Limpopo Guy 🇿🇦

This choir conductor is epic!!!!!!!

Lol. Even Bentley still make them. 🤮🤮🤮🤮

I wouldn't mind this grill on 320d f30

It shows how awesome the f generation was and still is.

Whoever did the study has a sick kind 😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Those wooden panels 🤮🤢

Ge ole kgole ekare ke sekepe

Speedy recovery to the hospital bed.

I'm not in radio ,however I understand that most stations will not miss an opportunity to play a hit song as long as it its a genre the station allows.

Stations (and TV channels actually) have a playlist & it’s categorised. For example, high rotation, b-list, c-list & recurrent. Hit songs get played more often.

‘Diketo’ is actually a great way for kids to learn Mathematics and eye-hand cor-ordination

Let me tell you something I am sure you didnt know about football contracts. The first recorded buy-back clause in English football was in 1983. Watford sold Luther Blissett to AC Milan for £1 million and kept a right of first refusal in the contract. One year later, after Blissett scored just five goals in 30 appearances and became so synonymous with disappointment that Italian fans created a whole new slang word around his name, Watford exercised that right and brought him home for £550,000. Less than they sold him for. The clause paid for itself before the ink was dry on the return contract. Forty years later the principle is identical. The fees have just added a few zeros. This is Part 2 of our series on post-sale control clauses. Last time we covered what they are. Today we cover what they are actually worth. One thing worth clarifying before we go further, because it matters legally. What Watford had on Blissett was technically a right of first refusal, not a modern buy-back clause. The difference is important. A right of first refusal reacts to the market. When Milan decided to sell, Watford had the right to match the price and take him back. They had no power to set the price themselves. A modern buy-back clause is different. It fixes the price in advance, before anyone knows what the player will become, and gives the original club the right to trigger it at that price regardless of what the market says at the time of the trigger. That distinction between reacting to the market and controlling it is the entire evolution of how these clauses have developed across forty years of football contracts. Now let us talk about what happens when clubs have the right tool and decide to not activate it. In 2021, Chelsea sold Tammy Abraham to Roma for £34 million and inserted a £68 million buy-back clause. Abraham scored 27 goals in his debut season in Serie A and became one of Italy's most dangerous strikers. Chelsea never triggered the clause. The tool was there but the will was not. I should have you know that a buy-back clause is not a guarantee of return. It is an option. And options that are not exercised at the right moment expire into regret. PSG did the opposite. They sold Xavi Simons to PSV Eindhoven and inserted a €6 million buy-back clause before anyone outside the Netherlands had watched him properly. Simons scored 22 goals across all competitions that season, won the Eredivisie Golden Boot, and his market value multiplied beyond recognition almost overnight. He was worth €40 million by the end of tht season. PSG triggered the clause immediately. €6 million for a player who would have cost ten times that on the open market. That clause was not an afterthought. It was a plan drawn up before the world knew what the player would become. They knew what they sold and they protected their interests before hand. That is the whole point of the buy-back clause. You price the asset before the market catches up. Watford did it by accident in 1983. PSG did it deliberately in 2022. The clubs that do it consistently cannot be said to be lucky. They are thinking three transfers ahead while everyone else is focused on the one in front of them. It is also a low risk move because if the player ends up not having an increased maket value, you at least got some money for him anyway. Although on the flip side, the buying club uses it as a bargaining chip to pay lower than the current value of the player- since they know they stand the risk of losing the player for cheap in future if his value blows up. The right of first refusal works differently and it is the most misunderstood of the three tools we have covered in this series. It does not fix a price. It gives the original club a window to match whatever offer comes in from a third party. The problem with this though is that nothing stops the current club and an interested buyer from agreeing an artificially high price that both parties know the original club cannot match. The clause is technically honoured. T he outcome is exactly what both sides wanted. And the original club, with their well-intentioned clause, collects nothing. Unless the contract includes explicit protections against bad faith dealing, the right of first refusal is only as strong as the goodwill of the clubs on the other side of it. Three tools. One player from Jamaica. One chairman who was also a pop star. And a contract signed in London in 1983 that started a conversation football is still having today. I hope you learned something today. My name is Ajoje. I am a FIFA Licensed Agent and International Sports Lawyer. I write on the Law and Business of Football, a lot. Repost and Follow if you want to read more posts like this.

Imagine this grill on an M2 👀👀

They look like they have STI's

They never did.

No DNA, just BMW. I love it, except that it’s an electric car

Ther will be an ice ,yes?

I imagine bmw fan boys fabricating this grill on G20 or F generation cars

Schools are removing analogue clocks and replacing them with digital ones because learners can’t tell the time. Met a 21-year-old recently, asked him the time… he couldn’t answer. I’ve seen it first hand 😭

She's a content creator.