Montana transgender lawmaker on Capitol Hill's bathroom ban: 'Do not cede ground'None

The Salt Typhoon telecom hack targeted senior American political figures, the White House says

No, It’s Not Magic — These 30 Products Just Work Really WellThe folks behind the Super League . A22 Sports, the company attempting to organise an alternative competition to the UEFA tournaments (Champions League, Europa League and Conference League) that it had petitioned UEFA to recognize its new cross-border tournament, the "Unify League." This comes nearly a year after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that UEFA held a dominant position and to comply with competition law, they could not oppose the creation of other cross-border tournaments provided they met certain criteria. Among them are the stipulations that any such tournament must have a qualification process that's inclusive and meritocratic, and that complies with the FIFA match calendar. So that's it? We now have a rival to the Champions League? Not exactly, as there are a ton of hoops to jump through first. Technically speaking, the ECJ judgement found that the UEFA's regulations gave them too much power to block rival cross-border competitions, so UEFA wrote new ones immediately after the verdict -- ones they say comply with the ECJ ruling. Some of those UEFA regulations lay out criteria in terms of open and meritocratic qualification -- things the Unify League appears to meet -- while others, according to A22, do comply with the ECJ ruling. A22 say there are too many to mention, but they do cite one that prohibits any new club competition from "adversely affect the good functioning" of UEFA tournaments. (Which is kinda the point of competition: disrupt your rivals and grow your market share.) But A22 argues that UEFA's rules, as written, basically force teams who qualify for UEFA competitions to play in them. We haven't heard from UEFA yet, but you assume they think their rules are compliant with ECJ rulings. So I think we can expect more arguing between lawyers and possibly letters to the European Court to clarify this, but that's really just the first hurdle... What's the next one? Well, even if they clear that hurdle and they get their way -- which, as A22 write, means "clubs are free to decide which tournament they want" -- they then need to persuade them it's in their interest to do so. And that's not going to be easy, because while clubs are interested in prestige, history, having a say in their competitions and engaging with fans -- all that good stuff -- let's face it, money is a prime motivator. It's not clear how the Unify League's business model is going to generate more revenue in terms of commercial and media rights. (The UEFA Champions League has certainly cornered the market when it comes to being an event, arguably the Super Bowl of the sport.) What A22's model anyway? There isn't too much detail, but presumably they'll have sponsors just like UEFA does. The big difference, though, is in media rights. Instead of selling rights to broadcasters and streamers, they're going to have , the Unify Platform. All games will be shown for free, albeit with advertising. And for those who don't enjoy commercial breaks, there will be the opportunity to purchase "affordable premium subscriptions" that will offer more technological bells and whistles than standard TV. Is it possible to make more money this way? The question raises a bunch of pretty obvious questions. If all you have to do to make more money than they do in the existing competitions is show games for free with commercial breaks, why haven't existing broadcasters thought of this? And if the secret to more revenue is having "affordable premium subscriptions" -- rather than the current expensive ones -- why haven't they done that? Sure, there's some merit in questioning the current pricing model -- free to air delivers a bigger audience and more exposure for sponsors, which can mean higher ad rates, while lower subscription fees might make it a volume play, where you get more subscribers and end up with more money -- but it takes a real leap of faith to think these guys can make it work where everybody else has failed. That said, they're convinced their format will be more exciting and generate bigger audiences... How so? , but in a nutshell there will be four leagues, with the top two -- the Star League and Gold League (don't ask) -- comprised of 16 clubs each. Each league is split into two groups of eight and they play everybody home and away for a total of 14 games. The top four in each group qualify for the quarterfinals, which will also be home and away fixtures, and the semifinals and final will be single-leg affairs. I make that a total of 246 games -- marginally more than the total in the existing "Swiss Model" Champions League (237 games), but, of course, that has 36 clubs vs. the 32 in the combined Star and Gold Leagues, so I guess they can divide their pie in fewer slices and have a slightly bigger pie. As to whether it's more exciting, I'm not sure. You're going to get a lot of the same teams playing each other in a group game, year after year and, I imagine, you'll get a fair few meaningless games because, with four of eight qualifying, you could get teams knowing whether they're in or out with three or four games to go, making the final match days rather irrelevant. (Of course, this concept has been seen at tournaments before, and we're still not sure whether the first-ever Champions League matchday 8, with all 36 teams playing at the same time, will have high stakes hanging in the balance.) There's also the fact that the ECJ ruling forces them to be "merit-based" and "open to all," as that could boomerang against them. What do you mean? Well, the old/aborted European Super League had 12 guaranteed mega-clubs in it -- 15 in the original proposal, before Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Paris Saint-Germain said no. Based on A22's regulations, if the competition had kicked off this season, clubs like Borussia Dortmund, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid -- all of whom are in the Champions League -- would not be guaranteed a place in the competition, but would need to battle their way through multiple qualifying rounds for one of the playoff spots. And guess what? Clubs like sure things and hate uncertainty, especially when it comes to revenues. But won't they end up in the next league down? You mean the "Gold League," right? Actually Atletico and Borussia Dortmund wouldn't even be guaranteed a place in either; they'd need to get there via the playoffs. But yes, the next league down will presumably generate substantially less revenue than the top league, just as the Europa League makes less money than the Champions League. That's the rub. It's a really tough sell and they'll have a difficult time convincing the clubs this is more lucrative. Unless... Unless what? Unless there's somebody out there willing to offer clubs a big, fat downside guarantee, somebody who says "I'll guarantee you more than what you're making now." And that's tough because right now, around €4.4 billion ($4.6bn) from their three competitions. Just over a billion of that goes on administrative costs (€387m), payments to clubs that don't qualify (€440m), subsidies for the Women's and Youth competitions (€25m) and in UEFA's coffers (€230m) to be redistributed to member associations. Now, A22 obviously might be able to run a leaner tournament so their administrative costs will be lower, and maybe they won't want to subsidize the women's competition. (They say they'll have one too, though it remains to be seen how the numbers work out there.) They might not pay as much to clubs who don't qualify or to member associations, though they say they'll have some solidarity mechanism. But they'll still need to get well north of that €4.4bn figure to make it worthwhile. And, remember, since they'll be running the games on their own platform, they'll also have marketing, technology and production costs that are currently absorbed by broadcasters. So yeah, I'd imagine it would take somebody willing to say "I'll chuck in €6bn a year in to cover the downside for the next couple of years to get this thing off the ground and guarantee that you clubs are better off with the Unify League than anywhere else." Frankly, that's a of money and, of course, there's the risk of a nightmare scenario for both UEFA and the Unify League. What's the "nightmare scenario" exactly? Imagine they end up competing directly with each other and A22 convinces some clubs, but not others. (Or, because there's also a whole hornets' nest of domestic legislation in various countries that prevents clubs from joining a league like this, and which may or may not be compliant with the ECJ ruling, some clubs simply can't.) What then? Let's say the Unify League has Real Madrid, Manchester City, Bayern and Inter. The Champions League has Barcelona, Liverpool, Borussia Dortmund and Juventus (presumably PSG too, unless Nasser Al Khelaifi jumps ship). Both competitions are markedly weaker and no, it's not a linear decline because the success of the Champions League is founded on having the best clubs all in one place. Take half of them away and the interest isn't halved, it goes down by a lot more than that. Mutually assured destruction might be an exaggeration, but it certainly would make life a whole heck of a lot tougher for everyone. So what happens next? I expect a lot of back and forth between lawyers, and maybe some ECJ clarification, but ultimately this feels like a power move, where A22 want to get UEFA to the table somehow. Except it's hard to see how A22 have any leverage at all because, let's face it: their business model seems goofy and nobody of note, other than Real Madrid, has gone to bat for them. Unless of course there's somebody in the shadows with several billions willing to bankroll the whole shebang.iShares iBonds Mar 2023 Term Corporate ETF (NYSEARCA:IBDD) Stock Price Up 0.1% – Time to Buy?

‘Ek Hai Toh Safe Hai’ Has Become Country’s Mahamantra: PM Modi in Victory SpeechJack Schlossberg, JFK grandson and activist, latest star to get a lookalike contest

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday signed a law that allows those who sign up to fight in Ukraine to write off unpaid debts worth almost $100,000, the government announced. The new legislation will be a strong motivation for some to join up, experts said, as Russia seeks new ways to recruit fighters for the nearly three-year conflict grinding through troops. The new legislation will allow those who sign a one-year contract to fight in Ukraine after December 1 to free themselves of existing bad debts. It also covers their spouses. The law concerns debts where a court order for collection was issued and enforcement proceedings began before December 1, 2024. The total amount of unpaid debt that can be covered is 10 million rubles, around $96,000 at current rates. Parliament approved the bill earlier this month. The legislation will largely concern younger Russians of fighting age, since those in their 30s and younger are most likely to have loans. Russia has extremely high interest rates for loans and many Russians have almost no cash savings, although the proportion of home owners is relatively high. "Previously (for those fighting) there was only provision for taking repayment holidays on loans," Sergei Krivenko of advocacy group Citizen Army Law told Vazhniye Istorii Telegram channel. The new legislation applies to those who are conscripted for national service and those mobilised for the so-called "special military operation", Krivenko said. Conscripts cannot be sent to the front line but can choose to sign a contract to join the professional army and be sent to fight in Ukraine. Russian authorities "are strengthening the motivation to sign a contract," political analyst Georgy Bovt wrote on Telegram. The legislation provides "another way to get rid of an unbearable burden of credit, at least for several hundred thousand people," Bovt wrote. Over 13 million Russians have three or more loans, according to a central bank report released last month covering the first two quarters. This was up 20 percent on the same period last year. The average amount owed by those with three or more loans is 1.4 million rubles ($13,400 at current rates). Many start with a bank loan and then apply for further loans from microfinance organisations. Russians serving on the front line are already paid far more than the national average. Ukraine also has legislation allowing those fighting to get preferential terms for loans and in some cases to write off debts. bur/tw

Nicky Butt attends Man Utd charity gala with mystery blonde as he’s seen with date for first time since split from wifeA pastor in a secretive and extreme Pentecostal church has advocated corporal punishment of children as a way to prevent school shootings and gender dysphoria. The leaked recording of the pastor advocating a “rod of correction” policy emerged as Victoria’s child safety watchdog expressed concern about practices at the Geelong Revival Centre. Liana Buchanan, Victoria’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. Credit: Justin McManus Liana Buchanan, principal commissioner for children and young people, said the experiences and allegations recently revealed by former Geelong Revival Centre members were “extremely concerning”, and described some “unacceptable institutional responses”. “Children deserve to be safe and protected by the organisations they participate in,” Buchanan said. “Our recently tabled annual report notes that some religious organisations continue to struggle with identifying and managing risks to children. That risk is certainly amplified where there is a culture of silence and adults and children are afraid to speak out. “We know that ‘closed institutions’ carry more risks of child abuse than other types of institutions. These institutions need to be aware of these heightened risks and have legal responsibilities to take action to keep children safe, prevent child abuse and respond to allegations of child abuse.” The latest annual report from the Commission for Young People and Children, tabled in state parliament last month, included data indicating a higher proportion of sexual offence allegations in religious bodies than any other sector. Buchanan encouraged people with experience or knowledge of abuse within the centre’s network of churches to contact her agency, which has statutory powers to investigate breaches of child safety laws. After decades of operating with minimal external scrutiny, the GRC and its affiliate churches across Australia are examined in a new investigative podcast, LiSTNR’s Secrets We Keep: Pray Harder , and reports by this masthead. This masthead has obtained a recording of a sermon given by a Tasmanian pastor of a GRC-affiliated church in which members are warned that society did not understand the need to physically punish children to ensure obedience. “As far as the world is concerned, well. They would be very critical of us for preaching and teaching these things,” Tasmanian pastor Neil Griggs says in the recording. “Let’s not go over the top about this word ‘beating’. It just means to smack. It doesn’t mean to be brutal. ‘Thou shalt beat him with the rod or smack him and shalt deliver his soul from hell.’ Well, isn’t that worth doing? Deliver his soul from hell. “If we don’t teach children obedience, it won’t be well with them ... if we don’t correct them and chasten them, and reprove them, and rebuke them when they need it, it will not be well with them.” The leaked sermon from Griggs provides an example of how the church leadership persuades adult members that children without discipline could face disastrous outcomes later in life. “And here we are now, the children. The scourge of social media has twisted them all up. Unrestrained. Unchecked. Spoilt ... everything that their heart could desire had wealth lavished upon them, and they’re not happy,” he said. “And they grow up, and they go and get a gun, and they go into a school and they shoot people. And they’re all upset. No, we’re telling them. Well, you’ve got some problems. Not because you weren’t smacked as a child. Is everybody else’s fault? Maybe. Maybe think about it. Maybe you should be a girl instead of a boy or a boy instead of a girl.” As part of the investigation, former members have revealed alleged cover-ups of child sexual abuse, the violent physical punishment of children, pressure on church members to forgo medical treatment, homophobic and racist teachings and harsh restrictions placed on the freedoms of women and girls. There is no suggestion Neil Griggs has been responsible for any abuse or for failing to report child safety issues. Griggs did not respond to requests for comment. The GRC leadership has also repeatedly declined to answer questions from this masthead. Dozens more former members have come forward since the release of the podcast to detail harrowing accounts of their alleged sexual, physical and emotional abuse while growing up inside a church that controls almost every aspect of its members’ lives. In August, 38-year-old GRC member Todd Hubers van Assenraad pleaded guilty to 16 child sexual abuse charges involving nine children aged under 16. The Age is not suggesting his victims were from families associated with the church. The use of corporal punishment on children is legal in Victoria. However, the use of excessive force is illegal. As is the exposure of children to emotional harm through constant abuse or use of threats to frighten them. Griggs, in his sermon, encouraged mothers, who the church prefers to stay at home rather than work, to question their children about what they were taught at school each day and to remind them what the Bible says. “Find out what happened at school today when they’re amongst all those unsaved people, or with all those perhaps well-meaning, unsaved teachers, with all their worldly ideas ... parents are the ones who say what’s going to happen and when it’s going to happen.” Despite the pastor’s call for moderate physical punishment, more than a dozen former church members have given accounts of their violent childhood beatings with belts, fists and rods. The Geelong Revival Centre. Credit: Simon Schluter A single mother described a male member of the church repeatedly hitting her autistic toddler son, causing what she claimed were life-changing injuries. The woman has sought legal advice over this incident, which allegedly happened a few years ago. A former pastor at a GRC-linked overseas assembly also detailed his knowledge of deafness in one boy growing up in the church due to repeated blows to his head by his father. Former members also claimed the church’s empowerment of men led to domestic violence within households and situations where children were physically punished by adults who were not their parents or guardians. Former church members said the “cult-like” nature of the GRC and the constant “doomsday” predictions had children constantly in fear about the end of their world and the possibility that they and their families could burn in hell if they had fallen out with their pastor. If you or anyone you know needs help, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 (see lifeline.org.au ), Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 (see beyondblue.org.au ) or 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732).Putin signs law letting Ukraine fighters write off bad debts

IMEEC awards 17 Riviera Maya beaches with Platinum certificationsMiddle East latest: Israeli strikes kill a hospital director in Lebanon and wound 6 medics in Gaza

Vistra Connects Two Utility-Scale Solar Facilities to Grid and Extends Operations of Baldwin Power Plant in Response to Reliability Concerns in MISORuling fronts win most of the Assembly seats in bypolls

Chips, AI, and Stock Secrets! Find Out Who’s Leading the Race.Lululemon Athletica (NASDAQ:LULU) Stock Price Expected to Rise, Morgan Stanley Analyst Says

Seven Ardent Health Facilities Earn 2024 Leapfrog Top Hospital Award for Outstanding Quality and Safety