Vergeleken met hetzelfde onderzoek van een jaar eerder, blijkt dat Ajax twee plaatsen is gestegen. In het seizoen 2010/’11 wisten de Amsterdammers 97,1 miljoen binnen te halen, afgelopen seizoen was dat 104,1 miljoen. Een stijging van zo’n 7%.

In de Top-20 staan alleen clubs uit de vijf grootste Europese voetballanden (Engeland, Duitsland, Spanje, Frankrijk en Italie). Met tv-rechten, sponsorinkomsten en merchandising profiteren deze landen maximaal van hun omvang en populariteit. Ajax, Benfica en Galatasaray zijn de enige ‘andere’ clubs bij de eerste dertig in de lijst.

Bron: 1900 Magazine

Background
Mr Ingleby was the former CFO of Australian Wheat Board. ASIC commenced proceedings against him for infringements of the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC and Mr Ingleby negotiated agreed penalties, which would require Mr Ingleby to pay $40 000, and be disqualified from corporate management for 15 months. They also negotiated an agreed statement of facts, before turning to the court to approve the settlement.

At first instance, Robson J of the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to endorse the settlement, considering it to be excessive. His Honour was unable to reconcile the agreed statement of facts with the documentary evidence available. He therefore made a declaration of contravention under s 1317E(1) of the Corporations Act in respect of one admitted contravention, banned him from managing a corporation until the end of 2012 and fined him $10 000 for his involvement in co-authorising payments by AWB in breach of the United Nation’s Oil For Food Program. ASIC appealed the decision to the Victorian Court of Appeal.

ASIC v Ingleby [2013] VSCA 49
The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Robson J’s decision. The Court found that the penalties imposed at first instance did not reflect Mr Ingleby’s culpability and restored those contained in the negotiated penalty agreement. Nonetheless, Justices Weinberg and Harper were very critical of negotiated settlement agreements, outlining the following concerns:

-          The imposition of a penalty is a strictly judicial power, and not one that should be exercised by regulators. Courts should not act as mere ‘rubber stamps’.

-          Lack of transparency in negotiated settlements.

-          Penalties are sometimes inappropriately low.

-          Agreed penalties do not provide a good measure as to what will be agreed in later cases.

-          Agreements are not necessarily grounded in fact and upon legal principle, and it is difficult for courts to determine the accuracy of the agreed statement of facts presented to it.

The Court suggested that comprehensive agreed statements of facts are essential to a functioning negotiated settlement agreement. If parties want an agreed penalty to be endorsed, they must draft a clear, accurate and detailed agreed statement of facts. In ASIC v Ingleby, the Court doubted the sufficiency of the agreed statement of facts as a basis for which to reach an appropriate penalty agreement.

The decision seems to undermine the purpose of negotiated penalty agreements, and decrease administrative efficiency within the courts. Further, the requirement that agreed statements of facts be more detailed may result in lengthier and more difficult negotiations in the future.

Other cases, such as Frozen Foods Pty Limited v ACCC [1996] FCA 1134 and Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 have recognised the importance of negotiated agreements, resulting in uncertainty in the area. The divergence of authorities will no doubt be resolved by the High Court in the fullness of time.

很多時候人會有種感覺，感到面前一片黑暗，感到未來一片迷茫，感到不知所措，好像無路可走－對於那些不喜歡走別人所開拓的思想道路的人來說特別是這樣。啃食別人的糟粕，將食糜當作瓊漿玉液啜飲的人，在他們眼中是不值一哂的。一個人自我完善的成就在於他能建立屬於自己的思想體系，用自己的方式來了解世界。而若他的思想能夠感動其他人，幫助其他人建立自己的思想，那就更加了不起了。但是尋找自己思想的旅途往往是孤獨的，是寂寞的，是荒涼而毫無生氣的。舉目，望向心靈的遼闊荒原，只見團團的霧氣在土地上聚散不已。那是聖經所記載的天地初開，那是傳說中的宇宙洪荒，那是最最古老的世界。

當時地上的原也還沒有樹叢，野地的植物還沒有長起來，因為耶和華上帝還沒有降雨在地上，也沒有人耕種土地。
只是有霧氣從地上升起，滋潤全地。

而人不禁會感到茫然。這種茫然之感，我在無數的時刻感受過，未來也必定會繼續感覺到。不過我很幸運地聽到了一句話，是值得與所有追尋自己思想的人分享的：

“敢問路在何方？”
“路在腳下。”

只要你還在走，那就永遠都會有路。你所走過的地方將成為道路，後來者將在你走出的路上繼續探索，繼續開拓出更多道路。

我們常常會說別走上歪路，但是甚麼路叫做歪路？除了傷害別人的事情不應該做，其他的事情（甚至從結果來看是傷害自己的事）我找不到禁止的理由，當然這是根據時下流行，我也深浸其中的自由思想所發的言論。人可以出於自由給自己套上一定的枷鎖，正如我選擇了基督教，以聖經裡面的誡命作為我的限制一樣。不過對於不信聖經的人，我不會用聖經的戒律加以譴責，因為這是一個自由的世界，而我既然沒辦法以客觀的方式證明聖經為真（聖經的真實性不能以實驗證明，這點我是需要承認的，這是所有宗教的特性。哪天哪一個宗教的真實性可以由實驗證明，那世界上將不會存在其他宗教），那我就不應該用聖經的誡命去鎮壓其他人。

剛好可以講講最近NTU版上的同性戀事件，距離同一個議題上一次的風潮已經是一年過去，我姑且回顧了一下我當時網誌的文章，發現當時真的是年少氣盛，用詞都相當強硬。不過也許是成長的緣故吧，我現在的詞句柔和些了，不過我還是要重複一下我的論調：我反對同性戀的行為，但是同性戀者要做甚麼我管不著，他們要出櫃要結婚甚至要對我有意思（咳，當我從朋友的朋友聽到這件事時實在很懷疑，不過他言之鑿鑿，姑且相信吧），我都沒有辦法去禁止，儘管我是反對的。

我想很多同性戀者聽到上面反對同性戀就會跳腳了，但是我必須要很清楚地說，我反對一種行為不表示我禁止他們去做或是拒絕承認他們有權利去做某些事情，我只是反對。就像是酗酒好了，我反對酗酒，因為我覺得這種行為傷害自己也可能傷害別人，但是別人愛怎樣喝是他的事情，喝到暴斃也是他的自由。同樣的，我反對同性戀行為，一方面是聖經裡的誡命將他列為不潔而加以禁止，另一方面我也覺得這樣的性與自然不合。當然，正因為同性戀不傷害別人，所以我沒有權力也沒有社會上的理由加以反對（如果要吵種族保存可以說是吵個沒完，我覺得這沒甚麼意義），但是我就是不能接受這種行為。當然，要是我身邊有朋友是同性戀，我也能與他維持友誼，只要他不要以我為對象，這我是會拒絕的。

反對一種行為只是個人立場罷了，我想這是需要弄清楚的，正如很多事情的是非對錯也是由個人自己決定。我採取反同性戀行為的立場只是代表我不會去做，正如我反對作弊或抽菸，但是我對後兩者會加以指責的原因是在於我認為這會傷害他人，但是同性戀跟婚前性行為一樣，在自由的思想下都不會傷害別人，因此我無權干涉。

喔，還有一種我會加以指責，就是同性戀者想要主張他們的行為是聖經所接受的。我實在覺得你要信就信，不信就算了，不要改編聖經來迎合自己，那這樣信有什麼意義？

對上面這個課題談得實在夠多了，不過最近討論到的還有死刑的議題。死刑也是吵個沒完的問題，而我覺得這也是一種價值選擇，當你如果認為刑罰含有應報犯罪的目的，而你又接受國家有權為了應報的目的殺人，那死刑作為一種選項是有它的存在目的的。雖然我身在一個大多贊成廢除死刑的環境，但是我還是一個死刑支持者，因為我認為死刑終究是一種選項，我們沒必要自縛手腳。

死刑的誤判可能性的確存在，因此國家只有在確認判決絕對無誤的情況下才可以判處死刑，這可能需要很多條件，包括絕對充分的證據，被告自白犯罪（雖然自白的證明力可能值得懷疑，但是這裡要強調的是被告自承自己的確犯下死罪，要是被告作出無罪抗辯，是否真是他所做就有應該懷疑的地方），當然這一切條件很難達到，因此在我的理想下，死刑最終可能成為一種象徵性的刑罰，只有在不可能中的不可能的情況下才會用到，例如殺人現行犯就逮等情況。

不過這都是太過複雜的問題，我也是在嘗試找出自己的出路。手指有些疼痛，先到此為止吧。

前幾天看到劉德華的法外情，其中的插入曲相當能反映出我的心情，姑且放上來吧。
不管其他人要怎麼想，我會堅持走自己的路，貫徹自己的正義。

人像鳥孤飛　　一生裡慣獨行
前路受困阻　　心裡熱不會減

寧願永孤單　　假嘴臉我未慣
水正深　　火剛猛　　前踏正因心眼未盲

人如連死都不怕　　誰可將我限
未畏強權和勝勢　　我將正義作膽

難以厚著顏　　全因我心裡血未冷
法律共正義　　奮起維護未容犯

明知苦中苦　　仍願將苦困笑著攬
我願任你罵　　罵我冥頑

When people look at me, do they see me being transformed? Does anything about who I’m becoming as I give my life over to God give them the desire to do the same?

Do they see that even though I still have many of the same day-to-day struggles, the impact they have on me is different? That even in the midst of the trials that come, there is joy and peace that comes from trusting God completely?

Transformation is a process and the journey is different for each of us. But the starting point is the same. — Jesus.

We have to recognize that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. (Romans 3:23)

And for a holy God, the only penalty for unholy sin is death. But God planned all along to take care of that penalty and give us the gift of eternal life. (Romans 6:23)

The penalty was death – but not ours. It was Jesus’. (Romans 5:8)

Once we get that, we need to confess that Jesus is Lord. And believe that God raised him from the dead. And that is the moment we are saved. (Romans 10:7)

Now let the transformation through Christ begin!

So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image. (2 Corinthians 3:18 NLT)

Having your player banned for ten matches is bad enough, but if that player is your lead goal scorer, matters become even worse for Brenden Rodgers and Liverpool. And despite the support Luis Suarez has received from his manager, team-mates and fans, an inevitable question presents itself to the Liverpool management. Do we stick with the star striker? Or do we cash in and splash the money on another, effective and less controversial striker? So we all wait through the summer, wondering, what next for Suarez?

Brenden Rodgers has assured everyone that Suarez will stay at Anfield and that is a good move from him. Despite his antics, Suarez remains the best striker Liverpool have today with 23 goals in the League and the manager has made the right move by publicly showing Suarez his support. You can look at what Sir Alex Ferguson did for Eric Cantona, and what it led to once Cantona returned. But Suarez will be subject to a lot of mockery from opposing fans and if he’s going to stay at Liverpool, he has to prepare himself for these fans.

The PFA has stepped forward offering anger management therapy for the talented Uruguayan forward. But his future, especially his Anfield future is largely in his own hands. Will he stay at Anfield? Will he go for anger management therapy? Will it help? Will he finally come out of his circle of controversies and make himself remembered for his football skills?

 Here are some of the other controversies I’m sure Suarez would have hoped to avoid.

International debut
Luis Suarez made his debut for Uruguay against Columbia in 2007 and in the same match, received his first red card in the 85^th minute after picking up a second yellow card for dissent.

Hand of God – Part 2
This could possibly be a red card that he will not regret. Dominic Adiyiah must have thought that he has taken Ghana to the semi final of the 2010 World Cup with a last minute winner. But an outstretched pair of hands denied him this moment. These hands however, did not belong to the Uruguayan goalkeeper but Luis Suarez, who was of course sent off for the offence. Ghana of course as well all remember missed the subsequent spot-kick and Uruguay went on to win the quarter final on a penalty shootout.

Cannibal from Ajax
Believe it or not, this is not the first time Suarez is facing disciplinary action for biting an opponent. Suarez was handed a seven match ban in November 2010 for biting Otman Bakkal during an Eredivisie match between Ajax and PSV.

Racism row
In October 2011, Luis Suarez was charged with an eight-match suspension for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra.

Hand-shake refusal
It was the first time Liverpool faced Manchester United after Suarez returned from his eight-match suspension. And a lot of talk focussed on the pre-match team handshake. The question on everyone’s minds was whether Evra would shake hands with Suarez. The answer was yes. But as it turns out, Suarez had different ideas, and to everyone’s surprise refused to shake hands with the United defender.

The middle finger
This was definitely not a good year for Luis Suarez, as more controversy followed him after he was handed a one match ban for showing his middle finger to Fulham fans.

A diving celebration
In an interview in October 2012, David Moyes claimed that divers like Suarez were bad for the game. The following week saw Suarez score against Moyes’ Everton and start his celebration by diving in front of the dugout where David Moyes was seated.

Another handball
We’re almost coming to a point where we have to remind Suarez that he’s playing football, not handball. But it just seems so silly that a player with his talents finds himself handling the ball so often. This January, Suarez was at it again as he handled the ball against Mansefield and luckily got away with it, and eventually went on to score the winner.

And now we reach the latest chapter of Suarez’s controversies. And let’s hope it’s the last. Biting Ivanovic that has forced the FA to suspend him for ten matches, plus any action that Liverpool Football Club for what the striker him has admitted is unacceptable behaviour on his part.

So what next for Suarez?
In footballing terms, Liverpool cannot afford to lose who is their best player by miles. But this is also a question of morals and image and reputation. Do Liverpool offload a talented player constantly surrounded by controversies? Or do they back him despite his antics and the fact that he will be missing the next ten matches? Either ways, it is a tough choice and the summer transfer window will provide the answer.

On footballing terms, I would love to see Suarez at Liverpool next season, minus the controversies of course.

Hofleverancier EK Onder 21: Ajax

Met het EK Onder 21 in het vooruitzicht werpt Eredivisie Live een blik op de potentiële selectiespelers van Cor Pot. Dit keer nemen ze Ajax onder de loep. Moeten Blind, Van Rhijn en Hoesen volgens jou afreizen naar Israël? Of mis je nog iemand anders van Ajax? Laat het ons weten!

Having a Merry Heart – Proverbs 17:21-28

Verses 21, 25, 28 -  To beget a fool seems to be a doing of the father in the context of this verse.  The NKJV refers to this son as a “Scoffer”; the Hebrew “kes-eel’
From H3688; properly fat, that is, (figuratively) stupid or silly: – fool (-ish).”  No joy for the father of the fool.

Verses 22, 24, 27 -  There are three things mentioned in these verses (20-22) which are devastating to a “Merry heart”: 1) A crooked and deceitful life;  2) A foolish son; and 3) Discouragement.
Having a “Merry heart” requires the opposite of these: 1) A sound and guiltless heart and mind;  2) Children growing and walking in the grace of God; and 3) Encouragement by the Spirit, the Word and others.

Verses 23, 26 -  These two verses speak of perversions of justice.  Bribery is a culprit of an evil giver and an evil judge.  It blinds what could have been righteous judgment.  Bribes take place in many forms.
One could be a friendship with strings attached.  Another could be a job which requires lying on forms of acquisition or payroll.  Still another could be… ______________________  I will let you fill in the blank.
It is a grave and evil thing when evil judges and evil people call evil good.  It is evil when good people are punished for what evil people have done.  On this think of the only good man who ever lived.  His name is Jesus.  He went to the cross, suffering at the hands of evil men; and in His death He took the penalty for sin, bearing the wrath of God the Father, and was buried; then three days later arose from a borrowed grave justifying forever all who will believe.
-Tim A. Blankenship

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother implicated in the

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother implicated in the

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother implicated in the

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving brother implicated in the

The Court said that “Director of Education has no power to issue circulars which will be in violation of statutory rules. Rules 165 and 166 (Delhi School Education Rules, 1973) are statutory in character. Once rules are statutory in character it is not possible for Director of Education to issue circulars in violation of these rules whereby fees can be allowed to be charged by a school otherwise than every month and which is payable by the 10th day of the month in which the fees become due.”