Nemo
-
Posts
11029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Nemo
-
-
THAT ashes was epic
Just gonna leave this here..
Yup, the second test, day 5. This still gives me goosebumps. Had australia won this from seemingly impossible situation they'd have, apart from going 2-0 up, deflated england's morale to a crushing level.
The moments after the final wicket, flintoff consoling lee
-
Oh man. 7 ODIs is just
. I don't think even the players would have enough motivation to play with 100% intensity towards the end. 3 T20s, 5 ODIs and 3 Tests would have been a much better option.True that. ODI's are now just the unwanted but neighbor in the room that has come over to pay wishes in the holidays and family gathering and is now showing no inclination to go away, making it awkward for everyone else. Tests are good, they have the history, mysticism and if played on proper pitches, can give an absolute spectacle of sport- fast bowlers making batsmen hop like clueless bunnies, batsmen making epic partnerships, tailenders holding on to dear life to avoid follow on or a defeat in the 5th day with 10-12 overs remaining, etc.
T20 packages it in a neat little format that does not take up much time of the viewer and is generally exciting.
ODIs are just :| They stick around for 8+ hours without offering the drama of Test cricket. Middle overs are yawn worthy and they are trying to re invent the wheel by tinkering with field restrictions which are effective in only one thing, harming the bowlers more.
People say India is the world champion in both ODI formats so the format should not be disregarded; I say lets give ODIs a graceful retirement, sealing India as the last holders of WC and CT trophies
-
Pacific Rim confirmed for 12th July.
Everyone go watch this movie.
Lets cancel the apocalypse....
Thanks for the info. I had it pegged on 21st jul.
-
oh and as long as we are talking about pretty dudes who dont seem to wear shirts, act in boring movies, have emotive range of a brick and manage to gain milage due to ladies,
Matthew McconaugHEYYYY >>> Ryan Gosling.
cause mcconaughey atlest proved his mettle in Lincoln Lawyer.
..
-
Him & that Kristten Stewart can play the role of mannequins or human statues. Non-emoting, both of them.
Funny you should say that, Kristen Stewart had high octane filled sex scenes in 'On the road' movie. The moans and expressions there can put many an accomplished and experienced porn starlets to shame. I am not joking. One has to see it to believe it, all the misgivings about her lack of emotions and acting will be blown to smithereens. Not gonna give a link, i hope people know where to find.
So yeah, she is not a mannequin so as to speak, it is just that regular movie scenes just dont interest her
p.s. she is very pretty
..
-
House of cards is very very good. Just started it couole of weeks ago.
Is is obviously political in its nature so those who cant get themselves into it wont enjoy it, still it warrants a watch just for Kevin spacey alone. Guy is a master actor!! I like political dramas if done right and am a fan of Spacey so as per me house of cards is
-
C****t hai saala. I have no problems with off the field debauchery and shenanigans, but causing intended harm to other people without any justifiable provocation, whether off or on the field is a sign of a f**ked up mentality.
Dont care how good a player he is (he is not indispensable imo) but this is where I draw the line.
-
Suarez ?? to chelsea ?
NO thank you.
-
Neve seen any of Ryan Gosling's movies. But i hear he is a hit with ladies, dont see any particular reason though. The other Ryan on the other hand...
<3
funny guy and a very good actor. Plus looks better than Gosling IMO.
Love his performances !
-
what is the point of releasing updates on a country/region basis if they cant even ensure proper server service
dont think india will have that much a traffic compared to a western country so what gives :|
If busy servers were inevitable then sala time pe hi har jagah update kyu nahi kar dete hain
-
No it takes longer to get it OTA, on the PC it is almost instant (once release confirmed).
Hoping that my go also gets a final bump to 4.2.2.
What is OTA ?
Also i was not even getting any notification of any update while i was connecting directly with phone. With PC now i did get a notification regarding update, i have applied it but it is taking AGES to move the bar. how much time does it normally take ?
my net is working fine, sites are opening, torrents are getting good speed, youtube works good.
wtf is up with sony/android update ??
-
also the official 4.2.2 update out for india for Z. 
mine is running at 4.1.2 well that what it shows in the settings.
if i go to update check it says it is updated.
???
how to get it ?
-
What part of "his QC admitted in open court that he had secured his money in a rigged privatisation" did you not understand ? There is nothing to debate here.
Do you have any back ground in Commercial law ? Before throwing words around do you even know their meaning ? So Lobbying to get privatisation contracts (rigged dealings as you say) is a sure shot affirmative for the owner to be labeled as harbinger of evil by your logic ? Policy of lobbying and influencing differs from country to country and almost all big empires use various means to get the Government officials pay special heed to their request.
This is what Syed had said-
"One has to look at how he amassed his wealth. His QC admitted in open court that he had secured his money in a rigged privatisation," Syed explained.
"That's stolen money. Certainly fraudulently got... It has been a deeply corrosive influence on British football."
Did you happen to gloss over the part where he says 'certainly fraudulently got', Certainly !!
This shows a mere strong assumption of and by a person. Does Syed have any concrete proof that this is a clear brake of law under the then prevaling circumstances and context ?
Roman first made his mark when He along with Berezovsky (same guy against whom Roman won a massive multi billion case last year) acquired stake in one of Russia's largest oil company SIbneft. Many other state owned companies across sectors were privatised, remember this was mid 90s, and only a few years had gone after USSR's disintegration. The auctions, however, lacked competition, as they were largely controlled by favored insiders. As neither the loans nor the leased enterprises were returned in time, this effectively became a form of selling for a very low price. The scheme has been perceived by many as unfair, and it is the loans-for-shares scheme that gave rise to the class of Russia business Oligarchs, who have concentrated enormous assets, further increasing the wealth gap in Russia and contributing to the political instability.
This is the reason why many such deals made then are questioned now and again. Both the businessmen and the then government are at fault if you are looking to name names. The rules of auctions were made to benefit both the buyers and sellers.
Roman may or may not have broken laws to get contracts, the lobbying may or may not be allowed. It is for the Russia courts to decide upon.So yeah there is No Debate only if the question is whether you are clue-less about Russian economy and oil industry, commercial-legal proceedings and having the mental ability to decide what to interpret from where.
It is evidently clear that you are working a*s backwards by first deciding you hate a particular club/owner, then hearing his name mentioned by any one particular journo in a negative light and then grasping on those straws to validate your irrational brand of thought, instead of actually spending time on going thorough the entire case and its history and learning views from both sides. There is a reason why Roman has not been indicted in any court of law for any white collar crime.
But of course, that takes time and a modicum of brain beyond the capacity of making one jump on the bandwagon, so I can see where your logic (or lack thereof) are coming from.
...
-
Historically, before the modern day PL, their was never such a big emphasis on 'transfers'. Talk to any guy who has followed PL even in the 70s - 80s(I've met a fair few on twitter) & they would tell you how stupid this obsession with transfer value & wages has become in recent times. Most English clubs used to have English players playing for them, hardly any foreigner used to be playing in PL.
I am not from England, from a foreign fan's point of view it does not matter what nationality plays where. Are you from england ? why is influx of non english players a problem for you ? The obsession with transfer and wages may 'look stupid' but it is not a one entity's crime. The burden has to be shared by all. If you want to point fingers, do so at the money being poured in by tv stations, media houses and sports good companies, yes the very same institutions that made it possible for you and me to sit in India and watch live matches in England or anywhere else.
So what's wrong in clubs who have proven to be successful over 100+ years reaping the benefits of their hard work over the CENTURY, if most of them have done it the hard way?
What hard way ? Sure there were no foreign players in PL back in black and white days but that simply meant that the bigger clubs lapped up the best of local UK talent. It is not about 'paying the dues' or 'reaping the benefits', it is about allowing any club to conduct its business freely by the best of its means at its disposal. If tomorrow Mukesh Ambani decides to launch a business in a new untouched sector, will any court in the world give a rule that he cant spend more than xyz rupees as it is unfair on the existing local players who have been slugging it out all these years ?
And your counterpoint to all this is that billionaire backed clubs somehow give it a chance for 'smaller' clubs to compete with the big guns.
No. My point is that restricting spendings solely on the basis of present revenue prevents new entrants from competing properly, No where is there a mention of an owner with bottomless pockets. This scene works with all clubs. Even if the new owner is decently rich (like not roman or sheiks rich) and decides to take over a small club, he wont be able to pull in money if the club is getting no love from fans. the fans wont show support from pockets till the club gets better players, players wont come till they are paid well. Can you see a circle forming ?
There is no such barrier in any other industry, why should it be there in football ?
Presence of unrestricted amounts money does not abjectly make small-er clubs to be more competitive. It makes the club that gets the money competitive and leaves all it its dust. BUT pulling for FFP for the sake of providing competition actually crowds out any benefits by creating a different kind of 'privilege'. If you want to see equality and fair competition, it should be from every point of view.
And how many of these smaller clubs have actually benefited from it till now? Hardly 2 in PL. Just 2 PL clubs out of 100+ clubs currently plying their trade in England. Most smaller clubs are still small, some have become even smaller(Villa, Everton, Newcastle). This Roman-AbuDabhi phenomena hasn't changed anything in PL except for giving a lottery to 2 PL clubs out of 100. It won't change the destiny for other clubs because it's not possible to find owners like these in every corner.
Let us just restrict ourselves to 20 or so PL and some championship clubs now, shall we ? Cause to a club in relegation zone in 3rd tier of English football even the unblemished paragon of virtue that supposedly Arsenal FC is, is the same as what Chelsea is to Arsenal. As for Lottery,
Number of PL winners before 2003-04 (roman's debut)- 3
Number of PL winners after 2003- till date- 3
Even before Roman the title spread was same.
So your point about all this allowing smaller clubs to compete makes no sense
sigh.. read up and down. I have mentioned it 2-3 times.
& btw the traditional big clubs are still there or there about near the top.
Like Arsenal ?
Even without Roman their would have been similar kind of competition in PL, just different teams & some of them would have earned their success unlike Chelsea/City. Just look at this scenario - Spurs/Everton have worked their a*s off in the last 2 seasons to compete for the CL place which would have helped them in being even more competitive than they are right now, they have done it in the right way & on the surface it might look that it's Arsenal who have taken that CL birth off them but in reality it's clubs like yours & City who have done that. Without you guys they would have had more chance of competing with the big guns. So now tell me how does that make PL more competitive for smaller clubs?
Why is your assumption based on the absurd scenario of Chelsea, united or city just sat at their dressing rooms and smoked a joint and Platini just came at the end of the season and handed them CL spots based on the names on the back of their shirts ? Yes money helped in bringing in players but it did not give them bionic legs.
Also i really dont understand the logic of 'because of your club....'. What exactly did chelsea or city do that warrants a disqualification of them from PL ? spend money- a thing that is not illegal under any guideline ? And in case you are still not clear about my earlier post, I am not anal about bringing in some utopian parity in all clubs across europe, I am perfectly fine with the way things are. My only aim was to show the advocates of FFP the flaw in its model. If you are championing for FFP because of need for equality then there are very valid concerns that say that FFP will usher a new kind of Inequality by forming a cartel of select few clubs.
Is that what you mean by Equal opportunities ? Is "All clubs are equal, but some are more equal than others" your motto ?
I am not saying present transfer market price structure is good, but FFP is not the way to go about straightening it.
Without clubs like yours their would be still a similar player pool in the Europe but with lesser inflated wages/transfer fees, so that in turn would have helped smaller clubs to get bargain players & compete well.
What is this, Journals of Dr. nostradamus ? How can you possibly know that ? If Roman and Chesea were there it could be Ivankovic and Everton or Ramon Salazar and Spurs or Mungulu T'Chala and Swansea, ie any billionaire and any club. Or football itself could have been overtaken by the newly invented sport of BASEketball.
Not to say, how clubs like yours are now kind of using predatory tactics. Buying talented young players like Courtouis, De Bruyne, Lukaku on 15m+ transfer fees & then sending them off to loans to clubs who are not your direct rivals in Europe or PL. How is that fair competition?
Because it says so in the UEFA/EU rule book, insofar as in it does not breach any rule. Fair is not what you and Wenger cook up in a jovial nightly session of acid drops, it is a frame work of legality as discussed and tabled by people more experienced and smarter that you or I in the field of commerce and labor laws.
All of your points about league getting more competitive might look great on the surface but your club has actually had the opposite effect in reality.
The only opposite effect i am seeing is Arsenal not winning like it used to, and thus its fans are having hard time to digest it. Even Liverpool (which has had a much grander history and subsequent greater fall from its perch, that your club) has fans that dont bitch and moan about evils of money every 4th day.
-
The Lone Ranger looked like a flop in the making. Hardly surprising.
BTW this looks interesting:
looks intriguing. not sold on liam hemsworth though, i know it is not a fair comparison but looking him always remind me how much better his brother Thor would be in the exact same role, unless of course he is out bumpin' uglies with miley cyrus or is in any such chick flick.
still more importantly, Gary f**king Oldman !!
he is such a natural at villainous roles that it was amazing how he managed to play one of the most goody-goody characters in Jim Gordon flawlessly, but i suppose thats the range of the man's talent. Always a pleasure to watch, particularly when playing negative roles. -
BADASS!
This man is pure awesome and god-like !! love him to bits
-
@ Somebody
Fair point about transfer pricing and how some clubs (chelsea is not the only one here) have much more advantage than a lot of others. But how can you really stop it ? Putting restrictions on certain clubs just because they have more resources contradicts European Union's Competition law, article 107 wherein no member state is allowed to cushion any private enterprise either by subsidising it or imposing spending restrictions on other much wealthier corporations that are in direct competition with said enterprise in the unified european market. Now it is debatable if UEFA is a state or private unit but clubs certainly are private enterprises. Here lies one bone of contetion.
Another thing is FFP kind of plays into the historically popular clubs of yesteryears. Back in the days there was no such shout on budget restrictions by some external agency, some clubs owing to different reasons, whether it was good managing, players, money or combination off all; made their mark and grabbed up big fanbase. So they now have almost a steady supply of revenue from off field ventures unless they slip up badly like Leeds and even that slow down in revenue will be gradual.
I am interested about your mention of clubs with small budget being unable to compete with the likes of chelsea, madrid, city and while it is a fair point, consider this-
Do you think it is fair to restrict spending of clubs purely on the basis of their revenue ? The old guard of clubs have their fan base set and will keep making money from shirts, promotional events, memorabilia etc, while any new club trying to break in will not be allowed to spend any competitive amount to get players because its revenue stream is quite low at that moment. The revenue stream will only grow if it gets good players that bring in wins and fans but those players will only come if they are paid well. Can you see a circle forming ?
Sure, there will be people who will say that the new clubs should earn their strides the hard way by moving up the ranks and while this argument sits well in a lame Self Help book, it over looks the fact that the clubs with robust fan backing/revenue stream now were never subjected to any such restrictions when they were building their names. They were allowed to attempt at success any which way that they saw fit. Dont they have an unfair advantage now if FFP is applied in its current rigid manner ? am not saying that all of the erstwhile european football's 'G-14' used exclusively money to become popular but using it was never stopped by any restriction.
So all in all keeping a check on sky rocketing prices of players is not simple. I agree that it is turning into a problem and intelligent unbiased attempts should made to control it but FFP in its present avatar is not the right way to go about it.
-
Look at the reaction to the video & you will see how 'indifferent' non-Chelsea/City fans are on this topic.
read on..
The club is being run by money that was stolen !
and i believe you are the only person in the world in hold of irrefutable evidence to prove that, right ?
All i see and hear from the video are wild speculations and hot air. I have no problems treating it as a gossip or even discuss some possibility of a conspiracy but to declare what our Matthew Syed is saying is the absolute gospel of truth is moronic. Yes roman is russian, has good political connections with Putin and has made money in a relatively quick time virtually from scratch. Also he has made riches in the traditional (not to mention Manly !) sectors- oil and other minerals. Now these are ventures where it is quite difficult to build an empire from ground up unlike the new fangled software, IT (zuckerberg, or the most recent Tumblr guy) areas where all you need is a computer, ability, luck and whole lot of Nerd. So it is understandable why there would be doubts and rumors circulating around. But that doesnt necessarily mean he is a bad guy. There is no proof to pin him of any gross crime.
I am not saying Roman is clean, every billionaire who has not inherited his/her billions has skeletons in their closet, but to what degree is the question. Also how is it right to relentlessly hound one particular guy showcasing him of every thing evil when there is not a single known evidence. perez is often accused of getting money from south american drug cartels, berlusconi is under scrutiny for a number of corruption cases but nothing's been proved and no questions are raised over their handling of madrid and milan with questionable money.
So, discuss it, debate it but do not make abject statements when there is nothing to back it up. And dont be condescending towards chelsea fans, admonishing them for not being appalled (lul wut ?) by Roman's alleged dealings. Even if we dont factor the non provability of the accusations against Roman, the point is- Most if not all mncs or ownership houses are involved with some scam/scandal or other at some part of the world. So unless you yourself are paragons of total partiality and legality and do not consume any product that is financed or subsadised by exploiting some person somewhere, you dont have much grounds at pointing fingers and labeling Chelsea fans as heartless for not boycotting the club.
If Mr. Roman Abramovich if guilty of a crime, let the law and enforcement take his case. If it is proved in the court of law I wont justify or defend his actions. But until then there is no reason for me or any other cfc fan to question him or the club as being ran by him.
-
1
-
-
wtf is "The reason for the premier league standing as one of the most exciting football leagues in the world now is because of Chelsea" mean though?
atIt is to do with aggressive marketing and brand building that happened in the 2000s which was mostly induced by Chelsea under Roman, particularly in the emerging markets in Asia and Africa. Usa/north america is non existent for football penetration, Europe is mostly saturated (duh !) and south america, for good reason, are more enamored by their local leagues, so that leaves the two other continents which are huge on population and open to be wooed.
Apart from manchester united no other club had a decent enough fan base in Asia and Africa till the end of 90s and epl on the whole was quite behind the Milans and Madrids and other teams from that area who although had poor absolute numbers, were still relatively better than EPL sans man utd.
Roman's push for brand recognition raised the visibility and value of EPL as a whole globally. English clubs were rather dormant in the mid 80s-90s in europe, not many big players came to england in their peak. Now you have EPL as the most preferred destination from the pov of whole league. Sure Barca has its latin american quota as a lot of players from s.america go there cause of, among other reasons, cultural familiarity and Madrid has money and influence to tap anyone but rest of the clubs in la liga get slim pickings compared to mid table clubs in PL. Look at Swansea, Everton, Newcastle, Spurs. And when you branch out of spain, no other club or league comes close to EPL's pull, both for emerging players and fans.
Like it or not, Chelsea under Roman put the wheels of epl in motion wrt bringing in money and eyeballs. It was not a solo job, it cannot be a solo job; other clubs too upped their efforts to replicate chelsea's moves in brand building. Then you had Jose and his (rightful) hype that made mind games and press bites exciting. Everyone loves a rebel and that is what Chelsea gave them. For most part Roman has been doing pretty well. Just look at India for example- the club here is almost as famous and popular as united, even among causal football watchers it has a good recognition. And is ahead of every other club. When the club is popularized, the whole league gets a mention, rivalries are talked about, etc. There are a lot more tv shows, live screenings and telecast, PR exercises and promotional tours in India about football than there were 6-7 years ago and almost all are done by PL clubs.
The 2012 CL final was reported/anchored from a sports bar in Delhi by Ten sports (which covers a lot many countries other than India in Asia) due to presence of Chelsea in the final and its large fan base in India. Agreed the panel at Ten is meh but the fact that they took the effort to fly their people here and do pre-mid-post match shows from a sports bar amongst the fans is a big thing and tells the importance of indian market's potential as deemed by the business side of the sport, and chelsea is proving to be one of the more if not most preferred medium of entry. Same is the case with other nations in the Asia-Africa region.
So all in all may be chelsea is not the single reason for EPL's resurgence, but it sure is a big one.
-
Finally a journalist speaking sense about Roman/Chelsea era. Compared to him, the other 3 people involved in the video look like complete idiots(most Chelsea fans would also react same tbh).
"Abramovich has been a corrosive influence on English football in this debate on Sky Sports News"
Awesome video. Yet the fans will continue to support this joke of a club. Disgusting.
DAT BUTT HURT
Millions of football fans across teams are ok with transfer dealings and change in the style of football from expansive to precise, even if they werent the beauty of the sport is that it welcomes any method as long as it is with in few clear rules of the game. Football is a very simple game in terms of rules and objectives. 22 men, two equally shaped boxes and a ball.
Any strategy can work and you got to use what is best for you. So no, it is not the hard style what is destroying football, it is the bitching and moaning of whiners that want the game to be played in only one fashion as per their needs cause they cant deal with being confronted with any other.
As for money power, well it is not for one club to decide. Sure player wages are inflated but as long as it is allowed by fifa/uefa any club with sufficient financial muscle would be foolish to not use it.
^ so basically arsenal has made no contribution to the EPL
to all arsenal fans who are represented by the two samples up there-
-
Had watched it long time back, it claims to be on a true story, but in reality it is based on a dubious claims of self obsessed drama queen. Except for some bits, I.e. the rape of minors, the open killing of Saddam s confidante and other smaller bits
Yeah, it is a far from certified story. There are questions even on Yahia's authenticity as a double. But then again the whole point of having a double is maintaining absolute secrecy and keeping the unlucky guy in total dark. it is difficult to entirely refute his claims. Also it is not as if Uday and Qusay were saints.
So it is more like a story based on few real events and lot of fiction which seems like truth cause of the character's reputation. Movie is pretty good though, I enjoyed it.
-
Seven Psychopaths. Yes? No?
Yes yes. Its the bees knees man. Love colin ferrel in such roles
st of the cast is superb too.
-
^^
thanks, try marta hu.
-
Clarence Seedorf
The Android Thread
in General Chatter
Posted
@Wolfy, this is for your question as well.
Agreed on the heating up part. I have noticed it too, and rather frequently for it to be an exception. Wolfy asked me to check this when I posted about my new phone. This is my observation after 9-10 days.
I dont play games on it and dont intend to, so dont have any input in that regards. I do surf a lot, listen to audio and occasionally read pdfs. Have noticed heating up at the upper back, near the small Z or N (depends on how u look at it) engraving. The heat wave is quite strong relative to the state of the area immediately before and after the said wave. It does not last long and happens randomly in the way that you cant time it, but it does happen in a prolonged usage.
I searched around on the web and it turns out that this is a common occurrence in xperia Zs.
Some of them had contacted sony about it and the official reply was somewhat along the lines of- "the heating up is a conscious choice so as to prevent any internal damage by releasing built up heat when it reaches a set limit."
So it seems that sony are aware of it and deem it non alarming, now if this is in actuality or are they bluffing us is not known. I am not a tech geek so dont know what this explanation by sony tells about their engineering choice or ability, BUT it seems common sense that i'd rather have the built up internal heat released on set periods rather than the temperature damaging delicate stuff inside.
Also till now this heat burst has not caused and problems with a device, I mean no such reports have been there, so am ok with this phenomenon.