of altercation you need onthe public aspect.
Yeah, exactly when sorts ofprecedent exists for similar
offences.
You have to be shown to takethat into consideration.
You can't just ignore precedententirely.

(10:50):
And, to Adam's point, with thePortsmouth administration and
with the Sheffield Wednesdaystuff, we were able to
demonstrate that they justhadn't taken any sort of
precedent or any sort of contextof similar offences into
account which breachedessentially you know, natural
justice right to a fair trial.
I don't know what the correctlegal sort of terminology would
be, but essentially what theysaid was you made a decision,

(11:13):
without taking in any externalcontext, about what the
punishment should be and youcan't just do that, you can't
like just make up a punishment.
You have to in order to fulfillthat sort of you know, basic
legal principle.
You have to demonstrate thatyou've considered this offense
in the context of similaroffences.
And they obviously just hadn't.
And it was obvious from day onewhen you get nine points for

(11:34):
going into literally going intoadministration and having to
sell off assets and fire peopleand make people redundant and
all of the terrible implicationscome out, that gets you nine
points and we get 10, justobviously made no sense from the
beginning.
So it just worked.
For those who may not beslightly clear on what we
actually got the points back for.

(11:56):
It was the.
You know.
They overturned the fact, theaccusation that we hadn't acted
in good faith, and they we wereable to successfully argue that
the punishment was out of out ofkilter with previous examples.
But, dad, yeah.

Speaker 4 (12:11):
I was thinking I was going to say, and I will say,
but I might, my my perhaps mightbe wrong, but my understanding
was that the family actuallysaid five points for.
So six points for to start off,yeah, and then two points or

(12:34):
one point, whatever you find, sothat would make 10.
Yeah, so I think we've got, Ithink, yeah, just been for this.
So, having said this is what werecommend, and then the
independent commission saysnothing to do with you, we're
independent, and then actuallygiven exactly what they, I mean
that's that made the whole thing.

(12:55):
People say, well, what's goingon here?
The other thing I think aboutcontext was that you know, we've
had two seasons of strugglingagainst relegation.
There we are, we're sort ofdoing much better up towards the
heart, and then all of a suddenwe get 10 points and where are
we?
Yeah, back in the relegation.
So it's almost as if there's aconspiracy to keep us in that,

(13:19):
that bottom three.
So I very much agree with whatyou said.
I think it was six points.
That would have given us acomment what the question was.
But it would have been fourpoints more, so we'd have been X
number of places higher.
I don't think there would havebeen the reaction that we got.
So, and I probably think six isfair and it does set a

(13:40):
benchmark.
So if it's six for 20, it'd beinteresting to see what happens
and say with forest, yes, whichis we probably come on to that
which is meant to be more than20.

Speaker 2 (13:53):
Yeah, an additional, additional issue with them.
That's our second appeal, andforests you know, but I saw our
second breach and a ledge breachand forests.
A ledge breach is that there'stwo.
They're having two separate,independent panels, which you
sort of under you can understand, because the implication of
having one is that you can, youcan't make a judgment against

(14:18):
them both at the same time.
You'd have to do one and thenthe other, and then that might
need to some nap that some buyer.
So I sort of understand that.
But the problem is that theyhaven't got the parameters in
place.
I don't want more where theparameters in place, or they're
going to have to write thempretty speedily because that's,
you know, appointed out already.
Is that the they said about the?

(14:42):
You know the six points for thefirst, what?
It was?
It five, was it?
Sorry?
It was six points base, sixpoints base and then a point.
A point for every additionalfive million.
Now, you know, they said thatwasn't going to happen, that
wasn't going to happen, and thenit presto, it basically did,
and as far as I'm aware, theystill haven't, all the being

(15:04):
very, very coy about any sort ofguidelines that are going to be
in place.
So, one or two things that canhappen even they don't have any
guidelines still, or thoseguidelines have been written
very, very, she, very, very, Ithink of the word like rashly or
hastily, hastily, thank you,hastily.

(15:26):
That's what I'm looking for,and they've been written very
hastily.
And you want, and then it wouldbe.
You think about, well, whatexamples are they use?
What the context of theexamples that they've used to
guide them?
Because that's they've, this istheir own, they've only had us
as a, as a judgment.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Well, it does create another interesting possibility
in the and I'll throw about toAustin because I'm conscious
with the three of us being inthe room, we can end up having a
conversation between us,because there's two, because
there are two appeals panelsthat aren't being done at the
same time you can get totallydifferent results.
So the appeals panel forest ishappening next week and ours is

(16:05):
apparently happening towards theend of March.
So they could look at theforest and go, oh, there's no
point deduction.
And then they could look at ourat the second panel, could look
at ours and go, oh, it'sanother six points or so.

Speaker 2 (16:15):
Well, that's what I mean about the parameters to
make that judgment.
Yeah, I'll read the not inplace or they are being written.

Speaker 4 (16:23):
But but the new?
I mean it's all.
You know, all on cases,previous cases, and there's only
one case, this is about theprice, I mean.
So some precedent has now beenset.
My view would be maximum willonly be eight.
Nobody will get more than eight.
It was respective of it, Iagree, and I think they're
saying like 20, 20 million over,gets you get your six.

(16:44):
So if you're more than 20,let's say 25, seven, 30, eight,
if it's 30, you've overspent by135.
You've lost 135 million.
Yeah, over the years.
Yeah, I think that the plan isto now be set and we soon find
out, a few weeks, whether or not.
Yeah, that's good, but I don'tthink anybody can possibly now

(17:06):
get more than eight.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, and I think they will.
You know, you're right.
The point you make about thebeing separate panels is right.
There is a reality one wouldhope, which is, I think,
probably is what's going tohappen.
Is that Legal, that they shouldbe more legalistic about this
in the future, right, the pointyou made around us being
effective he sanctioned forsomething we would never charge

(17:28):
for, charged with, is afundamental error of law.
It's an error of process, right?
So that tells me that the panel, the first panel, did not have
sufficient legal guidance.
You know it, because anycompetent lawyer would have
pointed out that that wasinappropriate.
If the Premier may have anysanity at all, which is a

(17:50):
question, and they make surethat the panels in the future do
have proper guidance, what theywill, legal people will follow
precedent, right, even if therules don't.
Don't tell them that they haveto, because the point that the
appeals panel made wasn't somuch that they had to follow
precedent, because they don'tcommit to not a court, right,
just not have to do that.
The point they made was it wasthe only sensible way to come up

(18:13):
with an answer.
So not doing it didn't make anysense and they're foolish.
So I think you probably.
I think that's right.
You will find now that it willorientate around six is the
rough benchmark for that sizebreach and it goes up and down
from there.
The net, net of which is forestof fucked completely because

(18:36):
there's no way they're going toget I mean, their losses are
bigger than ours Net loss.
We understand it.
I mean this is all based onmedia leaks and stuff but
there's a good consensus thattheir financial situation is
worse than ours was andtherefore they're getting stuck
to more points.

Speaker 4 (18:53):
Yeah, I met somebody who was worrying me today though
.
In the athletic.
One is says if you look at thelast two years of the previous
sanction, we lost 67.
Okay, you're now at 105.
So that means that our loss isa minimum of 40 million.
To take us over the 105.

(19:14):
Yeah, so we must have lost aminimum of 22-23.
If you remember, that year wesold Keen, we sold Cosley Gordon
and then we sold for less moneybut still it added up.
We sold Sim, we sold Cannon andthere was somebody else we sold

(19:36):
.
Anyway, the totality of that is90 million.
Now we'd have thought if we'dhave got 90 million in sales.
How are we still losing 40million?
Because the stadium, the realestate 40 million plus, because
there's got to be more than that, yeah, 40 million plus.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
The two things to consider with that, though, is
that even if we lose 40 millionin that one season which
admittedly is bad the charge isover three, over a three-year
period, so we're not going to be40 million over the 105.
We might be 5 million over the105.

Speaker 4 (20:11):
Wouldn't you have thought that, with all the
savings that they've made andthat 90 million, the deficit
would have been less than it wasfor?

Speaker 3 (20:26):
The problem is and this comes to the fundamental
issue about Everton Football Cupis there's two things.
One, we're trying toessentially sell finance at
stadium, which is challenging inand of itself, but also we are
poorly run from financialservice.
So the answer to the questionis how are we losing so much
money is essentially debtinterest.

Speaker 4 (20:45):
The amount of money that we're spending on debt.

Speaker 3 (20:47):
now, if you look at the account we haven't seen the
latest accounts, but theex-covid the sort of person who
followed us is that we'respending around three and a half
million pounds a month oninterest on our debt, and that's
spiralling because as youaccrue more debt, you're a
riskier lender.
Therefore you pay higherinterest rates.
So the answer to the questionis we're just really badly run

(21:12):
the debt for the stadium isexcluded.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
I mean, that's where the bad faith came in, because
initially we said that ourinterest payment was for the
stadium and it transpired itwasn't.
But the money for the stadiumwas being given by Meshiri and
that was interest and we werepaying interest on other loans
and Everton, whether or not itwas a mistake.
They were suggesting that onlyinterest was in fact related to

(21:39):
stadium, which it wasn't.
So we're low on the payment andoff another money in interest
payments.
If the stadium interestpayments are excluded, we must
have off another money.

Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, it's about 300 million or something.
It's a lot of money and theother thing to bear in mind with
this when you look at thosenumbers, the accounts reflect
actual cash because theyamortise the cost of players,
but also over time.
But also when we sell them, wedon't get paid.

(22:16):
Newcastle didn't write us acheck for 50 million pounds, so
the accounts will represent whatwe actually got paid as opposed
to what the transfer fee was,if that makes sense, because
that 50 million probably is overfive years.

Speaker 4 (22:31):
It's different if you're buying or selling.
For Gordon we'd have got allthe 45,000.
And I'm guessing for Keane,because he was at the end of his
contract, we'd have got all hismoney.
And if you look at Sims andCannon, they were all
home-produced products.
So my understanding was doneagain as with Gordon that we'd
have got all that money.

Speaker 3 (22:52):
It's the difference between You're in danger of
agreeing with each othervociferously, but it's the
difference between getting themoney and being able to book the
money on your accounts.
You can book the money on youraccounts.
So the Anthony Gordon, forexample.
You can book 45 million on youraccounts.
You don't get 45 million incash on that day.
What you're able to do is saythis deal is worth 45 million,

(23:14):
so we're booking that on ouraccounts as 45 million.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
And is that 45 million and only the part of
whatever the fee?
That's guaranteed as well andwe don't know.
We see it as 45 million.
What is that guaranteed 45million?
It's part of that based on,obviously, newcastle winning the
Champions League or whatever.
There are parts of it that wedon't know.

(23:38):
So that's the important thing.
It's slightly opaque trying totake transfer fees that we hear
about and back into the Cubsfinancial results, because the
two don't connect in the waythat we might assume.

Speaker 3 (23:54):
Yeah, but the answer to Dan's pertinent question is
we're just really badly run andthat is demonstrated by the fact
that we are essentially havingto take 20 million chunks of
money at a time from 777, whoappear to be the dodgiest people
ever involved in owning afootball club, and that's a

(24:15):
dodgy list.
And the important thing toremember is that money we're
taking from 777 is workingcapital, that's, to keep shit
running on a monthly.
That's not like are we givingyou 20 million to spend on
players?
Are we giving you 20 million tobuy it?
They're literally giving usmoney to keep the lights on and

(24:36):
keep paying people and all thatstuff.
So that's a really badsituation to be in.
It is essentially like if youwere running your household
budget.
Rather than taking money to goon a nice holiday, you're being
given money to pay theelectricity bill.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
That's the classic rule of Sorry, go ahead Dan.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
That's my understanding.
We'll go on that how much forsoon.

Speaker 3 (25:00):
The ground was actually.
This is where the complicationcomes, because a lot of the
ground that we got alone fromMSP who were the other people
who were interested in buyinggoods decided not to were
blocked from buying us becauseof some complicated arrangement
I don't fully understand.
But MSP still agreed to loan us, I think about £150 million for
the ground.
But as far as I understand itthe 777 money is just working

(25:24):
capital.
That's just like hey, you needto keep the lights on until
that's what they're saying,until the takeover happens.
What?

Speaker 4 (25:31):
we're going to remember about.
777 is open on the talk nowabout some insurance company
that's linked to them as well,as they're crediting.
I mean there is an issue there,but they have 60 companies
affiliated to them.
It's easy to cherry pick anyone of those 60 companies as

(25:53):
having some maybe cash flowissues and then say that that
presents an issue for all of theorganisations.
I think, there's a lot ofjumping on, by the way, because
we've been doing it for a longtime.

Speaker 2 (26:07):
I don't think things have gone well.
The footballing side of things,because I think they own 1860
Munich, er her to Berlin.
I think they got relegated lastyear for the first time.
God knows how long they're instandard liais, who I believe

(26:27):
are knocking about the bottom ofthe Jupiter pro league now.
So I think they're like teamsthat would do them well.
From what I've read about a lotof their fans, they don't
really like them.

Speaker 4 (26:43):
I'm sorry, adam.
I just happened to have readthe athletics today and I read
something that surprised me thatone of our financial issues
standard days, for instance, theplayers not being paid for a
couple of months.
They've only taken control ofall of these footballers fairly
recently and there's still asort of a hangover from the

(27:05):
financial difficulties that theyhave.
As a policy, they buy companies, organisations for the struggle
because they reckon because oftheir input they can turn them
over.
So that's the situation.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
We should bear in mind as we consider the quality
otherwise there are incomingowners that we're currently
owned by a front man for asanctioned Russian oligarch, so
we're not owned by Save theChildren right now.

Speaker 4 (27:40):
Finish my point about 7.7.
Actually the athletics says ifyou look at the performance on
the field, performance of all ofthe teams, they've actually
improved in the last 12 months.
They have improved.
Some of them were alligatorsbut now they've either been the

(28:00):
promotion plan or are doing okay.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
I think I've seen what you're usually saying about
cherry picking.
I think I've sort of put thosetwo out there.
There's been examples becausethey stuck in my mind from when
I read about them, but I guesstime will come.
It's certainly been the longesttaker that I'm aware of that

(28:26):
the Premier League would have todeal with.
So there is that element.

Speaker 3 (28:31):
But there is also another sort of failing of the
Premier League.
In many ways, this stuff justshouldn't take that long.
It wasn't being critical of 7.7.

Speaker 2 (28:42):
No, no, no, I was just saying it's taken a while,
I agree but again, this is thePremier League failing.

Speaker 3 (28:49):
By this point.
You should have been able toanswer.
If you haven't had satisfactoryanswers to your questions, then
you say no to the takeover, thefact that we're in this weird
limbo where, like, oh, wehaven't had satisfactory answers
, so we've gone back to them,and so it's just dragging on and
on and on.
There has to be a process andthere has to be a timetable for

(29:09):
the process.
If you can't meet thattimetable, then the answer has
to be no.
So it's incredibly frustratingto sit here and then be in, like
you know, in hoc to the PremierLeague and however fast they
want to work, Because if theanswer is no, then we need to
know that, so that, mishiri, canyou know, take whatever plan B

(29:30):
might be, but there'sinterminable sort of oh, we
might hear this week, we mighthear this week there's more
questions.
They're having a meeting.
It's been going on for 22 weeksnow.

Speaker 4 (29:41):
Yeah, I haven't gone to that.
It's been a few years.
What did not the Newcastle didthat not take 18 months?

Speaker 2 (29:49):
No, no, no, that got rejected, they got rejected,
they rejected it and they cameback Right.

Speaker 3 (29:55):
So again they came back and they did it in six
weeks 777s has taken by far thelongest out of anyone.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Like I said, that wasn't.
I'm not very critical of 777,I'm merely pointing out a fact
that it has taken a long time.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
I mean the thing to bear in mind about as you think
about ownership of Everton.
It's really important tounderstand people's motivation,
right?
Because they're not.
These people didn't wake up inthe morning, you know.
These people are Wall Streetpeople, right?
Let's assume that their onlyinterest is making money, which

(30:30):
is probably not far off.
They didn't wake up in themorning and decide to run a
bunch of football clubs into theground.
You know they'll do it.
There are two ways to makemoney from Everton basically,
assuming that they're notactually going to use us to
commit crime, or the money on amassive scale or something.
You can either make the clubmore successful by getting as

(30:56):
horribly into your increasedrevenue, and then you can
extract that revenue or theasset value increases, you can
sell it or you can use the assetvalue to leverage and borrow
against, right?
So you know you do the glaze andman you're not.
I think I would say it.
If I was trying to findsomething to borrow money

(31:17):
against, I wouldn't pick Evertonbecause it's cost them so far
$200 million in loans to get tothe bottom of their amount of
money, so it doesn't make anysense.
So I think I'm not saying thatthese guys are doing anything
other than Wall Street Hawks.
So they spot an opportunity todevalue the asset.
You know, I think it's assimple as that.

(31:38):
And whether they're competentat running or not, if you guys
say, time will tell, but theycan't make money by making us
worse at football, you knowthat's not going to be the plan.
It wasn't a serious plan either.
It was just terrible at runninga football club.
But I'm sure their intent isthey can buy us cheaply and be

(32:00):
able to increase the value ofthe asset and sell us in four or
five years.
I mean, that's what thesepeople do.
So you know it might not workout brilliantly, but you know, I
think that's right.
The way that the story has beentold is just.
You know it's very, veryone-sided.
And the other thing finally onthis we'll move on is that this
is the first time the PremierLeague have looked at and taken

(32:21):
over properly, just as we werethe first time they looked at
PSR properly.
You know they've not beenbothering to do any of this
stuff and they're nowdesperately trying to
demonstrate they're doing itbecause they don't want an
independent regulator.
So that's partly what we'redealing with as well.
Is then, they're probablyinventing this process.
They go as well, and I'm surebehind the scenes is an absolute
shitshow, so it's probably easyto misread.

(32:43):
You know what the signals tomean, something that you know
they may, or may not meanAnything else on all this off
the field stuff before we talkabout football.

Speaker 4 (32:56):
We just to find the point.
Do we all think that doublejeopardy is going to come in and
we'll get no more than twopoints deduction, further
deduction and as far as we'llget six or eight?

Speaker 3 (33:10):
I think it.
I wouldn't sort of take myselftoo closely to those specific
point numbers, but I think yes,it has to be a consideration.
You can't I don't think, comingback to the point about quote
unquote natural justice or Idon't think you can have a
situation where you are doublepunished, where you are

(33:33):
essentially two of the years arethe same years we've already
had a deduction for andtherefore, and then it's not
taken into account that we'vealready been punished for the
behavior in those years.
So I think you end up in asituation where you go, you know
, and you can throw numbers inthe air, but I think you end up
in a situation you go, well, youhaven't been punished for this

(33:53):
one year, so you get a couple, acouple points for that, and
then you get a couple of pointsfor the trajectory, because this
is your second defense, becausethe Evertonians talk about this
in a weird way, because thedouble jeopardy is also partly
balanced out by the fact thatwe're not getting better at this
.
Like, you can't continue.
The Premier League won't wantto have a situation where they

(34:15):
demonstrate that you cancontinually breach PSR and get
lower and lower and lowerreductions because of quote
double jeopardy.
So I think there comes a middleground where they go yes, you
get some credit, but we stillhave to give you a significant
of punishment to show that youcan't just continue to do that.
So I think, for us getting, Ithink you end up with somewhere

(34:36):
between four and six points, andthen, because those two things
balance each other out, just anobservation on that.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
It was considered that a sport in the fair, a
sport in fine penalty, wasappropriate because Everton were
getting some benefits on thepitch from the spending passing.
But that surely can't be thesituation.
We've already said thatprobably the reason that they're
in a mess now, this season of2022-23, is primarily interest

(35:07):
payments.
Nobody can be looking at what'shappening on the pitch, the
money we're getting, the playersare selling and we're paying to
replace them.
We've seen the stats in thelast three years.
There's only two clubs with anet spend less than us.
The trajectory has got, in myview, would be that it's moving

(35:30):
away from issues around thepitch and what you spend on
players, because we're movingaway from that and more to these
other issues.
Now, if that is reality andwe've all gone to receiving the
biggest, but if that's more thereality, I think that that would
be tending to take us the otherway to reduce the stores in
penalties as opposed toincreasing it.

Speaker 3 (35:51):
But we'll have to see because we're moving up the
challenge with that argument.
I'm going to cite an examplefrom another sport here.
In F1, red Bull Racing werefound to have breached a cost
cap.
So every F1 team has a cost capwhich they're allowed to spend
against, and Red Bull breachedit.
Now Red Bull said they breachedit because they overspent on

(36:12):
catering.
It wasn't on car design or windtunnel time or anything like
that.
They spent too much on cateringand that put them over.
And the FIA's point was likewell, it doesn't matter why
you've overspent or where you'veoverspent, you've overspent X
amount and that breached thefact that you overspent in this
bit rather than that bit.
The net effect of that is anadvantage.

(36:34):
So the counter to your argument, which I totally understand, if
I was on the other side I wouldsay well, it doesn't matter
that you've overspent oninterest payments rather than
player sales.
The fact that you've spent somuch on interest payments has
allowed you to like, has had theimpact of overspending overall,
and that's given you anadvantage because you've spent

(36:55):
more money than you were meantto.
It doesn't matter whetheryou've spent it in column A, b
or C.
You've overspent it and that'sthat.
And that's what I suspect wouldbe the counter to that, but I
think it's an interesting.
It's certainly like how do youdemonstrate that it is a
decreasing?
It is a it is decreasinglyevident that it is having a

(37:18):
benefit to us on the pitch as a,as a sort of a, an argument for
inmitigation, like we're reallyshit, so please don't take any
more points off one side.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
Probably a good.

Speaker 3 (37:31):
That's probably a good segue to a is it having a
benefit on the pitch?

Speaker 1 (37:42):
Yeah, let's move on to that.
Adam, and I'll come to you onthis one, because I was
interested in we were textingabout this, about kind of where
you're at so the West Ham game,was it dad?
Dad, did you go to that game,by the way?
Just so we know before wecongratulations, so you know
we'll add on a story to you.

(38:06):
The game was obviouslyprofoundly frustrating and
caused, I think, a meaningfulincrease in social media
conversations the stupid ways tojudge anything.
But you know certainly myTwitter timeline a lot more
people saying this isunacceptable.
You know Dysha's responsible, Ithink you know.

(38:27):
Tell us your thoughts on that.
You know separately from youknow I don't want us just to
talk about how frustrating thegame was because people know
that.
But what was your take on sortof the performance and where
we're at and you know wherethere's sort of responsibility
for that.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
You know, since yeah, I mean it's it.
Blaming Dysha for for, like,the West Ham game is absolutely
nonsense.
And I went to the.
I went to the Alice game andthat was frustrating, as you
know, because for variousreasons, and you can sort of say
that Dysha is responsible forsmall elements of why we're not

(39:04):
doing as well as we we should be.
I know you use the word should,you know, literally, because we
should be doing better.
And you know you can talk about, like you know, substitutions
and being a bit rigid in hisapproach to games and gets that
wrong.
But all managers, managers getthings wrong.
It's like, and we've got toalways remember that we're not a

(39:25):
team that's on the currentnumber of points that we are on.
We're a team that is playingwith six more points than than
we actually have on the board.
You know we're a comfortableteam that's knocking about the
upper lower half of the PremierLeague.
So the idea that anyone woulddo a better job than Dysha's,

(39:45):
laugh, frankly laughable.
Because the West Ham game andI'm probably going to, you know
I'll probably steal other people, you know people's stats, but
when dad and I dad obviouslywent to the game, we'll talk
about it in far more detail thanI will and I'll give him
opportunity to do that in asecond.
But, like you know, you look atthe.
We were looking at the XG whenwe were watching Match of the
Day and dad made the point oflike I want to really see what

(40:07):
the XG was, because West Ham hadthree highlights in that game
and all three of them were theirgoals and our XG was 2.7, west
Ham's was 1.7, we had moreattempts, we had more attempts
on target and Everton still haveby far the biggest difference

(40:29):
in XG versus actual goals andlast time we did a podcast it
was literally double the teamthat was second in that list.
I can't imagine it's changed upthat much.
So like we're just not, we'reworking below our mean in terms
of our ability to put the ballin the back of the net, like
better misses, a penalty, whichis a pretty much XG.

(40:50):
It's like 1.9, I think it worksout as I mean that's huge and
you've got other chances that weyou know that we miss.
And then you know West Ham tapeover, there's all they score
from it.
They score from it from acorner and it goes in the only
possible place.
And then I mean I'll letsomeone else talk about the

(41:10):
goalkeeper thing.
If you know about the, benposted it.
I will say actually, becauseBen's just obviously popped out,
but Ben posted it reallyinteresting thing on by a data
website called WhoScored, whichis where they rank goalkeepers
out of 10.
And the top three goalkeepersperformances this season have

(41:31):
all been at a way to Everton.
Burn Leno on the first day ofthe season.
Well, we should have lost 1-0,should have won, and I was at
that game.
I was very frustrating.
And the other two are obviouslyyou've got Ariola at the
weekend of West Ham and then Ican't remember who the third,
who is second, but it wassomeone against against us.

(41:53):
So goalkeepers are the world.
He's just.
We just leave, you can't scoreand the idea that, like you know
, guidance is responsible forthat is just nonsense.
And it's like you know.
It's the worst time to make ajudgment.
Make a judgment about someone'scompetency, because you're
dealing with emotion, aren't you?
It's like doing a course of thelaw.

(42:13):
You don't make a judgment onthe emotion of something that is
created.
You have to make a judgmentbased on you know other factors
and using your head and comeinto a calm, rational conclusion
about things.
And yeah, it's reallyfrustrating and it's frustrating
to continually draw and losegames that you shouldn't.
And we're on the you know a way, united.
If we don't win, we're on ourworst winless run ever, I think.

(42:36):
So, yeah, it's frustrating, butthe stats don't lie.

Speaker 4 (42:41):
Yeah, If we'd been talking about Dice's future
aspect of the Crystal Palacegame.
I was on the tally and I thoughtthe tactics were wrong, the
selection was wrong, theperformance was awful.
I couldn't believe what I wasseeing.
West Ham was different.
West Ham were much betteragainst West Ham.

(43:02):
Everybody's saying they shouldhave won.
When you're sitting there andyou look at it, you're thinking
we're doing okay here, we'recreating chances, we're bound to
get something from this.
Now we know it didn't happen.
If you look at Arsenal versusSheffield United, arsenal had 23
shots, 11 on target, six goals.
We had 22 shots, 11 on target,one goal.

(43:25):
That's where the issue is.
You can't blame Dice if weweren't creating the chances
because we got the wrong team,wrong tactics, but we were
creating our chances.
We were, and we've done that sooften this season.
When you look at other games,always a turn of points,
somebody does a misplace pass,somebody gets deflection.

(43:47):
It's not happening for us.
It's just something.
Our luck must change.
I think it must.
Our luck will change in thatWe'll start scoring goals and
getting points, because it's allbad and I do think there's an
awful lot of bad luck I thinkthings will change If we
continue to play as we didagainst Westam.

(44:10):
I'm sure we'll be okay and, aswe've alluded anyway, it might
all be a good point if thefollowers get the sort of
sanction that, well, I said, weall hope that they get.
It will be a different scenario, I think, in relation to
relegation, but everything isplaying okay.
We just need a bit of luck andmaybe time to go back and score

(44:34):
some goals.

Speaker 3 (44:35):
I think the thing as well to remember is it feels a
little bit ground-hog day to behaving this conversation,
because it's exactly the sameconversation we were having
after six or eight games of thisseason where we batted Fulham
and batted Wolves and lost bothof those and we're all going oh,
we just need our luck to turn.
And then and people forget thisbecause it got overshadowed by

(44:56):
the points deduction but we thenwent on a really good run, we
won four in a row.
Four in a row and we wereplaying great and everyone was
like, oh, this is great footballand really good, and this is
what we were expecting to happen, and this is what we're doing
in Converter and Transits, andall this happened.
And this is what happens whenyou're a team who is not you
know the reason why I?
mean sounds dumb to say thereason why Manchester City and

(45:17):
Liverpool and Arsenal are thebest teams in the league just
because they have better playersand they play better football
is because they deliver moreconsistently.
Right, they because they.
Yeah, it is because of thosereasons.
My point is that they don'thave this up and down in their
form that other teams in theleague do.

(45:40):
They are consistentlydelivering at a high level.
And that's why the PremierLeague, broadly, sheffield
United aside, apparently.
That's why, broadly, on a day aPremier League team can beat
another Premier League team, butover the course of a season the
top teams will just perform atthat high level much more

(46:00):
consistently than the teams atthe bottom.
So what's happening now iswe're in a bad form, and we're
in a bad form because we're aninconsistent team.
And we're an inconsistent teambecause we've got a mishmash of
players under 12, 15 differentmanagers that have been
collected over, you know, 10seasons and like there is an
it's sort of there has to besome level of expectation that

(46:22):
you're going to have these peaksand troughs, and Dij has been
fairly honest himself that likehe wants to have the more
consistent level of performance.
But we're not there yet.
So I'm relaxed about where weare, not least because I think
Forrester in trouble financiallywith the PSR stuff, and I don't

(46:43):
think Luton about.
Luton aren't a good footballteam Like they're trying really
hard.
They're in their purple patch,yeah they, they had that good
run of games when everyonethought and actually then you
look at them and you rememberthey played 28 games and got 28
and they've got 20 points, likethat's the team that they are
and like, so we'll, everyone'sworrying about relegation.
Where about this?

(47:03):
We'll?
We'll spank somebody three nilat some point because those
chances are just going to go inand everyone will.
Everyone will chill the fuckout and relax and it'll be like,
oh fine, we're actually notgoing to get relegated, because
even if you work on theassumption we're going to get
another six points off, say likewhich I think is what we most
would consider worst casescenario that we still only need

(47:27):
to pick up what 12, 14 pointsfor the rest of the season, like
in the games we've got the waywe're playing, as you were
saying about how we playedagainst West Ham.
We'll pick up those points andwin those games, because you
just don't have games like thatfor a consistent over a whole
season.
You just don't eat.
Evens itself out.

(47:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (47:48):
I mean at home, we've got Grenford Forest, burnley
and Sheffield United and Lutonaway.
Now, with those games, if wedon't get, let's say I'm going
to say we lose two points, thatputs us on 25.
So in 2023, I think we're 25.
So they reckon maybe another 11at 12 points, 34-35.

(48:11):
I can't get 11-12.
Put us from where we are now.
We're playing no five teams.
Yeah, then you deserve it.

Speaker 3 (48:22):
But I just think how you play against West Ham
everyone forgets another bit butnot in the greatest run of form
at the minute.
And apparently West Ham fans arethe most diluted fans of the
Premier League because they allwant to sack David Moyes.
But West Ham are a team who wona European trophy last season
and are eighth in the PremierLeague.
They're not some push-oversthat we should have played off

(48:43):
the park and by all means we didplay them off the park.
We just couldn't score, andthat's the frustrating thing.
But you turn in thatperformance against Sheffield
United, a Luton, a Burnley.
You're going to win those games, you just are.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
The stat doesn't lie, it can't lie, it's not even you
can go like, because people sayXG includes penalties.
That was our first penalty.
So our XG is extremely pure inits judgment, because we've got

(49:21):
such a huge difference betweenhow many goals we should score
and we are obviously you knowthat show that we're creating
chances and we just can't putthem away.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
Speaking on that, maybe, alston, you might want to
answer this one.
Do you continue to start Betoor do you go back to
Calvert-Lewan?
I would play.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
Calvert-Lewan.
It's a good question, beto.
I don't know if he scored hewas head or his shoulder.
I like him.
He's a better version of DennisStrakolersi.
You know he's Strakolersi butcan play, and I do like him.
But I think we're better teamwith Calvert-Lewan in.
What I would say aboutCalvert-Lewan is I really want
him to stop doing stuff.
He's spending too much time inthe channels.

(50:05):
I think his best period of timewhen Everton was in
Durantulaughty, where he wouldbasically add a shot collar on
him, where if he went outsidethe lines of the 18 yard box,
you know Carlo would press abutton and he'd go back in.
And he's spending too.
I don't mind coming deep, he'sgreat at receiving the ball
under pressure, he holds it upvery well, but he's spent too

(50:26):
much time.
He's a wide player and he'slooking to pass it off and
saying, no, you've got to be inthe box, mate, I would play him
and play him back into form.
I think he's the absolute keyto us.
You know, achieving what youguys say we should achieve.
Beto's a good backup, what heis a backup, and I was
disappointed that he was theonly thing.
And, dad, I agree with you.
I think you judge a manager onwhat they were trying to do,

(50:51):
because, whether the playersactually do it or not, but we
missed a penalty.
We scored that penalty.
We were in the game, you know,because you're not chasing it.
We lost 3-1 because we werechasing it at 1-1.
And you judge a manager by whatthey tried to do.
Krista Pasi got it all wrong.
He was too stuck on somethingthat had worked against better

(51:12):
teams and didn't properly shifthis focus to how do we win, and
he basically could always say itin those terms, but he
basically acknowledged that inwhat he said after the game and
how he picked the team againstWest Ham.
And then he puts the team outthere.
His team selection was, I think, what most of us would have
wanted.
And then it's like, well, god, Imean, if they won't score a

(51:35):
penalty, what the hell can youdo as a manager?
You know I'm really luckybecause I don't think it was a
bad penalty.
Actually, I think it's astrange.
You know Evertonians have gotto have their head checked and I
keep, you know, say this a lot,but you know we fired Roberto
Martinez when we were 10th or12th or something.

(51:56):
You know like everyone wantedhim.
God it's.
You know, it's become a sort ofwell I can, creativity and not
being able to think of a secondreason, a second thing to do
other than just act.
The manager, and it's justabsolute insanity.
Shall we talk about Ben?
Do you want to have a rantabout referees for a minute, and

(52:17):
then we'll talk about the?
Sorry, ben.

Speaker 4 (52:21):
I'm going to go on that and Calvert-Lewin, I expect
the goals is 12 less than itshould be on XG, which is the
lowest in the Premier League,and then you've got the likes of
Watkins and Bowen from West Ham.
On what 12, 14 goals you've got.

(52:42):
I think it's around that If hewas and he's good enough to be
scored as many goals as they are, if he was actually producing
at that rate, he would have madethe difference.
I think, yeah, and we wouldhave been up there.
So you know, a fitCalvert-Lewin coming back and
scoring goals.
That's really the answer forthe rest of the season.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Yeah, you make a point about.
You know, I was going tomention only Watkins, because
him and Calvert-Lewin haveactually done a bit of a flip.
Because only Watkins.
When he was assigned by Villa,he was running the channels and
wasn't getting many.
He wasn't getting many, manygoals and Calvert-Lewin at the
time was because, as youcorrectly say, he was playing
within the parameters of the18-yard box and I think he had

(53:26):
something in a daff like I thinkhe had, so many of his goals in
a row were like all one touchbecause of the crosses and stuff
.
And only Watkins is now doingthat because, since I'm
comfortable with him, he hassome of the managers name.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
Unai Emery.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Unai Emery, thank you .
Since Unai Emery came in, hebasically said, yeah, I'm not
doing that, you know, you'rejust going to play within the
width of the 18-yard box and notmove out of there.
And he is I mean, he iscomfortably Harry Kane's deputy
now, yeah, and he looksabsolutely fantastic and he's
been a huge reason why Villahave done so well this season.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
Which is, I know, then I will go on around to
about referees, but that doesraise an interesting point.
And to all sorts of suggestionoption that you quote, one to
seek Alva-Lewin stop doing thesethings, because players are
playing within a system withinstructions from a manager.
So, in the same way that hescored loads of goals because

(54:26):
Andrew Autie told him to do athing that suited how he wants
to play, I don't think we shouldrule out the possibility that
he's constantly running thechannels and not being in the
positions to score goals BecauseDice is setting up the system
and requiring him to do it thatway.
So, in the same way that youcan't sort of Andrew Autie gets
credit for identifying whatCalvin was good at and playing

(54:49):
to it, you can't then criticizeCalvin-Lewin, as opposed to Dice
, when a manager tells him to dosomething different that
doesn't suit his game, but he is.

Speaker 2 (54:58):
I mean, in terms of the number of chances that he's
had, I'm not really sure, butwhat is fair to say is that
Calvin-Lewin is comfortably oneof the worst finishers
statistically in the league, andyou know who?
Actually the ninth?
You never guess this, and thisis thanks to Jonathan Wolfson on
the Codding Football Weekly forthis time, which is incredible.

(55:19):
Do you know who the ninth worstfinisher in the Premier League
is?

Speaker 3 (55:22):
In the Premier League .
It's going to be Irving Harle.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
Because he actually gets so many chances.
But he gets so many but theones that he does miss because
they're not calculated.
You can have a shot from 25yards or you can miss against
United, like he did, and it goesto our judge very, very
differently according to theirXG, but he misses quite a lot of
misses, quite a lot of sitters,but scores ones that he's not

(55:51):
meant to score, whereasCalvin-Lewin actually is missing
generally good chances or halfchances and things like that.
He'll get to Palace, forexample.
You know we had those twoheaders.
So I agree.
I agree with Ben's point.
It's like you know, for thegood of the team.
You know you want, the judgewants him to play a certain that
, certain way, but it's also, atthe same time, when he does get

(56:16):
the chances, the stats don'tlie he has one of the worst
finishes in the league.

Speaker 4 (56:21):
I can't believe that.
I don't agree with you ontactics.
We've got you out now atWingers and they're there to cut
the ball.
Yeah, to get the ball on thepenalty with Calvin-Lewin there
and convince them to do thetactics.
But the ball is coming over andhe's not putting it away.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
It was interesting to add on that point that you know
, when we played I'm inclined toagree with you when we played
which comment game it was whereyou played Beto and Calvin-Lewin
up front together.
And you know, dice basicallysaid after the game in his press
conference he said, look, theplayers were going too long.
So you watch this stuff and yougo, oh, they must be doing that

(57:01):
because they've been told to doit.
And Dice, I'm sure, drew a goodchunk of the time.
But he basically said look, Iput two big lads up front and
they these are my words, not his, but I'm representing what he
said accurately I put two biglads up front and the players
assumed I wanted them to lump itlong, but I didn't, you know,
so we had to change that at halftime.
So I think, look, maybe he'sbeen told, I suspect he wants,

(57:25):
he's pushing to be involved inthe game, you know, and and is
sort of making runs that youknow it's a good outlet, but
it's too often you know you sawa bunch even when he came over
in his West Ham he gets the ballat his feet effectively near
the corner and it's like, well,you've got to pass it to Simone.
You've got to run in the middle.
It's terrible.
You know he's.

(57:45):
He should be disciplined enough.
I mean, you know, I'm a big fanof the you know this all.
But you know the, the, theoverlap, you know podcast, the
Gary Neville one, which is aJamie Carrey and Jill Scott and
Roy Keane, and, like they, it'sinteresting because they talk
very honestly about being afootballer.
Much more of it than we mightassume is actually the players

(58:08):
need to figure the stuff outthemselves, you know, and be
smart and do the thing that isgoing to be most effective.
And I do worry about Calvary'sability to do that, because he's
probably bored if he juststicks in the middle of the
pitch.
But and as less time on theball.
But that really is what weneeded to do, because he needs
four or five chances to score agoal and then, once it starts,

(58:28):
it'll start and he'll be good.
Yeah, shall we talk about Ben?
You wanted to rant about PaulTieny and we haven't had refs
corner for a while, so I figuredit was time.
So do you want to do that?

Speaker 3 (58:43):
Yeah, and I just like it was just such a
frustratingly dumb thing tohappen, because there are a few
things in football that are morestraightforward than if you
stop play while the ball is inplay.

(59:06):
The drop ball is given to theteam you have possession.
Like we all, like I could.
There are some things infootball where you could pull
the entirety of the GoodisonPark and the number of people
who would know the correctanswer you could count on one
hand.
Like for example if you take afree kick and it goes into your
own goal, the restart is acorner kick.

Speaker 4 (59:27):
Well done, it's a corner kick, it's not a goal.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
You can't score an own goal directly from your own
free kick, right?
I don't expect people to knowthat.
I expect people, especially aPremier League referee who is
somehow, for reasons I willnever understand, on the FIFA
list to know that the restartwhen Nottingham Forest had the
ball when he starts play, is youdrop the ball for Nottingham

(59:53):
Forest and it makes such a andnow so, and I think I know how
this happened?
right, it's happened because,collectively, the team of
officials weren't paying enoughattention, and that's criminal
for all of them, because whatthe wall states is possession of
the ball.
Beside the area, you get thedrop ball If the last touch of

(01:00:14):
the ball was inside the penaltyarea and then you stop play
before another player hastouched it.
Then the possession goes to thegoalkeeper, because the last
touch of the ball was inside thepenalty area and you can't give
a drop ball to the penalty area, so by default, it goes to the
opposition goalkeeper, right?

(01:00:35):
So what's happened is they'veall just switched off and
they've not noticed that CallumHudson-Odoi has actually touched
the ball.
He's touched it several times.
He's touched it several times.
So what they've gone is oh, thelast touch of the ball was in
the area.
Therefore it has to be droppedto the Liverpool goalkeeper,
which is criminal, that theyweren't paying enough attention.
Because we talk about this likewhen you're a referee even the

(01:00:56):
level I was at when you stopplay, you will always direct one
of your assistants to note whatthe restart should be, so that
you don't hear any wrong.
So in your pre-match briefing Iwould say to my two assistants
right, here's your instructionsfor the game blah blah blah.
You know my junior assistant.
If it's in your area, make anote of the restart and make

(01:01:20):
sure I don't cock it up.
Help me out there.

Speaker 4 (01:01:22):
So what they?

Speaker 3 (01:01:22):
have a fourth official, two assistants and
some people on VAR.
It is criminal that nobody ashe was walking the ball towards
the Liverpool goalkeeper and allof the forest players were
going crackers.
It's criminal that nobody inthat situation went hey, paul
forest had the ball, so you needto drop it.
For forest it was and it's such.

(01:01:43):
They can go on about.
You can go on about VAR and thetime it takes and the delays
and how it's confusing and whatthe handball is.
But when you have professionalreferees who do this for a
living at a notionally highlevel, who are making such
absolutely basic errors in law,that is what the problem with
referees is.
In this country we have badofficials who are not as good as

(01:02:05):
they think they are, and let metell you, paul Tierney thinks
he's amazing and he's not.
This is what you end up withand that's why everything that
flows from this is bad.
Var has implemented badly thegame of referees badly.
Referees aren't respectedbecause the quality of the
officials is terrible, becausethey make basic, basic, basic

(01:02:25):
mistakes which if I made at thelevel I was refereeing at, I
wouldn't get promoted.
If I made that basic an erroron the game I was being assessed
on.
I would not have got a markthat allowed me to get promoted,
because they would have gone.
You indirectly restarted with adropped ball.
That's like refereeing 101.

Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
Round over I mean it's a 10 out of 10 round, and
one of the main criticisms thatinvolved the same team but they
obviously benefited from thistime was the Liverpool Spurs
game.
Because one of the errors therewas A was basically because the
VAR were not paying enoughattention to the offside that

(01:03:09):
was ruled against Diaz and thegoal was ruled offside.
So again you've got officialsthat aren't basically
fundamentally not payingattention.
And I could put you, I couldput you with a googly, but I
think it's the standard.
It's the standard of refereeingand I think the VAR has been
designed to assist referees.

(01:03:30):
And this has just gone offanecdotally, but I was speaking
to one of my friends waswatching the game of the
championship.
I think it was Craig Paulsonwas refereeing it or he was
refereeing in games.
It was an FA Cup game but itinvolved two championship teams.
Obviously, because of thechampionship, they didn't have
the VAR and in his opinion andagain this is purely anecdotally
, it could be biased becausehe's maybe looking for this

(01:03:51):
information but in his opinionand I've seen this in a similar
game it's like I think there's arisk that the VAR has become a
fallback and in the back oftheir minds, that they know that
they can leave stuff.
They're not sure that theircolleagues will come to their

(01:04:14):
rescue and give them the rightand that's.
And in this point, in this case, at the weekend against Forrest
.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
That didn't happen Because they weren't paying
attention, and it's happened inother instances as well, and
Postacoglu makes a really goodpoint about this.
Actually, what he said abouthis issue with VAR is that they
are they're making fewer bigmistakes, but they're making
more small mistakes becausethey're not, because they're not

(01:04:43):
making decisions in real timeas they would if they didn't
have VAR with them.
So what happens with like ahandball or like a foul is they
don't make a decision in realtime and therefore it goes to
VAR who go oh, there's nothing,there's not enough to overturn
the decision, it's not clear andobvious error.
So you end up with a backbecause the rest is not going to

(01:05:05):
make a decision, or I am goingto make a decision because I
know I've got VAR to back me upand therefore what you're
actually getting is more smallmistakes that are compounded by
VAR, by that approach, fewer bigmistakes.
Quote unquote.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
I remember when, sorry Doug go on.

Speaker 4 (01:05:21):
I was just going to say come back to the Forrest
Liverpool game.
Now, the media lovescontroversy.
If you see the hype, when youlisten to the hype, you'd think
that once Liverpool were giventhe ball, it went straight down
the other end and scored.
That's not what happened.
Actually, forrest got them allback and then lost possession
and then Liverpool was scored.
But obviously to the mediawould love the idea of saying if

(01:05:45):
the referee hadn't done that,this wouldn't have happened and
you don't know, he might havegiven them the ball, they might
have lost it and then the ballcould have stood on this pitch.

Speaker 3 (01:05:54):
Yeah, I don't understand that and it's not
like you're right, they didn'tgo up the other end of the ball.
But if you sort of and theForrest players said this
themselves and as football fanswe know this momentum is a big
thing in games Like Forrest wereon the attack, they would
remember it was nil-nil.
Forrest could have won thatgame at that point.

(01:06:16):
So Forrest are on the attack,they've got the ball, they're
potentially going to go acrossback into the box which they
might score from.
And you go from that situationwhere you're on the attack,
you're in the ascendancy, you'rethe one pushing to score the
winner and immediately anincorrect decision by the
referee totally reverses notjust gives Liverpool the ball,

(01:06:36):
totally reverses the momentum,because now you're not pressing
them on their 18-yard box andhave the ball in their corner,
you're not going to face a longball of on kick from their goal.
Yeah, and you're under pressure.
So, yes, they didn't wake theball up and immediately score.
The whole shift of momentum,the momentum of the game, is

(01:06:56):
shifted by the fact thatLiverpool are giving the ball.
Because, yeah, they might givethe ball back, but you're
starting from a position of likeoh, we're in the ascendancy,
we're on the front here, Forrest.

Speaker 4 (01:07:09):
It's too simple to say I'm not suggesting you're
saying that, but it's toosimplistic to say if the
follow-up started being giventhe ball.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
it would be.
I think, in the isolation Ben'spoint about it's the competency
, that's the move.

Speaker 4 (01:07:22):
Yeah, I agree with that, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:07:25):
I think, remember you've been making this point a
couple of years ago on thepodcast about you know I think
you were defending referees atthe time.
What a shift you had.
I know I think you were sayingyou know and this is true
because you know the bigdecisions are getting made wrong
.
Obviously they carry more weight, but they carry more weight in
the minds of fans and the mindsof the media.

(01:07:46):
But I think you know, I thinkyou've said something like you
know, 97% of all decisions atthe time were correct.
So it would be interesting tosee, on your point of, like,
those smaller decisions beingmore but being made more
incorrectly now because of,possibly, the influence they are
.
So you know, if you'reinterested in seeing anyone's
analysis of taking a selectionof games from pre-VAR,

(01:08:11):
objectively making the judgmentagainst the laws of the game,
saying you know 97%, 98% ofthose calls were correct, and
then taking the same number ofgames you know now and last
season when we've had VAR, andlooking at the difference
between those, because then thatwould be a good way of
measuring whether the VAR hashad an impact.

(01:08:32):
I think what it's worthremembering is, like you know, I
said this you know we'rewatching a match, we watch the
data together on and I said whata good advantage a referee
played and it's probably, youknow it goes against that point
now, because I can't rememberwhat game it was not a referee
was and I should have and Ishould remember that.
But I said like Paul T, and theOb is understandably I'm quite

(01:08:56):
rightly so, you know, getting,you know the criticism because
it's such a fundamental error.
But referees make really gooddecisions as well that lead to
goals, and I think the medianeed to take more responsibility
, because they won't, fans won'ttake a responsibility until the

(01:09:17):
media takes a responsibility.
And there was a game at theweekend I can't remember, I
can't tell if you remember itwas, but there was a clear foul.
Referee plays a good advantageand it was like in the middle it
was about 40 yards out in a bitof a nothing area, but the
referee lets it play on becauseit's a, the balls put out wide
and then the team gets it,crosses it in and they get and
they score.

(01:09:38):
And it's like if the, if the, ifthe referee could have, could
have sorry, blue is whistle andthe players would have got a bit
annoyed as we had a promisingattack but like the chances of
scoring from the position thathe could have blown his whistle
were very, very small, but thefact that he didn't absolutely

(01:09:59):
led to that goal going in.
So I think it's just importantthat when we do the referee take
criticism, I think and there'ssomething I'm trying to make a
point of doing as well is makingis recognizing when referees do
do things well, because thatthings won't get better until

(01:10:21):
it's a bit of a two way streetwhere help is put in place to
make them better, with bettertraining and however that looks,
and and but, at the same time,you know it's just like a kid
who you want to change theirbehavior.
It's no good giving them peltersall the time.
You've got to show them whatyou want them to do well and
publicly recognize that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:42):
And what a beautifully finely balanced
point.
To end that little bit on, adam.
Thank you very much.
I completely agree, and thankyou for bringing us back to
referee's corner.
We need to get that back on theagenda more regularly.
So we've got a game coming up,playing football again on
Saturday, playing man Unitedaway.
Interesting one.

(01:11:04):
This because they have, to saythe least, not been playing very
well.
But of course, when you're notplaying very well, what you want
to do is play ever.
So it's yeah, it's interestingone, dad.
I'll start with you Predictionfor us two questions what you
think the result will be andalso how you think Everton will
set up.
Are we going to you think Deijuis going to feel the need to

(01:11:26):
kind of go for it at a centre?
Is he going to?
Are we going to see AshleyYoung on the right wing again?
What do you think the vibe isgoing to be?

Speaker 4 (01:11:34):
If you think, two years ago we went to Leicester
on one unexpectedly.
Last year we went to Brightonon one unexpectedly, and
probably those two victories gotus, say, just from litigation,
I think this is going to be thatgame, I think we're going to
win two-one and I think we'llplay the same team, possibly

(01:11:56):
with Calvin Lewin up front.
That's what I'd play.

Speaker 3 (01:12:00):
Well, the optimist corner over here this is.
I am surprisingly going to takethe opposite view, because I'm
the natural pessimist in here, Ithink.
I think what's much more likelyis that Deiju sets up to not
lose this game Because I thinkthat is, you know, leopards and
spots, that is his naturalinclination in tough away games.

(01:12:24):
He wants to set up to play onthe counter, to keep it tied to
the back and try and try and,you know, sneak it.
So I think I don't necessarilythink that translates to
actually young on the right wing, to use your example, Austin,
but I definitely think the setupwill be sit deep, try and hit
them on the counter.
Don't give away too much.

(01:12:45):
I don't think it will work.
I think we'll lose.
I think we'll lose two-nil,yeah there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
I'm with dad.
I think this will be the gamethat will turn the corner and
our form will improve.
I think United as well.
You know, I don't think they'regoing to have Hoi Lin for this
game, who's obviously missed thegame at the weekend and has
obviously scored, and they'refinally been hitting some
scoring points.

(01:13:13):
My centre-backs are made of ourawful because he got Johnny
Evans and you know it's like anabsolute mishmash of about four.
So I think, and I think Ireally think that that will set
ourselves up well and I thinkthose chances that we'll find

(01:13:35):
that we'll finally try and wetalk about putting away for so
long.
I think we will.
I think we can see a five-oneaway at Brighton, but I think
we'll set up to counter-attackand I think it will work.
I agree, I think we'll win.
I think we'll sneak it one-nil.
That's great.
I think we're incapable ofwinning one-nil.

Speaker 1 (01:13:50):
I think we're more likely to win two-nil than
one-nil.
So that's what I'm going to gofor.
I agree, I think we're going to.
I think actually playingweirdly playing United away.
They're under pressure, they'vegot to go for it.
I mean they have to.
So I think they're going to gofor it.
I think that suits us, becauseI don't think United are any
good.
I think we're going to go forit.
I think we're going to go forit.
I think they're going to go forit.

Speaker 3 (01:14:14):
I think United are any good.
When we played man United athome, we all said they weren't
any good, and then they beat usthree-one, which was a weird
game it was a weird game.
Best goal of the world ever.
We do have this conversationabout man United being not very
good quite a lot and they dostill tend to beat us If they

(01:14:38):
had this thought five minutes itwould have been a totally
different game.

Speaker 1 (01:14:43):
I agree with that I agree with that.
I'm just being slightlyconcisious Angle.
We've got to blind ourselves.
Our optimism is a bit of a lie.
We don't give up.
I mean, why would you do thisotherwise?
You've accepted the reality ofthe situation.
You can stop doing it.
I mean, we don't just supportit, we just spend our time
talking about it.

Speaker 3 (01:15:03):
It's not true.

Speaker 4 (01:15:05):
I'm not going to argue with you Otherwise you're
consistent.

Speaker 3 (01:15:10):
My definition of being consistent is we have to
win eventually.

Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
We're also.
You talk about how many viewerswe get, or the viewers, how
many listeners we get.
Rather, on the podcast, when wewin, we tend to get more, and
imagine there's going to be usfour listening to this and Drew
and probably about three otherpeople.
Honestly, I'm going to skip itIn our history if we lose

(01:15:40):
against, if we don't be united.

Speaker 1 (01:15:44):
We'll just disband the whole thing All right.
Anything else?
Anything else before we wrap upno, adam speaks for everybody.
All right, thanks for joining.
Thanks for being here.
Guys Really appreciate it.
Good to be back.
Follow us on Apple Podcasts,spotify, wherever you get your

(01:16:06):
podcasts, that's where we are.
Tell your friends.
Yeah, come on, you boos.
Here's for a stunning victoryover man United.
See you next time.
Thanks for watching.