Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the second half Utd couldn't get the ball, surprised Fergie didn't stiffen up the midfield, sure he would have played Park if he had been fit. Chelsea did really well to battle back into it. Ref had an awful game.


I think Arsenal should win the league, have a much easier run in than Utd who will drop quite a few more points so Arsenal will never have a better chance, as long as the can keep their nerve.

murphy Wrote:

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

> Ref had an awful game.

>Just like the Wigan Game then


> I think Arsenal should win the league, have a much

> easier run in than Utd who will drop quite a few

> more points so Arsenal will never have a better

> chance, as long as the can keep their nerve.


And don't keep having players ruled out through injury. If football was just about keeping your nerve, then Mancs should have been able to do so and win last night. What happened to that famous nerve they are supposed to possess in abundance and pundits always insist they, and no other team, have?

murphy Wrote:

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

> In the second half Utd couldn't get the ball,

> surprised Fergie didn't stiffen up the midfield,

> sure he would have played Park if he had been fit.

> Chelsea did really well to battle back into it.

> Ref had an awful game.

>

> I think Arsenal should win the league, have a much

> easier run in than Utd who will drop quite a few

> more points so Arsenal will never have a better

> chance, as long as the can keep their nerve.


Agree about the midfield. Carrick needs to pull his socks up or he'll be out in the summer, some of his passing was terrible. I'm not sure we'll drop a lot more points but games at Liverpool and Arsenal and the home game against Chelsea are not going to be easy.

At Wigan the ref made one wrong decision on an off the ball incident he didn't see properly, Rooney should have been sent off. Last night the ref, with a clear view of the action made several poor decisions.


Emerson, the idea is it is supposed to be a debate not a slanging match. You could have argued "on paper Arsenal have the easier run in but I am worried the injuries/number of games/perhaps lack of experience etc will mean we will slip up when we are not expecting it".


The fact is Arsenal do have the much easier run in, even with a few players out (as Utd have), most matches you should win, so for me the debating point is "can Arsenal keep their nerve" - I would be saying exactly the same if it were Spurs, City or Liverpool in Arsenal's position now - I wouldn't be saying it if it were Chelsea because they have been there and done it recently.


You are welcome to join the debate and talk about Arsenal's chances in some detail or you can just carry on slagging off Utd, which might be cathartic for you but doesn't take a debate about who might win the league any further.

He posted an opinion about last night's game which wasn't "derogatory, insulting or inflammatory" yet you decided to respond in the way you did (knowing full well it would get a reaction). Then everyone else jumps on board and has a go. I don't really see that as fair and as I've said before, it reminds me of play ground bullying to be honest.


But there we go.

murphy Wrote:

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

> At Wigan the ref made one wrong decision on an off

> the ball incident he didn't see properly, Rooney

> should have been sent off. Last night the ref,

> with a clear view of the action made several poor

> decisions.

>

> Emerson, the idea is it is supposed to be a debate

> not a slanging match. You could have argued "on

> paper Arsenal have the easier run in but I am

> worried the injuries/number of games/perhaps lack

> of experience etc will mean we will slip up when

> we are not expecting it".

>

> The fact is Arsenal do have the much easier run

> in, even with a few players out (as Utd have),

> most matches you should win, so for me the

> debating point is "can Arsenal keep their nerve" -

> I would be saying exactly the same if it were

> Spurs, City or Liverpool in Arsenal's position now

> - I wouldn't be saying it if it were Chelsea

> because they have been there and done it

> recently.

>

> You are welcome to join the debate and talk about

> Arsenal's chances in some detail or you can just

> carry on slagging off Utd, which might be

> cathartic for you but doesn't take a debate about

> who might win the league any further.



Ok lets have it straight here. Nerve is something the Arsenal are ofetn accused of not having enough "nerve", so I commented on that, also stated that I thought it a bit rich that Ferguson has a pop at a ref for not getting a decision when he clearly did in the game before. As Anna has been kind enough to point out, I didnt use derogatory lanuage as JAh Lush chose to, and then has nerve to point the finger at me. For your info, I think we've got an "ok" chance of winning it, but the number of injuries are conspiring against us.


As always, thanks Anna for the voice of sanity in this playground. As for holier than thou!!! Oh please.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Jah even agreed with his initial point, and it was

> only after the whole "yawn" thing that it went the

> usual way.



And we all know who can be relied upon to come up with the "yawn" stupidity don't we.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Oh please sir, a big boy did it and ran away.



You know what Jah time after time you've shown yourself to be a real piece of work, and yet again you are a model of consistency. You are one of worst offenders on here and yet you resent being told that you are. Now go and have a play in the sand pit with the rest of your friends in the creche.

murphy Wrote:

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

> At Wigan the ref made one wrong decision on an off

> the ball incident he didn't see properly, Rooney

> should have been sent off. Last night the ref,

> with a clear view of the action made several poor

> decisions.

>

> Emerson, the idea is it is supposed to be a debate

> not a slanging match. You could have argued "on

> paper Arsenal have the easier run in but I am

> worried the injuries/number of games/perhaps lack

> of experience etc will mean we will slip up when

> we are not expecting it".

>

> The fact is Arsenal do have the much easier run

> in, even with a few players out (as Utd have),

> most matches you should win, so for me the

> debating point is "can Arsenal keep their nerve" -

> I would be saying exactly the same if it were

> Spurs, City or Liverpool in Arsenal's position now

> - I wouldn't be saying it if it were Chelsea

> because they have been there and done it

> recently.

>

> You are welcome to join the debate and talk about

> Arsenal's chances in some detail or you can just

> carry on slagging off Utd, which might be

> cathartic for you but doesn't take a debate about

> who might win the league any further.



Congratulations!!! You win this years award for the most patronising post.

I've asked this before, but noone answered, so I'll try again. Being as you have all now been shown how to ignore posts by anyone you want, why don't those who find Emerson offensive, just put his posts on ignore, and hd can do the same. I've said time and again, that Emerson is often his own worst enemy on here, getting way too wound up over a game. But, as ever, he made a point this morning, admittedly in his own special way, but not in an offensive way, that was followed by "same old Atila, yawn" (which by the way, is incredibly annoying). Only then did he respond, and yet he gets all the blame. Emerson is at least as guilty as anyone, and really needs to turn the other cheek sometimes, but to suggest he's the only responsible party, is bullshit!

Keef Wrote:

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

> I've asked this before, but noone answered, so

> I'll try again. Being as you have all now been

> shown how to ignore posts by anyone you want, why

> don't those who find Emerson offensive, just put

> his posts on ignore, and hd can do the same. I've

> said time and again, that Emerson is often his own

> worst enemy on here, getting way too wound up over

> a game. But, as ever, he made a point this

> morning, admittedly in his own special way, but

> not in an offensive way, that was followed by

> "same old Atila, yawn" (which by the way, is

> incredibly annoying). Only then did he respond,

> and yet he gets all the blame. Emerson is at least

> as guilty as anyone, and really needs to turn the

> other cheek sometimes, but to suggest he's the

> only responsible party, is bullshit!



(tu)

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...