Jump to content

Recommended Posts

geez - just over a week ago we had a couple of on the bounce wins to put us breathing down Chelsea's neck and were set fair


Just a week later and because of 2 bad defeats (which doesn't put us out of anything) people are saying Wenger should go?


This whole 5 years without a medal business.. trust me, when Wenger does go Arsenal will enter a period of significant decline, and all Arsenal fans will pine for his reign again. In that 5 years we have come close on a number of occassions despite moving stadiums and paying off that debt. The club is consistently there or thereabouts and is financially secure and self-sufficient in a way no other club at the top is


I only hope he chooses when to go and doesn't get pushed out by fickle punters.

You may be 'financially secure and self-sufficient' but there are holes in the squad that could be filled by buying some world class players and it seems that Wenger refuses to do so. Every one of those five trophyless seasons you've been a couple of players short of a world beating squad. I don't think most fans see Wenger as a failure, just as a stubborn man who refuses to admit the obvious. For that reason alone, and bare in mind the board have said he has money to spend with no problem at all, he should be questioned in his role.

Not suggesting he is fired, simply stating that our approach needs to change. As a gooner that has suffered and experienced great highs since 1968, I'm eternally grateful to Wenger for what he has brought to the club, we simply need to rethink our approach to compete with our main rivals.


I've never said we'd win the title this season, but I simply want us to challenge seriously from game 1 to 38.

Oh everything isn't perfect by any means and I agree we are short of a couple of world-clas players


And yet and yet... they don't just grow on trees and buying them means we lose that financial restraint. And even then, buying them guarantees you nothing. On balance I like what we do - even if weeks like this frustrate the hell out of me

I've not said he should go, I just think he doesn't have a plan b when we are swimming against the tide. And at the risk of sounding like the proverbial broken record, we need a quality keeper (in fairness to Fabianski neither of the last two losses were down to him), another central defender, somebody to take on the Viera mantle as he has never been adequately replaced since he left, and another striker. Bendtner didn't play as well as he talks last night, no surprise there, and a few other players didn't get out of second gear.


Right now, apart from Guardiola and Mourinho, there are no top quality managers out there capable of stepping into Wengers shoes.

It has been the same problem at Arsenal for years, four key positions have needed to be filled and even if Wenger had had joy in two of them Arsenal would have won some trophies. Arsenal play great technical football but Wenger seems to think every player he signs has to be technically perfect, they don't. Sometimes you need to compromise and find the right type of player with the right attitude that will more than make up their lack of technical ability.


The following isn't necessarily a serious list of who he should have bought, I am sure there are better options, but add say Given, Parker and Crouch to the Arsenal team and they would be better and have more steel/character in the team than they do now.


goalkeeper (Given, Schwarzer)

centre half (tough centre halfs aren't hard to find)

defensive midfielder (Scott Parker)

extra attacker (target man. Kevin Davies, Peter Crouch)



As Wenger saw how good Bould, Keown and Adams were just can't understand why he is so scared of buying someone who isn't technically perfect. Perhaps if Dein was still there he could have persuaded him. Anyway Arsenal would be mad to get rid of Wenger.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> He's not doing too badly now though is he. And he

> won the FA Cup for Pompey and got them playing in

> Europe. Perhaps if you watch Spurs tonight we'll

> show you how's it's done.>:D<


Ok it's a deal, but do you think they'll show us how to win the title, or is a case of 61 never again? ;-)

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Oh yes get rid of him. Go on get rid. I'm dying

> see you in decline.

>

> Jeez! Ladygooner has got it right. A couple of bad

> results does not a season make.


Thanks Jah - women always know best!

Oh b******s. Penalty deserved, though I don't think it was a malicious tackle - Naismith seemed to be going for the ball and completely oblivious to Fabio (which is poor footballing anyway you look at it). But did it have to be Rooney? He's so damned smug!

I did not see it but in general I don't think penalties should decide football matches especially if there is not a real goalscoring opportunity.


From the bit of the match that I did see Rangers were typically difficult to beat, so hats off to them PGC. A good effort.



However - for MU fans - here's the last time you came to Glasgow and were humbled by the little Japenese ....



 

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Oh b******s. Penalty deserved, though I don't

> think it was a malicious tackle - Naismith seemed

> to be going for the ball and completely oblivious

> to Fabio (which is poor footballing anyway you

> look at it). But did it have to be Rooney? He's

> so damned smug!


I thought there had to be "intent" to award a penalty? In that sense, Naismith was hard done by. However, we were very lucky not to have been penalised in the first few minutes for Davis' challenge on Berbatov, which I thought was a clear penalty.

Miller had a couple of chances that could have changed the game.

Real bonus tonight was seeing Hutton perform very well - a real prospect.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Oh b******s. Penalty deserved, though I don't

> think it was a malicious tackle - Naismith seemed

> to be going for the ball and completely oblivious

> to Fabio (which is poor footballing anyway you

> look at it). But did it have to be Rooney? He's

> so damned smug!


You'd be smug as well if you'd held your club to ransom, got what you wanted, got away with saying he didn't think the club was able to succeed without buying better players, AND the Manc fans actually let you get away with it. Smug doesn't cover it.

SCSB79 Wrote:

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

> Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

>

> I thought there had to be "intent" to award a

> penalty?


See Law 12 - if the referee considers the challenge to be careless or reckless it is a foul. I'm sure Naismith had no intent but it could certainly be argued to be both careless and reckless. Harsh, but correct.

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...