Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So they parked the bus. It worked though and they're still above you. That's why you've got the hump isn't it. Get over it. I think it's Man Utd's title to lose now. For a side that hasn't played good yet they're still top and can only get better going into the second half of the season. Arsenal aren't consistent enough, Chelsea's age looks like it has caught up with them and I think it may be a season too early for Man City but they'll certainly qualify for the Champions League this year. League Cup for Arsenal.

Sandperson Wrote:

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

> Haha. I like that Anna. Atila, your self confessed

> jibes just bore me and others. If you think

> pointing out that Rooney isn't on form or he likes

> shagging prostitutes is news you are a bit

> deluded.



Of course its not news, (give me strength) but indictaive of the personna at your beloved club.

Arsenal were unlucky last night to be honest. The way they came at us from KO sent shudders through the team, we simply weren't ready for a full on attack like that. It was obvious Arse were out for the win so we killed the ball and took the impetus out of the game-not pretty football but did the job. We were lucky to have such a wonderful cross bar to help us out. I don't know what's going on with Tevez, the amount of fluffs over the last 2 games is remarkable. Once we get Silva and Balotelli fit (plus the addition of Dzeko) City are going to be a formidable force. Yes it is a season too early for the Premiership, top 4 and we'll be happy. We may be second but points are tight and all other teams near us have games in hand.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> -----

> > All far too easy to wind up, and its always the

> > same people.

>

> And same boring @#$%& doing the winding up.



I rest my case

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> I've got ?50 says they won't. Wanna bet and put

> your money where your mouth is?


No sour grapes from a spurs fan then. Keep your ?50 to drown your sorrows when you miss out on Champs League next year. ;-)

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> they're still above you.


And we are above you, and have been for a long long long long time. As for Anna's YAWN Sandperson, I'm glad to see she explained what it meant. Still care to comment or has that made your comment that she sided with you look a tad daft?

Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I've got ?50 says they won't. Wanna bet and put

> > your money where your mouth is?

>

> No sour grapes from a spurs fan then. Keep your

> ?50 to drown your sorrows when you miss out on

> Champs League next year. ;-)



Thought as much. All mouth and no trousers. No sour grapes here. The season isn't over yet. Got nothing to be sour about. We're doing quite well so far. Do you want to take the bet or haven't you got the balls? We've both won nothing so far this season but I've ?50 says you won't win the league. If you're so confident of winning it take the bet.

Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So EC, can you answer Narnia's question then?

>

>

> The Arsenal of course, what a silly question.


You still haven't answered why.

City played exactly as they did against home at Man Utd, no ambition. It is awful to watch, especially when they have a side good enough to have a go against Arsenal, who have lost at home to West Brom and Newcastle. Arsenal deserved to win and a shame they didn't.


The thing is City don't actually care about winning the league, all that matters is that they qualify for the champions league and then they can attract yet more players next season. Success is qualification, anything above fourth they just see as a bonus.


With Utd playing fairly poorly and Arsenal probably likely to lose points unexpectedly or wilt a little in the run in, City, with their experienced players, probably have a good shot at winning the league. It will be interesting to see if they really go for the title when they think a champions league spot is secure, doubt it though.


Having said all that Arsenal have the easiest run in by a long, long way, could be a good time to put a bet on them.

murphy Wrote:

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

> City played exactly as they did against home at

> Man Utd, no ambition. It is awful to watch,

> especially when they have a side good enough to

> have a go against Arsenal, who have lost at home

> to West Brom and Newcastle. Arsenal deserved to

> win and a shame they didn't.

>

> The thing is City don't actually care about

> winning the league, all that matters is that they

> qualify for the champions league and then they can

> attract yet more players next season. Success is

> qualification, anything above fourth they just see

> as a bonus.

>

> With Utd playing fairly poorly and Arsenal

> probably likely to lose points unexpectedly or

> wilt a little in the run in, City, with their

> experienced players probably have a good shot and

> winning the league. It will be interesting to see

> if they really go for the title if when they think

> a champions league spot is secure, doubt it

> though.

>

> Having said all that Arsenal have the easiest run

> in by a long, long way, could be a good time to

> put a bet on them.



Our biggest mistake last night was playing Jo, he's bloody useless and didn't seem to know where he should be playing. Why Mancini a)plays him b) keeps him is beyond me and my fellow Blues

Atticus Wrote:

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

> I show (Man) City the same level of respect I show

> Chelsea, just can't take them seriously.



A lot of long time City fans will understand where you're coming from. We have always classed ourselves as "The Peoples Club". The money we have spent/ are spending does leave a bad taste in the backs of a lot of supporters throats.

Especially when you think about how much we spent on the likes of Robinho and Jo- they weren't worth tuppence

Sandperson Wrote:

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

> Erm, I thought it was a clever play on words. I

> didn't think she was 'siding' with me, in fact,

> with our history I doubt she ever would. How old

> are you?


Grow up sad man, look at your original post again. Yet again you've biten. Same old Manc.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Emerson Crane Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Jah Lush Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I've got ?50 says they won't. Wanna bet and

> put

> > > your money where your mouth is?

> >

> > No sour grapes from a spurs fan then. Keep your

> > ?50 to drown your sorrows when you miss out on

> > Champs League next year. ;-)

>

>

> Thought as much. All mouth and no trousers. No

> sour grapes here. The season isn't over yet. Got

> nothing to be sour about. We're doing quite well

> so far. Do you want to take the bet or haven't you

> got the balls? We've both won nothing so far this

> season but I've ?50 says you won't win the league.

> If you're so confident of winning it take the bet.


I wouldn't to do you out of your beer money. No lack of balls here spud boy just have no interest in entering into a transaction with a spud. Clear enough?

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...