Federal Law No. 272-FZ dated 07/03/2016 established stricter deadlines for transferring wages to employees. The Labor Code is supplemented by a provision establishing new deadlines for payment of wages from October 3. set out in a new edition: the legislator has designated a specific date - the deadline for transferring wages for labor. This is the 15th day of the month following the month worked for which wages are calculated. The rule that you need to pay for work at least once every half month remains the same, but at the same time is tightened by a deadline.
There should be no more than 15 days between the advance and salary
The Labor Code requires that money be paid out at least every half month; there must be strictly no more than 15 (fifteen) days between the advance payment and the salary. If you pay an advance on the 25th, then the salary must be paid on the 10th. You cannot make an interval of more than 15 days. THIS IS A VIOLATION! All payroll taxes are paid on the last paycheck.
What is the responsibility if there are more than 15 days between the advance and salary?
Innovations are now accompanied by higher fines. Since October 3, 2016, fines for a primary violation are (Clause 1 of Article 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation):
- from 1000 to 5000 rub. (IP);
- from 30,000 to 50,000 rub. (organizations);
- The fine for the manager will be from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles;
- For repeated violation: from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.
The employer will also have to pay compensation for delayed wages. The compensation will double and will be calculated from 1/150 of the key rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation for each day of delay (Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
Firmmaker, September 2016
Anastasia Chizhova (Konatova)
When using the material, a link is required
If you notice an error, select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter
1. The number of participants in a limited liability company should not exceed fifty. Otherwise, it is subject to transformation into a joint-stock company within a year, and upon expiration of this period - liquidation through a judicial procedure, if the number of its participants does not decrease to the specified limit.
2. A limited liability company may be founded by one person or may consist of one person, including when created as a result of reorganization.
Commentary to Art. 88 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
1. A limited liability company may have one participant (“one-person company”) or several.
By virtue of clause 3 of Art. 7 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies, the number of company participants should not be more than 50. If the number of company participants exceeds this limit, the company must be transformed into an open joint-stock company or a production cooperative within a year. If within the specified period the company is not transformed and the number of participants in the company is not reduced to 50, it is subject to liquidation in court at the request of the body carrying out state registration of legal entities, or other state bodies or local government bodies, which have the right to make such a claim. federal law.
The maximum number of participants established by law is a characteristic feature of a limited liability company. Unlike a joint stock company, a limited liability company does not involve the creation of a complex corporate structure. It is generally accepted that a joint stock company, having a larger authorized capital than a limited liability company, and concentrating it by attracting funds from many participants, needs a special management system.
2. A one-person company (society) can be founded by one person; it is also possible that the company will become a company with one participant as a result of the acquisition by one person of all other shares. A one-member society has some peculiarities. Firstly, in the case of the establishment of a company by one person, the decision on its establishment is made by this person alone and determines the size of the authorized capital of the company, the procedure and timing of its payment, as well as the size and nominal value of the founder’s share. Secondly, in the event of foreclosure on the share of the sole participant of the company in the authorized capital for the debts of the company participant, the rules on payment to creditors of the actual value of the participant’s share (clause 2 of Article 25 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies) do not apply. Thirdly, the sole participant of the company is not allowed to leave the company. Fourthly, special rules apply regarding the adoption by the sole participant of decisions on issues within the competence of the general meeting of company participants. In a company consisting of one participant, decisions on issues falling within the competence of the general meeting of company participants are made by the sole participant of the company individually and are documented in writing.
3. The commented article is called “Participants of a limited liability company”, but establishes only provisions related to their number.
Participants of the society can be citizens and legal entities. This rule has exceptions. By virtue of clause 4 of Art. 66 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the law may prohibit or limit the participation of certain categories of citizens in business partnerships and companies, with the exception of open joint-stock companies.
Thus, in accordance with the Federal Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”, if a civil servant’s ownership of income-generating securities, shares (stakes in the authorized capital of organizations) may lead to a conflict of interest, he is obliged to transfer the specified securities belonging to him , shares (participatory interests in the authorized capitals of organizations) for trust management in accordance with the civil legislation of the Russian Federation.
As stated in paragraph 4 of Art. 66 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, state bodies and local self-government bodies do not have the right to act as participants in companies, unless otherwise established by federal law (see commentary to Article 66). At the same time, it would be incorrect to assume that in cases of entry of these bodies into the company provided for by law, a state authority or local self-government body becomes a participant in the company. Only the public legal entity itself (the Russian Federation, a subject of the Federation, a municipal entity) can be considered such a participant, and the relevant body acquires rights for such a subject and on its behalf (Article 125 of the Civil Code).
Thus, the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in Art. 80 establishes that the provision of budgetary investments to legal entities that are not state and municipal institutions and state or municipal unitary enterprises entails the emergence of the right of state or municipal ownership to an equivalent part of the authorized (share) capital of these legal entities, which is formalized by the participation of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Federation and municipalities in the authorized (share) capitals of such legal entities in accordance with the civil legislation of the Russian Federation. Registration of the share of the Russian Federation, a subject of the Federation, a municipal entity in the authorized (share) capital belonging to the Russian Federation, a subject of the Federation, a municipal entity is carried out in the manner and at prices that are determined in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
By virtue of Art. 66 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, institutions can be participants in limited liability companies with the permission of the owner, unless otherwise provided by law. This provision was clarified not long ago. Federal Law of August 2, 2009 N 217-FZ “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation on the creation of economic societies by budgetary scientific and educational institutions for the purpose of practical application (implementation) of the results of intellectual activity” allowed in a number of cases the participation of scientific and educational budgetary institutions in business companies “without the consent of the owner of their property with notification of the federal executive body exercising the functions of developing state policy and legal regulation in the field of scientific and scientific-technical activities.” At the same time, the current version of clause 1 of Art. 298 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation still prohibits budgetary institutions from alienating or otherwise disposing of property assigned to it by the owner or acquired by this institution at the expense of funds allocated to it by the owner for the acquisition of such property. It follows from this that a budgetary institution has the right to become a participant in the company only if it pays for a share in the authorized capital of the company with funds received from independent activities, or property acquired at the expense of these funds (clause 2 of Article 298 of the Civil Code).
A year ago we already wrote that . We repent, then, at the stage of round tables and public discussions, we decided that “at the top” they plan to shift the emphasis from the family arrangement of children left without parental care to the rehabilitation of blood families, but dysfunctional ones. The direction is promising, although very labor-intensive. In reality, everything resulted in yet another draconian prohibitive measures.
- What will happen now with guardianship and adoption?
- Limiting the number of children in a family
- Limiting adoption frequency
- The psychologist's opinion will be decisive
- Moving - only with the permission of guardianship
- Prohibition on adoption by HIV-infected persons
- Are there any arguments about reform lobbyists?
- Ban or prevent?
The scandal erupted last Friday, August 17, when “the awl got out of the bag” - the TASS agency wrote about a bill being sent to regional divisions that would radically change the system of guardianship and adoption.
Let’s make a reservation right away: the bill is not a law yet, but everything is moving towards that. Changes, if any, will be very minor.
What will happen now with guardianship and adoption?
So, let's move on to the bill itself. There are a lot of changes expected, so let’s focus on the main ones.
The fourth one is extra
Probably the most scandalous point: according to the Ministry of Education
” A family should have no more than three children, including relatives, adopted children, and wards. Previously, 8 children was considered the “norm,” but the norm, generally speaking, was quite arbitrary, since the size of a family with adopted children was specified only in the recommendations.
Exceptions, of course, are made. For example, when adopting siblings, if separation is not in the best interests of the children; when adopting a spouse's children; when adopting children who were under the care of the family. But in general, we can say that large families are automatically excluded from the list of potential guardians and adoptive parents, regardless of their financial situation.
Frankly, after studying the bill, we were unable to understand whether these restrictions apply to kinship guardianship. For example, will a family with three children be able to take custody of an orphaned nephew, or will he be sent to an orphanage? Formally, the fourth one is superfluous... We hope that common sense will still prevail.
Not all at once
Only one child per year will be allowed to adopt (take guardianship). The exceptions are the same as in the previous case, that is, “trains” of brothers and sisters and children who already live in the family.
” In fact, cases when parents take a child from an orphanage, and another child touches the heart, are not at all rare. Now we will have to decide which of the kids will be taken into the family immediately, and which will “marinate in the system” for another year.
The psychologist is in charge!
A psychologist's opinion is now becoming mandatory for future adoptive parents. In fact, progress has already been made in this direction: adoptive parents have recently been required to attend adoption courses, where, among other things, they worked with a psychologist.
” However, only now will such an examination become mandatory, and a document code-named “conclusion on the validity of adoption” will be decisive. Moreover, all relatives living with potential adoptive parents should come to see a psychologist.
Restricted to travel
Relocation of a family with a child under guardianship is now possible only with the permission of the guardianship authorities.
” It was necessary to notify about the intention to move to another area or settlement earlier, but just notify. Now a family with an adopted child will find themselves in the position of a “serf” under their guardianship.
Health is excellent!
Finally, one more point for which we will not be praised in Europe is the requirements for the health of the adoptive parent. They still exist today, and they are quite reasonable. A conclusion on the possibility of becoming an adoptive parent will not be given to incompetent people; those who have serious diseases in the stage of decompensation (for example, progressive malignant tumors) or dangerous for adopted children (for example, an open form of tuberculosis).
” Now it seems that HIV and hepatitis C will be added to them - they are not transmitted through household contact and are successfully controlled with the help of antiviral therapy.
It seems that the only argument for such a decision is the personal hostility of the Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva to these diseases, since she answered briefly to journalists’ questions about HIV-positive adoptive parents: “I am not considering this idea.”
So, no foster children for large families and HIV-infected people! But why?
Are there any arguments about reform lobbyists?
The main lobbyists for the new bill were the Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva and the Children's Ombudsman Anna Kuznetsova. Both, in their emotional speeches, appeal to recent tragedies that resulted in the deaths of children in foster care.
|
Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva reminded me of a monstrous story in the Smolensk region, where four children from six to ten years old were sent to a rural family of a shepherd and a kindergarten nanny. While his wife was away, a man raped and killed a seven-year-old girl. It is precisely such cases that, according to Olga Vasilyeva, psychological testing of potential adoptive parents will eliminate. |
|
Children's Ombudsman Anna Kuznetsova blames the poor quality work of the guardianship authorities, who, in her opinion, often show incompetence when dealing with potential adoptive parents. She recalled a very recent (literally a couple of weeks ago) situation in Tatarstan, where the adoptive father was accused of the death of a nine-year-old girl. In addition to her, three more children were taken into the family - her brother and two sisters. According to the foster parents, the girl, according to the kids, choked on an apple. Investigators found the child had a traumatic brain injury. The investigation into this case has just begun, so we cannot make any assumptions about the cause of the tragedy. |
Coincidentally or not, both officials refer to families where there were exactly four adopted children.
Unfortunately, there are many similar tragedies throughout the country - even too many, in families with any number of children and with a wide variety of options for their appearance in the house.
... Kaluga region, 2017. A woman was sentenced to 14 years for beating her four-year-old adopted daughter to death with a mop handle. She became the guardian of three minor children after the death of a distant relative, their mother...
... in the Kemerovo region, a family of guardians who took three teenagers from a local boarding school for mentally retarded children is on trial. For some time they tried to raise them, but then they killed their 18-year-old stepson, and then his 16-year-old brother. They were detained while trying to move to the Krasnodar region...
... in the Krasnoyarsk Territory a 25-year-old man was sentenced to 18 years. He and his wife raised two children, but also took custody of a four-year-old girl. The man repeatedly raped the baby and killed her because she wet herself in her sleep...
... in the Altai Republic, a 56-year-old guardian of four little sisters beat a three-year-old girl to death with a carpet clapper...
” According to the Investigative Committee, in 2015, 146 criminal cases were opened for crimes against life, health and sexual integrity against adopted children, in 2016 - 189 cases. In 2015, 142 children left without parental care were recognized as victims (95 of them were raised in adoptive families). In 2016, the number of child victims was 130 (there were 82 children in the families. (From the explanatory note to the bill).
Ban or prevent?
Something needs to be done about this horror, but what? Obviously, restrictions on the “extradition” of children will not save the situation, nor will tightening the selection of potential candidates. How tough was the selection into the ranks of the KGB, and there were defectors and traitors to the homeland. It’s so difficult to get into the ruling circles, and now one or another minister is caught using kickbacks and bribes. Is it possible to accurately weed out all hidden domestic tyrants using one psychological test?
” We need a change in the system of support for adoptive families: it needs to be turned towards the adoptive parents, reoriented towards the interests of children and parents, and made as accessible and friendly as possible. For at least a year, the family needs constant help from a professional psychologist, most favored nation treatment in medical care for children, school teachers and kindergarten teachers will also need professional advice, and finally, for the first time, the mother could use an inexpensive social nanny.
Today, assistance to a foster family often consists of pointlessly meticulous control over the expenditure of funds: each pair of sandals or panties must be confirmed by a receipt, which must be shown to the ladies from the guardianship authorities. Guardians and adoptive parents usually remember their return visits to foster families without any pleasure. At best, a formal cursory inspection; at worst, strange quibbles about the lack of soup in the refrigerator, unfriendly cats, or unwashed windows. The human factor is what you want!
What is offered instead?
As you already understand, no additional help and support is offered to adoptive families at the legislative level. But they came up with many more ways to “drag and not let go.”
Firstly, it is a strange idea to limit the number of children in families to three. Is there really evidence that in families with four or more children, illegal acts are committed more often? We did not find any justification for this figure, except for the well-known saying “God loves a trinity.”
Secondly, the idea of limiting the freedom of movement of adoptive families does not fit into the constitution. Where they can and cannot live will now be decided by the guardianship authorities.
Thirdly, the reform of the guardianship authorities, it seems, will be limited to the appointment of “duty switchmen”, whose role will now be played by psychologists. It is they who, with their sharp eyes, must separate the lambs from the goats, and given that no one even thinks about providing local support (soup and checks are the main criteria for well-being), the psychologist’s decision is final and cannot be appealed. If anything, then demand from him.
” Hand on heart, in such circumstances, would you sign a conclusion on the validity of adoption to Mother Teresa, to President Putin, or to yourself?
It seems that belief in the power of psychology is acquiring a religious character in our country. Judging by the expectations placed on them, these are such “X-ray people”, capable of seeing through the darkness of the past and the future with a powerful gaze.
|
Dina Magnat, psychologist, head of the School of Adoptive Parents at the Institute for the Development of Family Structure: “Everything about this bill is outrageous. He proposes introducing a psychological examination of candidates for adoptive parents. The creators of this legislative norm have a strange fantasy that somewhere there are magical psychologists who have magical techniques that will allow them to accurately say whether a person can or cannot be a foster parent, whether he will beat his foster child or not. But there are no such methods, they don’t exist...” |
” For reference: today the database of children who require a family placement contains 48 thousand children's profiles. Every year, 50 thousand parents are deprived of parental rights.
It is natural that the number of children who will end up in families after this reform will decrease to a minimum. Along with this - naturally! - the number of cases of violence in foster families will also decrease. And if orphanages begin to fill up again, so what? There it is much easier to control whether someone is hitting the child with a mop, and therefore to guarantee the physical well-being of the child. Well, mental well-being is a dark subject and is not subject to statistics.
Frankly speaking, all this is a little reminiscent of inexpensive canteens from the times of developed socialism, where knives were absent as a class. God forbid, visitors grab knives and start cutting each other! And you can pick at the cutlet with a spoon, that’s why so much bread is put in it...
The best home for children is a nursery?
The opinions of adoptive parents are quoted from a publication on the websitepravmir.ru
The text of the bill and the explanatory note to it was copied from the website of lawyer Anton Zharov, who specializes in protecting the rights of adoptive families.
Formulation: there should not be more than one reason for changing a class
What causes the class logic to change? Apparently, a change in relations between classes, the introduction of new requirements or the abolition of old ones. In general, the question of the reason for these changes lies in the plane of responsibility that we have assigned to our class. If an object has a lot of responsibilities, then it will change very often. Thus, if a class has more than one responsibility, then this leads to fragility of the design and errors in unexpected places when the code changes.
Examples
There are a lot of scenarios where you can encounter a violation of this principle. I've selected a few of the most popular ones. Examples will be given, identifying the design error, followed by a solution to the problem.
1. Active Record
Problem
Most recently I've been using MyGeneration as an ORM. The essence of this ORM is that it generates business entities from database tables. Let's take the user entity Account as an example. The usage scenario looks like this:
// creating a user Accounts account = new Accounts(); account.AddNew(); account.Name = "Name"; account.Save(); // loading an object by Id Accounts account = new Accounts() account.LoadByPrimaryKey(1); // loading a linked collection when accessing an object property var list = account.Roles;
The Active Record pattern can be successfully used in small projects with simple business logic. Practice shows that when a project grows, due to mixed logic inside domain objects, a lot of duplication in code and unexpected errors arise. Database calls are quite difficult to trace when they are hidden, for example behind the object's account.Roles property.
In this case, the Account object has several responsibilities:
- is a domain object and stores business rules, for example, association with a collection of roles
- is the access point to the database
Solution
A simple and effective solution is to use the Repository template. We leave the work with the database to the AccountRepository storage and get a “clean” domain object.
// creating a user var account = new Account(); account.Name = "Name"; accountRepository.Save(account); // loading user by Id var account = accountRepository.GetById(1); // loading with a linked collection // example from LLBLGen Pro var account = accountRepository.GetById(1, new IPath(new Path
2. Data validation
Problem
If you have completed at least one project, then you have probably faced the problem of data validation. For example, checking the entered email address. email, username length, password complexity, etc. To validate an object, the first implementation reasonably arises:
Public class Product ( public int Price ( get; set; ) public bool IsValid() ( return Price > 0; ) ) // check for validity var product = new Product ( Price = 100 ); var isValid = product.IsValid();
This approach is completely justified in this case. The code is simple, testable, and there is no duplication of logic.
Now our Product object has begun to be used in a certain CustomerService, which considers a valid product with a price of more than 100 thousand rubles. What to do? It is already clear that we will have to change our product object, for example, this way:
Public class Product ( public int Price ( get; set; ) public bool IsValid(bool isCustomerService) ( if (isCustomerService == true) return Price > 100000; return Price > 0; ) ) // use the product object in the new service var product = new Product(Price = 100); var isValid = product.IsValid(true);
Solution
It became obvious that with further use of the Product object, the logic for validating its data will change and become more complex. Apparently it’s time to give responsibility for validating product data to another entity. Moreover, it is necessary to make sure that the product object itself does not depend on the specific implementation of its validator. We get the code:
Public interface IProductValidator ( bool IsValid(Product product); ) public class ProductDefaultValidator: IProductValidator ( public bool IsValid(Product product) ( return product.Price > 0; ) ) public class CustomerServiceProductValidator: IProductValidator ( public bool IsValid(Product product) ( return product.Price > 100000; ) ) public class Product ( private readonly IProductValidator validator; public Product() : this(new ProductDefaultValidator()) ( ) public Product(IProductValidator validator) ( this.validator = validator; ) public int Price ( get ; set; ) public bool IsValid() ( return validator.IsValid(this); ) ) // common usage var product = new Product ( Price = 100 ); // use the product object in the new service var product = new Product (new CustomerServiceProductValidator()) ( Price = 100 );
We have a separate Product object, and any number of different validators separately.
In addition, I would like to recommend the book Using DDD and Design Patterns. Problem-oriented application design with examples in C# and .NET. It addresses the issue of data validation in great detail.
3.God object
Problem
The limit for violating the principle of sole responsibility is God object. This object knows and can do everything that is possible. For example, it makes queries to the database, to the file system, communicates via protocols on the network and contains a ton of business logic. As an example, I’ll give an object called ImageHelper:
Public static class ImageHelper ( public static void Save(Image image) ( // saving the image to the file system) public static int DeleteDuplicates() ( // remove all duplicate images from the file system and return the number of deleted ones) public static Image SetImageAsAccountPicture(Image image , Account account) ( // query the database to save a link to this image for the user ) public static Image Resize(Image image, int height, int width) ( // resize the image ) public static Image InvertColors(Image image) ( // change the colors on the image) public static byte Download(Url imageUrl) ( // downloading a bitmap with an image using an HTTP request) // etc. )
It seems that he has no boundaries of responsibility at all. It can save to a database, and it knows the rules for assigning images to users. Can download images. Knows how image files are stored and can work with the file system.
Each responsibility of this class leads to its potential change. It turns out that this class will change its behavior very often, which will make it difficult to test it and the components that use it. This approach will reduce the performance of the system and increase the cost of its maintenance.
Solution
The solution is to divide this class according to the principle of single responsibility: one class per responsibility.
Public static class ImageFileManager ( public static void Save(Image image) ( // saving the image to the file system ) public static int DeleteDuplicates() ( // remove all duplicate images from the file system and return the number of deleted ones ) ) public static class ImageRepository ( public static Image SetImageAsAccountPicture(Image image, Account account) ( // query the database to save a link to this image for the user) ) public static class Graphics ( public static Image Resize(Image image, int height, int width) ( // change image sizes ) public static Image InvertColors(Image image) ( // change the colors in the image ) ) public static class ImageHttpManager ( public static byte Download(Url imageUrl) ( // downloading a bitmap with an image using an HTTP request ) )
This post is part of a series
This championship, in which, it seems, everything that could not happen has already happened - I mean the tournament intrigue - something final was missing at the finish line. Not sensational - this word has become worn out along the way due to too frequent use. And something completely unimaginable in the form of the final Belgium - Croatia. The Belgians failed. And the Croats reached the final. And this will be remembered years from now: “This is the World Cup where the Croatian national team played in the final!” Nothing like this happened for more than 50 years. And it shouldn't have been.
Starting from the 1966 World Cup, which was shown on television for the first time in our country and which was won for the first and last time by the founders of football, in principle there could not be any “second echelon” in the final. Hungary in 1954, Sweden in 1958, Czechoslovakia in 1962. Then, in different years, only monsters reached the finals and won: Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, France. Plus the eternal loser Holland and Spain, which first broke through to the table only in 2010, which did not become a sensation. That's all! And no one else!
There are enough football countries, there are hardly more football powers than there are fingers on one hand. At the continental championships, please, frolic, even Mexico and Chile, or Denmark-Greece-Portugal. But on the planetary football forum, no, no.
And it was not for the Croats to break tradition. Yes, Italy and Holland did not make it to Russia, but the cohort of giants looked quite powerful. The Croats took out one of them while still in the group, leaving no stone unturned in Argentina. But you never know who has been called a shadow favorite before, and who will immediately remember them? Zlatko Dalic's team started the cup round and continued with a bang, defeating the national teams of Denmark and Russia in a penalty shootout. Two consecutive matches of more than 120 minutes of grueling struggle for an older team is almost a death sentence. We were lucky with the net, of course, but not with England.
That's who was hungry, greedy and most importantly - fresh. Those who probably remembered that it was unmotivated Croatia that deprived England of participation in Euro 2008, opening the way for Russia.
Everything tied up in a tight knot in the Luzhniki semi-final, and Gareth Southgate held almost all the trump cards. Almost everything, except one, was an experience, which the man in the strict vest never tired of reminding of after it was all over.
In fact, it ended with the fact that after Mario Mandzukic's goal, the Croatian football players, distraught with happiness, almost ran over a Salvadoran photographer on the edge of the field. When the final whistle sounded from Turkish referee Cünayt Çakır, the clock was preparing to strike midnight. The sky above the seething bowl of the Grand Sports Arena had long been dark, almost black. But for the winners, the stars shone on it.
But humanity did not look up. It was enjoying the moment. The part most interested in the result - the British in white T-shirts and the Croats in traditional red and white checkers - accounted for a maximum of one fifth of the audience. The remnants of the fans who left the championship stood out against the general background - they flashed sombreros, ponchos, and the German flag, but there were also plenty of Russian ones. And most of all, according to my calculations, it turned out to be Chinese. They finally joined the World Cup en masse at the semi-final level, sparing no expense. And how fans from the Middle Kingdom swept out the kiosks with official paraphernalia after the match - you had to see.
The cloud was driven away by the noise of the stands. The place was good, somewhere on the average level. From there it was clearly visible how the guys in white trains rushed past the platforms. The platforms were Croatian players. It seemed that every movement was difficult for them. They simply could not keep up with the dashing attacks. Nobody had time. The highly experienced Luka Modric brought down Dele Alli, who is head and shoulders taller than him, on the edge of the penalty area at the very beginning of the match. Kieran Trippier from Tottenham, who took all free kicks, launched the ball over the wall, Dejan Lovren from Liverpool almost jumped, and goalkeeper Daniel Subasic had no chance. The English torsida let out a cry of delight and began to sing for real, which was periodically interrupted by a sigh of disappointment.
There was a reason. Captain Harry Kane hit the post from a meter away and ruined a chance that could top any hit parade of oddities. Jesse Lingard carefully and without interference placed the ball in the corner to the right of the goalkeeper, but missed. There were countless approaches. The Croats resisted as best they could, but looked doomed. They whistled from the stands.
Not everyone - Luzhniki supported the Croatian national team much more than the British. The whistle was directed at a specific player. It was not the British who whistled, and certainly not the Chinese. The hosts were different, Russians, whose cordiality they never tire of shouting about on all TV channels. The target was defender Domagoj Vida. Not only did he score the second, almost decisive, goal against Igor Akinfeev. After the match, together with a member of the Croatian delegation, Ognjen Vukojevic, he also made a video available on the Internet, in which there was more stupidity than sedition.
On "Glory to Ukraine!" our propagandists attacked like a red rag. FIFA has already punished the penalty box, the Croats themselves have already deprived Vukojevic of accreditation, Vida himself has already apologized, and the fans have already stretched the banner into almost two sectors with words of gratitude to Russia.
But Vida was neither understood nor forgiven, showing even greater dependence on politics than the footballer who played for Dynamo Kiev.
He didn't bat an eyelid. The Croats survived. The British should have been wary. But they came out for the second half, clearly intending to play to the score. It worked for them before - Southgate taught his young and not very experienced team a lot. However, this time they were up against the Croats, who lost twice to their opponents during the match in the cup round - and won twice. Fighters and masters who never give up. They played without substitutions until the start of extra time - an incredible fact for such a match.
Vida and her son celebrate reaching the finals. Photo: Vlad Dokshin / Novaya Gazeta In short, the Croats hobbled the English light cavalry. They took the ball and the territory. They began to methodically lay siege to the penalty area and not only disturbed Jordan Pickford, but started a real fire in his domain. Ivan Perišić scored with a tight finish ahead of Kyle Walker after a simple cross from Sime Vrsaljko. In the next episode, Pickford's goal was saved only by the post - the same Perisic hit. Somehow the England team managed to even out the game only towards the end of normal time.
Mario Mandzukic became her evil genius. The Juventus forward was missed in the penalty area, the hero of the match Perisic threw the ball in (later Ivan will say that Mario was in the right place), and Mandzukic does not miss such moments. Then twice, as if consisting of nothing but sinews, the giant would sit down exhausted on the lawn, and the British, who were already counting every lost second, would help him get up.
First, Mandzukic will leave the field. Then Modric. At some point, instead of the penetrating pass usual for the leader of the national team, he simply rolled the ball to the opponent - his legs no longer obeyed. But the British have already lost. More in spirit than in tactics.
Southgate at the press conference will mainly talk about the same things that are talked about after the victorious defeat of the Russian national team: about the progress of the team and the experience it has gained. And least of all - about the consolation final in St. Petersburg with the Belgians.
The phrase “the Russian team should have been in the place of the Croats” does not fit. She could have, but she didn’t. And period.
Yes, but what about the France-Belgium semi-final? What about the failed triumph of the most spectacular team of the championship? Why didn’t the brilliant trio Hazard - De Bruyne - Lukaku work out?
Yes, because the French. Probably future champions. A springy, flexible, cunning, terribly pragmatic team, which it has never been before. Didier Deschamps, after a disappointingly lost home Euro final two years ago, turned on a program called “the main thing is the result.” And he made a killer team out of a very talented, but damp national team that can strangle any opponent.
Before Sunday it's all about the French. Everything. But the cherry on the cake is already there. You know what it's called.
