I was told some time back that Corluka has a photo taken with a Spurs shirt, and now someone has done some investigation on the picture below which is from Spurs website and it is actually taken on 8th Aug!!!Edited by gary1910 01 Sep `08, 6:16PM
As I said yesterday evening that Corluka deal is done as many inside sources have said, make me a bit worried becos he did play for Man City last night but according to my sources , there is no medical becos it was done weeks ago b4 Hughes pull the plug at the last minute.
Well now is official:
Corluka deal agreed
We are delighted to announce that we have reached agreement with Manchester City for the transfer of Vedran Corluka to the Club.
The defender, 22, is an international team-mate of Luka Modric and has been capped 24 times by Croatia, playing in every match of the recent European Championships.
Corluka came through the ranks at Dynamo Zagreb and after a season on loan at NK Inter Zapresic, won successive titles with Dynamo in 2006 and 2007.
He left for the Premier League and Manchester City in August 2007, where he featured at right-back, centre-back and in midfield, making 41 appearances in all competitions.
Corluka said: "I am delighted to be here because I am coming to a big club with great players, great ambition and also my best friend [Luka Modric] is here so it is a very happy day for me."Edited by gary1910 01 Sep `08, 5:18PM
What I heard has already posted up there, but today I heard another conflicting info,Spurs and ManU was not in good term, some members of the Spurs' board rather make a stand against ManU for the way they try to tap Berbatov that they rather sell him to a German club than to ManU, true or not I am not sure.
Anyway most info I gathered was that Spurs and ManU actually agreed on the price as in my previous post, the problem at one stage ManU could only afford £15m atm and therefore agreed to pay off the rest in instalments, so price has been agreed.
But Spurs was still holding out becos there was no new striker coming in then.
Some other rumours was that Barbatov was also in Monaco to settle deal ManU rep there and at same time Spurs rep was also there for Ashavin deal etc.
Pavlyuchenko deal agreed
We are delighted to announce that we have reached agreement with Spartak Moscow for the transfer of Roman Pavlyuchenko to the Club.
The striker, 26, has been capped 22 times by Russia and scored nine goals.
Roman hit the headlines in October, 2007 when he scored both goals as Russia beat England 2-1 in European Championship qualifying.
He followed that up with three goals in five games in this summer's finals - including goals against Holland and eventual winners Spain - as Russia reached the semi-finals.
Born in Mostovskoy, Roman started with local club FC Dinamo Stavropol before moving to FC Rotor Volgograd in the top flight in 2000. He switched to Spartak Moscow in 2003 and topped the goalscoring charts in Russia's Premier League in 2006 and 2007.
Well Spurs is one of richest club in UK and 12th biggest football club in the world according to Forbes, here the link:
My own summary on Spurs on UK alone:
Summary for Spurs in UK:
In term of valuation fifth in whole of UK & 12th in the world at USD414m.
1) ManU------------- USD1.8b
2) Arsenal---------- USD1.2b
3) Pool------------- USD1.05b
4) Chelsea---------- USD764m
5) Spurs------------ USD414m
In term of revenue, also fifth in UK and 10th in the world at USD207m.
1) ManU------------- USD394m
2) Chelsea---------- USD382m
3) Arsenal--------- USD329m
5) Spurs---------- USD207m
Growth in value, 2nd in that list in UK
2) Spurs---------- 70%
In term of operating #, 3rd in UK and 6th in the whole world at USD64m.(Even beat Pool,Chelski, Milan , Roma etc at that)
1) ManU------------- USD111m
2) Arsenal--------- USD77m
3) Spurs----------- USD64m
So Spurs w/o CL football and only UEFA cup competition is able achieve healthy revenue as compare to the big 4, but what more impressive is the operating profit which is 3rd in the whole UK after ManU and Arsenal!
But becos both ManU and Arsenal are heavily in debt, they dun have much to spend on the transfer mkt whereas Spurs has little debt, so in reality it could afford to spend much more than them.
Anyway so far Spurs the net spending for Spurs before this week was actually very low, here a summary so far created by someone else afew weeks ago , (please note that some of the figure are based on news reports and guesstimate rather than official figures) :
Heurelho Gomes - 7m
Cesar Sanchez - 200k
John Bostock - 2m
Luka Modric - 16.5m
David Bentley - 17m
Giovani dos Santos - 8.6m
TOTAL - £51.3m
Radek Cerny - contract expired
Paul Robinson - 3.5m
Anthony Gardner - 2.5m
Younes Kaboul - 6m
[Pascal Chimbonda |
Teemu Tainio |
Steed Malbranque] - 17m
Robbie Keane - 20.3m
TOTAL - £49.3m
NET SPEND - £2m
Anyway , having the money and getting the player you want is 2 different thing.
Some want CL football which Spurs is not in it, some clubs demand highly inflated prices for their best player (Ashavin is one example), some players demand high wages which erode the profit( Eto'o) etc.
Spurs started well in the transfer mkt by strengthen the midfield but getting the defence sorted face problems with Dunne and later Corluka, then came Keane demand for transfer when Pool stepped in with £20m for the 28y.o. and later Berbatov do likewise.
Well, we have to wait whether Spurs could get their targeted players which by then allow Spurs to sell Berbatov(for £28m?).
Here one which should be done by this week, Roman Pavlyuchenko arrives at Spurs Lodge.
Arsenal is cash strapped due to the new stadium, not whether its is foreign owned or not.
Outlining the harsh realities of life at the Emirates, Wenger said: 'The strategy of the club is to sell every year and to buy less expensive players.
'We manage at Arsenal to maintain all our football ambition, national and European, while having to free up - for 17 more years - an annual surplus of £24m to pay for our stadium.
'The club's strategy is to favour the policy of youngsters ahead of stars and to count on the collective quality of our game.'
So the situation for Arsenal will continue for number of seasons.
Pavlyuchenko is more or less definite & will sign after the medical on this Friday as the terms have being agreed upon.
As for Huntelaar, inside info said is unlikely, but we will never know.
Spurs is looking at a number of other options, Ashavin deal may just come true at the last minute, Zenit is holding up for more money but Levy has placed a last offer on the table and leave it at that, now only waiting for Zenit to accept or deny.
Another striker on the card is South American Falcao, term has being agreed upon and likely to be easier than Ashavin deal.
On the defensive side, Corluka deal is not dead yet,firstly with the player wanted to join Spurs and 2ndly Spurs may threaten to sue Man City about the last minute pulled up.Latest is Man City is going to sign another defender and may let Corluka go.
Veloso is another target,not much info on this though.
As for Berbatov, he is certainly leaving Spurs, the deal is 15 million upfront and 13 over the next two years. There are add-ons, which will be spread across his four year contract. Deal is for around 90,000 a week, but Spurs won't allow a medical or his registration to be released until at least one striker signs.Edited by gary1910 28 Aug `08, 5:24PM
He is certainly will be going but where to is not finalised yet.
Inside story I heard was that Spurs players are not happy with his attitude and even a small tiff with Woodgate just a few days ago.
Anyway , Spurs need at another striker to backup Bent so need to buy at least one more striker(Ashavin perhaps and Dos Santos could play as a striker as well.)
Next they need another defensive player, Corluka saga which is not over yet, apparently Spurs has submitted the transfer paper to the FA whereas MCFC has not, & Spurs has lodged a complaint to the FA and awaiting for their ruling. It could even go to court.
Anyway I heard that Spurs signings is not done yet.
Giovani dos Santos
Anthony Gardner - on loan
It is matter of time that Spurs will overtake Arse, reason is becos of the high debt burden incur for the construction of the Emirates Stadium.
IIRC Arse need to pay off 24mil pounds annually for the next 17 years and Wenger could only afford to buy low cost player( young & inexperineced) rather than proven player.
And may even have to sell star player of their own just to finance new buying.
So if the above remains for next 17 years, then Arse will be either stagnant and eventually slide down the table,whereas Spurs which is the 3rd most profitable club in UK according to Forbes and with little debt will continue to spend big in transfer mkt and could be very well in the top 4 within 2~3 season.
What goondu statement!!! LOL
If you reclaim southward so that it will not narrow the channel, we too could also reclaim northward so that it will not narrow the channel!!!
As for SL, MY FM recent interview with press:
You head the technical committee for Malaysia to determine the South Ledge issue. What will you propose?
Actually, my idea is to propose to Singapore to let fishermen from both countries have access to the entire area. That would be the humane thing to do. Indonesian fishermen should also be allowed in as South Ledge is southward looking. This has never been proposed. But of course, I don't mean trawler fishermen. I will visit the area with my Singapore counterpart George Yeo soon.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/1/nation/21422620&sec=nation<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Wow,suddenly MY became so generous!!!LOL
Do you know why?
That is becos South Ledge is a low tide elevation that does not generate it's own territorial water, EEZ and continental shelves, which means no economical value i.e. just piece of nuisance.
In fact, SG should now issue a statement that disclaim any ownership to SL, let MY has it, and if Indon want to contest it with MY, let them sort it out between themselves. :)Edited by gary1910 06 Jun `08, 11:29PM
No, 1844 letter does not matter at all.
If you read the ICJ judgment , you will know what I mean.
117. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Malaysia has established to the satisfaction of the Court that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.
(pg 36 )
So as in 1844, the judges has already ruled that PB was still under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor, the context of that 1844 letter does not matter, after all the judges have already ruled in MY favour.
But in pg 49
163. In light of the above, the Court will now consider the conduct of the Parties after the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to ascertain whether this provides a basis for concluding that sovereignty over the island was passed from Johor to the United Kingdom, Singapore’s predecessor.
So what were the conduct of both parties that came into play after 1851 to 1980?
Well you could read the whole judgment on it, basically from 1851 onward, SG has exercised a titre de souverain or "acts consistent with being a Sovereign" on the 3 landmarks especially on Pedra Branca and there was no protest from MY before 1979.
And especially MY thru 1953 letters and 11 official maps prior to 1979 had admitted that Padra Branca belongs to SG, which effectively ceded Pedra Branca to SG.
(Read from pg 74 on the final judgment on PB from para 273 to 277.)
So in conclusion, if anyone actually read the entire ICJ Judgment, he will not make any stupid comment on the 1844 letter regardless of the content, becos the judges has already ruled that PB was still under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor in 1844.
The final judgment was based on the conduct of both parties on PB after 1851, which in this case the judges has ruled that MY effectively passed the sovereignty over the island from Johor to Singapore!!!
Today's first NDP rehearsal pixs.
You sure or not?
The best time to sign on was in the early 70s where SAF was growing so needed a lot of regulars, but problem was at that time ,not many wanted to sign on especially the Chinese.
Those sign on then were mostly under Pensionary Service(PS), i.e. iron rice bowl plus pension after retirement!
Those regulars that were outstanding went thru fast track promotion due to the growing SAF.
But in the 80s,this started to change, not many get PS except outstanding one who later were converted from Contract Service(CS) to PS.
Then from late 80s onward, if the regulars were offered 3 yrs extension of CS instead of 6 yrs, it was SAF way to tell you after that 3 yrs, your service was no longer required!!!
I am not sure abt what is the situation now, but I dun think that it will be better than in the 70s.Edited by gary1910 03 Jun `08, 6:06PM
Dun worry lah, I think this unilateral change of name means nothing, it is simply sheer stupidity!! LOL
During ICJ ruling, the judges have already given the legal definition for each landmarks:
16. Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is a granite island, measuring 137 m long, with an average width of 60 m and covering an area of about 8,560 sq m at low tide. It is situated at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore, at the point where the Straits open up into the South China Sea. Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is located at 1° 19' 48" N and 104° 24' 27" E.
As for desciption in ICJ ruling for Middle rocks is "two clusters of small rocks" and South Ledge "is a rock formation only visible at low-tide."
Even when dealing with the 1953 letters, the then Colonial Secretary of Singapore described it as "the rocks" , but in the court view , when giving judgment, it put inverted comma over "the rocks', as if the description is inconsistent with the current rules and regulation.
204. The Singapore letter of 12 June 1953 seeks information about “the rock” as a whole and not simply about the lighthouse......
So the ICJ court has already defined each of them according to int'l laws, so they cannot suka suka change that fact, so do we need to worry!?!LOL
Afterall, just like the ICJ case over Pedra Branca, MY thru 1953 letters and 11 official maps prior to 1979 had already admitted that Padra Branca belongs to SG.
Likewise for the name change,MY prior to the ICJ judgment, MY had thru various official statements to the Press and during the proceedings in ICJ etc, I think at least a hundred times had referred (i.e. admitted) Pedra Branca as an Island!!!
Afterall, I believe there are internationally recognised legal definition of Islands and Rocks just in case for such dispute, especially if there is a difference between an Islands and Rocks regarding territorial seas, then there should be legal definition for Islands and Rocks.
So there is no fxxking chance that this unilateral change of description will have any implication over the negotiation of territorial seas!!!
Those loser is only good at twisting facts, insinuating and produce bogus evidence from a blog, other then that totally no substance!!! LolEdited by gary1910 01 Jun `08, 2:58AM
Originally posted by elindra:
Even I as a layman in legal matters and not even in politics went to read up ICJ judgment on Pedra Branca.
From there clearly stated that SG does not claim that piece of Banana.
So when Malaysia politicians started to "safeguard that Pisang", clearly shown us those so called politicians did not even bother to read up the rulings!!! LOL
Either they are English tak tahu or they did not even read up the history of Pulau Pisang before uttering nonsense.
Something similar to the threadstarter!!!LOL
Originally posted by idwar:
Hello Gary 1910
I know my history. It's you who kapo the info on Sultan Hussein from Sammyboy forum originally posted by "thePlen." Shame on yourself without acknowleging your sources..........
If you had read my post correctly, I had already said the present Sultanate of Johore did not come from the original royal house. That is why I said they were descended from a Pirate who usurped the throne and then begged the British the recognise him as Sultan.
I also made it clear that the true sultan was the brother in Rhio. Raffles planted his elder brother Hussein on the throne. Hussein cannot sign away Singapore island. Neither can the Pirate-sultan of Johore who appeared later on the scene.
So there are 3 parties in this story:
1. Hussein - fake sultan appointed by Raffles
2. Temenggong who became Johore Pirate Sultan
3. Younger brother Ab. Rahman who remained in Rhio and never came to Singapore at all.
get the picture? I sometimes feel i am wasting my time trying to educate kids in here who think they know everything. Typical Singaporeans.....
Anyway, my point is this: the documents relating to the birth of British Singapore was signed by a fake pretender Sultan who was placed on the throne by Raffles himself. So the document was illegal in the first place. Singapore's birth in 1819 /1824 was illegitimate.......Singapore was recognised only by the British and those locals who sold out to the British!
Even the separation on 1965 was suspect in legal terms........ it was the brainchild of the Tengku which was not endorsed in a Referendum on both sides of the causeway. There was no "self-determination" by the public. It was all a Wayang show by the politicians.
When Singapore joined Malaysia, there was a Referendum to determine the wishes of the people. How come when Singapore left, there was no Referendum?
I dun need to plargising anyone as this is available in historical records and the nets of the reputable sources( not wiki).
Based on the links I have provided tell that I dun need to and I have done my own research.
2ndly you neglect to mentioned that Tengku Abdul Rahman actually signed away the land of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate!!!!
Now let’s start at the beginning, both Tengku Hussein Shah & Tengku Abdul Rahman were not the sons of the royal consort of the late Sultan Mahmud III, they were illegitimate sons of the late Sultan., so if the royal consort had a son , they were not even be considered.
Now with the CONSPIRACY THEORY, when Tengku Hussein Shah went to Pahang for marriage, the late Sultan suddenly died.
With Tengku Hussein Shah absence from the court, Tengku Abdul Rahman with the help of the Bugis faction and the Dutch support , proclaimed himself as the new Sultan.
The problem was, the royal consort of the late Sultan did not passed to him the royal nobat etc i.e. recognising him as the new Sultan, the reasons was/were :
1) Tengku Hussein Shah should be the heir to the throne , after all he was the elder son, in fact many records said he was the rightful heir, not Tengku Abdul Rahman. Idwar , it seem that you know sh!t abt your own history!!!
2) There was a rumour that the late Sultan was actually poisoned, i.e. assassinated.( This was even recorded in some history books)
Likely suspects were Tengku Abdul Rahman and his Bugis faction supporters.
Now come the interesting part which you neglect to mention, Tengku Abdul Rahman with the help of the Dutch, was able to get the nobet and forced Tengku Hussein Shah to exile in Riau.
After he had consolidated the court under him, he later signed away the land of the Johor-Riau Sultanate to the Dutch in 1818!!!!
(Some history here, the Dutch has signed a treaty with Sultanate in 1785 which put the Sultanate in the control of the Dutch, http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah03.shtml, but in 1818, similar treaty was signed by Tengku Abdul Rahman with the Dutch again)
So when Tengku Hussein Shah signed a similar treaty with the British for SG, there was dispute of who was controlling the land of the Sultanate, British or the Dutch.
So in 1824, the British and the Dutch signed a treaty to split the old Johor-Riau Sultanate into 2 halves, one controlling each half.
After the treaty, Tengku Hussein Shah was bestowed the Sultan of new Johor Sultanate and he signed away all the land away, and Tengku Abdul Rahman was bestowed the Sultan of new Riau Sultanate and moved to Riau with all his supporters.
So in conclusion,
1) Sultan Hussein Shah was the rightful heir to the old Johor-Riau Sultanate as many historical records have stated. Your statement that Sultan Abdul Rahman was the rightful heir to the old Johor-Riau Sultanate was not even supported by historical records. Further points at the below does not actually matter for this debate, they only reinforce my argument.
2) Both sons had actually signed away the land the old Sultanate( in 1818 and in 1824), so it is actually does not matter who was the rightful heir, they and their descendents dun own it anymore.
3) The facts that in 1824, British and the Dutch split the old Sultanate into 2 shown who were control of the land, and both Sultan Hussein Shah and Sultan Abdul Rahman agreed to it shown they were just puppet Sultans of the British and Dutch respectively, because both of them came into “power” with their help.Edited by gary1910 27 May `08, 6:52PM
That is not the end of the story, after 1824 treaty, the Sultan Hussein Shah of the new Sultanate of Johor later signed away his ruler rights to the British in return for cash payment and annual pension (which SG govt is still paying for the Sultan's descendants ),so he was a name only Sultan with no real power.
In fact, current Sultan of Johor is not Sultan Hussein Shah's descendant!!!
He is the descendant of Temengong Abdul Rahman (same name but but not the same person as Tengku Abdul Rahman who later became Sultan of Riau Sultanate under the Dutch,the brother of Sultan Hussein Shah)
So idwar, you have mixed up the 2 because they have the same name!!!
So how did the descendant of Temengong Abdul Rahman became the Sultan of Johor?
After the death of Sultan Ali (son of Sultan Hussein Shah), Temengong Abdul Rahman's grandson, Abu Bakar asked the British Crown, Queen Victoria that he was to be bestowed as the new Sultan of Johor,Queen Victoria agreed and he and his family moved from SG to Johor to become the new royal family of Johor.
So in reality, the current Sultan of Johor is not the actual descendant of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate and even worse not the actual descendant of new Johor Sultanate of Sultan Hussein Shah!!!
He is the descendant of the puppet Sultan Abu Bakar created by the British who father and grandfather before him were all pro-British and not the true heir of the original Johor-Riau Sultanate!!!
In fact, Sultan Hussein Shah and later Sultan Ali were quite badly treated by the British and tried to forced them out of SG then, perhaps because they are true heir of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate.
So if anyone want to claim any portion of the old Johor-Riau Sultanate then it should be the actual descendant of Sultan Hussein Shah which are still living in SG!!!
(But please note the family has signed it away in the Crawford treaty)
So idwar, if you dunno your history , dun try to act smart by twisting facts, it only make you look stupid by being a ignorant fool!!!!!Edited by gary1910 27 May `08, 2:50AM