Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just seen this

been a while so thought I would get back in the game


Tottenham 1 Chelsea 0

Fulham 2 Aston Villa 0

Liverpool 3 Reading 0

Man Utd 1 Stoke 0

Swansea 1 Wigan 1

West Brom 1 Man City 2

West Ham 3 Southampton 0

Norwich 0 Arsenal 4


Sunderland 1 Newcastle 1

QPR 0 Everton 1

Otta Wrote:

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

> Hmm, several people thinking Spurs might get a

> draw to Chelsea...



Lots of needle in this fixture nowadays..it means a lot. Plus I feel Chelsea have been punching above their weight this season and spurs getting it together a bit.

???? Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Hmem, several people thinking Spurs might get a

> > draw to Chelsea...

>

>

> Lots of needle in this fixture nowadays..it means

> a lot. Plus I feel Chelsea have been punching

> above their weight this season and spurs getting

> it together a bit.



I'm going to put my MASSIVE reputation on the line and disagree quids. I feel Spurs have had a good result or two but their form is temporary under AVB. Chelsea on the other hand have evolved into a very good team with their close season changes being for the better. Despite this they need a bit of good fortune to win away at WHL but think they will edge it.

red devil Wrote:

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

> This weeks winners and loooosers...

> AM - 10 correct results + 10 correct scores = 30pts

> JL - 4 correct results + 2 correct scores = 10pts

> RD - 2 correct results + 2 correct scores = 8pts

> SC - 5 correct results + 1 correct score = 8pts

> ?? - 3 correct results + 1 correct score = 6pts

> Ot - 3 correct results + 1 correct score = 6pts

> MM - 5 correct results + 0 correct scores = 5pts

> Mx - 4 correct results + 0 correct scores = 4pts



Keep an eye out for post match editing this week RD. Instant disqualification I hope or at least a hefty fine.

Very worrying scenes at Leeds game last night. Not only the fact that a fan attacks Chris Kirkland, but the fact that he was applauded by other Leeds fans when he climbed back into the stand. He has just flushed what was left of Leeds reputation down the shit hole. Well done lad. Tool.

Passes in PL 1st half:

Manu - 235

Stoke - 136

Swansea - 199

Wigan - 168

WBA - 129

ManC - 198

WHU - 91

Soton - 174

Lpool - 234

Reading - 121

Fulham - 183

Villa - 202


Oh dear!


PS - Done an unchecked prediction league table which I'll try and update after tommorow's games. Parkdrive is top.

Well played Norwich, worked harder and wanted it more.is Fergie serious by the way? Is he really going to punish Rio for not wearing a meaningless T shirt. Well done Rio for standing up for what you believe in and not acting like a robot. Need more players with the balls to stand up and be counted.

Looking forward to Maiga's goal too


SAF is totally wrong - the kick it out thing is meaningless if players are to be forced to wear the shirts as though they (k.i.o.) were sponsors. He thought his heavy hinting beforehand would force Ferdinand into wearing it and was just pissed it didn't.

I'm torn on this. I respect the right of the players not to wear the t-shirts, but I think they need to think about what they are doing.


Their issue was that after the incidents of last season, K.I.O. basically didn't do enough.


The fact is, K.I.O. has no teeth, and I think the best thing they could do is get behind it and campaign to give it more teeth.


I'm not really sure what they think they acheived by not wearing the shirts, other than giving the awareness weekend more publicity than it would have had. They seem to be fighting the wrong enemy IMO.

I don't think players are forced to wear the T-shirts. It's presumed they will as it's the right and decent thing to do. Why wouldn't they want to wear one? KIO have been caught in the cross-fire of the aftermath of the Terry and Suarez affairs. They have a budget of less than ?0.5million, so what they can do/say is fairly limited. As Otta said, perhaps these players should be seeing what they can do to increase the effectiveness of KIO.

I don't see how the wearing of the T-shirts is meaningless. It may be to some world wearly middle-aged fans, but it's important that the message is periodically delivered to younger fans who, whether people like it or not, look up to the players...

red devil Wrote:

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


> I don't see how the wearing of the T-shirts is

> meaningless. It may be to some world wearly

> middle-aged fans, but it's important that the

> message is periodically delivered to younger fans

> who, whether people like it or not, look up to the

> players...


Exactly - so it's important young fans have role models who demonstrate an ability to think for themselves and take a stand, however naive, ineffective or wrong-headed some think it, for what they believe in.


Maybe those same youngsters will think about what it really means if they are ever asked/told to wear a sloganized shirt themselves in future. (That's how you avoid being a sheep Alex).


And re the effectiveness of the weekend's refusals - yes it may only have generated more publicity but surely that's a good thing. If everyone had worn the shirts would today's back pages be so full of the debate?

I'm with RD - Kick racism out isn't a disciplinary body that been proven toothless, it's just a campaign and up until now it's done a great job at keeping this at the forefront (for the right raesons)with limited budget and seems to have had the backing of all clubs and footballers - that unity has now gone and so the campiagn is now undermined and weakened when it has nothing to do with how clubs/the FA etc discipline racism. I think Ferdinand and the Reading guy have done the campaign damage, possibly undermined it fatally for completley misguided reasons (in effect by almost suggesting it's a token campaign...).

Everyone knows Rio's beef was with the length of ban handed out to Terry for using racist language against his brother, and why it wasn't comparable to Suarez's ban. The FA, rightly or wrongly, justified Suarez's longer ban because he racially abused Evra more than once.

It's the FA who handed out the bans, not KIO. They were a soft target. Pick on the bigger boys next time Rio...

Everyone knows Rio's beef is with the length of ban handed out to Terry for using racist language against his brother, and why it was only half the length of Suarez's ban. The FA, rightly or wrongly, justified Suarez's longer ban because he racially abused Evra more than once.

It's the FA who handed out the bans, not KIO. KIO is a campaign to raise awareness, nothing more, they were a soft target. Pick on the bigger boys next time Rio...

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...