THE WOLF'S DEN - Tana dei Lupi I

[Italiamia]

[Jamoldo]

[romawi]

[p_maldini_3]

[Italiamia]

Yes, of course we could have offered more money. You must hear Petrucci tell the story. If Roma would have offered more, he would have stayed. As he said it: "Roma slammed the door in my face..." He is only 16 and he did not want to leave Italy. It was not just about the money. He wanted a little more of course. But another reason Manure got him was because they gave his father a job. He is an expert giardiniere. Gardener is the word right?. The kid was not going to England alone.

You know how they love their gardens in England. Gardening is like sex to those people.

[romawi]

maldini, I understand that, but I thought that under law he could only be offered minimum wage and nothing more. If its the other way around then Roma fucked up even more than I thought.

[vtec]

[maro]

[maro]

[romawi]

[maro]

[edge_xeno]

[maro]

[maro]

For the controversialists among us, now that we have a little religious foment bubbling along nicely, I'd like to know what you guys think about the health system in the US. We watched 'Sicko' over the weekend which, as an aside, I thought was an extremely poorly made film, but I particular wonder what our North American contingent, from both sides of the northern border, think about nationalised (or 'socialised' health care). Certainly the NHS in the UK is creaking and all such systems will need a radical overhaul with the increasingly ageing nature of the world's population, but it's very hard for me to think that health isn't one of those things, like roads and education, say, which should be secured by the state. What happens to those in the States who can't get or don't have medical insurance and can't afford to pay for their treatment? And can't the benefits of a private system like that really ever justify the costs? I'm not really looking for a polemical argument here; I'm just very interested in the kinds of arguments which get rallied on the other side of the fence, as it were. I wonder, for instance, what our free-market Canadians think about the way things are done on their side of the border.

[edge_xeno]

akhhhh, mido is taking on his former team Spurs in the opening fixture in the Premiershit, while Spurs are playing Roma in a friendly match before the Boro match as a warm up.

Anyways, in a more promising news, Luis Fabiano, Sevilla's striker has publicly declared that he want to join us, and apparently Doni is leading the negotiations, Luis Fabiano have 12 million Euro release clause.

[w2k]

Apparently some 3rd party company called Global Soccer Investment. Isn't it illegal for a private company to own a player?.

[maro]

Only in the Premiershit, I think, w2k. Or, at least, not within the Brazilian and Argentinian leagues, I believe, but certainly within some of the European ones.

[w2k]

ok then in the article it says that the transfer will be more complicated because Global Soccer Investment owns the players contract. Why would it be more complicated for?

[maro]

Presumably because there's some curious arrangement between GSI and the club - co-ownership, say, or some other contractual arrangement - and therefore the transfer would need to be agreed between all four parties, rather than just between the two clubs involved and the player, if you see what I mean. If either GSI or Sevilla isn't keen to sell, then it might prove impossible to push the deal through and presumably there's every chance that GSI will want one thing and Sevilla another (so, for instance, if one club were offering more of a cut to one party than to the other, say).

[maro]

That, for instance, was partly what happened with Tevez's controversial move to Manure. There were additional complications there since West Ham had had to 'prove' that they owned the player's registration to avoid a points-deduction when, in fact, Tevez was clearly in some way or another still tied to what'shisnamedodgybastard. Still, the principle is the same. West Ham didn't want to sell and WHNDB did.