Jump to content

Recommended Posts

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I support Man U, Matthew. I also love rugby.

> One

> > doesn't exclude the other. However there tends

> to

> > be more idiots involved in football than rugby

> > IMO.

>

> I think just as many idiots follow Rugby it's just

> footy is more intense and perhaps brings rowdy

> behaviour quicker to the fore.


Matthew, how the hell is footie more intense than rugby on the pitch, which is where you presumably are talking about. Off the pitch footie is more intense due to the fans being intimidating. But on it you would just have to have looked at any of the matches this week-end to see that the nancy boy footballers wouldn't last 5 minutes in rugby because if they fell over their bootlaces looking for attention the game would just continue whilst an A&E site was built up around them on the pitch. They would soon realise it's a game and not a pantomine.

kpc Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm not aware that there has ever been

> > violence between rugby fans - compared to the

> > history of violence between football fans -

> surely

> > that says it all.

>

> I was part of a group of Moseley fans attacked by

> Leicester fans at the Cup Final at Twickenham as

> far back as 1979!! And from talking to colleagues

> who go to games regularly, it does seem to be

> creeping into fan behaviour as the game tries to

> attract a wider audience.


I find this difficult to believe but if it happened it happened. I doubt they were 'Leicester' fans though. I watched several games over the week-end. Last night for example in a poor but intense match with a lot at stake, once again the home fans showed what they were worth by keeping quiet when the opposition were taking kicks at goal.Stuart Barnes peed me off at one point by implying that the Munster fans were hissing before a kick when it was obvious to me as a TV viewer that they were hushing the one or two fools who were making noise.

kpc Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > They would soon realise it's a game and not a

> > pantomine.

>

> Think 'bloodgate' qualifies as pantomime myself.


Got to agree with you there.........a very badly acted one though!

Wonder if sales at the Clapham joke shop increased?


More seriously it seems that some players deliberately set out to injure opponents (gouging, raking, dangerous tackles) and see the risk of a lengthy ban as an occupational hazard (OK, there have been occasional documented cases in football) - I just can't understand this.

Bluerevolution Wrote:

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

> Rugby the violence is ON the pitch, football it's

> not. Lived in Leicester for many years and

> followed the Tigers all over the place- there were

> a lot that weren't nice to be around


Do you mean Dean Richards? Seriously though are you comparing it to being around football fans?

Declan, what I meant by intense was it only takes a second to score goal et al whereas with rugger it is almost like a coach party of geriatrics making their way up and down the pitch. Sure there maybe the odd interception try but by and large the emotions do not go up and down like a yo-yo watching rugby (i.e. the best team in rugby are more likely to win than the best team in football).


What I find sour about Rugby is that many of it's followers will not accept it is a dirty sport. Surely bloodgate, spear tackles, eye gouging has nothing to do with sport and yet it's defended by having a go at footy as if they invented these underhand tactics.

Not fair Sir.....I didn't start it!


PS Nor did I mean to send this comment by PM, apologies




Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Our you indulging in some afters? This is the

> football thread isn't it? Get to the Rugby v

> Football thread if you want to argue about the

> pros and cons of the two sports. Sin bin for

> Declan and a red card for you Matthew.

I'm waiting for you on the other thread. Jah's likely to have a hangover and not be in the best mood this morning so I don't want to be caught talking rugby on his footie thread.




matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Declan, what I meant by intense was it only takes

> a second to score goal et al whereas with rugger

> it is almost like a coach party of geriatrics

> making their way up and down the pitch. Sure there

> maybe the odd interception try but by and large

> the emotions do not go up and down like a yo-yo

> watching rugby (i.e. the best team in rugby are

> more likely to win than the best team in

> football).

>

> What I find sour about Rugby is that many of it's

> followers will not accept it is a dirty sport.

> Surely bloodgate, spear tackles, eye gouging has

> nothing to do with sport and yet it's defended by

> having a go at footy as if they invented these

> underhand tactics.

Rod Liddle (again) but this time on West Ham (C&P)


West Ham fans should brace themselves for sexy football

Rod Liddle



THANK YOU, Santa. On Christmas Eve I hunkered down beside my bed and asked Father Christmas, please, could he fix it to ensure that West Ham United were bought out by a consortium consisting entirely of bankrupts, lunatics and half-wits. ?And if you can?t manage that, Santa, then how about Sullivan, Gold and Brady?? You see, the power of prayer should not be underestimated; it worked a couple of years back too, when they signed Kieron Dyer for about a billion quid.


I have to say, it did not occur to me to request that upon arriving, the fragrant Karren Brady would suggest renaming them ?West Ham Olympic?, or that David Sullivan would promise fans a Champions League place ?within seven years?. If the club are to be renamed, I think they need to reference both the Olympic Games and maybe one or two of the products you can buy through Mr Sullivan?s porno empire: how about West Ham Olympic Bedroom Frenzy? Do you think Bobby Moore and Ron Greenwood would approve?


But Schadenfreude is a sad state of mind, and the truth is that although, as a Millwall supporter, I have a moral and constitutional requirement to loathe West Ham (we still kid ourselves that we are their bitterest rivals, in much the same way that Liechtenstein thinks of Germany), I find it hard to do. A medium-sized club, they are less afflicted by delusions of grandeur than their London Premier League rivals, and their intensely loyal fan base is still drawn from the local area and not too far beyond. They may bang on about having won the World Cup for England single-handed and all that risible guff about the Academy of Football ? a boast that always sat uneasily, I thought, with the deployment of Julian Dicks ? but you cannot accuse them of being arriviste, or that carelessly deployed insult: plastic. Football clubs are resilient financially, and the most resilient are those with a strong fan base and a connectivity to the area from which they originate.


But I cannot believe that their supporters are entirely behind the takeover, and still less the flatulent grandstanding that has accompanied it. Sullivan has pledged, ? la Teddy Sheringham, that he is a lifelong supporter of the Hammers. I could check the cuttings and see if he said the same thing to the previous clubs with which he wished to become involved, or actually owned ? Birmingham City, Cardiff City, Watford, Bradford City, Leeds United, Tottenham Hotspur ? but it would be pointless. We know from his previous statements that he was sick of having to travel all the way from his tasteful Essex porno bolthole to the Midlands to watch the team that he co-owned, and that West Ham therefore suit his location, although Southend and Colchester will be heaving a sigh of relief. We know, too, from innumerable articles ? and indeed from his own website ? that David Gold was brought up in Dickensian (Charles, not Julian) poverty in the old East End of London, Gawd luv ?im, and dragged ?imself clear of the workhouse by the simple expedient of providing 90% polyester split-crotch panties and Rampant Rabbits via the Ann Summers chain to a legion of grateful women. And, you would guess, men.



It is difficult to argue that Sullivan and Gold are less suited to the fan base of West Ham than those weird-looking, terribly over-extended Icelandic people who can now not even afford to buy a packet of deep-frozen cod in prawn sauce for their suppers.


And you would have to concede that the new owners have not done a bad job with Birmingham City, a club with many similarities to West Ham, both being blue-collar sides residing in the shadow of more gilded neighbours who think terribly highly of themselves. Both clubs also shimmy between the top two divisions and try to convince themselves that they could do rather better than that.


And I suppose you might argue that a questionable dress sense and the recent sporting of a ponytail, plus a fortune that (as Crystal Palace chairman Simon Jordan put it) is ?half a billion pounds of masturbation money? are small crimes against the sort of people whom the Football Association consider fit and proper to run our clubs. Shady Middle-Eastern consortiums, blank-faced Russian oligarchs who own yachts with submarines attached, a Thai politician who is wanted in his own country on criminal charges, the cheat Flavio Briatore, and Ridsdale and Bates et al. Rather Sullivan and Gold than any of them.


Apparently, West Ham tried to buy Ruud van Nistelrooy, because Sullivan, with incredible perspicacity, has identified the need for a new striker. Good luck, you Hammers, and good luck, too, to Gianfranco Zola, a decent man. His job is safe for the moment, apparently, but you would not bet that it will remain so.

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...