Category: News

Home / Category: News

Share

18th Sep 2019

Finally, fashion month has arrived, and with New York Fashion Week officially in full swing the ready-to-wear spring/summer 2020 season is shaping to be one worth keeping tabs on. 

Hot off the heels of the success of autumn/winter ready-to-wear in February, this September, expect to see countless show-stopping collections take centre stage in four of the world’s most fashion-forward cities. 

From Prada to Tommy Hilfiger, this season, some of your favourite fashion houses are slated to give you the opportunity to sit front row alongside the likes of Anna Wintour, Gigi Hadid and a raft of editors, celebrities and models by way of live streams direct from New York, London, Milan, and Paris. To find out how to tune in, read on for more information and all you need to know.

Tommy Hilfiger ready-to-wear spring/summer 2020

Beloved American fashion house, Tommy Hilfiger, is returning home to New York City with its TommyNow show, which is slated to present Tommy x Zendaya live at the Apollo Theater in Harlem on September 8, 2019. In a first for the brand, together with the live stream of the runway show, Tommy Hilfiger is taking fans behind-the-scenes as it switches the view from the runway to the backstage area and even the celebrity red carpet, as the front row make their way to their seats. To make the most of the opportunity, be sure to tune in below for the live stream on Monday, September 9 at 10.30am (AEST).

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

 

 

Prada ready-to-wear spring/summer 2020

 

On September 19, esteemed fashion designer Miuccia Prada is inviting you to sit front row alongside the likes of Poppy Delevigne, Chiara Ferragni, and Sofia Coppola, to see what the luxury Italian fashion house – best known for producing some of fashion month’s most-loved collections – has to offer for spring/summer 2020. Slated to be a highlight of Milan Fashion Week, the ready-to-wear show will be one you won’t want to miss, so be sure to tune in below for the live stream on Wednesday, September 19 at 12am (AEST).

The career of the French-Canadian writer Marie-Claire Blais had precocious and auspicious beginnings. She published her first novel, “La Belle Bête,” in 1959, when she was just twenty years old. Translated into English by Merloyd Lawrence as “Mad Shadows,” the book is a faintly gothic portrait of a forsaken girl, and her mother’s obsession with her idiot brother—the “beautiful beast” of the title. The novel offers an incisive rendering of family dynamics; it is also disarmingly brutal, with a tragic ending that suggests that all beauty is false and that life’s only truth is suffering. Margaret Atwood, Blais’s exact contemporary, later wrote, “The book made me very uneasy, for more than the obvious reasons: the violence, the murders, suggestions of incest and the hallucinatory intensity of the writing were rare in Canadian literature in those days, but even scarier was the thought that this bloodcurdling fantasy, as well as its precocious verbal skill, were the products of a girl of 19. I was 19 myself, and with such an example before me I already felt like a late bloomer.”

Another early fan was the literary critic Edmund Wilson, who, shortly after the book was translated, began work on “O Canada: An American’s Notes on Canadian Culture,” which was published, in three parts, in The New Yorker, and, in 1965, as a book. In it, Wilson describes Blais as “a writer in a class by herself,” and suggests that she is, “possibly,” a genius. While he was still working on “O Canada,” Wilson helped Blais secure a Guggenheim Fellowship that sent her to Massachusetts, in 1963. Having already published two more novels—“Tête Blanche,” in 1960, and “Le Jour est Noir,” in 1962—Blais used her time in the States to write her fourth, “Une Saison dans la Vie d’Emmanuel,” a dark and deeply affecting story about a rural French-Canadian family. “Emmanuel” secured her place among Quebec’s preëminent authors. At the time, Quebec was becoming a more liberal and secular place, undergoing a series of dramatic political and cultural changes that is known as the Quiet Revolution. In a foreword to the English edition, translated by Derek Coltman and published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, in 1966, Wilson hailed the success of “A Season in the Life of Emmanuel” as not just an artistic achievement but a civilizational milestone. “The intellectual life of French Canada is now reaching a long-retarded maturity,” he wrote.

During the next half century, Blais would publish more than forty works of fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and writing for the stage, and earn many of Francophone literature’s highest international honors. She has been lauded as an heir to Virginia Woolf, nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize, and, in French-language literary circles, has become indisputably canonical. Yet she has never attracted a wide readership among her home country’s English-speaking population, and her work is practically unknown in the United States. This is a common problem for French-Canadian writers, who are, as the translator Peter McCambridge once put it to me, “at once too different and too familiar” to interest many English-language readers in North America. But Blais should, by all rights, cross that divide. For one thing, her magnum opus—a cycle of ten short novels, the eighth of which was recently translated into English—is set in Florida, where she has lived for decades. More pertinently, she is, as Wilson was right to proclaim, and as the rest of her career has demonstrated, one of the most distinctive and original living writers of fiction.

Blais grew up the eldest of five children in the working-class neighborhood of Limoilou, in Quebec City. She attended convent schools until the age of fifteen, when she left home to work, and to write. Her first novels, which explore the pain both suffered and caused by children within troubled, complicated families, have a destabilizing and uncanny tone reminiscent of André Breton—or of Dostoyevsky—and they traffic in the same depravities as one finds in the works of André Gide. The books are brilliantly rendered and deeply affecting, but they aren’t for everyone. “The Québec of Marie-Claire Blais’s earlier works may be described as a hellish stage of unreason on which are enacted the horror-filled scenes of human bestiality, rendered in the manner of the Grand Guignol,” a critic for the International Fiction Review once wrote.

Blais has always been prolific: after “A Season in the Life of Emmanuel,” which was published in 1965, she wrote four more novels, a novella, and a play, all before the sixties had ended. She then moved to France for a period, but returned to Quebec in the mid-seventies. Her writing began to change, turning more elliptical and impressionistic, with an increasing focus on interiority. The opening sentence of “Anna’s World,” an incisive study of adolescent friendship that was published in 1982, unfolds over two pages, resisting spatial or temporal location and hewing only to the emotional experience of the novel’s heroine:

The evolution of Blais’s aesthetic approach coincided with a move to Key West, where, in the late eighties, she settled permanently. Her adopted home has inspired two works of nonfiction, “Passages Américains,” from 2012, and a recent study of Trump-era authoritarianism called “À l’Intérieur de la Menace.” (Neither book has been translated.) But the Keys are most vividly present in a ten-book cycle that began, in 1995, with the novel “Soifs.”

The word means “thirstings”—though, when the first book was published in English, in 1997, Sheila Fischman titled her translation “These Festive Nights.” The ten novels in the “Soifs” cycle are less focussed on the horrors of the world than Blais’s earlier books were, and more on the effects of those horrors on human consciousness. The emotional texture of the novels, pitched between anxiety and longing, feels emphatically contemporary, but Blais’s style, in her later years, is mostly indebted to the modernists: the Woolf of “The Waves”; Proust, in his approach to recollection; Faulkner, in his use of polyphony. Blais eschews the fixed point of view that dominates contemporary fiction for a more communal approach to storytelling, and a subjective handling of time and space. The “Soifs” novels, collectively, seem both to encompass entire lives and to take place in the course of a single day; the effect of reading them is not be to be anchored concretely in a fictional universe but to be swept away in a current of language and sensation. In these books, one feels more than one sees.

Each novel is a breathless two-hundred-or-so-page deluge of text, without paragraph breaks. Sentences ramble across dozens of pages, whirling through a community of writers, musicians, dancers, drug dealers, physicians, clergy members, academics, petty criminals, socialites, and drag queens who inhabit an unnamed island town that bears a strong resemblance to Key West. The novels consist of around two thousand pages altogether, and they are populated by dozens of named characters, but they are most immediately striking not for their vast scope but for their dizzying cascades of language. Rather than employ a fixed point of view or a series of perspectives, Blais uses a kind of shifting communal narration: the novels skip around in space, time, and perspective, often in a single sentence. Pronouns jump assignments among characters—a “he” at the beginning of a given passage might be a different “he” by its end.

The opening of “These Festive Nights” expresses the tension that Blais locates between her idyllic tropical setting and the swirling anxieties of the book’s characters:

The first seven books explore addiction, sexual abuse, and the threat of nuclear annihilation—and also, in some of Blais’s most exquisite passages, love, friendship, and community. If anything provides a narrative backbone to the project, it’s the faintly meta-fictional through line of a middle-aged author named Daniel, who is at work on his own magnum opus, a book he begins early in the cycle, and struggles with through several volumes. In the eighth novel of Blais’s “Soifs” cycle, “Le Festin au Crépuscule”—published in English, last month, as “A Twilight Celebration,” in a translation by Nigel Spencer—he finally seems to have finished it.

Although it’s the eighth book in the series, “A Twilight Celebration” would not be a terrible place to begin reading the “Soifs” novels. Following the plot of these books, such as it is, is hardly the point, and the novels fold into and weave among one another; whole scenes recur. In the fifth novel, “Mai at the Predators’ Ball,” a group of drag queens who dance at a place called the Porte du Baiser Saloon are “lined up in the street . . . all awaiting the last show of the night as if their flowered and feather selves were for rent for a few hours.” About seven hundred pages later, in “A Twilight Celebration,” we meet the same characters, in nearly the same place. Perhaps it’s the same instant, slightly recast, or the repetition of a ritual on a different night. But what is conveyed most strikingly is less the linear chronology of life than something like an eternal present, or the simultaneity of dreams.

“A Twilight Celebration” belongs mostly to Daniel, who is attending a global writers’ conference at which a Poet of the Year award is being presented, along with a memorial for murdered poets. (It is a sure send-up of the somewhat inflated events at which literary prizes are bestowed.) Daniel, accustomed to the teeming and cacophonous tropics, has left his oceanside digs for a “limitless desert of anonymous hotels” and “a home without smells that was not his own.” The novel returns steadily to his conversations with fellow writers about literature’s fading cultural relevance, and to his own private laments; in the face of ecological and social collapse, Daniel worries that he is writing “for some abstract readership and ruminating from afar, or only for himself.” Meanwhile, Daniel’s son Augustino, we learn, has been writing virulent treatises with titles like “Letter to Young People Without a Future.”

Back on the Gulf Coast island, where Daniel lives, an AIDS patient named Angel is convalescing under the care of the magnanimous Dr. Dieudonné, accompanied by a parrot named Orange; an avant-garde composer named Fleur is settling in for a concert of his latest opus; and the aforementioned group of drag queens is readying its nightly cabaret. Numerous other lives are woven through these main threads; sometimes a name zips by, never to return again. The effect recalled, for me, the sculptural installation “Personages,” by Louise Bourgeois—a series of freestanding, humanistic totems through which one wanders like a stranger at a party. The characters seem wistful and nostalgic, yet there’s something urgent about their gathering, shaded as it is with the melancholy of some imminent and possibly catastrophic ending.

Violence looms over every page in “A Twilight Celebration,” which is true of the earlier books, too, though it is more metaphysical there. Here, the peril is literal: a “horde of masked youths” with machine guns, which only Daniel seems to see, gathers menacingly outside the writers’ conference, threatening, “Tonight, maverick writers, join us at the barricades or we will hunt you down.” The escalation of their protest lends the book a story arc, with the threat building toward an inevitable, if surreal, attack. “A Twilight Celebration” might be the most accessible of the “Soifs” series to appear so far in English: it operates with something like a conventional narrative structure, and shifts in perspective and location are signified, helpfully, with periods.

Yet the book is still very much a continuation of the previous “Soifs” novels. Not only Daniel but all the novel’s characters seem to tremble at the edge of annihilation, clinging to one another for lack of anything else to hang on to. And, as with all of the books, the volume ends not with destruction but with a human connection. We leave Daniel behind and return to Angel, the AIDS patient, now accompanied by his friend Kitty, walking with him down to the edge of the Gulf. As the sun sets over the sea, Angel slides “his hand over Kitty’s in the oversize sleeve of her sweater.” Amid the terrors of the novel, the simple gesture feels like an escape into beauty, or refuge—it’s the sort of tenderness that Blais, early in her career, denied her characters. Here, it’s offered not quite as redemption but at least as solace in an otherwise unforgiving world. For now, the last two books in the series remain to be translated.

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership

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.

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.

Former Watford owner to takeover Bolton Wanderers

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.”

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

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.”

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

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