Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> SCSB79 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Emerson Crane Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Aston Villa 1 v Man Utd 2

> > > Man City 3 v Birmingham 1

> > > Newcastle 2 v Fulham 0

> > > Tottenham 1 v Blackburn 1

> > > West Ham 2 v Blackpool 2

> > > Wigan 1 v West Brom 2

> > > Wolverhampton 2 v Bolton 1

> > > Stoke 2 v Liverpool 2

> >

> >

> > Hardy har har - I hope you don't actually bet!!

>

>

> No, but nor do I post sectarian poison on here

> either. While my predictions may be amusing to

> some, your sectarian rubbish isn't.


Hardy har har - Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn.


As per my request to MM, please define ?sectarian? and link it back to any of my comments that exemplify the definitions.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Why don't all of you just stop this before it gets

> silly.

>

> Football people, football!


Keef - it would be great if we could keep it to football... but was there any need for him to post such cr*p?

Am I supposed to just sit and let them label me sectarian and racist and yet have no evidence to back that up?

It is far too easy for people to throw these slurs around without challenge.

Doesn't change the fact that keef is right


Emerson - he was teasing you about how bad your predictions were for the weekend (and for the record they were shocking - but I doubt either you or I care after yesterday's results) - but there was no need to resurrect that argument again.


So stick to the football - ir doesn't matter what was said over a week ago, let it lie

well IF anyone has been banned before they would be silly to risk getting banned again


and IF someone else hasn't had a ban before, it would be a shame to see it happen. But I'm not going to let the football thread descend into that name-calling nonsense again


so anyone tempted , leave any sectarian disagreements in the past. Capiche?

What are Man U missing? An on form Rooney obviously... do they have the strength in their squad to go all the way?

They ran Chelski close last season, but I am not sure if they can do it again... are the suffering from Liverpool-itis and drawing too many games so early on?

Too early, maybe, to write them off. But they don't have that aura about them anymore, but then nor do Chelski, or Arsenal, or anybody else for that matter. Most teams are overly reliant on a couple of players and if they aren't in the strating line up OR don't perform, they look average. I personally don't think they're the force they were when we had royal battles with them in the late 90's and early noughties, but nor are we.

For me Liverpool, United, Chelsea and Arsenal have weaker teams than they have had for a long time. Whilst the chasers have beefed up their line-ups to close the gap that has been helped by the gradual drift of the very elite from England. I think that drift will continue particularly to Spain if Madrid and Barcelona agree to share more of the TV money with rest of La Liga.


I'd expect PL to remain the most exciting but I fear the heyday of the PL has passed.

Call me biased but I'm going to say Arsenal look stronger than any of the last 4 seasons - and with the current crop of youngsters all maturing the trend for this club is up. That doesn't mean we will win anything of course but I'm more optimistic that I have been in recent years

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Call me biased but I'm going to say Arsenal look

> stronger than any of the last 4 seasons - and with

> the current crop of youngsters all maturing the

> trend for this club is up. That doesn't mean we

> will win anything of course but I'm more

> optimistic that I have been in recent years


We certainly have a bit more steel, but not sure that will be sufficient to clinch anything this time round. Too many injuries have been a concern. If we'd have won our games gainst Toon and WBA w'd be four points clear. I didn't expect us to beat Chelski, but the others were home bankers in my eyes.

Good job it was only a friendly. At least some of the kids got an outing. I think we can learn a lot from this game. For me Gareth Barry's time is up in an England shirt. The big plus was Andy Carroll's assured performance and Peter Crouch coming on and doing what he does best in an England shirt, sticking the ball in the net.
How hacked off are Liverppol with the FA after Stevie G picks up a knock which will put him out for around a month. If an Arsenal player had been injured I'd have been very put out. Same old FA, no consideration for the clubs that pay the wages. Mind you not happy that Nasri played 90 minutes just before the big game on Saturday.

Arsenal 2 v Tottenham 1

Birmingham 1 v Chelsea 2

Blackpool 1 v Wolverhampton 2

Bolton 1 v Newcastle 1

Man Utd 3 v Wigan 0

West Brom 1 v Stoke 1

Liverpool 1 v West Ham 0 (might struggle without Stevie G to fire them up)

Blackburn 2 v Aston Villa 1

Fulham 1 v Man City 2

Sunderland 1 v Everton 1

Arsenal 2 v Tottenham 2 (Spurs let 2 goal lead slip in last 10 mins, thereby saving the nation the sight of Bentley prancing around in his Hom's)

Birmingham 0 v Chelsea 0 (get some early Christmas shopping in)

Blackpool 3 v Wolverhampton 2 (Olly delays resignation for time being)

Bolton 3 v Newcastle 1 (18 certificate)

Man Utd 2 v Wigan 1 (Roonster to the rescue, two goals in last 10 mins)

West Brom 2 v Stoke 1 (Baggies back on the up...boing boing)

Liverpool 1 v West Ham 2 (Parker and Noble boss midfield)

Blackburn 0 v Aston Villa 0 (It's grim up North)

Fulham 2 v Man City 1 (Hughes wants it more than Mancini)

Sunderland 0 v Everton 1 (Black Cats get reality check)

In the aftermath of the debacle at WEmbley on Wednesday night, Terry Venables yet again reveerts to the tired argument that its all the fault of Johnny Foreigner, too many foreign imports bad for the national game bullshit. We've heard it all before. If he was as good as he thinks he is, he would admit that the failure in this country to take on the coaching and training methods used with geat success abroad is the problem, not foreign players. Lazy and lame excuse trotted out every time England fail to live up to the hype whipped up by the media. Can't wait for Euro 2012!!!

I like Terry but there is a distinct lack of coaches in this country compared to abroad. Our players can only learn from Johnny Foreigner's techniques. They tend not to drink either which is always good if you're an athlete.


Arsenal 2 Tottenham 2

Birmingham 1 Chelsea 1

Blackpool 2 Wolverhampton 1

Bolton 2 Newcastle 1

Man Utd 2 Wigan 0

West Brom 2 Stoke 1

Liverpool 2 West Ham 1

Blackburn 0 Aston Villa 2

Fulham 3 Man City 1

Sunderland 2 Everton 1

Well. A fair few 'foreighn voices' think that England should try and play to the strengths of the Premiership/English game and going 'continental' is soooooooo yesterday....and been proved pretty much not enough to push England to the top tier. I think they have a point.

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

    • 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.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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