A Monstera’s Memoir
September 18, 2019 | News | No Comments
September 18, 2019 | News | No Comments
September 18, 2019 | News | No Comments
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow a new executive-branch regulation, which effectively ends asylum at the southern border, to remain in place for the next several months, while its legality is challenged in the federal courts. The ruling will now make it impossible for tens of thousands of migrants to apply for asylum when they reach the U.S.; it will also block thousands of other asylum seekers currently in Mexico, who have already begun the application process during the past two months under a different Administration policy, called the Migrant Protection Protocols, or the “Remain in Mexico” program. It was a puzzling outcome. The Court not only broke with nearly four decades of legal precedent but also seemed to contradict its own position from less than a year ago. In December, 2018, the Supreme Court faced a nearly identical question, following an earlier order by President Trump to ban asylum at the border. On that occasion, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban could not remain in effect as it moved through the lower courts.
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership
This weekend, I spoke with Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U., who is leading the litigation against both of Trump’s asylum bans. The Trump Administration has insisted that there is a right and a wrong way for immigrants to come to the U.S; the converse of that argument is that there is also a right and a wrong way for the U.S. government to make immigration policy. According to Gelernt, the recent asylum bans have failed to meet the most basic standards laid out by Congress in the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Administrative Procedure Act, which invalidates policies that are “arbitrary and capricious.” Now, Gelernt said, “there are so many different policies in place, at so many different stages of litigation,” that the over-all effect is approaching a kind of chaos. “It’s becoming difficult to figure out which policies are in place, which are enjoined, which are partially enjoined, and what it all means,” he said. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.
Trump has tried to ban asylum at the southern border before, and the Supreme Court got in his way. How does that previous episode relate to what the Supreme Court is doing now?
There have been two direct asylum bans by the Trump Administration. The first one was last year, and that ban would have barred asylum for anybody who crossed [the border] between ports of entry. We challenged it within a few hours of the President issuing the ban, and got a nationwide injunction to block the ban from a judge in San Francisco, saying the ban could not go into effect. The government appealed that ruling but at the same time asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to issue what’s called a stay of the injunction, to allow the ban to go into effect immediately while the case worked its way through the appellate courts. The Ninth Circuit refused. And so the government went to the Supreme Court to ask it for an emergency stay of the injunction to allow the ban to go into effect while the case went through appeals. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, said that it would not allow the ban to go into effect immediately and refused the Administration’s request for an emergency stay.
What about the asylum ban announced this summer?
Next we have asylum ban 2.0, which is called the transit ban, and was issued this past July. This asylum ban says that you must apply for asylum in a country you transited through: if you’ve travelled through a third country on your way to the United States, you must apply for asylum in that country. (If you don’t, the government would consider you ineligible to apply for asylum in the United States.) That would effectively end asylum at the southern border—for everyone but Mexicans, who obviously don’t need to transit through a third country to reach the U.S.
And the A.C.L.U. challenged this ban just as it did the first one.
We again went in, within thirty-six hours, to the same district court in San Francisco, because the case was related to the first asylum ban. Again, the judge blocked it nationwide and said that the second asylum ban could not go into effect nationwide. Once again, the government sought an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to let the ban go into effect immediately while the government appealed the case on the merits. This time, the Ninth Circuit did something different. It narrowed the injunction from a nationwide injunction to a Ninth-Circuit-specific injunction, meaning it would be blocked from going into effect in California and Arizona, the states that fall under the jurisdiction of the court. At the same time, the Solicitor General went to the Supreme Court and said that the government should be allowed to put the second asylum ban into effect around the country nationwide, and that the Ninth Circuit should not have blocked the ban anywhere in the country.
What happened last week?
On September 11th, this year, the Supreme Court ruled—and issued a stay, in contrast to what it had done with the first asylum ban. This time the Court said that the second asylum ban could go into effect immediately nationwide. We don’t know which five Justices ruled in favor of the stay or how many Justices dissented. The opinion was unsigned. We know that Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg would not have issued the stay. They signed a dissent.
Is there any way in which the legal problems associated with the second asylum ban were not as clear-cut as those associated with the first? Anything that could explain why the Supreme Court would behave differently from one case to the next?
The first asylum ban said that you may not get asylum if you apply between points of entry. We pointed out that the federal statute says very precisely that you may apply for asylum whether or not you enter between a point of entry or at a port of entry. With the first asylum ban, there was a direct conflict with the statute Congress had passed, a literal contradiction. What the government said in the second asylum ban was that even if there was a direct conflict between the first asylum ban and what Congress had explicitly written in the statute, there’s not the same specific conflict in the second asylum ban. Congress never said in so many words that the executive branch could not have a transit bar.
But Congress had specifically thought about, and addressed, the question of the availability of asylum for those who have transitted through a third country. And Congress decided that merely transitting through a third country was not a basis for automatically denying asylum, except in two very narrow circumstances, both of which took into account whether you would be safe in the third country, and whether the third country was willing and able to provide you with a full and fair asylum process. Whether that’s what the majority of the Justices thought was the difference (between the first and second asylum bans), we don’t know, because there’s no opinion.
How should people understand the premise and stakes of the second asylum ban?
The premise of the transit bar, according to the Administration, was that an asylum seeker must not really be in danger if he or she doesn’t apply for asylum in the first country that she enters. But that assumes that when you’re fleeing, for example, from El Salvador, and you get to Guatemala, you believe you’ve reached a safe haven, and that Guatemala has a fully functioning asylum system. The facts do not bear this out. The reality, as all experts understand, is that the reason people don’t sit in Guatemala or Mexico and seek asylum there is that they know they’ll continue to be in danger, that the gangs who have been attacking them—or the perpetrator of the domestic violence they’re fleeing, or other types of danger—can easily locate them in Guatemala or Mexico; they will not be safe. And they also know that those countries do not provide a full, fair asylum process.
How has the idea that there’s an emergency at the border played into the arguments made by the government in court?
The government’s briefs to the Supreme Court have emphasized that extensively, both for the first asylum ban and the second ban. What we said for the first asylum ban and the second was that if Congress thinks there’s a crisis, then it’s for Congress to fix the asylum laws. The second thing we pointed out was that the numbers of those crossing are not historically high. And the third thing we pointed out is that you cannot react to the numbers, which ebb and flow, by eliminating a fair process for asylum seekers. You have to provide more resources and make the system more efficient, but you cannot simply end the process for asylum seekers. The numbers [of people being apprehended at the border] have also gone down since the first asylum ban.
The Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of procedure with the second asylum ban, but the stakes are much higher than that. How would you describe them?
Congress has been in charge of asylum law since the asylum statute, in 1980, sought to bring the country into conformity with international standards. The Administration should not be able to radically change asylum laws to the point of effectively eliminating asylum at the southern border, at the stay stage, without a full hearing. For the first asylum ban, the court decided that it would not allow the Administration to upend forty years of unbroken practice. For the second asylum ban, it decided to allow the Administration to do so. The fact is that as bad as the first asylum ban is, the second ban is that much more extreme. The first asylum ban would have at least allowed people to apply for asylum at a port of entry, as hard as that may be. The second asylum ban, we fear, will effectively end asylum at the southern border.
A legal challenge to another Administration policy, called the Migrant Protection Protocols, which forces asylum seekers to wait in Mexico indefinitely while their claims are adjudicated in U.S. immigration courts, is also moving through the courts, and is due to be argued before the Ninth Circuit in October. How does the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling on the second asylum ban affect the status of M.P.P.?
The second asylum ban will have a significant impact on M.P.P.. Interestingly, the M.P.P. appeal in the Ninth Circuit and the first asylum ban are both being argued on the morning of October 1st, before the same panel in San Francisco. The second asylum ban will have a devastating effect on people in M.P.P., because now they’ve been waiting months for the opportunity to seek asylum. We don’t know, and can only assume and hope, that anybody who was placed in M.P.P. before the second asylum ban was issued will still be allowed to apply for asylum, because they tried to apply for asylum and were placed in Mexico. But for people who were placed in M.P.P. after the second asylum ban, this is going to have a devastating effect, because now they will not be allowed to apply for asylum. They’ll have to wait in Mexico, and the only thing they’ll get when they are brought to the United States is an opportunity to seek “withholding of removal” or relief under the Convention Against Torture. Withholding, like asylum, protects individuals fleeing persecution. But it is a much harder form of relief to obtain because the standard of proof is very high, and it also doesn’t provide all the benefits of asylum.
What happens now to the people who came to the U.S. seeking asylum and were placed in M.P.P.?
It depends on whether they were out there before July 16th or not. We’re waiting to see exactly what the Administration does. Supposedly, if you were apprehended before July 16th, you will still get to apply for asylum. But for people arrested after that, it may be that they will only be able to apply for withholding of removal. It’s going to be a complete mess.
How does the second asylum ban fit within the broader immigration agenda of the Administration?
At a more general level, we have seen policies from this Administration directly attacking asylum, like the bans, like M.P.P. We also have seen other policies that the Administration claims were not direct attacks on asylum seekers, but we all know that they were intended to deter asylum seekers. Most notably there was the practice of separating parents from their children at the border, which the public may be surprised to understand is still ongoing. There have been approximately a thousand separations just since the court halted the policy last summer. There’s another family separation hearing this Friday to address the legality of these ongoing separations. And the other thing that’s coming out is that we’re slowly getting the names for the separations that were carried out before the formal zero-tolerance policy was announced. There may be as many as two thousand five hundred of those. People thought that there were two thousand eight hundred to three thousand separations total during the entire Trump Administration. We’re now looking at something more like six to seven thousand separations.
What happens next with the second asylum ban?
It goes to the Ninth Circuit now, and the Ninth Circuit has said that it wants the appeal expedited. They’ve set the argument for December.
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
Share
16th Sep 2019
Barre Body and Bende founder, Emma Seibold, has launched a six-part start-up series that aims to help you take your idea from a seedling to a blossoming business. In this series, Seibold will share her journey, as well as the tips, tricks, and lessons she’s learnt along the way. Read on for part one.
When is it a good time to leave your day job for a side hustle? That’s a tricky one, so let me rephrase it: is it ever a good time to leave your job for a side hustle? In my case, it was an easy choice because when I decided to start Barre Body, I had already quit my job and was a new mum. Let me paint the picture for you.
After my own Eat Pray Love story in my late 20s, where I had separated from a long-term partner, been made redundant from my high-paying marketing job, gone to India to practice yoga, gotten Dengue fever and sold my house, I took a role in a start up, Urban Remedy Cleanse, and worked for a group of investors to popularise juice cleansing in Australia. It was one of the most amazing roles I’ve ever had, but when I accidentally fell pregnant to the man of my dreams (my now-hubby), we decided to move to Melbourne and start a recruitment agency.
And then we had the idea for Barre Body and the plans all changed. I knew it was a magical kind of idea and that the time was right in Australia to bring the barre method to life. But I was very nervous and there were so many reasons and inner objections that I had to overcome. Let’s workshop some of them together, as I’m sure some of them will apply to you.
I asked this of my dad in the early stages when we were thinking of opening Barre Body and he said to me: “What’s the worst thing that can happen? You’ll lose some money and have to get another job. You will always get another job. So I recommend you ask the same question of yourself. What’s the worst that could happen and can you get another job if things don’t work out as planned?”
I have a very short answer to this and you need to be able to say this to yourself if you are going to be strong enough to cope with the challenges of being in business for yourself. Who cares? At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter what other people think. Just what you think of yourself.
I listened to a great audiobook the other day and the founder said you should work out what you’ll need for the first six months of business and then double it. I tend to agree, but that’s not how we did it. We put every dollar of savings we had into opening the first Barre Body studio to the extent that we had no idea how we would pay the second month’s rent or the rent on our apartment, but luckily it all worked out for us and my husband’s recruitment business was able to support us for a little while.
If you are a risk-taker, that approach might appeal to you and if not, maybe you should consider continuing to work on your business while still working in your full-time or part-time job. I know lots of people who do this in the beginning until they feel confident (or at least hopeful) they can support the business and themselves financially. At some point, if you want to make a real go of it, you have to dive in.
You can always find someone who is more qualified or experienced than you. In my case, there were so many more experienced teachers than me in the world. At the time I opened Barre Body, I had only been teaching yoga for two years and had only just learnt the barre technique. I knew very little about opening a studio – only that I wanted to create a space infused with love and joy. So that’s what I did. There was a very healthy dose of “fake it ’til you make it”.
You might. It’s a risk that every new business has to take and the counter question that I offer you to ponder instead is: “If I don’t do this, will I wish that I had?” I also encourage you to try to keep your costs as low as possible. In the beginning, I did everything for Barre Body – I designed the logo, I built the website, I did the customer service, I taught 10 classes per week, I cleaned the studio, I did the books (somewhat questionably). I did everything and what I didn’t know how to do, I Googled and soon learnt.
This is a very common fear with a new business. If you’ve done your research (and you must do your research), you should have a good idea as to the likelihood of people wanting what you are selling. It’s natural to feel nervous and worried, but in my experience, fear means that you are being brave and if you weren’t fearful, you probably haven’t considered the risks. As the saying goes, feel the fear and do it anyway.
This was huge for me. A little-known secret is that I had never ever taken a ballet class in my life before opening Barre Body, except for a few when I lived the US at six years old. My dad recounts the story of going to pick me up from ballet class and seeing all the little girls lined up at the barre in their tutus obediently doing plies while I was twirling around in circles on the other side of the room looking at myself in the mirror. Such is the extent of my ballet career.
I was very worried that people would think I was a fraud, but I proved by my actions and results that I wasn’t. I learnt how to be an exceptional barre teacher (and businesswoman) on the job, all the while pretending I already was. Again, fake it until you make it. It’s a tried and tested path to success for many.
If that’s your mantra, you’ll always find excuses to wait. At some point, you must dive in. I did and it was the very best decision I have ever made.
Helpful? I hope so! Stay tuned for the part two of the start-up series.
Emma Seibold is the founder of Barre Body and Bende. Follow her on Instagram at @emmaseibold.
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
Click:3015 plate tube laser cutting machine price
The relegated Championship club have avoided administration after falling into major financial problems under former owner Ken Anderson this season
Bolton Wanderers have avoided administration after Laurence Bassini, the former owner of Watford, agreed to buy the club.
Bolton confirmed the deal on April 17 and the takeover will now be subject to English Football League (EFL) approval.
As part of the agreement, Bassini will secure full control of the hotel at the University of Bolton Stadium. He also confirmed that existing owner Ken Anderson will have no further involvement in the club once the EFL has given consent to the purchase.
Cash-strapped Wanderers have been relegated to League One, after losing to Blackburn Rovers 2-0. Players and other staff are still yet to be paid their March wages.
Click Here: azzaro parfum
It is the second month in a row that wages have been late, causing team members to appeal to the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) for support.
The club narrowly avoided administration in September last year, with the threat only staved off due to former owner Eddie Davies loaning the club £5 million ($6.5m) days before his death.
Bolton have also twice appeared in the High Court over an unpaid tax bill, with the case being adjourned until May 8.
In a club statement announcing the takeover, Bolton said “significant funds” will be made available to pay outstanding wages and long-term creditors.
They added that “once completion has occurred, all the long terms debts to HMRC and suppliers will be settled”.
The agreement comes after numerous failed attempts from Anderson to sell the club. The owner blamed a lack of cash from interested parties for deals falling through, before finally finding a buyer in Bassini.
The Stanmore-based businessman acquired Watford in 2011, before selling a year later. In 2013, he was handed a three-year ban from having any involvement in a position of authority with any EFL club due to misconduct and dishonesty over financial dealings during his time as Watford. He filed for bankruptcy in 2014, the second time in seven years.
Speaking to BBC Radio Manchester, Bassini said: “We worked very, very hard to get the deal done. It was very close, to going to administration this morning. At the 11th hour, we did it, going through the night.
“Now we have to look to restructure and move the club back up to where it belongs.”
In a statement, Anderson said: “I am very pleased to hand over ownership of this great club to Laurence, I wish him and all of our supporters the very best for the future.”
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
Click:Tea powder packing machine
The attacker recently returned from a hamstring injury, and the Barca boss will not pressure him to find top form
Barcelona coach Ernesto Valverde will be patient with Ousmane Dembele as the winger looks to rediscover his form following a month out injured.
Dembele’s Barca career has been stop-start since joining from Borussia Dortmund for an initial €105 million in August 2017.
He was limited to only 24 appearances in all competitions in his first season due to injuries, and although he has managed to play 38 times this term, he has still suffered on the fitness front.
A sprained ankle saw him miss a couple of weeks of action in January and February before a hamstring tear in March ruled him out for a month.
He made his return when starting the 0-0 draw with Huesca on April 13 and lined up against Real Sociedad on Saturday. While his performances were hardly memorable, Valverde is not getting on his back.
“He played his second league game since his return the other day and he’s still getting up to pace,” Valverde told a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s clash with Deportivo Alaves.
“He’s not exactly the same as before his injury. You have to go through games before finding your place. We’ll see.
“He definitely offers us speed and if other teams play high he’s great on the counter. We can exploit that. He’s very good in one-on-ones as well.”
Dembele and Philippe Coutinho have come in for criticism during their short Barca careers and Valverde insisted every player has to earn their spot in the line-up.
“Everything is always equal between every player, no one is ahead of anyone,” Valverde said.
“Sometimes one player plays, then others play. It’s normal at every club, not just Barca. Every player has to find their place, their form and play well.
“They are two great players and sometimes one plays, sometimes both do.”
One player Valverde is certainly happy with, however, is Arthur, with the Brazilian midfielder making a seamless transition into a key player having only joined from Gremio at the start of the season.
“He’s a player who has some characteristics that fit well with the team,” the coach added. “Maybe he would’ve had more difficulties in other teams.
“He’s done very well here. He came from playing too many games, had a long-term injury last season, then playing in the national team.
“His career has taken a turn here and we hope for even more from him.”
Click Here: Golf Equipment Online
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
The campaign has been organised by the PFA in response to a number of high-profile incidents in recent months
Professional footballers in England and Wales are boycotting social media on Friday to take a stand against racism.
The #Enough campaign, organised by the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), will encourage players not to use any form of social media from 09.00 on April 19 to 09.00 on April 20.
Players have been posting the ‘#Enough’ graphic on their social media platforms that comes with the accompanying message: “We are making a stand against racist abuse.
“We recognise that our platforms come with responsibility, and so we are using our voice to stand against racist abuse. Together, we are calling on social media platforms and footballing bodies to do more!”
The PFA says the campaign is a response to a number of high-profile racist incidents directed at players in recent months and hopes to put pressure on the authorities and social media networks to better address the issue.
“The boycott is the first step in a longer campaign to tackle racism in football,” read a statement. “It acts as a show of unity by the players, and a call for stronger action to be taken by social networks and footballing authorities in response to racist abuse both on and off the pitch”
Only this week, Manchester United captain Ashley Young was subjected to racist abuse on social media following his side’s Champions League quarter-final defeat against Barcelona.
Black England players, including Tottenham defender Danny Rose and Manchester City star Raheem Sterling, were also subjected to racist chanting during a Euro 2020 qualifier in Montenegro last month. Rose later admitted he “can’t wait” to quit football because of the way racism is handled within the game.
Speaking about the ‘#Enough’ campaign, the 28-year-old said: “When I said that I can’t wait to see the back of football, it is because of the racism that I, and many other players, have been subjected to our entire careers.
“Football has a problem with racism.
“I don’t want any future players to go through what I’ve been through in my career. Collectively, we are simply not willing to stand-by while too little is done by football authorities and social media companies to protect players from this disgusting abuse.”
Click Here: true religion jean short
Watford captain Troy Deeney, who disabled comments on his Instagram account last month after being subjected to racist abuse, added: “My team-mates and I have been on the receiving end of well-documented abuse from a minority of narrow-minded, ignorant people both on social media and on the pitch.
“Any racism in football is too much, and it’s essential that we fight it wherever and whenever we see it.
“On Friday we are sending a message to anyone that abuses players – or anyone else – whether from the crowd or online, that we won’t tolerate it within football.
“The boycott is just one small step, but the players are speaking out with one voice against racism – enough is enough.”
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
The Spurs midfielder was disappointed with his side’s performance in Tuesday’s match, especially their first-half display
Tottenham midfielder Christian Eriksen was frustrated with his side’s display in Tuesday’s 1-0 defeat to Ajax , saying his team made their opponents look better than they are.
A shorthanded Spurs side failed to muster much of a threat in the Champions League semi-final first leg, as Donny van de Beek’s first-half strike put Ajax on the verge of their first final since 1996.
Despite injuries and suspension robbing Tottenham of several key players including Harry Kane and Son Heung-min, Eriksen was still fuming with the way his side performed – especially in the first half.
“We were under-par, we didn’t play our best at all,” Eriksen, who played for Ajax between 2010 and 2013, told BT Sport .
“In the first 20 minutes, we were ball-watchers. We need to change it up a lot for the next game.
“We made them look a lot better than they are. Of course they’re a good side but I think we helped them on their way to give them the feeling that they can control things, which was our fault.
“At the start, the system didn’t matter. The change gave us a different way to press, to play more direct. But we were still far from where we know we can be.
“No one wanted to play the first half we did. Everyone knew we didn’t compete. We still lost, but we were better in the second half.
“Second half was different, we played more direct and we hurt them a lot more, but we needed the last touch.”
Though Tottenham were shorthanded prior to the match and then lost Jan Vertonghen to a head injury in the first half, the Denmark international wasn’t interested in injury excuses.
“We can’t keep talking about injured players. In a semi-final it doesn’t matter who plays, we have to step up,” Eriksen said.
Eriksen felt his side were fortunate to see David Neres hit the post in the second half, which will give Spurs some encouragement heading into next week’s second leg at the Johan Cruyff Arena.
“We’re lucky they hit the post and hopefully we can turn things around in Amsterdam,” the 27-year-old said.
Click Here: Atlanta United FC Jersey
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
The Portugal international was rested for the final Serie A game against Sampdoria, but top-scorer Fabio Quagliarella did play in Genoa
Cristiano Ronaldo will not add the Serie A Golden Boot to his haul of awards after his first season in Italy.
Ronaldo was rested and did not take the field in Juventus’ final Serie A game against Sampdoria on Sunday and thus could not add to his tally of 21 goals in the competition.
He finished fourth in the table behind Fabio Quagliarella, Duvan Zapata of Atalanta and Krzysztof Piatek, who netted 26, 23 and 22 respectively.
The winner of the Golden Boot was on the pitch at the Luigi Ferraris Stadium in Genoa though. 36-year-old Quagliarella of Sampdoria scooped the gong for his tally of 26 goals, adding hardware to an astonishing late-career renaissance.
While he didn’t add the Golden Boot, Ronaldo did win the Serie A Player of the Year award for his individual performances, and his team won their eighth straight Scudetto.
Ronaldo became the first player to win titles in England, Spain and Italy with the Bianconeri’s triumph.
He is also the only player to win Player of the Year in each of those countries.
However, the Portugal international has only scored twice in the Italian top-flight since mid-February and his total of 21 goals is his lowest in a season since he scored 18 for Manchester United in the Premier League a decade ago.
Quagliarella had never scored more than 20 goals in a season before this year, with his highest previous total being 19 in the 2017-18 season.
His performances this year saw him win a shock recall into the Italian set-up.
He was called up by Roberto Mancini for Euro 2020 qualification matches with Finland and Liechtenstein, and his start in the second game was his first competitive game for the Azzuri since 2010. He scored twice, becoming Italy’s oldest ever goalscorer.
Atalanta’s Zapata also had his first 20-goal season this year, with his previous high being 11 in 2017-18 while appearing alongside Quagliarella for Sampdoria.
Zapata scored his 23rd of the year in Atalanta’s final game, which his team won to qualify for next season’s Champions League.
Meanwhile, Piatek enjoyed a brilliant debut season in Serie A, scoring 13 goals in just 19 games for Genoa.
Those performances caught the eye of Milan, with Piatek netting nine times in 18 games following a January move to San Siro.
Piatek’s goals were not enough for Milan to qualify for the Champions League as a late Inter winner consigned them to the Europa League.
| Player | Team | Goals |
|---|---|---|
| Fabio Quagliarella | Sampdoria | 26 |
| Duvan Zapata | Atalanta | 23 |
| Krzysztof Piatek | Genoa/AC Milan | 22 |
| Cristiano Ronaldo | Juventus | 21 |
| Arkadiusz Milik | Napoli | 17 |
| Francesco Caputo | Empoli | 16 |
| Dries Mertens | Napoli | 16 |
| Andrea Petagna | SPAL | 16 |
| Leonardo Pavoletti | Cagliari | 16 |
| Ciro Immobile | Lazio | 15 |
| Andrea Belotti | Torino | 15 |
Click Here: brisbane lions guernsey 2019
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
The 36-year-old is eager to move into coaching after hanging up his gloves, with there not too many others to have made that transition
Former Manchester United boss Jose Mourinho and current Wolves manager Nuno are providing inspiration for Lee Grant as the experienced goalkeeper plots a career change.
At 36 years of age, a man currently on the books at Old Trafford is approaching the end of his playing days.
He acknowledges as much and is already starting to piece together plans for when the day comes to hang up his gloves.
Grant is eager to get into coaching and buck the trend when it comes to shot-stoppers making a successful transition from a life between the sticks to that in the dugout.
“It is strange that you don’t see a huge amount of goalkeepers making it into top-level management,” Grant told United’s official website.
“Yes, Jose Mourinho played in goal and Mike Walker the old Norwich manager. The Wolves manager Nuno – he was a goalkeeper. Kevin Blackwell. There have been a few. But, obviously, the Wolves boss, Nuno, is probably a shining example of it in this day and age. A goalkeeper turned head coach. So, obviously, that’s a path I wouldn’t mind following.
“Us goalkeepers are a bit more difficult as, to be a goalkeeper coach, you have to have your goalkeeping badges as well. For me, it’s something I would want to do naturally anyway, coaching and management, and I mean the whole team, as it’s something I’ve really had my eye on.”
While expressing a desire to prolong his association with football once heading into retirement, Grant admits that he has not always sought to head down such a career path.
He added: “Strangely, in the earlier part of my career, coaching was something I was always dead against.
“I could never see myself in that role whereas, as I got to 26 or 27, my views changed on that dramatically.
“I’m completely the opposite now. It’s something I’m really looking forward to getting into and, hopefully, management at some stage. I’d really love to be part of a coaching team and, as I say, eventually lead a team. That would be the ideal scenario for me.
“I think something changed when I went back to Derby for the second time. I was working with Steve McClaren and I just saw the way he worked. I actually saw, first hand how a change in manager can have such a dramatic impact on a football club, and on a team of players. It really opened my eyes to it. So getting an opportunity to do that in the future, I’m really looking forward to that moment.
“I’ve had some excellent role models. For me, though, you learn just as much from the ones you don’t necessarily agree with, the ones you don’t see eye-to-eye with, or the ones whose methods you don’t like. You learn as much from those as you do from the ones you’ve really enjoyed working with, the ones you’ve studied and the ones you trust and believe in.
“So there is lots to learn and I am trying to pick up as much as I can. I feel like I’m in a wonderful position to do that at the football club I am at, at the moment.”
Grant is currently third-choice keeper at United behind David de Gea and Sergio Romero.
Click Here: brisbane lions guernsey 2019
September 16, 2019 | News | No Comments
Round three of Super Rugby is here and the Reds, Rebels and Brumbies will be in action with the Waratahs on a bye.
Take a look at everything you need to know about the third round, including times and teams and television scheduling.
All times AEDT.
Friday March 1
5pm – FOX SPORTS coverage commences with “Kick-Off”, with Lou Ransome, Sean Maloney, Drew Mitchell and Stephen Hoiles
5:35pm – Hurricanes vs Brumbies, Palmerston North, LIVE on FOX SPORTS, Kayo Sports and via RUGBY.com.au RADIO
7:45pm – Rebels vs Highlanders, AAMI Park, LIVE on FOX SPORTS, Kayo Sports and via RUGBY.com.au RADIO
7.30pm – FOX SPORTS coverage continues with “Kick On”
Saturday March 2
3pm – FOX SPORTS begins “Super Saturday” coverage, with host Nick McArdle.
5:35pm – Chiefs vs Sunwolves, Waikato, LIVE on FOX SPORTS, Kayo Sports and via RUGBY.com.au RADIO
7:45pm – Reds vs Crusaders, LIVE on FOX SPORTS, Kayo Sports and via RUGBY.com.au RADIO
Sunday March 3
12.05am – Lions vs Bulls, Emirates Park, Johannesburg, LIVE on FOX SPORTS and Kayo Sports
2.15am – Sharks vs Stormers, Kings Park, Durban, LIVE on FOX SPORTS and Kayo Sports
8.40am – Jaguares v Blues , Buenos Aires, LIVE on FOX SPORTS and Kayo Sports
Bye –Waratahs
Hurricanes to play Brumbies
Chris Eves, Dane Coles, Ben May, James Blackwell, Liam Mitchell, Vaea Fifita, Du’Plessis Kirifi, Ardie Savea, TJ Perenara, Beauden Barrett, Ben Lam, Ngani laumape, Matt Proctor, Vince Aso, Chase Tiatia. Reserves: Ricky Riccitelli, Xavier Numia, Jeff To’omaga-Allen, Isaia Walker-Leawere, Reed Prinsep, Richard Judd, Jackson Garden-Bachop, Wes Goosen
Brumbies to play Hurricanes
Scott Sio, Folau Fainga’a, Allan Alaalatoa, Rory Arnold, Blake Enever, Pete Samu, David Pocock, Lachlan McCaffrey, Joe Powell, Christian Lealiifano, Chance Peni, Irae Simone, Tevita Kuridrani, Andy Muirhead, Tom Banks. Reserves: Josh Mann-Rea, James Slipper, Leslie Leauluaialii-Makin, Darcy Swain, Tom Cusack, Matt Lucas, Wharenui Hawera, Tom Wright.
Referee: Nick Briant
Assistant Ref 1: Federico Anselmi
Assistant Ref 2: Nick Hogan
TMO : Aaron Paterson
Courtesy of Bet365
Hurricanes $1.22
Brumbies $4.35
Tetera Faulkner, Anaru Rangi, Sam Talakai, Luke Jones, Matt Philip, Angus Cottrell, Brad Wilkin, Isi Naisarani, Will Genia, Quade Cooper, Marika Koroibete, Billy Meakes, Tom English, Jack Maddocks, Dane Haylett-Petty. Reserves: Robbie Abel, Matt Gibbon, Jermaine Ainsley, Adam Coleman, Richard Hardwick, Rob Leota, Michael Ruru, Reece Hodge
Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store
Highlanders to face Rebels
Daniel Lienert-Brown, Ash Dixon, Siate Tokolahi, Jackson Hemopo, Pari Pari Parkinson, Shannon Frizell, James Lentjes, Elliot Dixon, Kayne Hammington, Bryn Gatland, Josh McKay, Teihorangi Walden, Thomas Umaga-Jensen, Waisake Naholo, Josh Ioane. Reserves: Ricky Jackson, Ayden Johnstone, Josh Iosefa-Scott, Tom Franklin, Marino Mikaele Tu’u, Folau Fakatava, Patelesio Tomkinson, Marty Banks
Referee: AJ Jacobs
Assistant Ref 1: Marius van der Westhuizen
Assistant Ref 2: Damon Murphy
TMO : Ian Smith
Rebels – $1.78
Highlanders – $2.05
Chiefs to play Sunwolves
Aidan Ross, Samisoni Taukei’aho, Angus Ta’avao, Brodie Retallick, Michael Allardice, Mitchell Brown, Mitchell Karpik, Taleni Seu, Brad Weber, Damian McKenzie, Etene Nanai-Seturo, Orbyn Leger, Tumua Manu, Sean Wainui, Shaun Stevenson. Reserves: Bradley Slater, Tevita Mafileo, Sosefo Kautai, Jesse Parete, Lachlan Boshier, Te Toiroa Tahuriorangi, Alex Nankivell, Ataata Moeakiola
Sunwolves to play Chiefs
Pauliasi Manu, Atsushi Sakate, Hiroshi Yamashita, Luke Thompson, Uwe Helu, Hendrik Tui, Shuhei Matsuhashi, Rahboni Warren Vosayaco, Kaito Shigeno, Hayden Parker, Jamie Henry, Michael Little, Shane Gates, Jason Emery. Reserves: Nathan Vella, Sam Prattley, Asaeli Ai Valu, Tom Rowe, James Moore, Jamie Booth, Phil Burleigh, Rikiya Matsuda
Referee: Federico Anselmi
Assistant Ref 1: Nick Briant
Assistant Ref 2: Dan Waenga
TMO: Shane McDermott
Chiefs $1.03
Sunwolves $12.00
Reds to play Crusaders
Feao Fotuaika, Brandon Paenga-Amosa, Taniela Tupou, Izack Rodda, Harry Hockings, Lukhan Salakaia-Loto, Liam Wright, Angus Scott-Young, Moses Sorovi, Hamish Stewart, Sefa Naivalu, Samu Kerevi, Jordan Petaia, Chris Feauai-Sautia, Bryce Hegarty, Reserves: Alex Mafi, JP Smith, Ruan Smith, Caleb Timu, Scott Higginbotham, Tate McDermott, Duncan Paia’aua, Isaac Lucas
Crusaders to play Reds
Joe Moody, Andrew Makalio, Owen Franks, Scott Barrett, Quinten Strange, Tom Sanders, Matt Todd, Whetu Douglas, Mitch Drummond, Richie Mounga, George Bride, Tim Bateman, Jack Goodhue, Braydon Ennor, Will Jordan. Reserves: Ben Funnell, Harry Allan, Michael Alaalatoa, Luke Romano, Jordan Taufua, Bryn Hall, Mitchell Hunt, David Havili.
Referee: Marius van der Westhuizen
Assistant Ref 1: AJ Jacobs
Assistant Ref 2: Damon Murphy
TMO: George Ayoub
Reds $5.00
Crusaders $1.17
Lions to play Bulls
Dylan Smith, Malcolm Marx, Carlu Sadie, Rhyno Herbst, Stephan Lewies, Kwagga Smith, Marnus Schoeman, Hacjivah Dayimani, Nic Groom, Elton Jantjies, Aphiwe Dyantyi, Harold Vorster, Lionel Mapoe, Ruan Combrinck, Andries Coetzee. Reserves: Pieter Jansen, Sti Sithole, Frans van Wyk, Robert Kruger, Vincent Tshituka, Ross Cronje, Franco Naude, Courtnall Skosan.
Bulls to play Lions
Lizo Gqoboka, Schalk Brits, Trevor Nyakane, Jason Jenkins, Eli Snyman, Ruan Steenkamp, Hanro Liebenberg, Duane Vermuelen, Embrose Papier, Handre Pollard, Rosko Specman, Dylan Sage, Jesse Kriel, Cornal Hendricks, Warrick Gelant, Reserves: Corniel Els, Simphiwe Matanzima, Dayan van der Westhuizen, Jannes Kirsten, Tim Agaba, Ivan van Zyl, Manie Libbok, Divan Rossouw
Referee: Paul Williams
Assistant Ref 1: Cwengile Jadezweni
Assistant Ref 2: Griffon Colby
TMO: Marius Jonker
Lions $1.38
Bulls $3.10
Sharks to play Stormers
Tendai Mtawarira, Akker van der Merwe, Coenie Oosthuizen, Hyron Andrews, Ruan Botha, Jacques Vermeulen, Tyler Paul, Daniel du Preez, Louis Schreuder (C), Robert du Preez, Makazole Mapimpi, Andre Esterhuizen, Lukhanyo Am, Sbu Nkosi, Aphelele Fassi, Reserves: Kerron van Vuuren, Juan Schoeman, Thomas du Toit, Gideon Koegelenberg, Phepsi Buthelezi, Cameron Wright, Jeremy Ward, Curwin Bosch
Stormers to play Sharks
Ali Vermaak, Bongi Mbonambi, Frans Malherbe, Eben Etzebeth, JD Shickerling, Siya Kolisi, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Sikhumbuzo NOtshe, Herschel Jantjies, Jean-Luc du Plesis, SP marais, Damian de Allende, Dan du Plessis, Sergeal Petersen, Damian Willemse. Reserves: Scarra Ntubeni, Corne Fourie, Wilco Louw, Chris van Zyl, Jaco Coetzee, Justin Phillips, Ruhan Nel, Dillyn Leyds
Referee: Jaco Peyper
Assistant Ref 1: Egon Seconds
Assistant Ref 2: Divan Uys
TMO: Willie Vos
Sharks $1.42
Stormers $2.90
Jaguares to play Blues
Mayco Vivas, Agustin Creevy, Santiago Medrano, Guido Petti, Tomas Lavanini, Pablo Matera, Marcos Kremer, Javier Ortega Desio, Tomas Cubelli, Joaquin Diaz Bonilla, Ramiro Moyano, Matias Orlando, Matias Moroni, Bautista Delguy, Juan Cruz Mallia. Reserves: Julian Montoya, Juan Pablo Zeiss, Enrique Pieretti, Matias Alemanno, Rodrigo Bruni, Martin Landajo, Santiago Gonzalez Iglesias, Joaquin Tuculet
Blues to play Jaguares
Alex Hodgman, James Parsons, Ofa Tuungafasi, Patrick Tuipulotu, Josh Goodhue, Tom Robinson, Dalton Papalii, Akira Ioane, Augustine Pulu, Otere Black, Rieko Ioane, Maa Nonu TJ Falane, Tanielu Telea, Melani Nanai. Reserves: Matt Moulds, Karl Tuinukuafe, Sione Mafileo, Gerard Cowley-Tuioti, Matt Matich, Jonathan Ruru, Harry Plummer, Sonny Bill Williams
Referee:Rasta Rasivhenge
Assistant Ref 1: Mike Fraser
Assistant Ref 2: Brendon Pickerill
TMO: Santiago Borsani
Jaguares $1.72
Blues $2.15