Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sandperson what have I said that has hit home so hard with you about Ferguson?


As for Rafa not having a personality to make headlines maybe it is because we at Liverpool like to do our talking on the pitch - rather than making negative comments about other teams.


I'm fed up with this inferiority complex from United. Smell the coffee Sandperson, Liverpool are top of the league and they're gonna stay top so get used to it!

Sandperson Wrote:


Isn't it true that Pompey (under

> Redknapp) didn't pay the fee for Defoe?


Nope, it is not true whatsoever. As in almost all EPL deals, the first half was paid and the second delayed for 1 year. This was waived by Tottenham in bringing him back to WHL (they also doubled his wages). There were further complications on the deal as we owed spurs some cash for Kaboul who transfered in the summer.


Just heard an amusing story, from a certain 7ft striker, that a certain scouse exhibitionist was so p***ed off with Defoe's lack of effort after the PFC Vs WHFC game on Boxing Day that he took it upon himself to spark him straight out in the dressing room! Flu my arse!


Also an interesting side note is that JD has been living at HR's Sandbanks residence since this incident. Tapped up? Of course not!

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Liverpool are top of the league and they're gonna

> stay top so get used to it!"

>

> What's the old adage? Pride comes before a fall?


Remember last season? Arsenal were top until February and then look what happened!

Arsenal want Upson back, perhaps for Bentdner (or however it spelt).

TOrn, we need cash, and bendtner is a decent enough player who would suit the team, especially if Etherington goes to Stoke (he'll be sorely missed even if he is a tad erratic at the mo), but Upson is absolutely at the core of our new found defensive solidity, and if he stays will almost certainly get player of the season.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Arsenal want Upson back, perhaps for Bentdner (or

> however it spelt).

> TOrn, we need cash, and bendtner is a decent

> enough player who would suit the team, especially

> if Etherington goes to Stoke (he'll be sorely

> missed even if he is a tad erratic at the mo), but

> Upson is absolutely at the core of our new found

> defensive solidity, and if he stays will almost

> certainly get player of the season.



Its Bendtner! His lovely pink boots will go down a treat in Plaistow!

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm fed up with this inferiority complex from

> United. Smell the coffee Sandperson, Liverpool are

> top of the league and they're gonna stay top so

> get used to it!


Hate saying stuff like that. Hope you've not jinxed us. :'(

I'm fed up with this inferiority complex from United. Smell the coffee Sandperson, Liverpool are top of the league and they're gonna stay top so get used to it!


Anna just beat me to it. Matthew, if we don't win the league (which as LadyG points out, is quite possible), I blame you personally for it!

From Spurs fan site.. Not sure all the facts are true but makes an interesting read.


The papers are full today of our "new" signing being paraded on the pitch before last nights game and the figures being stated range from ?13m-?16m but in reality how much did he cost us?


Firstly let me say that this is only my take on the matter, not any form of insider knowledge, so the numbers will be "ball park" from information available but they'll be close.


Firstly last season we sold Jermaine, Noe Pamarot, Sean Davies, Pedro Mendes and Younes Kaboul to Pompey. Pamarot, Mendes & Davies were combined together as a lump sum value of ?7.5m, Defoe was ?9m and Kaboul was an "undisclosed fee" rumoured to be about ?3.5m. This made an estimated total of ?20m we were owed by Pompey.


As most people know teams don't just pass each other wads of cash any more and usually spread the payments out over stages, generally acknowledged as one third up front, a third after a year and the final third 18months/2 years down the line.


So for arguements sake Pompey owed us the final payment of c?7m.


Next thing to bear in mind is that Levy is not a stupid man when it comes to business. The only reason Defoe was sold was that he was entering his last year of his contract and refusing to sign a new one so rather than getting stung the way we did with our ex-captain "who should not be named" for fear of legal action we accepted Pompey's bid which many of us said at the time was too low. But Levy knew that given games Defoe would score goals and it'd be likely he'd be sold for a profit by Portsmouth so he added in a "sell on clause" into the deal.


This is a common occurance in football these days, especially with young and talented players, and rumours are that Defoe had a ?4m sell on clause. So we'd receive ?4m back should Pompey sell Defoe.


So if we take the mid range and accept we agreed a fee with Portsmouth of ?15m then that would immediately become ?11m when we got our sell on cash back, take off the ?7m outstanding and that drops the cash paid to ?4m.


So we've basically paid Portsmouth ?4m to give our striker a years worth of first team football.


When we loan players out to lower league clubs to "get match experience" we generally pick up 50% of the wage costs and when he left us Defoe was on ?35k a week = ?1.8m a year. If we'd sent him there on loan we'd still have paid, rounded up, ?1m in wages.


So in an optomists eyes, ignoring the accountancy realism we paid Pompey the sum total of ?3m to give JD a years worth of matches.

Alternative version:



The sell on clause was waived


Spurs owed Pompey ?5m compensation for Judas


Money on Mendes was paid over when he moved to Scotland. (By the way these players signed 3 seasons ago now.) O/S debts in EPL must be paid within 12 months.


Sad fact is that Spurs have been royally bummed on this deal. Even sadder fact is that Pompey will not be able to spend the money on players due to the debt left by Redknapp.


Happy fact is that Spurs will probably be bankrupt by the Jowlly faced shyster by February 9th!

Two sides to every story. I'm really glad Defoe is back. He's quick and he scores goals and if he can strike up a good partnership Pavloychenko all the better.

I was at White Hart Lane last night and we were bloody awful in the first half but one substitution later - Jamie O'Hara for a flash and bone idle David Bentley - and 21 minutes later we're 4-1 up. Job done.

I learnt long ago that holding fire or making predictions has no effect on the final result - unless you give team talk! Which reminds me of when I once give Sami Hyypia a 'pep talk' in Switzerland after Liverpool went out of Champions League to Basle in group stage. I sat down next to the skipper after we found him in a hotel with bottle of beer in hand and told him all would be forgiven by winning on weekend... we took another 12 league games before we won again!
It was a much stronger United line-up than I expected, and don't forget Scholes and Tevez also started. Rio is still injured and Evra suspended - but both are back for Sunday's blockbuster which will go a long way to decide which team finishes 2nd or 3rd this season. Ronaldo, Carrick and Rooney made no difference to the flow of the game so I'd say much work still to be done for United in 2nd leg, although I expect United to meet Spurs in Final. I thought Phil Dowd refereed the game well (only saw 2nd half) and I'd probably put him up there now as the best in PL on evidence of recent weeks.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...