Connect with us


Is Arteta helping the Arsenal Board to force Ozil out – Conspiracy theory or not? – Just Arsenal News



Is Arteta helping the Arsenal Board to force Ozil out - Conspiracy theory or not? - Just Arsenal News

Arteta Doing Kroenkes Dirty Work by Dan Smith

Before the pandemic, Ozil was starting most games under the guidance of Arteta. Since the restart though the midfielder hasnt played a second of football despite a hectic schedule and teams now being allowed to make up to five substitutions.

He has gone from playing every week to not even getting into the squad (he had a bad back on Sunday apparently). That suggests that somethings happened during the lockdown between the player and manager.

The only thing we publicly know is that Ozil was one of our three players to refuse a pay cut. If thats not what it is, then again we need clarification from the Arsenal Board. If theres been a lack of effort in training or a bad attitude, fans will support the decision not to play him, but if not, our coach puts himself under pressure.

Some will argue this weekend we advanced to the last 4 of the FA Cup justifying the decision. I would counter that by pointing out we have also lost 2 out of the 4 matches without the German, and even when we have won there has been a noticeable lack of creativity.

If your 9th in the League and not making chances, its fair to suggest that surely a World Cup winner could at least make a bench when you are now allowed 9 options?

What gooners have to do is not make this an agenda against Ozil. Its got to a point that if you defend him at all your called an Ozil fan boy. It is possible to be in the middle?

Is Ozil past his best? Yes!
Has he come close to justifying his huge wages? No!
Do we have anyone better in his role? Stats suggest not.

If this is us now being strict and refusing to play people unless they are in form, then that sounds fair. Yet how come Ozils the only one? Our entire midfield has scored 3 League goals this campaign, so why is only one person being singled out?

I only care about Arsenal and what helps us win football matches. I am sorry but you will never convince me that tactically a man who has learnt off Pep Guardiola, tactically thinks Matt Smith (yet to start a senior game) is a better option then Ozil.

Anyone who thinks its about high standards of the new regime. That argument falls down when the Arsenal are handing out extensions to the likes of David Luiz and Cedric. Ozils not doing enough to play a second but Luiz is playing well enough to get a new deal?

I dont look at it as Arteta standing up to a big name, I look at him as confirming why he got the job in the first place. A yes man so happy to get the job hes willing to put up with lack of ambition.

His title is head coach. Isnt this the man who so many at Man City credit for getting the very best out of them? So, whats happened? December to March, apparently Ozil was coachable. Now suddenly hes not? If Ozil wasnt on 350,000 grand a week would he then be coachable? If thats the issue, then Arteta is doing the Arsenal Boards dirty work and putting that ahead of the teams best interests.

The Spaniard shouldnt care about wages. His job is to work with what hes got and get the very best out of the resources he has, not to punish someone based on their salary. If the club want Ozil to leave, thats their business. Yet from now till the transfer window, Artetas job is to get the best out of that asset, not just wash your hands of him.

If this was happening because Ozil wasnt good enough then fine but we know other below par performers are playing.

If it was a behaviour issue, then fine but until we hear that then we cant assume that.

What we do know is Stan Kroenke has ordered the wage bill to be slashed over the last couple of years. All parties know if the club had their way then Ozil would have been sold ages ago. He and his agent has made it clear he plans to see out his deal because his family are happy in London, but also, hes not getting even close to another employer paying him his current wage.

Lets remember though that was the clubs choice, he didnt make them offer him such a sum. If your boss wanted to overpay you, would you sign that contract or say actually I dont think you realise Im not that good at my job.

We gambled paying over the odds based on Champions League revenue and soon regretted how many zeroes we put on the deal. That doesnt give the Arsenal Board the right to disrespect him. That would be like a coffee shop failing so you start to pick on your highest earners. It is not the employees fault that those in charge are losing money.

So now Arteta is doing their dirty work.
Not bringing him on.
Not putting him in the squad.
Not giving a detailed reason what the issue is.
Then having the audacity to talk about the values of the club.

This isnt the Arsenal way. We dont treat someone like a scapegoat.

Fans are being taught that this guy has done something wrong, yet when a player wants to leave, or doesnt want to honour a contract, we call him every name in the book. Van Persie, Fabregas and Sanchez are hated for NOT doing what Ozil did committing his future to us.

When it suits us though its okay for us not to be loyal. Lets leave someone to rot and hope he gets so fed up he accepts a move away. Not because we have anyone better in his position, and not because we plan to replace him, but so our owners can save some money.

Wenger left, we saved wages by getting someone worse. We didnt want to offer Ramsey a new deal, saved money and now have no goal.scoring midfielder. Koscielny left, we got his wages off the wage bill and now have a worse defence.

Watch what happens when Ozil leaves . If its 0-0 in the FA Cup Semi-final and you can have one man in the final third, who do you trust more to unlock a defence with a killer pass? Willock? Ceballos? Nelson? Or the man being frozen out?

Hows that putting the team first?

Dan Smith


Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She’d Win in 2020



Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She'd Win in 2020

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed her defeat in the 2016 presidential race on “the Russians” and “WikiLeaks” while touting that she would be President Donald Trump if she was on the ballot in November in a recent interview.

Although Clinton will not be on the ballot in November and said she doesn’t plan on running for president again, she told The Hollywood Reporter that she would beat Trump in 2020 if they were facing off again.

“Yes, but I think people believe that this is a referendum on him,” the former first lady said.

Clinton’s documentary series “Hillary” started streaming on Hulu on March 6, and Critics’ Choice Real TV Awards this week named it the Best Limited Documentary Series of the year.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg asked the 72-year-old Democrat if she was ever afraid Trump would actually “lock her up,” as crowds chanted at some of his rallies in relation to her email scandal.

TRENDING: Fox News Fires Veteran Anchor After Sexual Misconduct Allegation

“You know, I’ve never done anything wrong,” Clinton responded.

“I’m, you know, as some people like to say, the most investigated, exonerated person in recent history.”

She added, “But if he could have found anything that he thought could impose some kind of cost on me — because, at the root of this, Scott, is he fears that his win — that narrow win in the Electoral College — was not legitimate.”

Do you think Clinton would beat Trump in 2020?

Clinton said that Trump “knows” the Russians and WikiLeaks helped him win in 2016.

“So if he could [have gone after me] … he would have, because he’s a vindictive score-settler and he doesn’t want the legitimacy of his election ever to be questioned, although history will continue to question it,” she said.

The former secretary of state said she believes “in the rule of law” and if there’s evidence that Trump should be investigated after he leaves office, he should be.

Clinton also blamed Facebook for her loss in 2016.

“Facebook has to be held accountable because they trafficked in conspiracy, they trafficked in misinformation, they trafficked in Russian disinformation,” she said.

RELATED: Trump, Prominent Republicans Dismiss Biden’s Lead in Polls

“And they’ve got to be held accountable because we’re gonna have another election, and everybody should know what’s at stake and then cast their vote accordingly.”

Clinton claimed she would also have done a much better job at handling the coronavirus pandemic than Trumphas.

“I don’t think we necessarily should have had as deep an economic assault on livelihoods and jobs as we have,” she said. “So I know I would have done a better job.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Continue Reading


Colorado Court Elaborates the “Reasonable Exercise” Test Under the Colorado Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms



Article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution reads:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Monday’s decision in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis clarified and summarized the “reasonable exercise” test, which the court had announced in the 1994 Robertson case; recall that state supreme courts are free to interpret their state constitutions as more protective than the federal Constitution, as protective, or less protective (though they must also enforce the federal Constitution, when litigants ask them to do so):

[T]he reasonable exercise test [set forth in the 1994 Robertson precedent] demands that government enactments implicating the article II, section 13 right [to keep and bear arms] have a legitimate government end within the police power, such as promoting the public health, safety, or welfare. And as its name suggests, it requires a “reasonable” fit between purpose and means. But in the article II, section 13 context, the ultimate function of the reasonable exercise test is to effectuate the substantive constraints imposed by article II, section 13 on otherwise rational government regulation.

Reflecting that function, the article II, section 13 reasonable exercise testunlike ordinary rational basis reviewdemands not just a conceivable legitimate purpose but an actual one. And, importantly, it does not tolerate government enactments that have either a purpose or effect of rendering the right to bear arms in self-defense a nullity. In short, the reasonable exercise test permits restrictions that may burden the right to bear arms but that still leave open ample means to exercise the core of that right; on the other hand, the test forbids restrictions that are so arbitrary or onerous as to amount to a denial of the right.

These features of the reasonable exercise test are apparent from our earliest application of article II, section 13. In Nakamura, the challenged legislation prohibited unnaturalized foreign-born residents from hunting any wild bird or animal except “in defense of persons or property” and, “to that end,” made it “unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident … to either own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle of any make, or a pistol or firearm of any kind.” We acknowledged that the state’s identified interests were permissible ones: “[t]he state may preserve its wild game for its citizens” and “prevent the hunting and killing of same by aliens.” But we struck down the law nonetheless, reasoning that it was apparent that it was actually “designed to prevent possession of firearms by aliens, as much, if not more, than the protection of wild game within the state.”

Importantly, we found it “equally clear” that the act had the effect of “wholly disarm[ing] aliens for all purposes.” We held that the state “cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article 2 of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property.” In other words, “[t]he police power of a state … cannot be exercised in such manner as to work a practical abrogation of its provisions.”

Our later cases just as clearly demonstrate the independent bite of the reasonable exercise test. In Blue, we held that a statute prohibiting individuals with prior felony convictions from possessing weapons was a constitutional exercise of the police power under article II, section 13. “To be sure,” we explained, “the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.” But we did not read the felon-in-possession statute “as an attempt to subvert the intent of [article II, section 13].”. And in Ford, an as-applied challenge to the same statute, we expressly stated that “the specific limitations of [article II, section 13] must be superimposed on the statute’s otherwise valid language,” and that a state may “validly restrict or regulate the right to possess arms where the purpose of such possession is not a constitutionally protected one” such as defense of home, person, or property. see also City of Lakewood v. Pillow (Colo. 1972) (striking down ordinance that made it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for purpose of self-defense).

[I]n Robertson, we again explicitly noted that the right to bear arms in self-defense under article II, section 13 could be regulated but not prohibited. In upholding the Denver ordinance [that banned so-called “assault weapons” -EV], we looked to evidence confirming the city council’s expressed intent to “promote the health, safety, and security of the citizens of Denver” by “curbing crimeparticularly homicides.” We further relied on evidence that although the city sought to prohibit the possession and use of approximately 40 firearms, closer to 2,000 remained available for purchase and use in the United States. Given this evidence of the “narrow class of weapons regulated by the ordinance,” we had no trouble concluding that it did not “impose such an onerous restriction on the right to bear arms as to constitute an … illegitimate exercise of the state’s police power.”

In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property. This test differs from rational basis review in that it requires an actual, not just conceivable, legitimate purpose related to health, safety, and welfare, and it establishes that nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense is neither a legitimate purpose nor tolerable result. In these ways, it ensures that the specifically enumerated “right to bear arms in defense of home, person and property” in article II, section 13 stands as an independent, substantive limitation on otherwise rational government action.

The court went on to apply this to uphold a Colorado statute limiting “large-capacity magazines,” defined as magazines “capable of accepting, or … designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds.” (The court made clear that the magazines had to be designed to be readily converted to do that, and not just capable of being readily converted.) The court didn’t discuss how the statute would be analyzed under the Second Amendment, because plaintiffs had raised only a state constitutional challenge.

Continue Reading


Today in Supreme Court History: July 3, 1941



Florida Just Passed the Most Sweeping Occupational Licensing Reform in History

The Occupational Freedom and Opportunity Act “will save thousands of Floridians both time and money for years to come,” says Gov. Ron DeSantis.


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.