A40: I think the lower weights have a lot of good fighters which is why it's a travesty none of them have fought. Just carrying fugazi 0s all over their record
Haney, Tank Davis, Shakur all in the sake weight classes nobody has fought themselves
I was thinking about this yesterday. The problem with the lower divisions is that every 4-5 pounds is another weight class. When you factor in 4-5 belts per weight class (with all the regular, super, and interim championships) there are at least a dozen ways to meander through and win title fights and money while avoiding dangerous opponents.
Roland17: Which kain injury hold Lonzo Ball like dis? Kid has been ruled out of the upcoming season!!
Last season i read a rumour suggesting that the feeling within the organisation is that he might never play again. Apparently his knee is messed up really bad.
TrebleChamp: Managers have resigned from bad working condition. Gennaro Gattuso resigned at Ac Milan for missing out on CL and the the Club insistence on not buying players the following season, he did same at Fiorentina for the similar reason. But not all managers can do that, most managers today are more interested in hefty compensation when sacked. But we all agree it is the manager that takes the fall if results are bad, almost everybody here will criticise him next season if the football is horrible again...
I said they almost never resign. Most managers don't resign. Most times also the manager complaining makes no difference. The Gattuso example buttresses my point. I am sure Gattuso complained and it didn't work which is why he resigned.
You are asking ETH to do things which will make no difference to transfer window. Complaining does not work most of the time, and definitely does not work with the Glazers. Maybe most managers don't have huge assets accumulated from their playing career like Gattuso which is why they don't resign. I am sure you wouldn't want your family member to lose out on millions just because of the incompetence of his employers in the transfer window.
If the football is horrible we will criticize him for playing horrible football, not because he didn't complain to the owners about transfers. It is not like if he complains to the owners but plays horrible football we will absolve him of blame. The quality of football is what will determine the criticism, not whether he complained or not.
TrebleChamp: I am also blaming the board, i want action in the transfer window but i cannot influence the board to act. Ten Hag can, and if after asking nicely the board still does not sign him players, he should resign and save himself the insult that would come with bad result. This was also by stand at the start of last season, how people saw it as supporting the board over him surprised me...
Bros, almost nobody resigns. Mourinho, Conte, Moyes etc.
Reigning means they will likely lose out on compensation. In terms of complaining to the board, our recent history tells us it will make no difference. Mourinho a more experienced and illustrious manager complained with aggression, yet nothing changed, and he got sacked later. Ole a very timid manager with very little experience did not complain and nothing changed and was also sacked later.
Glazers will do what Glazers want to do. A manager complaining will achieve nothing, and a manager resigning will only lose himself millions of dollars.
The main thing we should hope for is a change to new owners that will be more competent in how they run the club.
patrickmuf: If I am the manager, I'll resign because when things go south, the same board will still sack him...
The board should do better but the man who will bear the brunt of their ineptitude should do well to distance himself from the BS!
Summarily, I think you have a point just the same way those who blame the board have a strong argument.
Why would he resign and lose millions because other people are not doing their job. Just so faceless people on NL that he has never heard about won't drag him. LOL
For obvious managerial issues like his overusing of certain players, his slow in-game adjustments, and his pursuit of mediocre players like Weghorst (and to a lesser extent Mount), he deserves criticism.
But i don't think he deserves the bulk of the criticism for our general transfer malaise which is almost identical to what we have had almost every season and predates him by about 10 years. These same issues have been going on since David Moyes and this is manager No 5.
Mourinho complained and nothing changed YET he didn't resign. He waited like a wise man until he was sacked and got his money. ETH complaining won't change anything. If he complains like Mourinho nothing will change, and he will still be sacked later AND if he does not complain like Ole nothing will change, and he will still be sacked later.
He might not be blameless but the bulk of the blame should be with the ownership and club management. In this particular case it is obvious that those people are focusing on the club sale rather than player transfer, which is why the delay in selling the club is a huge problem.
GloriousGbola: I am an electrical engineer by training. I am currently overseeing a project with large civil aspects. If a member of my team fks up, so I say o my bad I am not a civil engineer, therefore blame my team member?
How many times do we have to explain this to you?
Ogantable times.
When you hear Ride or Die, na monerozi dem dey talk about.
BlueRayDick: Shebi I talk am, dem say I no know storyline . The series is not exciting like most people make it seem. When I was watching it last year, at a point I felt maybe I was watching the parody version because the thing no too tight like I had seen it hyped .
PS: I’m not saying it’s a bad show o.
Soro soke. Nobody will gag you.
P.S I believe it was Breaking Bad you were talking about.
You don’t like Breaking Bad. You don’t like The Wire. Na wa for you o!
TrebleChamp: You and other fans have been criticising the Glazers for years, yet nothing happened. Ronaldo criticize them once and they put the club up for sale, but Ronaldo disrespected the club according of some of you. I will have Ten Hag time when season start, for now let him be doing Yes sir to the Glazers. The dragging go sha loud if the footy is horrible.....
Don’t confuse yourself. Walking away from the stadium (and his teammates) during an ongoing match is the disrespect that Ronaldo showed. It wasn’t because of his criticism of the Glazers.
Also if you truly think Ronaldo criticising the Glazers is what made them decide to sell the club then I have a bridge to sell to you.
BlueRayDick: There’s nothing bad in admitting he was wrong and taking down whatever post he has made based the inaccurate data/news reportage .
Festus Keyamo who is Senior Advicate of Nigeria was congratulating Binani on her illegal victory ; he even described it glowingly as a glass-shattering watershed for Nigerian women…... I’m not sure I saw his tweet apologizing to the governor and admitting he was misled .
You too hype this guy sha. So na copy and paste e too dey do?
Good that he made a public correction and apology sha.
The thing is the Sections 28, 177, 182 that we have been quoting here are from the 1999 Constitution not the Electoral Act of 2001.
If Section 28 is accepted as applying to Non-birth citizens then Section 182 is not necessary since Section 177 already states that only birth-citizens can be governor.
It is either the lawyers who framed constitution are incompetent or they are running a scam for us to keep having court cases so they can feed their family in perpetuity.
larride: That's what I'm saying, That section 66(1) a, it's practically the same thing with section 182 (a) with exact wordings.
See the screenshot.
It can apply to NASS because members of NASS can be Nigerians by naturalisation and not only by birth.
That section 182 has no place in the constitution. Section 177 has already stated clearly that only Nigerians by birth can be governor so what is another section (Section 182) which has nothing to do with Nigerians by birth doing there again?
That section will never apply to anyone.
Do you know what, let’s do an exercise. Can you give me a scenario whereby a candidate is Nigerian by birth thereby fulfilling Section 177 but is also not Nigerian by birth and acquires dual citizenship thereby susceptible to disqualification under Section 182?
Or better yet, simply describe to me any scenario in which Section 182 disqualifies anybody.
The beginning of that section 182 says subject to Section 28.
Here is what section 28 (1) says:
"Subject to other provisions of this section, a person shall forfeit forthwith his citizenship if, not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship of or nationality of a country, other that Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth."
Meaning you only lose your citizenship if you are not a citizen by birth then go ahead to acquire or retain another country citizenship.
Hamzat is a Nigerian by birth, he can hold dual citizenship and contest for elective office.
If that’s the case then Section 182 has no place in the constitution cos it is just adding to the confusion.
Why would you put a section concerning Nigerians not by birth in the governor’s eligibility criteria when earlier in section 177 it is stated clearly that only Nigerians by birth can be governor.
That means section 182 will never ever apply to anyone.
Once again the people who framed this constitution need to be flogged. Meanwhile the lawyer explaining it just went round and round without clarifying specific issues. No wonder our lawyers frame confusing laws.
The only explanation I can give for the “Subject to Section 28” in that Section 182 which will exonerate Hamzat is that they meant people who are not Nigerians by birth can’t acquire dual citizenship elsewhere and still run for governor. If that’s the case then Section 182 is superfluous as Section 177 already states that only citizens by birth can be governors.
On face value Section 182 states that if you voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country you can’t run for governor.
Prior rulings have to be viewed in context because while the constitution requires governors and presidents to be Nigerian by birth, it allows representatives just to be Nigerian (by birth or otherwise).
BlueRayDick: The section 182 is very clear , I guess that was why Saraki was able to scale that hurdle cos it doesn't apply to him.
This section 182 and 187 be like say Hamzat get case to answer o.
Somehow I feel INEC is at fault sha, I guess they don't even check documents submitted to them by politician alongside the provision of the constitution. If they did, they would've spotted this and disqualified him before the election. Or what do u think?
Yeah it looks clear to me the more I read it.
Saraki was able to scale on that technicality of his UK citizenship not being voluntary.
If the courts are fair e be like say Hamzat’s stay will be a very brief one.
aieromon: Section 28 of the constitution recognises dual citizenship. A Nigerian by birth cannot renounce citizenship except by approval of the President. That was the reason for sharing Section 29.
Section 182 made reference to Section 28.
Several judgements from the Appeal Court have aligned with this position.
I don’t know the Appeal court judgements you mentioned but that section 182 that you underlined appears to say someone who has voluntarily acquired dual citizenship CAN’T be governor. You should read the entire statement rather than just the 3 words you underlined.
TrebleChamp: Greed my broda, greed. £6b isn't enough for the greedy bas.tards, they were hoping Ratcliffe will make a new bid which will force the Sheikh to raise his own bid.
Hopefully the deal is announced early July...
Greed? If they are so greedy why is the manager not voicing out his frustration? This delay in selling the club will mess up the player transfers o!
If we fans can voice out our concerns, why can’t the manager do the same?
aieromon: Constitution is very clear. As long as you are a citizen by birth or birthed to Nigerian parents, you are allowed the right to hold dual citizenship and nothing bars you from holding a political office.
Saraki had the same issue and it died a natural death in 2015.
What you posted is No 29 which has to do with citizenship generally.
Go to No 182 which has to do with criteria to be a governor and tell me what you think of it. Remember that Saraki didn’t VOLUNTARILY acquire UK citizenship.
BlueRayDick: I don't think u are wrong and I don't think Larride is either.
I think from what I've read thus far, whatever oath Hamzat must have sworn while naturalizing as an American does not make him no longer a Nigerian. As far as naija constitution is cocerned, He is still a Nigerian despite holding an American passport alongside the green passport.
I may be wrong tho.
You are right. The only way a Nigerian by birth can lose his citizenship is if the president approves it. So as a Nigerian by birth the only way you can lose your citizenship is if you agree and the president agrees.
The question is can you be a dual citizen and still be a governor. The constitution seems to be muddled about it and it appears to me that you can’t, but it seems from precedence that is not the case.