Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Narnia Wrote:

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

> Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Narnia Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > A recent study of the PL teams show the Arse

> to

> > > the the shortest and lightest players on

> > average.

> > > They get so many injuries of the non

> deliberate

> > > kind perhaps they should look at how they are

> > > training.

> >

> > Interesting point. Barcelona are one of the

> > shortest and lightest teams in La Liga. I don't

> > recall them having to put up with as many

> broken

> > limbs as The Arsenal. This because they have

> far

> > fewer argicultural, journeyman players that

> litter

> > the English game.

>

> I think you missed the point.



On contrary I think you have.

To qoute you, "non deliberate" , no mention of non limb breaking, until just now. And as for training methods, how do you train a player to avoid a player of lesser ability causing a non limb breaking injury. Case in point Robinson on Diaby in the recent fixture against Boltom. Diaby is a big lad but awas caught on his standing leg, across the shin by a very late, clumsy, unnecessary, overly aggressive challenge. Please tell me what training regime you could put in place to negate this. I would galdly pass it on to many of my freinds inolved in running football teams of varying levels, I'm sure they would be greatly interested.
The thing that I find odd with this whole debate is that the onus off avoiding injury seems to be put upon those injured to avoid injury, in other words it's their own fault. Very little is being said about how we should train players NOT to make career threatening challenges, or to increase the level of technique and skill they posses so that they don't have to resort to scything people down, or is that too mush of a radical departure for you?

Tackling is a lost art these days. As great a footballer as he is Paul Scholes has never been able to tackle. Too often his mis-timed challenges have resulted in bookings or sendings off.

The challenge the lad at Wolves did at the weekend was nothing short of assault. Absolutely appalling challenge. But you can't take tackling out of the game otherwise becomes a non-contact sport. It's part of the game and a great skill to have in your armoury so why is it such a dying art?

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/liverpool-fc-statement-3


WTF is going on?


The Board of Directors have received two excellent financial offers to buy the Club that would repay all its long-term debt. A Board meeting was called today to review these bids and approve a sale. Shortly prior to the meeting, the owners - Tom Hicks and George Gillett - sought to remove Managing Director Christian Purslow and Commercial Director Ian Ayre from the Board, seeking to replace them with Mack Hicks and Lori Kay McCutcheon.


This matter is now subject to legal review and a further announcement will be made in due course.


Meanwhile Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre continue to explore every possible route to achieving a sale of the Club at the earliest opportunity.

Neither of the offers would give the Yanks a profit from their original investment...like the Glazers they only came in to make a profit, certainly not for the love of the game or the club...the best thing that could happen is for RBS to call in their loan on the 15th, the club goes into administration and you get a 9 point penalty, that way at least you are rid of the Yanks, someone will come in and buy the club for a lot less, so instead of giving their money now to the Yanks just so they can leave with a profit, that money can be invested in players and maybe a new stadium...bit of a scary ride but worth it in the end IMO. One thing I am certain of is that Liverpool will be sorted long before we ever get rid of the leeching Glazers...LUHG
Well if that were the case then maybe there's no pressure on them to sell...I did read a couple of weeks ago that RBS had forwarded the Yanks loan to their 'bad debt division', which is a precursor to calling the debt in, but don't know how much credence that article carried...I think it might have been the Grauniad :)

Broughton added: "By removing the burden of acquisition debt, this offer allows us to focus on investment in the team. I am only disappointed that the owners (Tom Hicks and George Gillett) have tried everything to prevent the deal from happening and that we need to go through legal proceedings in order to complete the sale."


I'm no expert on Company Law (maybe someone here is) - but how can a Board agree a deal and make such a statement that does not have majority shareholder support?


Assuming Hicks/Gillette are majority shareholdrs? then I'm not surprised thay are trying to sack the directors.



Edited to say - not that I support these Americans. I want what's best for Liverpool - Just would not want a board selling my majority sharholding without my consent, if I were a majority shareholder of a company. How does that work?

I believe it's because they are acting in the best interest of the club.


As owners, they cannot remove a Director without the agreement of a Chairman (Broughton) and it seems as though Broughton agrees that the club should be sold.


I might have misunderstood this bit, but there are 5 board members. Gillet, Hicks, (or their representatives), Broughton, Purslow and Ayre. Broughton, Ayre and Purslow have all voted for the sale of the club to NESV which leaves it 3 against 2.


The criteria will no doubt be regenerating the Anfield area, extending the stadium/or funding for a new one, clear the debt and investment in the team. H

red devil Wrote:

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

> Neither of the offers would give the Yanks a

> profit from their original investment...like the

> Glazers they only came in to make a profit,

> certainly not for the love of the game or the

> club...the best thing that could happen is for RBS

> to call in their loan on the 15th, the club goes

> into administration and you get a 9 point penalty,

> that way at least you are rid of the Yanks,

> someone will come in and buy the club for a lot

> less, so instead of giving their money now to the

> Yanks just so they can leave with a profit, that

> money can be invested in players and maybe a new

> stadium...bit of a scary ride but worth it in the

> end IMO. One thing I am certain of is that

> Liverpool will be sorted long before we ever get

> rid of the leeching Glazers...LUHG



This is how I see things going.

Keep up Keef - its your club ! :)


Can the shareholders overrule the board of directors?

If the directors have power under the company's articles to make the decision, and (as would be usual) there is nothing in the company's articles giving the shareholders power to overrule the directors, the answer is "not directly". There are, however, various options open to shareholders.


Shareholders with at least 5 per cent of the voting capital can require the directors to call a general meeting of the shareholders to consider a resolution overruling the decision.

Shareholders can also attempt to dismiss a director (see 15) or appoint new directors to the board, in the hope that they will outvote the existing board members.

Shareholders can take legal action if they feel the directors are acting improperly.

In the first two options, the resolution could either be to take away the directors' powers to make such decisions, or to include an express power for shareholders to override directors. The shareholders could then make the decision they want. Legal advice would be needed before taking either option.


Even if shareholders take one of these actions, the decision will stand in the meantime.

The way some English clubs have been run into the ground by financial mismanagement is criminal, Leeds, Portsmouth (hang your head in shame Redknapp) Liverpool, West Ham, Southampton, Luton, Man u, Newcastle, et al have all been victims to a lesser or greater degree.

Lets not forget, football is a business and has been for many, many years, and should be run using established and successful business models.

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...