So this talk will be largely trying to capture a lot of the themes that are in my book, Breaking Away. They're out there in the bookstore. So if you're unconvinced by the talk, just pick up a book and you can explore the topic further. So let's go. The, how can we really start to think about this issue in terms of secession and the sorts of states that are produced by that process? Well, of course, we've already seen it many times in history and we live in a world now that's already the product of that process. In fact, we live in an international system today. That is a system composed of numerous states. Power is not centralized in any particular place. There are in fact more than 200 of these states and most of them exercise a substantial amount of autonomy and sovereignty. They are functionally independent states for the most part. Moreover, the number of sovereign states in the world has nearly tripled since 1945. This is due for the most part to the success of many secession movements that have occurred over that time and before. Also, through this process, we have smaller states now than had existed prior to that. And how does that happen? Well, there's a basic arithmetic to how secession works. That is, since the entire surface of the world, outside of Antarctica, of course, is already claimed by states, every time a state is split into smaller states through a secession process, we end up with new states that are in fact smaller than the states they came from. So it's a process of reduction. And so for example, during the decolonization period following the Second World War, dozens of new states were formed out of the territories of the old empires they left. This meant that the new status quo had a larger number of smaller states. The same thing occurred after the end of the Cold War as the Soviet Union collapsed. That left 15 new smaller states in its wake. So when secession is successful, it is an event that reduces the territory and populations over which a single central institution exercises monopoly power. So if we're gonna talk about secession, it's also important to explicitly address the issue of what is the correct size of states. And I should note that before we go further, I know my audience, so you don't have to remind me after wear that the correct size of states is zero and it's nothing that we're against it. I agree. That's the end goal. But, and moreover, these political entities, communities, polities don't even have to be organized as states, right? Historically, we have political communities that aren't states at all. But that's all the topic that I've covered in other talks or will in the future. So for now, let's just stick to talking about states, the status quo situation where we're just trying to move away from it. We're trying to take the next step and really just find ways to break down the power of the ruling state elites by removing some territory, some populations from their iron grip. And the reason we have to address the issue of the size of states, because many people do believe, in fact, that bigger is better. They like big states and want to keep them that way. They believe that larger states are essential for economic success, for peace, for trade. And then there's another group of people who think that size doesn't matter at all. That they think that every problem of conflict within a political jurisdiction can be dealt with by democracy. Just let people vote and there is no need for people to have any sort of political independence or a polity of their own at all. They'll have elections and everything will just work itself out. People who believe that are, they're gonna be difficult to convince on secession. And of course, states themselves, they're agents and they oppose secession because states want to be big. Being big and getting bigger is an important goal of every state. It's part of state building. They want to consolidate power and ex-territories, increase their taxable population. What we want is the opposite of that. We don't want state building. We want state unbuilding. We want state demolition. And so this is a process that we can, I think, use. And for many people in the public, the idea that bigger is good or at least that size doesn't matter does in fact have its limits. For example, most people already have in their minds some upper limit as to the correct size of states. To see this, simply ask a person if he or she wants to live under a single global state. Most people, not all, but most I would suggest, a sizable majority of people in the world would be opposed to this. Most people just from casually observing the world have a sense that putting global governing power in the hands of some distant elite from a different culture on a different continent that speaks a different language might not produce optimal results. On the instinctive level then, many people recognize that something more local as necessary, partly because of this instinct, radical decentralization in the form of many diverse states historically has been the norm throughout human history. Even in the days of the Roman Empire, which viewed itself as having universal jurisdiction, the Romans never subjugated the Persians, the tribes of Northern Europe, the kingdoms of sub-Saharan Africa. They didn't even know about the Americas. So even in the age of huge empires, the world was still decentralized. It's never been ruled from a single place. Yet, ignoring all this, many people continue to insist that adding a new country or a large group of new small states to our already existing large number of countries would bring anarchy. Everyone who's read a serious book on international relations already knows that the world's already in a state of anarchy, though. It's already accepted fact that the international system is anarchic. There is no final arbiter of law or policy internationally. There's no global monopolist. And so creating anarchy is hardly a danger. It's already here. We already live in the system. The question is what are the size of the subunits in it? Ideally down to super local level, but it's obviously not at the global level right now. So how many independent polities should there be? How big should they be? That's probably the harder question that you're gonna have to endure because a lot of people will choose larger. But I'm going to suggest to you here that smaller is in fact better in most cases. After all, thanks to status quo bias, many people seem to believe that we've somehow magically arrived right now at exactly the correct number of states and they're all currently the right size also. The UN has explicitly said as much. Among the international elites, it's basically been dogma since 1945 that the world's existing borders as they've currently been drawn shall never be moved or changed. The doctrine of territorial integrity basically dictates this. And so the international community likes to preserve borders as they are and forever. There are exceptions, but approved secession as in the case of Kosovo's de facto secession, right? That sort of thing's only encouraged by the establishment when that sort of secession serves the interests of certain great powers and their allies. So for the most part, it's very much frowned upon. So if we're in the thankless job of promoting secession, we have to make the case that smaller and more numerous states are in fact better for the world. From the perspective of enhancing freedom and free markets, we can see three key ways that smaller and more numerous states are better. And we can also look at some of the empirical evidence and the actual historical experience while we're at it. So number one, the first reason that smaller states are beneficial is that they offer more opportunities for exit. This in turn makes states more inclined to respect property rights, whether they like it or not. And Lou Rockwell summed up this principle in a 2005 article called, What We Mean by Decentralization Rockwell writes, under decentralization, jurisdictions must compete for residence and capital, which provides some incentive for greater degrees of freedom, if only because local despotism is neither popular nor productive. If despots insist on ruling anyway, people and capital will find a way to leave, unquote. This is most fully realized, of course, by the type of decentralization that results from full blown secession, as Rothbard put it in 1977, quote, secession means greater competition between governments of different geographical areas, enabling people of one state to zip across the border to relatively greater freedom more easily, unquote. Now, of course, the ideal would be you wouldn't have to physically relocate to escape despotism. But we don't live in that ideal world. We have to work with what we have. And the fact is, governments like to abuse rights. So the question is, do we want governments that are huge and control vast swaths of land that require us to move thousands of miles to escape them, or do we want something smaller where exit is much easier, albeit still not without cost? And of course, keep in mind that in a world with only one state and no secession, there is no escape at all ever anywhere. We've seen this issue of exit in the modern world, of course. It's true in countless refugee situations where the most oppressed people are only able to save their own lives by fleeing across an international border. We saw it in Venezuela over the past decade when Venezuelans desperate for food had to escape across an international border just to get basic necessities. Thank goodness that border was there and limited the reach of the Venezuelan regime. Exit was possible if only the Venezuelan state was even smaller and the people of that region had even more options for bordering states to which they might exit and escape. Historically as well, we know the concept of exit has been an absolutely key factor in how the West rose to achieve the highest standards of living the world has ever known. As the historian Ralph Raco has noted in his essay, The European Miracle, the fact that Europe has been so decentralized throughout its post-Roman history in contrast to the huge empires of the East meant that entrepreneurs in capital could indeed escape across Western Europe's countless borders in a highly decentralized Christendom. This was especially the case in Europe's Middle Ages and as historians Nathan Rosenberg and Ellie Birdsell note in their book, How the West Grew Rich, it was in these highly decentralized Middle Ages that the institutional groundwork was laid for Europe's economic miracle. Similarly, historian Jean Bechelaire showed this in his research and he concluded the first condition for the maximization of economic efficiency is the liberation of civil society with respect to the state. But how did this liberation occur? Which led to the success of markets in Europe, Bechelaire tells us, the expansion of capitalism in Europe owes its origins to political anarchy, unquote. That is to the existence of a large number of small states without any overriding imperial or state power. Not since Rome, has Europe been unified under a single government and that has meant more freedom and more economic growth. One reason this works is that a region of the world or region or world of small states is more difficult to even, it's even difficult to even attempt autarchy. So for a private entrepreneur, moving one's capital from one place to another does not cut off one's access to markets outside the borders of a small jurisdiction. Small states and principalities have always experienced big incentives toward doing business with surrounding states. This means more trade, it means more efficient markets. Opponents of succession and breaking up states are often opposed, however on the grounds that smaller states will throw up trade barriers and be more inclined to violate rights. The reasons for this assumption aren't actually clear but they are common objections. On the contrary, small states want to attract capital and it shows. This is why efforts to impose a single global minimum tax tend to meet the most resistance from smaller countries like Ireland and Hungary as is the case nowadays. Having lower taxes is a major way that small states attract wealth. Moreover, in modern times, the empirical evidence supports the idea that small states tend to be more open to free trade, more open to a free flow of labor, more open to lower taxes. For example, Sergio Castello and Turo Tomozawa conclude in their study on small states that in a world of specialized and growing trade, quote, small economies naturally grow, more trade oriented in both exports and imports, ceteris parabas, small nations thus become more trade focused than large ones, unquote. Economist Gary Becker in 1998 noted, quote, since 1950, real per capita GDP has risen somewhat faster in smaller nations than it has in bigger ones. Becker concluded that the statistics on actual performance show that the dire warnings about the economic price suffered by small nations are not all warranted. Smallness can be an asset in the division of labor in the modern world where economies are linked through international transactions. Of the 14 countries with populations over 100 million, only the US and Japan are wealthy. William Easterly and Art Kray conclude from their own study on small states, controlling for location, smaller states are actually richer than other states in per capita GDP.  So it turns out Rothbard was right when he suggested that small states are more likely to embrace free trade. As he wrote in the 1990s, this was due also to sociological reasons. Rothbard says, the greater the number of new nations and the smaller the size of each, the better, for it would be far more difficult to sow the illusion of self-sufficiency if the slogan were buy North Dakotan or even buy 56th Street than it is now to convince the public to buy American. Similarly, down with South Dakota or down with 55th Street, would be a more difficult sell than spreading fear or hatred of the Japanese or whatever foreign boogeyman we currently hate. In other words, bigness brings delusions of self-sufficiency and it is actually large states that more often turn to protectionism and economic nationalism and control. A second benefit of small states is that they prefer a, is that they offer a solution when constitutions and democracy fail to protect minority rights. We often encounter the argument that the size and scope of states doesn't matter so long as there are elections and there are words written on parchment somewhere saying that the government cross my heart and hope to die will not violate your rights. It's great if that works, but a lot of the time it fails. In reality, neither constitutions nor elections protect minority rights when minority groups are a permanent minority or minority interests diverge sufficiently from the interests of the ruling majority. We see this frequently with ethnic and linguistic minorities. Ludwig von Mises himself understood this when he wrote, quote, the situation of having to belong to a state in which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of military conquest. At every turn, the member of a national minority is made to feel that he lives among strangers and that he is even if the letter of the law denies it, the second class citizen, unquote. Similarly, problems exist for ideological minorities, especially on issues where there is little room for compromise. For example, consider a state where about half the population thinks abortion is a basic human right and the other half thinks abortion is a gray violation of human rights. We can see a problem here even in an allegedly decentralized political system like that in the United States. The Supreme Court has told the states to set their own policies, yet both sides continue to call for nation-wide laws forcing their own preferred policies on the entire nation. Confederation's only work when people in one region are willing to tolerate the deviations, quote, unquote, of the people in the other regions. But much of the time, the impulse to impose uniform national policy on everyone within a state's borders is inexorable and without breaking states up to match regional preferences, the only choice losing minorities have is to turn to violence or simply accept their status of powerlessness. In cases like this, democracy and constitutionalism offer no answer. Parchment guarantees of rights can be ignored by judges. We see it all the time. Elections are won by majorities. Constitutions may work for a time, but what happens when the majority gets large enough to amend the constitution and abolish the protections for the increasingly beleaguered minority?  In other words, over the long term, the ruling majority coalitions tend to win, and if you're not part of that coalition and it doesn't serve your interests, you're out of luck. Because Mises understood this, he supported the idea of local self-determination, bias accession, and other types of decentralization. In nation-state and economy, he wrote, no people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want for these reasons. Whenever the inhabitant, he also writes in liberalism, whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known by a freely conducted plebiscite that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time their wishes are to be respected. And he goes on to note that this is what we have to do in order to avoid civil wars and revolutions and violence of that sort. And this is also significant because Mises himself was a Democrat. He thought democracy often worked, but he also recognized that without this safety valve of secession and a way to change the borders of states, which he explicitly thought was the natural progression of all stages to change borders to match current demographic realities is that it essentially leads to a loss of self-determination and basic human rights. So we can see this issue illustrated with a thought experiment. Suppose that in 20 years, some groups of elites in Eastern Asia suggest it would be a great idea to form a confederation of states from the region, the United States of East Asia. It would include China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Indonesia. This new union would be put together to facilitate free trade in a variety of other things. But we immediately see the problem with democratic representation in this case. The Chinese would outvote all of the other countries just generally and most of the time. Even if all those other countries voted as a block, they would not be able to compete with the lopsided representation scheme. And sure, you could have a Bill of Rights written in there. You could have a Senate with equal representation, but over the long term, it just wouldn't work because people would recognize that. When you're that lopsidedly favoring one particular group, it eventually leads to a breakup. Or if a breakup isn't permitted because the ruling oligarchy has enough power in its hands militarily, it leads to civil war, rebellions, violence, a variety of types of unpleasantness. So you can see how unions, widespread states, they only work if there's a certain amount of uniformity that exists among the population and they have common enough interests. And for these reasons Rothbard often supported secession as a matter of national liberation. He considered the American Revolution a secessionist cause, of course, to be among the world's first wars for national liberation. But he also applied the same analysis to say when the Baltics seceded from the Soviet Union. And when, for example, that the Latvians wanted to break off from the USSR, he recognized that having one million Latvians against a hundred million ethnic Russians was gonna be problematic. He, at the time he was writing this, was doing so against the prevailing narrative, which was used by the State Department and the New York Times, which was we actually don't want to break up the USSR. That they wanted to keep Ukraine, they wanted to keep the Baltics all inside the USSR and we'll just have a new democratic constitution for the USSR and that'll make everything work out fine. And so being horribly outnumbered by a different ethnicity with different interests was just no problem. Just let people vote and it'll be fine. But fortunately the elites didn't win on that and a lot of those countries got what they wanted, which was to just get out of the USSR, which of course they had been added to against their will in many cases, especially in the case of the Baltics. So Rothbard said every group, every nationality should be allowed to secede from any nation state and to join any other nation state that agrees to have it. So you can certainly see that that runs not just through those cases, but in a lot of he supported the Biafran War, for example, against the unification of Nigeria, a secession move that ultimately lost. And finally, for a third reason for opposing large states is that large states tend to be the most dangerous ones. On this, Rockwell writes, tyranny on the local level minimizes damage to the same extent that macro tyranny maximizes it. If Hitler had ruled only Berlin and Stalin only Moscow, the history of the world may have been considerably less bloody. Large states are playgrounds for despots and dictators while small states provide far fewer opportunities for ambitious politicians to spread their mayhem beyond their local communities. But we don't have to take Lou's word for it. The highly influential political scientist Hannah Arendt has discussed how only larger states can hope to be truly totalitarian even. She notes that a number of states in Europe in the 1930s had pushed totalitarian ideas and as their ideal, but outside the Soviet Union, none managed to actually achieve the goal. And here's a long quote, but it helps us. So we'll quote it like, although totalitarian ideology had served well enough to organize the masses until the movement seized power, the absolute size of the country then forced the would be totalitarian rulers of masses into the more familiar patterns of class or party dictatorship. The truth is that these countries simply did not control enough human material to allow for total domination and its inherent great losses in population. Without much hope for the conquest of more heavily populated territories, the tyrants in these small countries were forced into a certain old fashioned moderation lest they lose whatever people they had to rule. This is also why Nazism up to the outbreak of the war and its expansion over Europe lagged so far behind its Russian counterparts in consistency and ruthlessness. Even the German people were not numerous enough to allow for the full development of this newest form of government that is totalitarianism. Only if Germany had won the war, would she have known a fully developed totalitarian rulership. So a rents a Holocaust survivor, hardly a defender of the Nazis, but even she concluded that, yeah, they wanted to be totalitarians, but not even Germany was big enough to bring that about. So they're smaller's better in this case, especially when it comes to the worst case scenarios as well. But what about that middle ground, right? We're not necessarily just always talking about avoiding full blown totalitarianism, but we do find, for some of these previous examples, you want more free trade, you want more freedom, you want the ability to escape despotism, smaller states are generally your answer. Now, as a final issue, though, we have to cover, as the book does, the issue of international relations and war because we see these advantages all for the domestic population, right? But anytime you bring up this top, you're gonna hear that breaking up states into smaller pieces, this is bad because if we reduce the power of the US government or any other Western states, then China will step in and conquer the entire planet the next day. So this is a difficult topic, and so I've tried to provide as much of a treatment as I can in the book. Certainly, it's not exhaustive and we do need more people really exploring these issues and with all the international relations, it requires a certain amount of speculation, but some good research has been done looking at the issue of how do small states fair against these larger states? And so there are a few things we can note when talking about this. For example, the assumption that large states will always dominate international relations is based on mistaken notion that larger states, in terms of GDP access and access to military resources currently, are necessarily the more powerful states, more accurately, however, it is wealthier states and blocks of states, not necessarily the larger states that tend to have an advantage in terms of military deterrence. In innovative research by China expert Michael Beckley, for example, he notes that the biggest variable here is actually GDP per capita, not overall GDP, and this helps explain why we can find many cases of smaller states successfully deterring and defeating larger ones. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, for example, both Japan and the United Kingdom repeatedly defeated and humiliated the much larger China at the time. A reliance on GDP and military manufacturing statistics would also suggest that the Soviet Union, three times the geographic size of the US and with an immense weapons industry, should have outlasted the United States. The GDP measure also suggests that Israel is the weakest military power in the Middle East. Clearly, none of these things were true, are true. These really cases instructive because it shows us that small states, rather than having to become big themselves, can simply free ride off larger states, as the state of Israel has managed to long exploit American wealth and taxpayer revenues without actually giving up its own independence. Moreover, the possibility of nuclear deterrence diminishes the need for immense and expensive conventional forces. As again, demonstrated by the state of Israel, deterrent defense capability can thus be obtained even by Switzerland-sized states. And then, of course, there's no reason why a group of small wealthy states cannot very effectively form an alliance of their own among themselves without having internal control mechanisms, as has been done throughout history. You don't necessarily have to have small states form a state of their own in order to carry out effective defense measures. So, for example, were the United States to break up into smaller pieces then? There's no reason to assume the new smaller successor states would be at the mercy of larger ones. There is every reason to assume the new smaller American states would be just as unified on foreign policy as they are now, which is to say, virtually in lockstep. Unfortunately, no matter what might be said about small states and international relations, many will cling to the idea that because of alleged foreign threats, virtually nothing could justify secession ever. There is, of course, nothing new about this attitude for century states have justified their bigness and their taxes on the claims that you need us to defend us against foreigners. And of course, in the United States, we've seen this in many cases, where you're just supposed to accept whatever the government wants to do in the name of national defense. And this is, I mean, the conservative movement standard bearer back in the 50s, William F. Buckley said this in the early 50s, quote, we have to accept big government for the duration for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged given our current government skills except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. We must accept large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington. Unquote.  If that takes 300 years, then, you know, them's the brakes. So, the real world, experience suggests that fortune actually favors the decentralized in terms of wealth, freedom, economic development, and more. And for these reasons that Rothbard supported what he called universal rights locally enforced. As an adherent of natural rights, Rothbard believed rights are certainly universal, yet he also understood that their enforcement must be local. As Rockwell explains, these two concepts, universalism and localism are frequently in tension, but concludes, quote, if you give up one of the two principles, you risk giving up liberty. Both are important, neither should prevail over the other. A local government that violates rights is intolerable. A central government that rules in the name of universal rights is similarly intolerable. Experiences already shown since at least as early as the middle ages that the Western world has always embraced and benefited from some degree of radical political decentralization, we would benefit from more of it today. Thank you very much.


Guess the sneaker, and I'll give you a dollar. Oh, wait, so I gotta guess off this little picture? Yeah. Ah, what you think? I know it's a Jordan 4, right? It's a Jordan 4, but what is the color? That'd be so many. Is it that black and white Jordan 4? It can't be so many. It's one thing. Bro. I don't know, bro. It's a classic. I don't know it.


Usberg Mann killed in early morning cycle crash. Active COVID cases decline. Facility investigations increase. House fire on Huron Avenue destroyed. These and other local stories are coming up on this edition of Community News Review. This is Community News Review. Service WSES TV News content provided by WHBL. I'm Maddie Fister and this is Community News Review for Friday, August 21st, 2020. 11 new positive test returns among Sheboygan County residents received in the last 24 hours has raised the total confirmed coronavirus cases to 912, but 13 recoveries have lowered the active case load by two. To 84, the lowest number since 68 were reported on Friday, July 10th. An additional person has been added to the number hospitalized since Wednesday, now at eight. And with 212 negative test results received, the positive rate in the county is just under 5%. In Wisconsin, another 740 persons results were positive since Wednesday. 7.5% of all returns raising the state total so far to 68,233. Seven more persons have died of COVID-19 in the last 24 hours. A total of 1,067 deceased. 39 more persons needed hospital treatment for their symptoms of the disease resulting in patient count of 388. 121 were in the ICU and 373 were on ventilators as of midday Thursday. With Thursday's weekly facility-wide investigations report the county DPH lists 17 investigations now underway. Eight of those are long-term care facilities among those identified Pine Haven on Haven Drive Campus, Sheboygan Senior Community, Progressive Health Services, Sunny Ridge, Rocky Knoll, and Sheboygan Health Services. One healthcare facility investigation is ongoing and that could be either a hospital, clinic, dialysis center, hospice, or in-home care. Six workplaces are being investigated and two settings, such as an adult or childcare center, restaurant, event space, or religious setting are also being investigated. At the same point last week, 14 such investigations were underway. The State Department of Health Services has unveiled an online decision tool for individuals and families designed to help in deciding the risk of contracting COVID-19 from various activities. Seven people are without a home after fire breaks out on Thursday afternoon in Sheboygan. Sheboygan Fire Battalion Chief Michael Lubbert says dispatch received a 911 call around 3.30 Thursday afternoon, reporting a house fire on 1,000th block of Huron Avenue. Fire crews were on the scene in three minutes faced with heavy smoke and flames inside and outside of the home. The first firefighters on this scene were able to knock down the flames to keep the fire from spreading to surrounding buildings. The people who lived in the home were able to safely get out while a neighbor called 911. The Red Cross is helping the seven people who were displaced and the cause of the fire is under investigation and the damage is estimated at $70,000. An Usberg man is killed in motorcycle crash in the village of Kohler on Thursday morning. The Kohler Police Department was called to CTA at CTHPP around 5.45 AM and found a motorcycle laying on its side with the engine still running and warm to the touch. A press release from the department says two witnesses had seen the accident but were not sure where the victim was. A search for the driver was conducted and the victim was found lying in a ditch below the Sheboygan River Bridge. The name of the 27 year old man who died in the crash is not being released pending notification of the family. Wisconsin's unemployment rate is dropping as more people return to work after the economic shutdown from earlier this year. Unemployment for July was 7% and improvement from 8.6% in June and the state's Department of Workforce Development estimates that the private sector created 25,000 jobs for the month. That is still more than twice as high as a year ago at 3.4% and that is 216,000 fewer jobs this time in 2019. Wisconsin's job market is better compared to the rest of the nation and the national unemployment rate is 10.2%. Last year an estimated 580,000 hunters roamed Wisconsin woods and fields hoping to beg a whitetail deer. Part of the population annual event is the Wisconsin gun deer hunt for hunters with disabilities and those hoping to participate must contact a hunt sponsor to sign up before September 1st. A sponsor is a land owner that offers disabled hunters access to their property and 76 sponsors have enrolled over 70,000 acres of land across 41 counties for this year's hunt which will take place October 3rd to 11th. Eligible hunters may sign up for one property per year must possess a gun deer license and also contact sponsors directly to sign up for a hunt. And finally infrastructure improvements related to the construction of the Aurora facility will require a full closure of Union Avenue from its intersection with Taylor Drive to the acuity flag entrance beginning Monday the 24th. Access to points west of there will be via with University Avenue past the UW-Green Bay-Cheboygan campus and Director of Public Works David Bebel said the work to install sanitary sewer and other utilities will last until mid-November and the future closures of Taylor Drive and Union Avenue intersection will also take place during that time. Once the intersection is completely closed Union Avenue will have limited access depending upon the work phases. Taylor Drive traffic will be detoured at Indiana Avenue on the north and Washington Avenue on the south using South Business Drive. And that is our report for today. Join me again next week for more local news and information on Community News Review. News content for this program provided by WHBL in cooperation, WSCS-TV.


Good evening, creeps. Tonight your mystery playhouse presents Nis Leslie Woods in an Inner Sanctum Mystery. The title, A Ghost in the Garden. Now we're at your door, Mr. Host, so open it, won't you? Good evening, friends of the Inner Sanctum. This is your host inviting you in through the squeaking door. Come on in. Come in. Join our happy little community. And if you're not very careful, maybe you can stay. We see you out. It's happened to some of our nicest people, and believe me, they've never regretted it. As they always say, it's a place to rest your bones. Remember, ours is the only community that has no taxes, no housing problems, no inflation, and no politicians. Of course, it might seem a little dead to you, but that's the idea, isn't it?  First, we get down the brass tank. And I do mean the ones that go around the edge of a coffin. Huh? Oh, don't sneer. I've heard better jokes myself. But remember, he who laughs last laughs best. And brother, when we in the inner sanctum laugh, we're laughing last. Meet Laura, a nice girl in her 30s who had an uncle and worried about it. It was a pleasant life at Green Tower. It was pleasant being mistress of the huge time-worn house and the brittle acres that surrounded it and the money that came in regularly. Always. It was pleasant being married to Tony who was very handsome and very gay and who, they said, had married me for my money. Well, perhaps he had, but he was fond of me anyway. I'm sure he was, even though he was younger than I, but only a very little younger. It was a pleasant life until Uncle Edward came home. Tony had gone out to the village, I think, to pick up something or other. I was alone. Tony, the door's open, darling. You know I never lock it. Do you have a nice time buying things, Tony? And who, my dear Laura, is Tony? Oh, Uncle Edward. Yes. Well, I haven't returned from the grave, my sweet. I didn't think you had. Hello, Uncle. That welcome could very easily be warmer and still not be overwhelming. I've been away a long time and for a change, Green Tower seems attractive. Does it? Which is rather a pity. What do you mean? Selling it. You're not going to sell Green Tower? Of course, because I need the money. Uncle, you can't sell Green Tower. Well, it's mine. Of course I can sell it. But... And who is this Tony? Tony is my husband. Oh, really? Well, my congratulations. And I take it he thinks you own Green Tower. Yes. And thinks you have money as well. Yes, Uncle. I... I could have sold someone in the garden. Uncle, please. Still, if it's so infertily dark out there, I can't see. Might be some burglar fellow. He was standing with his back to the room peering up to the garden.  He was not a very big man, my uncle. And when I came close to him, I realized that he was barely as tall as I. Uncle... Can't make out a thing. Blasted shadows. He was looking out into the garden for an imaginary burglar while I stood behind him. With the old French paper knife my mother had left me. I tried again. Uncle, please. Now it's no use, my dear. No use. Go away and stop bothering me. He didn't even turn around when he said that to me, which made it quite easy when I... Stop! The knife went in smoothly. It kept on going into his back until I thought it would never stop. But the handle blocked. Uncle Edward's body stiffened for a moment and leaned back intolerably against the knife. He groaned. After a moment, I bent over. He was very silent. As silent as the dark garden. As silent as death. My uncle had come home more than he knew. He wasn't very heavy. And he didn't bleed at all, which was nice. As I dragged him through the French doors into the softness and darkness of the garden. I hurried because Tony was becoming homeless. The ground would be softest on you, under the rosebud that I loved so. It was there that I dug a grave for uncle. And it was there that I buried him. Under the lovely roses that would bloom again and again. Not knowing or caring who lay beneath them. There was the sound of our car pulling up at the front door, but I was finished. Uncle was under the roses, with the paper knife still in his bag. And I... I was in the drawing room, at the piano hall, when my darling came in. Oh, my love. Oh. Oh, Tony, my dear. Anything exciting happened while I was away? No, Tony. No. Nothing ever happened to you. Nothing. It's pleasant having breakfast in the garden, isn't it, Tony? Mm-hmm. Except for, um... Look. Just so. Or went back.  Ah, good morning, good morning! Mary, what a lovely sight you two make charming! Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Well, Laura, your roses are almost as lovely as you are. Ah, they're much lovelier, you know that. And where is your Uncle Edward, this fine woman? My Uncle Ed...  Oh, yes, I did, didn't I? That was very careless of me. I... Uh... Well, Mr. Stokes, I suppose Uncle Edward is still abroad. Oh, my dear, my dear, I saw him. Last night, here. Here? Well, uh, on his way here, anyway. I was driving. He was quite late. I saw him coming down the road. Oh, it wasn't Uncle Edward. No? No, well, isn't that funny? Well, I thought I could have recognized him anywhere. It wasn't Uncle Edward. Well, yes, of course. You know better than I, of course. Well, I must be getting out of here. Well, that reminds me. Mrs. Stokes, you'll have my head if I don't hurry back home. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye, goodbye. Who's, uh, Uncle Edward, Laura? My... my uncle. I couldn't guess that. Oh, yes, of course. I mean, my... my... my... my mother's brother. A poor relative? Um, why do you ask that? Well, you seem so upset when Stokes mentioned his name. Oh, well, uh, he is a bit. He, uh, he... he's funny. I wouldn't have liked him. No, no, I... I don't think you would. So, isn't it lucky it wasn't Uncle Edward? Is that you, Tony? Yeah, I'm going down the road to the car. Do you want to come along? No, dear. I better go through this mail. Ah, good old mail. Lots of checks coming in, huh? Lots of them, darling. Say, Laura... Yeah? Oh, why aren't you using your paper now? My pri... Oh, oh, it... it needed cleaning, and I... I sent it away to have a clean. Oh, it was a pretty thing. I'm glad you haven't lost it. But I... I thought I noticed it around last night. No, no, I sent it away a few days ago, uh, when... when I... when it's time. Uh-huh. Well, uh, see you later. Bye. Bye. Until later. And please, Tony, please forget about my paper knife. Please, Tony, forget about it. Hey, hello. Hello. You're busy and me, son. The me? Finding a way to come in? Well, uh, no, I'm not at all. Very nice. Very nice. We like it. Yes, you do. Now, where's Ed Cheney? Ed Cheney. You can tell him his old pair of bravers here and waiting. Oh, well, I'm... I'm afraid you've made a mistake. What kind of mistake? There's no Mr. Cheney here. Look here, my girl. This is Green Towers, isn't it? You're Ed? You're Laura. You're Ed? And tell your Uncle Ed I'm here and waiting. Well, he isn't here. He got here sometime yesterday. Asked me to come here today. But I'm here. I, um... I'm terribly sorry, but, um, he's away. He's abroad. He is not here. Oh. That was Mr. Money. Oh, he... he does. Yes, 5,000. I see. I don't care what I say or not. What I care about is the money. But I... I wait for him. Well, you... you can't. You told me he was coming yesterday. Today hasn't come. No, it hasn't. That way. Oh, well, it... it might be very awkward. Um, I suppose... Yeah? I suppose I gave you the money. Yeah, but you're right. Then you would go away. You wouldn't wait for Uncle Edward? I'd go away. All right. I... I think I... I may have it here. I... I always keep a... Quite a bit of cash, aren't I? It's expensive, you know, I... Yes, yes, I do have it.  Thanks. Well, you didn't count the money. I trust you. And you? You know, I like this part of the country. Do you? Yes. And I've just changed my mind. What about? Going away? I'm getting on in years. Maybe I'll spend the rest of them here. You said you'd go away. I did, didn't I? That was before you gave me the money. Well, you... you... you can't be very long on that. I... There'd be more, won't there, Laura? Hmm? Well, I'd better be running along. I must have a nice place to live, near the village. But, Mr. Trail... You see, I and Leruncle Edward did come here last night. And, uh, he didn't owe me any money. I was trying to get a job from him. But, uh, this way is even better. Au revoir. Ah, gents, it's getting late. I'll be gone. My new little gray home in the west, eh? That is nice. Thank you, nice. Oh, man, train will be back, though. Buy all the drinks you can stand. Hey, good day. What you want? I said what? Don't you stand there looking at... Hey, that's nice. Put it in the back. Well, you're all here waiting. What's the matter, you brave or something? Oh, you are. Then, suppose you crawl out from under that sofa and listen to the tale of Laura, who planted her uncle Edward under the rose bushes in the garden with her favorite paper knife in his back. A Mr. Trail tried to blackmail her, but one dark night, Mr. Trail lost interest in worldly matters, lying down on the street with a knife in his heart. The next morning at Green Towers. Good morning, Laura. Good morning, darling. Got a message already? Too hungry to wait. Pull up a chair and go to work. All right, I will. What's the matter, Laura?  I'm all right. I, uh... Tony, who put those roses on the table? I did. They're blooming. I know how you love them. Thank you, darling. Hey, uh, terrible thing in the papers this morning. Oh, what? Man stabbed to death in the village. Really? Mm-hmm. Strangely heard about it. He was at the village bar, throwing a lot of money around, walked out. Somebody evidently wanted the rest of his money, so, uh, he got a knife stuck into him. Well, how dreadful. What was his name, Tony? What was his funny name? Hard to remember. Oh, yeah. Now, trail. And that's what it was. Laura, what's wrong? Oh, nothing. I do think those roses have given me a headache. Their odor's so strong. Oh, that's a shame. Well, I'll get rid of them. Oh, will you thank you? I'll go and lie down for a while. Maybe my head will feel better. Yeah, you'll do that. Yes, I... I may even be able to sleep together. What's not wandering about the room? Oh, I'm, uh, I'm just a bit restless. Got your, uh, paper knife back from the cleaners yet? Paper knife? Oh, no, no, not yet. It's been taking him off a long time, isn't it? Hope they haven't lost it. I hope not. Tell me. What? There are no roses in this room, are there? No. Well, then why is the odor of roses so strong? Laura, I'm worried. Why? Because there is no odor of roses in this room. Good night, Tony, darling. Laura, are you sure you don't want me to stay with you tonight? No. I'm on to your own bedroom. You're not looking well. I'll be all right. Well, yell if you want me. Good night. Good night, Tony. Good night. I'll be all right, all right, if only the roses will go away. Every sweet odor of roses always in my nostril. The deadly decaying odor of roses always in my nostril. Oh, how good to think I was asleep. And it was, it was nothing. I have to get out of bed and see. Now there's nobody in the garden. Nobody at all. Oh, there's a plum tree just as it always is and the vegetable patch and the lawn where we play croquet. And, and, and, and there are the rose bushes too. The rose bushes.  No. Tony, Tony, what did that doctor say? The, the consultant about me? I don't know. He's stopping by in a little while. He seemed a very strange man. Oh, psychiatrist. I mean... I knew he was just a kind of darling. Tony, do you think I'm... Of course not. Because it's only that I smell roses when they're all in the hut. You're not crazy, Lauren, for heaven's sake. That must be the doctor now. Now you'll be a good girl. I'll see him and I'll be back very soon. You try to sleep. Yes, darling. Odors of roses are so terribly strong. I thought, I'd like to ask if I got out of bed. And, and lay down on the floor where the fresh air and the air conditioning machine was strong. Perhaps there I'd be more comfortable. But, and from what I thought it was funny as I crawled about a bit on the floor, on my hands and knees, until I found the place where the fresh air was supposed to come from. Then, then I began to laugh. And I laughed and I laughed. That night I waited for the mist to set, and I went downstairs into the cellar. Straight to the air conditioning machine, which kept the house so fresh. And there, in front of the blower, which drove the air through the pipes into my bedroom, I found a little bottle.  And the words after a rose on it, the brothel you see was open. And then I knew that I wasn't mad. And I also knew that the time had come for me to find my paper knife again. Brought to you a break. Thank you, darling. Um, put it down, I want to get that glass. All right. Hey, had a good night? I had a wonderful night. Tony, I think I'm going to be well again. Good. Help me out of bed, darling, will you? Sure. Just put your arms on me. Uh, there. I'm up. Oh, don't be in such a hurry to take your arms away, darling. Hold me, coach. Oh, Lord. I forgot to tell you all. What? My paper knife came back. It what? Yes, I have it now in my hand. The hand that's behind your back, Tony. What? Yes, Tony, here is my paper knife. You can take your arms away from me now, Tony. It was quick, Uncle Edward, but I think you'll die anyway, Tony. Yes. Give that to me with these hands. Maybe. Oh, no, Doctor. For I found the bottle of perfume you placed in the air conditioner. But you were using to drive me mad. Bad luck. Very bad luck, darling.  You were the one in the garden, weren't you? Yes, I saw you. And then when Flail came, you knew about him and you killed him, didn't you? Of course. Couldn't afford to have you give him money. Money. It was going to be mine. Oh, Tony. Oh, Tony, didn't you know it was yours anyway? Everything I had was yours. Why did you have to torture me and try to drive me crazy? You would have cracked it. And the money would have gone to Uncle Edward. But you didn't, Tony, did you? Play it safe. Because now you're dying. And when you're dead, I'm going to bury you with Uncle Edward. Right in the garden under the road.  But not very far. Although it's far enough, isn't it, Tony? You've won. Thank you, darling. And you've lost. Listen. You know what that is. It's an amdant for you. Why? You're mad. Yesterday, two doctors signed a certificate of lunacy. I ought to know. I am not insane. I can prove it. The older of roses is the faker. I can show them the perfume. I can explain it to them. Then how will you explain me? If I prove I'm sane, they'll hang me. And I don't want to be hanged.  And I don't want to go to the asylum.  That's the end of poor Laura. With a handy girl with a paper knife, but who didn't do so well with her spring planting. Oh, and while I amble down to green towers to find out whether Laura is spending the winter in a padded cell or at the morgue, let me give you a bit of earnest advice. Never plant your uncle in the rose bushes if you're allergic to pollen. You might get a bad case of slave fever. You might get a bad case of slave fever.


There's not a lot written on my subject matter, so I have to go searching to new and interesting places. A PhD project is a really creative thing and I think the British Library is good for finding those little bits of the jigsaw puzzle where there was a gap. There are certain resources which only the British Library has and certainly it provided a lot of detailed sources on things which I couldn't find anywhere else. I'm looking at 18 Pacific films and analyzing them and seeing how these new films are representative both of their Spanish culture and also what international influences can be seen. It's very important to me to be able to access books and articles on a huge number of subjects in the most convenient way possible, which is why I love coming to the British Library. I kind of found myself coming in more and more as I got deeper into my PhD. I was trying to research the autistic landscape of the capital of Crete during the Venetian period. There were the maps, there were the plans, there were the views. They all kind of wove together to create a picture of what the lost city is like. My research looks at the development of public weather services and how certain extreme weather events have affected how they deliver these services and how the public sort of view these services as well. One of the newspapers and records I've used at the British Library is coverage from the great storm of 1987. The records there of the storm have really helped give me an insight into that event. Without the books and pamphlets and newspapers, the research and outcomes and the findings of my project wouldn't have been the same. I feel like I've discovered things and put together a picture of things which hasn't been done before. I could basically say I could not write my thesis without having this library. It would have taken me twice as long. The British Library is going to just continue to be a central resource for me.


Hello, welcome to Trophy TV. I am joined in the studio by award-winning journalist. Diolch. You are, Joe Thomas, evidence corresponding for the Liverpool. You are just facts.  Yeah, thank you very much. I'm not lying, am I? You just won an award someday. Yeah, thank you. I'm getting the light stuff out of the way at the introduction, Joe, because obviously... He's mean. Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to get myself out of this coven I've got. Obviously, Joe, the big story, which is that I have to be living under a rock. The last few days to have ignored it is evidence, 10-point deduction found guilty by an independent commission, or found guilty of breaching PSR. The 10 points is the hammer blow, really, I think. I think most of us thought the matter had been an issue, but hoped it might be a suspended sentence, or a fine, or even a squad reduction of two players, which has been used in the past, or a transfer ban for a window. I don't think too many really thought it was going to be the 10 points that haven't been given. What was your initial reaction when that ruling came out? I don't think anybody fought points initially. Then when that story came out, it must be about 10 days or so ago, saying that the Premier League had campaigned for that and pushed for points. I think at that point, we could start to see where the mood music was heading. I think dealing with the club, I think, that they themselves, at that point, probably started to think, wow, this could end up down that route. As a result of that, they needed to mobilise a little bit. Obviously, the extent, the severity of that punishment, it really is unprecedented, obviously, for top-like football. It's unprecedented when you look at the context of punishments that have been handed out for other offences. I haven't been made an example of, because they're the first team to ever end up in this situation. But there is a track record of other clubs getting points deductions, including Portsmouth, nine points for administration. I think some of the shock that's in relation to 10 points given to Efton has to be the fact that, well, administration is, given the impact that it has on your local community, the football and pyramid, obviously the clubs that then don't get paid for transfers, players potentially don't get paid, the contractors, the businesses caught up in the local ecosystem. So, against that backdrop, you'd say that's probably more injurious to the integrity of the Premier League, and yet, ever end up with a more severe sanction. As a result of that, I think that's where some of the shock lies. I really was surprised when I saw 10 points. Not necessarily that it was a points deduction, but I didn't think it would go anywhere near that extent. Absolutely. You're right. Everton could have gone into administration and been better off, which is the most craziest scenario I think that you can come up with. The fact that, like you just said, it affects so many different people on so many levels. People have lost jobs at the football club. I mean, some people have in the football club trying to be more prudent.  Players wouldn't have been paid. People who were owed money wouldn't have been paid, like you say, clubs with transfers. And that's something that the Premier League supposedly set up this PSR to avoid. It was on the back of Portsmouth and what happened there. But clearly, the thing isn't, I'm saying this, not you, isn't fit for papers. It doesn't work. Else it's done is create a huge gulf within the Premier League. And it doesn't help clubs quite clearly because the Premier League have reportedly been working closely with Everton for two years and have still ended up shopping them so to speak or complaining about what was a payment to do with the stadium and stuff. But in terms of an appeal, because obviously Everton have indicated that, well, they've started the appeal process straight away. Can you, when you look at it, do you see this being reduced? Cos 10 points, just like you said, if administrations like the waste and it would be, I think for most people, how is this even bigger than how the Premier League or an independent commission ruled that this is the worst thing that's ever been done in Premier League history because Everton haven't won trophies off the back of it. They haven't, you know, been in Champions League and enjoyed all of that money.  But just quickly on the appeal, do you think there's a possibility the point may be reduced? It has to be a chance. I think from the outset, we have to understand that Everton aren't appealing from position within their innocence. You have to admit that they've breached this. They've breached it between them and the Premier League as to how much they've breached it by, but they're not turned around saying no punishment necessarily because we're innocent. So that's important to bear in mind. Where it gets really difficult to try and work out what's going to happen next is the fact and I think it's a legitimate grievance that a lot of people have, including Everton, is that for all the depth and insight that's within that 41-page judgment handed down by the commission, there's no real explanation as to how they reached 10 points. A framework that's put forward by, as I suggested, a framework that was used for the EFL where when we start at six and then you get an extra point for every five million over the threshold you are, which would get to 10 points, but strangely the commission seemed to decline to use that but then come up with the same answer that would have got. But the fact that they don't go into detail explaining how they got there, well, on the one hand, Everton will probably have rounds to appeal there because they say, well, without your workings out, we can't see it. We can't say this is fair. How can you show how you've got there? On the other hand, they might be fully confident that it's a perfectly acceptable sanction and be able to show their workings out to whoever asked, whichever commission asked the question of the commission as to how they got to 10 points. So I think that there must be a reasonable chance of having it reduced, but I don't think it'll get any better than that for Everton. I don't think the nature of the penalty could ever change from deduction to fine or transfer embargo even suspended, because I think that there'll be a willingness, as we've seen from the commission in this case, to deal with this immediately and not have it as something that's hanging in over the future. It's a sport and sanction that happens now. But I think the hope from Everton will be that the mitigating factors that they put forward get treated with a degree of more seriousness, they get a bit more clemency and also they'll think that they have a grievance and the fact that the 10 points isn't really explained and they'll hope to get that reduced and that'll be the best-case scenario, I think. Do you think there might be a situation where it will get reduced but I'm so say it'd be like, I don't know, six points but with four points suspended over this happening again? Or do you not really think that because obviously they've put out, haven't they, now the Premier League, it's clear that the clubs can be done again and they'll be looking at everybody in the same boat now and whoever goes over it will be given this, I think, to be thrown out this six points immediately for failing it. So I haven't been well aware of that, I haven't failed it again, the other six points are coming again down the next season or whatever, do you think there might be the case of a suspended or do you think if it is reduced it probably will just be whatever it's reduced by and you suck it up and see from there? Yeah, it's impossible to say, really. I think all that will matter to Everton will be that if there's a reduction that it comes in immediately and whatever there's a suspended element to it and that's to be dealt with in the future or to be dealt with under other accounts I guess part of it will probably be a case of what everybody who is invested in this, how they see prosecutions going in the future really. They've obviously set a precedent, they've now seen the reaction to that they know what's coming down in terms of the financial picture for lots of different clubs for future seasons obviously in the process of, they'll be soon in the process so I think it will all depend on whether or not the independent commission is happy, when the Premier League is happy with the message that's been sent already do they think it's been hard enough or do they think, oh actually look at the reaction we might have gone a little bit too far so I think there'll be a degree of politics coming into it in PR really I think almost, I think any change to Everton's punishment if there are appeals to have any kind of success will be more of a judgement on how this punishment is being received rather than on the weight of Everton's arguments which they've already heard. Absolutely, I mean I think what it is, you know again like you just said we have to be clear, no one's really sitting there going Everton they're innocent and they've been done innocent you know, what's happened to innocent until proven guilty and all of the, we know that Everton it's there, Everton have gone over the 105 million pound losses so therefore there should be an element of punishment I don't think I think most Evertonians will go okay, we have, we've breached it the club, we all knew that the club wasn't being done in the way that we felt it should have been so it's no surprise really that it's gone over it but it is that severity of the punishment because I'll be honest, I expected the suspended point I think, I really did I didn't see that you know, when you're robbing Marsbyr I didn't get a life sentence for it you know, like I said before 150 million pound over it by spending, you know, buying four players for like 35 million wherever on top of it when people were going shouldn't they really be doing that I'm not blowing it apart then I'd get that but the fact that the figure is you know, 19.5 million at a time when we're building a stadium there's a global pandemic I keep saying it there's a war between Russia and Ukraine it costs us big sponsorship money now you can bat them off and go, well that stuff happens but global pandemic doesn't come around along very often building a stadium it took us 140 years to do what's that fair stadium in the city to build that and obviously a war isn't an occurrence that happens all the time that stops, takes a big chunk of money out of it so those, for me, if you were trying to work alongside a football club if you're the Premier League I think you should have been looking at those scenarios and going, right okay I get it that doesn't happen very often that certainly doesn't happen very often and that really doesn't happen very often so all of these that go in the melting pot has probably made you overspend and especially when the evidence saying rightly or wrongly it pertains to the stadium the tax on the stadium and how money was spent and overspend during that period or is it 6 million a season someone said it equates to 6.5 million a season that doesn't seem like a massive sport an advantage to me in a league where players out of league one can cost 6 million barn nowadays I think that's what's frustrated the football club that these big things have gone on and yet they've come up with the harshest ever penalty so that's why I believe it would be something like a fine and a six point suspended sentence that could be carried over for two to three years for evidence to continue to evidence that they're going in the right way rather than trying to play across the line I think the Premier League would say and they probably have some merit in this and when you're taking all those things into account they'd say that there's already significant allowance that's been allowed for things like the pandemic and also the stadium as well obviously a lot of the stadium costs aren't included within the profit and sustainability calculations and in relation to Covid we've seen that Everton have claimed far more back in Covid losses than any other club in the Premier League and the fact that they've done that and still only breaches by 20 million pounds suggests that the vast majority of those add-backs at the Premier League that Everton have tried to claim for have been approved by the Premier League so they would argue that we are giving you so much leeway and you're still over the limit but the concern for the Premier League starts with a £15 million loss over a three-year period it's at that point that they start to step in and have conversations with the club so £105 million is a hell of a long way over that as well so they're saying we'll give you a £15 million bit of grace and then there's a further £90 million on top of that where we can have conversations with you and it'll stay behind closed doors and it might not be full-on sanctions that are going to come out in public and hit you immediately but you've got to be working with us for having to do that and then still cross the threshold I think that's why they think this is so severe What do you say to people who say well £105 million yet was out of time before inflation was so huge like it is now it's gone up and up and up someone done a calculation saying well if you've done it correctly and if the Premier League were working correctly that figure would have gone up to £240 million which is what it should be because when it was put in we're in a totally different universe than where we were when that figure came in I think what we've got to be careful of a little bit here is that a lot of the argument since Friday is focused on what are essentially financial technicalities specifics of the rules interest on loans and whether or not those loans have gone to the stadium or whether they've gone to working costs that's what a lot of the folks that's what the argument is did that tip ever know of the edge or not that and things like transfer levy and where that went the 4% that ever pay on transfers when they make them when they go to youth development now that's where a lot of the focus has been but we're only argued about those specifics and those handful of million pounds here and there because everyone got so close to the threshold in the first place and there has to be an acceptance and I think I think there's an acceptance from Everton fans and it frustrates me because I don't think the fans of other clubs when they're engaged and what about when criticising Everton fans for their frustration here is I think that there's an acceptance from Everton fans this is a club that hasn't been run particularly well over recent years and what this what this penalty really is it's a judgement and it's quite a damning indictment on the excess of the machinery years the way in which ambitions the dual ambition of building a new stadium and trying to get into Europe were pursued lots and lots of money were spent without really much regard for the complying with the regulations obviously it was trying to get Everton into a place where it's having success and then the success will pay backwards and obviously we know the sport performance went backwards rather than forwards that's one of the reasons Everton got into trouble so I think it's still really important to bear in mind that Everton are in this position because essentially they made themselves vulnerable by not following the rules and by engaging what was effectively some risky financial practices over recent years because they got too ambitious they flew too close to the sun I do however think that like what you said there it is clear that Everton have been hit by a number of unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances this is a unique period that Everton have been at their most vulnerable in not only has this happened at the time when Everton finally came into bit of money and tried to spend it which made Everton more vulnerable that could have happened at any time could have happened when Chelsea were trying to do the same thing on Man City it happened when Everton did it but a lot of those issues that have made things particularly difficult for Everton it just had absolutely no forewarning of and couldn't really predict and I know that there's an argument within the commission and from the Premier League that a lot of these things are market forces to be aware of but when you look in the context of Everton and breach this the cap as high as it is by 19.5 million pounds they didn't need absolutely everything to go to plan to be compliant with the rules they just needed one of these things they just needed which I was going to go for 80 million not 60 million because as they hoped they would do they needed to be compliant they just needed obviously Russia and the invasion of Ukraine well initially obviously the commission said they didn't see the documents to say this but there was suggestions from Everton that they were on a particularly lucrative contract with USM for stadium naming right at that point but that had gone, they had done alright it's only really the sale of one more player that has cost them so on the one hand actually on the one hand it's bizarre given how much Everton have had to work with that they've got so close to actually being compliant with the rules and the extent of credit and mitigations is there for that but I do think fundamentally we have to also recognise only without the self-imposition because it it went so far over the line in the first place and that's conversation that obviously we've had many a time during the course of this calendar year on here already so but bearing all that in mind where did 10 points come from saying all of that and all the conversations that we had is that I think it's a perfectly legitimate grievance of Everton to go alright that we're guilty we deserve punishment but 10 points like what? You know what you're right because I'm speaking here and going well yeah we were 19 and a half months but that is allowing the football club to lose £35 million a year which it should never be that shouldn't be the safety net which you wear he should be trying to create profit it happens sometimes but we shouldn't be saying that's okay that shouldn't really be the business practice that we're in and hopefully as we move forward and we've kind of evidenced it certainly on the transfer aspect of what we've moved into a better place in the last couple of years we haven't, I mean I keep saying that the net spend over the last five years is evident there from bottom in it and when you're in clue close to gone down we're even lower than them which is bonkers really and what we've spent even though there's a narrative out there from Sense East and the Journalists that evident spend all of this money the reality is when you look at it you don't spend all of that money and in fact the net spend across this year each time I think is only something like £190 million or something like that it's still a lot, don't get me wrong but it's not £700 million which we're consistently told we spend but again so hopefully evident do arrest some of that and it's interesting you trying to work more crude on me because that's the only way the football club's ever going to improve but it is a mad woman you look at it and go 10 well where's the 10 points come from if you're using the Richard Masters scale which is what he wanted in then at least you know where it's come from but for them to dismiss it and go no we're not using that but then do something but even using the Richard Masters scale you can you can round up because £19.5 million, £20 million so the forex the point should really have only been £3 million so there have been nine points so they haven't even done what Richard Masters said so it is a bit of a weird one moving forward then obviously I mean what what have you found Evertonians reactions being and obviously this £30 grand almost raised in all fours £36,000 has seen before towards banners and stuff the United Games going to be tasty isn't it for that fierce game it's going to be intense and I quite like the fact that obviously it's going to be £4.30 kickoff under the lights and live on Sky beamed all over the world I mean if ever ever and wanted Everton fans have got the platform that I'm sure that they want to convey their emotions at this ruling and to do it to a global audience you know this isn't a three o'clock at home all due respect this isn't a three o'clock at home to ball or a way to Burnley you know you've got a small portion of a grand and a couple of banners this is goose in all its glory isn't it like so I mean you know I think that's going to be intense the atmosphere on Sunday and I think that you know I think that the extent the severity of the punishment is galvanised the fan base and you know we know how powerful it can be as a positive force and I think that in terms of the short term I think the immediate impact is that this does create that siege mentality is Everton against the world Sean Dyche will be using that with his players look at all the great work you've done so far this season how it's been undermined by men in suits that's what he'll say and similarly fans in the ground and nearly 40,000 blues will all be there saying this is just the latest example of ever being made an example of instead of other people so I think that will be quite a powerful force to harness where my worry would be is if things don't quite go right on the pitch obviously May night are very, very beatable but they also have some wonderful players like if they turn up and win then they'll never get a couple of suspensions for the next yellow cards for the next games and that move could dispel out where it is where it could hurt sport and performance but to be honest in a very strange way and I don't want to be flippant we've entered an international break with Everton what eight points clear the relegation zone and we're going to leave it to the relegation zone could only happen to Everton but and as I say not trying to be flippant or naive to a certain extent I think Everton as a club almost emerges from this stronger because all of a sudden it makes it far easier for the club fan base to unite as a force against the world which is something that we perhaps haven't been able to see for the past year or so and going back a little bit further that's a very powerful thing and hopefully what we'll do is to spur the players on on the pitch and also get a very powerful message across to the powers that be during Sunday's game and I'm sure after that as well What do you make of the cries for an independent regulator because obviously this is something that's come I think there's a petition out there now demanding all fans trying it not just Evertonians just to try and get clarity on this what was a fantastic sport so I think the Premier League decided to ruin it which that's my personal opinion they've made it worse and worse and worse but there is it, there is a call for an independent regulator and what do you make of people's opinion that this Everton are basically the sacrificial lamb to prove to the government the Premier League don't need an independent regulator that's nothing new that's been put out by quite a few genes that are Everton the sacrificial lamb that I take on it I think it's fair to ask whether in order to coincidence that the Premier League handles out its harshest ever penalty precisely the one time where it looks like it's finally lost the battle whether or not an independent regulator will come in that is it one last throw of the dice I'm not going to say I have a way but when you look at the scenario and the wider backdrop to which this commission has heard its case in you can understand why some people might be willing to push that narrative I'm all for an independent regulator I don't see how it could be a bad thing I think that one of the problems that we have with the current system first and foremost is the consistency we've already discussed 10 points in comparison to nine points of administration we could go back further and I know that fans of these clubs don't like us mentioning it and I'd say it's not relevant but you look at the Super League the breakaway obviously they were trying they were not trying to break away from the Premier League they were trying to break away from the Champions League but by making the top tier of European football a closed shop they would have completely undermined the sport and integrity of the English football pyramid and we look at they got essentially each of them paid three and a half million pounds and at the moment there's no evidence to pay that by the way so when you start looking at the consistency there they're not problematic and I think one of the problems with the Premier League as a regulator of itself is that when you look at the Commission's report it would have you believed that all of this investigation into Weverton is about protecting the sporting integrity of the Premier League but everything the Premier League does it may all be trying to protect the integrity of its competition but it's also trying to protect its own reputation as well and you have a dual you almost have a dual approach there where it's trying to be a fair and independent arbitrator and what's best for its brand as well and what's best for its brand well you know I'd say I know what you're trying to say I'd say it's very helpful that they have some of the biggest sporting clubs in the world continuing to have success I don't think that's particularly controversial I'll say it I've actually never done an interview with Richard Scudum or he was the CEO and talking about an independent regulator but this is a fella who it's out there basically said we can't afford Manchester United to be outside the top four and they've got 15 penalties the following season and things like that so we know what they want to happen it's like anything if you had a business where you went if I do this, this and this we'll create more views and more money and stuff you would do it as a business practice the problem is when it's a competition and that feels really unfair and particularly if you're not part of the ones who they're pushing and you understand why they push them they're the biggest clicks the biggest eyes for them to create the money but when you're one of the other clubs within that it feels unfair it feels like you're getting pushed to the side to help these clubs be better no-one wants that you want a fair competition you want to go into it and think really over the years is that it has taken care of the people who bring the money in for it more so than other clubs you've got it another vote this week where they're voting to give the clubs even more money the teams at the top how can that be fair and I would hope it won't happen because it didn't happen at the last vote when the six were given extra money I would hope the 14 other clubs who aren't part of the six vote against it and say no, no, we all should get an equal share but we'll break into that six and we'll get the money and I think that's what's gone wrong with football but you'd absolutely right the Premier League wants to promote its brand and this is why I guess from an Everton perspective there's an opportunity to damage the brand here in terms of highlight the unfairness of this punishment by the brand on one of its stakeholders one of its members with that Manchester United game you couldn't have probably handpicked a better scenario to make a statement because you've got the biggest club in Welsh football or if not the biggest, the second biggest club in Welsh football Sky and every other channel beaming it worldwide like you said under the lights are four people are generally a little bit more angry anyway at that time and you've got this injustice that Evertonians are feeling like you said, not necessarily because we've been punished because if we broke rules punish us absolutely but it's almost as if like I said before you rob a mars bar and it's your first offence and I give you the life sentence because I want to make a stand and say look how I can bring justice to people and all of this, that's how it feels we've broken rules, it's a first offence as in it's a first offence that's out there and yet we've been given the harshest ever penalty which is mind blowing and we've got and I know the cases are all different but there's two very high profile football clubs who were under investigation another one whose takeover is under investigation but the Premier League have not was said in the House of Commons from Richard Masters the Newcastle investigations on going where's the result to it because I'm not ready but forget about Newcastle but Man City and Chelsea are clearly up City have had 115 charges and Chelsea have owned up to all sorts under investigation and yet every other ones who've been thrown under the bush almost for this punishment and I know a lot of people believe this will be the only time this has ever discharged as well because they'll be taking on two totally different charges those other clubs and will get probably financial punishments or whatever so and that's why a lot of other Tomians are aggrif but if you have got the opportunity to make your voice heard and with nearly 40 grand in the kitty then I'm quite sure it's almost like you couldn't have handpicked a better club to play against it would also feel aggrif that their neighbours haven't been done by the way so we might get a lot of support from Manchester United on the day but being being everywhere across the world it is a good opportunity for Evertonians so at least let people know how they're feeling that's the best, the most diplomatic way I can put it in time for Sunday you did just touch on it before we finish but how do you think Sean obviously you see him every week you get to know him a little bit how do you think he will react to this cos this is obviously from one to a better phrase a kick in the bollocks because Everton have, like you said would be palace it was a greater way when we'd moved all our relegation bodies seeing the thing of the past almost almost I say but how does he re-galvanise the players from this perspective cos all of a sudden the back in the bottom three again don't think you need any help doing that I'll be perfectly honest I think obviously we'll have the press conference later this week and I think we'll very much get a kind of a closed shop on that it'll be doesn't affect the players and things like that but behind closed doors I'm sure that you'll find it quite a powerful tool to help galvanise the players I think really and give them something to fight for and it might be quite interesting because in the way in which Everton season was heading it felt like Everton season was heading to just a nice mid-table stable season the type of season that we've all wanted for so long and what this does is it almost it gives them something to fight for again which they might not have had very soon because if the club had continued in the same trajectory it was doing and those in the bottom three continued well you'd get to a point where you say very early well now I think you'll be trying to use this and harness this and say look it is us against the world you're worth 14 points you'll say I think you're worth 20-21 because I think we know his arguments about earlier on in the season and how underlying performances weren't matched by results and you'll say go out and prove that you're not going to take this line down so I think that that will be a useful thing for him to have his disposal going into a period where it may well have been that there are a few players or the mentality might have been I wouldn't say complacency only for that but it might have been a belief that you know what we're on the table side now so we don't have to worry about what's going on so I don't think there will be any issue on the pitch the only place the only position that worries me I think is in a longer term perspective is that we know that this is still quite a Fredbear squad we know it's still very heavily reliant on players to make the only system that's really got work and that isn't a criticism of the club like I think the job that Kevin Farwell and Sean Dyche have done to kind of get everything on a positive trajectory is very very good they're just dealing with the circumstances in which they can operate at the minute and that is well we can't furnish a squad with lots and lots of players and a plan A, a plan B, a plan C and what they've done for a plan A is incredibly effective my only concern is obviously 8% rate games, lots of very challenging opposition and if you were to see one or two of those clubs in that relegation pitch you start to finally get the house in order which looks like a long way off at Bournemouth would just start to show a few signs of it and weren't to get an immediate they weren't to continue the form that they had going into this international break maybe a couple of players were on full booking so there's going to be a few periods where big players are out suspended they're going to come up against a new opposition and that's my only worry if maybe midway through December or a little bit onwards it goes less about it's us against the world it becomes more about it's the world is against us hopefully it doesn't get to that point hopefully the fans, the club, the plays don't deserve it to get to that point because of the hard work already done and the progress they've already shown they deserve the buffer that they've built up for December so that if they had a couple of bad results they could play very very well and still lose in several of those games coming up in December they deserve to have the cushion they've built up it's been taken away from them but my only concern is if that happens if you end up in a really really grwling December and the table doesn't get better as quickly as you think it would do then going into January after all probably still be operating on a budget whereas you would think Burnley and Bournemouth haven't had relatively recent takeovers might look to spend a little bit more I think Evan do stay up ultimately the question is probably at what point do they stay up this season I think everything suggests they could still do it relatively comfortably but we know that the positive steps as positives have been have been tentative and fragile so far but hopefully they get the opportunity to do what I think has been the club's chief ambition this season and that is get to a point where Kevin Fowell can prepare for a Premier League season from Easter onwards so we can get a head start so almost whatever the budget is going to be isn't as big an issue because they'll be able to start looking at the free transfer market have conversations with players because next summer represents such an incredible opportunity for Everton to overhaul their playing squad probably the first summer that Kevin Fowell can really do that to help build on the progress it looks like has been made I hope that isn't taken away from the club and I think there's a fair argument from the club the nature of this punishment almost means double triple punish because they might lose the opportunity through this point of deduction to plan forward plan for a more sustainable future at the back end of this season and also of course I think it's probably highly likely it will cost them a few places in the league it might be a difference between 13th and 16th or something like that and with every place is £2 million or so of merit payments and when we're talking about £19.5 million over a four year period being the difference of 10 points will £6-7 million in one season is clearly a big thing and that's where they have an argument to say that the same punishment which is aimed to deter clubs from being financially responsible is also holding back clubs that have had difficult finances from moving forward because you're taking away that opportunity from them absolutely it's a very long answer to that question listen there's no quick answers and I'm sure we'll have you on again Joe as we move through this process to it's conclusion and hopefully everything will be given some points back which will aid in those things you've just said make us a little bit more comfortable on what we're doing and obviously a couple of places I get that £4 million quid back over which at the moment is being taken because it does feel like as well as an excess of points they did say we're not giving you any financial things because we've gone there but we've gone from four 15th and to bottom so quite clearly all of those places are a financial punishment as well so hopefully everything do battle and scrap their way out of this not only on the pitch but off the pitch as well and get a punishment that we all have to just take on the tin but one that isn't quite so harsh huge thank you to Joe for coming in keep reading this stuff award winning journalist absolutely brilliant stuff let us know what you think in the comments section below is the points total excessive let us know what you think I'm quite sure there'll be fans of other clubs saying that should there be more whatever there you go hit the like button subscribe if you haven't see you later


Okay, we're ready You're looking for somebody Hey You there to beat Well, we was talking about the agenda this morning we tell a new you tell No, this all silence in it. Hopefully. Oh, yes Oh Well, then I wouldn't want to get out of the sequence today Excuse me Mine There is not full I've been working I've been beaten up on the district out there But I'll tell you as I indicated the other day and run the farmer is our I'm surprised it with all the drop Lousy miserable corn and beans and they're harvesting it now. Still there's a good I'll be feeling I'm just really surprised So I feel You get half a crop twice the price one farmer's First stage of there's a 17 yes, that's a long time Pretty much We should be as silent as we California Picture we have there that's the Yellowstone and you may recall those of those fires were somewhat apart Only had a good session with them Some buses with lots of press look at a chance to do this Here I've been a Nancy and I've been associated with the United Way for at least 25 terrific years But none have been more rewarding for these last eight and It was a privilege to co-chair with Nancy your centennial year Which you rededicated your organization to serving the needy across America and around the world And pleased with the success we've had in promoting this program internationally I know also that United Way served as a sponsor of the international conferences on private sector initiatives in France Italy and recently Great Britain and That I think I don't know what you realize what a step forward that was One night of that several years ago at a state dinner on my right was the wife of a European ambassador I won't identify the country and the conversation had come up about our private sector things Some programs and a quiet voice said in my ear But you're unique She says your country Yes, you will do things this way, but she said all the rest of us We just wait for government to do it and Then one day we got a call from Europe they decided several of those countries as you know that they wanted to start doing it our way And now there's a private sector initiative started Very much the rest of the world Well, I'm particularly pleased and with your assistance in updating that private sector initiative network and so that it can be used as a resource for community services and I think that's too much talk for me Because I'm going to stand in front of Teddy if you won't run over me with that horse President if we like On behalf of over 10 million United Way volunteers across the country Emily thousands of others throughout the world. We're very honored to be here We're delighted to present to you the annual report Of the United Way for 1987. I think you'll be delighted to hear that Americans were again very very generous in 1987 They contributed over 2.6 billion dollars in 2300 separate campaigns across the country and in keeping with the Commitment that we made to you a couple of years ago. It was a good start towards doubling our volunteers and towards doubling the resources that we need to address today's needs and as you mentioned that There are across the world now United Way movements being started up with the help of some of the people right here In 20 separate countries around the world. There are now United Way Activities beginning so simply said we want to assure you that the United Way movement Thanks to your help your leadership is strong and vigorous and we're looking to the future with great enthusiasm We thank you for your support you. This is Tom Fress. Yes Mr. President I Am Delighted to be here. I want to thank you also for receiving us highly on it I can't resist the opportunity to identify myself It's from the great speed of Tennessee. They gave us Santa Baker Come to Alexander. They gave us a good friend of yours The ambassador to France Joe and honey Rogers and your party Marvin run your chairman to have the TV 8 At the end Marvin and so I just want to take that up to you. That's not why we're here today We are here to really give you this report and also to honor 18 or so individuals and their spouses who have so Generously taking the leadership role and giving From the heart on the pocketbook to the United Way throughout the world three of them are from Hong Kong So you're a private sector initiative that reached worldwide and for that it's great Now, let me tell you one or two things about this. They represent $100,000 plus give us Friends from you from Hong Kong $250,000 a piece per year That is a lot of money and does pretty good. You're good now The interesting thing is this is the Lexis de Topo society. It was started in 1981 as a direct answer to your challenge literally for the private sector initiative when I heard you challenge today It's in 2100 individuals annually giving over 31 million dollars and 80 communities It's working thanks to you and because of that We would like to and I'd like to do it again in front of the cameras Presents you and make you an honorary member of the Lexis de Topo society of the world Well, I shall wait till There now will hold as you as we meet Each other one of our pictures taken doing that and I appreciate that very much Alexis de Topo has been a great sister me out of the mashed potato circuit There's a great help in a speech when you can refer to him and how he came to America to find out how did this Frontier wilderness become the economic power it was And I'm sure you all must know that he Wrote when he went back to France that he looked in our harbors, and he looked in our cities and they looked elsewhere And then he went into our churches And he's heard the pulpits of flame with righteousness And he said America is great because America is good and of America ever ceases being good America will cease to be great So I know all of you get a chance to make speeches too is you And it's a behalf of over 10 million volunteers across the country It's my pleasure to present to you the night away report for 1987 Thank you The half of 21 Alexis de Topo society members Present make you an honorary member of the Lexis de Topo society. Well, thank you We started the day with some congressmen and when we do that I'm behind


Hi, I'm Shayna from espressoenglish.net and I'm going to explain the expressions up in the air and nail down. If you say that plans are up in the air or things are up in the air, it means that they are not yet confirmed. For example, if you're deciding where to go to university but you're waiting for some more information, such as if you have been accepted into certain universities or if you have gotten any scholarships, then you could say, my college plans are still up in the air because they have not yet been finalized. Up in the air is different from on the fence, which means undecided. On the fence means that you need to make the decision. But up in the air means that the decision or confirmation depends on some external factors or external circumstances. To talk about confirming plans that were up in the air, you can use the expression nail down. For example, imagine you're organizing a conference with multiple speakers and many details. If you nail down the list of speakers and the schedule for the event, it means that you confirm or finalize these arrangements. Now you know how to use the English expressions up in the air and nail down when talking about plans and decisions.