Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Laddy Muck Wrote:

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

> Laddy = ecstatic bunny today. I love beautiful

> OT. Love Sunderland too. Happy new year football

> lovers. :))


For a while there LM, I thought you were going to be an unlucky charm! :)

I'm obviously glad you had such a fantastic time...were you brave enough to sample Lou Macari's fine cuisine? ;-)

Thoroughly enjoyable MOTD tonight, and I am continuing to laff at Arry.


I doubt whether any of you light-weights will join in with anything I have to say about modern life is rubbish but here are my top hates about the modern game, as shown today. Scroll to the end for my top one; and please don't debate number 1, that wasn't the point of the posting.


1. All seater stadiums. Hillsborough was truly horrific, but it was not terracing that caused the tragedy, but fencing, crowd management, policing etc etc.

2. All seater stadiums that were not designed as such - where you pay ?35 to have a restricted view - Anfield, Goodison, Loftus Road to name a few.

3. New, design by flat pack, stadiums in some retail park in the middle of nowhere, with no pubs, no character, no nothing - Majeski, Pride Park, etc

4. Stadiums that have dispensed with the home and away ends - cynical by Aston Villa, and bland in the Emirates

5. Expensive bland megabrewery beer in grounds, hat's off to Orient and I can't wait to sample the local Brodies' bitter

6. Clubs that change kits when playing away, when there is not a clash. Yes I know it is all about sponsorship and selling shirts, but with away kits changing annually most will have no affinity with them. A curse on both Newcastle (who lost) and Chelsea (who sadly won today)

7. Should be top of the list; playing that bloody Piranaha's track or whatever when you score. Again a further curse to you second rate teams - Wolves, QPR, Reading, Forest etc. Shame that Wigan do it, as I have far more time for them and they have not had the rub of the green.

8. Gareth Bale's haircut and celebrations.

9. Players in short sleeves and gloves - I ask you, wet but very mild today. What is that about??

10. And wait for it. That whinging twot Fergurson. Smile damn you. Show some humility. You may have a crap defence but you are 7 points clear and will walk it. Stop moaning about refs when we all remember: the golden rule that no one gets penalties at Old Trafford and Fergie time. Prefer that miserable bloke Phelan to you.


So plenty of food for thought if you can be bothered to get into a proper debate. Equally as happy to be rubbished, as agreed with.


Shame about Palace today. That is Crystal Palace one of our local teams.

red devil Wrote:

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

> For a while there LM, I thought you were going to

> be an unlucky charm! :)

> I'm obviously glad you had such a fantastic

> time...were you brave enough to sample Lou

> Macari's fine cuisine? ;-)


"Jinx" did (briefly) enter my mind...until Hernandez slipped in towards the end. Of all the games to have attended! Feel so privileged. As for the fine cuisine...not this time RD...brimming with emotion, relieved at having survived several heart attacks AND it was absolutely pissing down...but I aim to return...SOON...thanks for the tip. ;-)

Week 15 scores...


SC - 6 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 9 pts


?? - 2 Correct Results + 2 Correct Scores = 8 pts


MM - 1 Correct Result + 2 Correct Scores = 7 pts

PD - 4 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 7 pts


OT - 0 Correct Results + 2 Correct Scores = 6 pts


DR - 5 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 5 pts

Mx - 2 Correct Results + 1 Correct Score = 5 pts

EP - Played a Maxxi = 5pts


JL - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

LG - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts

RC - 4 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 4 pts


RD - 3 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 3 pts


AM - 2 Correct Results + 0 Correct Scores = 2 pts

Agree. Ferguson should have been sent to the stands. That knighthood comes in very handy now and again. Only he could have got away with that.


Very happy with the Spurs result yesterday. Bale was absolutely brilliant. Not so happy with my measly 4pts on the Predictor League though. Need to up my game.

Otta Wrote:

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


> Although to be fair to Stoke, they were good, and

> we never get a bloody result against them!


I really enjoyed the Stoke game, a great atmosphere, and their quality of football is a lot better than some would have you believe...

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Thoroughly enjoyable MOTD tonight, and I am

> continuing to laff at Arry.

>

> I doubt whether any of you light-weights will join

> in with anything I have to say about modern life

> is rubbish but here are my top hates about the

> modern game, as shown today. Scroll to the end for

> my top one; and please don't debate number 1, that

> wasn't the point of the posting.

>

> 1. All seater stadiums. Hillsborough was truly

> horrific, but it was not terracing that caused the

> tragedy, but fencing, crowd management, policing

> etc etc.

> 2. All seater stadiums that were not designed as

> such - where you pay ?35 to have a restricted view

> - Anfield, Goodison, Loftus Road to name a few.

> 3. New, design by flat pack, stadiums in some

> retail park in the middle of nowhere, with no

> pubs, no character, no nothing - Majeski, Pride

> Park, etc

> 4. Stadiums that have dispensed with the home and

> away ends - cynical by Aston Villa, and bland in

> the Emirates

> 5. Expensive bland megabrewery beer in grounds,

> hat's off to Orient and I can't wait to sample the

> local Brodies' bitter

> 6. Clubs that change kits when playing away, when

> there is not a clash. Yes I know it is all about

> sponsorship and selling shirts, but with away kits

> changing annually most will have no affinity with

> them. A curse on both Newcastle (who lost) and

> Chelsea (who sadly won today)

> 7. Should be top of the list; playing that bloody

> Piranaha's track or whatever when you score.

> Again a further curse to you second rate teams -

> Wolves, QPR, Reading, Forest etc. Shame that

> Wigan do it, as I have far more time for them and

> they have not had the rub of the green.

> 8. Gareth Bale's haircut and celebrations.

> 9. Players in short sleeves and gloves - I ask

> you, wet but very mild today. What is that

> about??

> 10. And wait for it. That whinging twot

> Fergurson. Smile damn you. Show some humility.

> You may have a crap defence but you are 7 points

> clear and will walk it. Stop moaning about refs

> when we all remember: the golden rule that no one

> gets penalties at Old Trafford and Fergie time.

> Prefer that miserable bloke Phelan to you.

>

> So plenty of food for thought if you can be

> bothered to get into a proper debate. Equally as

> happy to be rubbished, as agreed with.

>

> Shame about Palace today. That is Crystal Palace

> one of our local teams.


Agree 100% with all of that.

> 1. All seater stadiums. Hillsborough was truly

> horrific, but it was not terracing that caused the

> tragedy, but fencing, crowd management, policing

> etc etc.



They were ALL contributing factors, but had there been allocated seating it wouldn't have happened would it.

Otta


In the 1970s big grounds starting to do daft things like building a seating tier above one of the standing ends and reducing the bank of terracing.


For segregation they then divided the reduced sections up, usually just the 'away end'.


And for fear of fans invading the pitch they put fences up.


All wrong.


a) reduced standing areas led to less room for the masses to move when the teracing was packed.

b) The pens exacerbated this

c) And finally with fences up at the front there was no room for fans to spill onto the pitch in a crush.


There were two famous matches with trouble on the terracing, both televised. Firstly in 75/6 when Man U picked up thousands of 'fans' living nowhere near Manchester due to their reputation for trouble, they were playing Derby at that s'hole the baseball ground. There was a pitch invasion but the cameras showed it was all handbags - like a sort of wild dance to 'everybody was Kung Fu Dancing'. Just a load of teenage posers from both sides pretending to be hard.


The other one was when Palace won at Chelsea in the cup and it all kicked off. It was all pre-arranged stuff with a few tens of nutters facing off. And there were poor kids who couldn't get away from it due to those bloody fences/netting that they had at the Bridge.


Virtually all the real bother happened outside the ground (as now), most of it inside was just posing, and was usually quickly broken up by the heavy policing. Fences were not needed, and eventually fatal.


I also remember there would always be a fair number of home fans in the away end before the pens were set-up. Trouble was limited, and usually between a few people from both sides who wanted to have a go. The pens went up and then it got a lot more tribal. For some reason some home fans liked standing in the away end, normally because it was less crowded. The pens went up at it got far more tribal.


At the same time, due to stuff that went on in earlier decades capacities were reduced and more crash barriers went up. Unlike now everyone could move to where they could get a view, and kids tended to move to the front.


Atmosphere was great, never any risk of a crush etc etc. And with large away ends (before the terracing was reduced) there would always be a cracking atmosphere playing the 'big' Northern clubs as they would bring down 10000 plus. Bit hostile at times, but fond memories. Newcastle brought down over 20000 for a cup match once, when the cup still meant something. Bloody Blayden races and 'Supermac' being sung virtually all around the ground.


Compare Villa Park with Hillsborough. Both similar designs in the away end. A sell out match in 1979, I am in the central pen behind the goals and it is getting a bit crowded. the police open up the ens, and move a few 100 of us to the side pens to even out the loading. Hardly rocket science.


My simple point is the atmosphere has suffered so much. But that no doubt is also due to societal reasons as well.


Mr Devil, it is called debate and banter. I have a strong view, you present your alternative. Here's one - football is business, and it is all about branding. Man Ure have the world's biggest brand, and therefore will be as a whole the most successful team and attract business not only across Britain but around the world. Clearly I think this is a retrograde step but no doubt I am in a minority.

There is an interesting article here about bring back safe standing at the match.


http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-proposal


http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/safety-expert-backs-rail-seating-model.php


I'm all for it as I think that standing in a seated area is quite dangerous (which happens in most away ends and some home stands around the country). When a goal is scored pretty much everyone is on their feet and when you get knocked on to a hard plastic seat, it hurts. Rail seating would be brilliant and is currently used in Germany.


Seated football has made going to the match sterile and has contributed to the price increases

Grounds are certainly a hell of a lot quieter since the all-seater stadiums came in. White Hart Lane can still get very loud especially under the floodlights in a Cup game but that is probably because it's a relatively small ground (36,000 capacity). Still, it's not as loud as the old days. I can remember going there with crowds of 60,000 to 70,000 standing in the pissing rain getting soaked and the noise was unbelievable compared to now. The rail seating would be a good idea in some areas (behind the goals mostly I should think) but you've got to have a demand for it and, is that demand worth it to the club itself? I can't see a lot of boards of directors going for it.

I have to admit I do rather like my comfort these days and prefer to sit with a clear view of all the pitch and not bobbing from side to side trying to catch a glimpse between heads - even worse if you're vertically challenged not that I am but I remember a mate of mine who would come games regularly with us never got to see much of the action as he was rather on the short side.

COYS!

I can't see how a rail seat would be less expensive than a standard seat (probably more so as it has moving parts) so you'd need to ride roughshod over the economic argument if that was your end goal.


You'd also need to understand why the presence of seats made grounds more sterile before assuming that the installation of rail seats would make it less sterile.


I'm wondering how much footie fan psychology has in common with US gun enthusiasm - do nostalgic die-hard terrace purists believe a certain amount of death and serious injury is a price worth paying for being in the seat-of-your-pants excitement of an out-of-control crowd?


There is no doubt that being in a big football crowd is a religious experience - the idea that your own existence has become subordinated to the mob, a transcendental out-of-body experience. Where sound has become a full body sensation, like war drums and tribal chants, or the delirious Roman Bacchanalia.


The biggest mistake that modern stadium design has made may have been to forget that most people are not there to watch the football, they're there to be part of the crowd?

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> Grounds are certainly a hell of a lot quieter

> since the all-seater stadiums came in. White Hart

> Lane can still get very loud especially under the

> floodlights in a Cup game but that is probably

> because it's a relatively small ground (36,000

> capacity). Still, it's not as loud as the old

> days. I can remember going there with crowds of

> 60,000 to 70,000 standing in the pissing rain

> getting soaked and the noise was unbelievable

> compared to now. The rail seating would be a good

> idea in some areas (behind the goals mostly I

> should think) but you've got to have a demand for

> it and, is that demand worth it to the club

> itself? I can't see a lot of boards of directors

> going for it.

> I have to admit I do rather like my comfort these

> days and prefer to sit with a clear view of all

> the pitch and not bobbing from side to side trying

> to catch a glimpse between heads - even worse if

> you're vertically challenged not that I am but I

> remember a mate of mine who would come games

> regularly with us never got to see much of the

> action as he was rather on the short side.

> COYS!



I think that the proposal is that you have the choice. There will be seated areas and areas where you can stand. You would simply need to purhchase your ticket for the appropriate area.

Appart from Hillsborough, which was due to the fences (and the crush) rather than the actual terracing themselves (although as already discussed it was the design and management, as much as the numbers, that caused it) I am not aware of ANY disaster that was a result of people standing. Surely the same argument could be applied to 2000 people standing in a relatively confined space a the Brixton Academy. Perhaps we should all have allocated seats in pubs nowadays.


Anyway to return to the terracing vs seats argument - the Torygraph has listed twenty or so footy stadium disasters: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/3003121/Football-stadium-disasters.html


One or two were due to stampedes, so this may have been on the terracing - more common is stands collapsing, or crushes as people try to exit (and often turning round to go back in when there is some late excitement).


Don't real understand all this safe standing business. At overdesigned stadium like the Emirates you can quite easily stand in total comfort. You are still miles away from the nearest person, so it doesn't make it any more atmospheric. Perhaps that is why Loftus Road is such a shed of a ground, you are so crowded in those tight seats, it makes it feel like the old days.


Well in a rare fit of trying to consider both sides of the argument I put away my blinkered rose tinted specs, recalling the Millwall riot at Luton in the late 80s, although this may have been aimed at the boys in blue. And considering on the Millwall theme, my first recollection of serious football violance was when Birmingham City pipped Millwall to promotion to the top Divsision in 1972 (Millwall must have ambushed the coaches returning from Orient, where Birmingham won on the last day of the season). That was in the days of the old Den, mainly standing. Fast forward almost 40 years and the same thing happened at the lovely new Den, all seater, when Birmingham beat Millwall in a play off semi final. So all seaters didn't seem to change things.


It may be with the change of demographics, more money in the game, marketing, Sky etc most don't want to go back to standing. I think its lost its soul; but thats my humble opinion.


Disappointed that following my alternative view on branding, that some lightweights have returned to FIFA 13 for their kicks and no one else recalled that once upon a time teenagers outside the North West supported Man Ure just so they could go round the play ground chanting "Hello hello, United aggro, United aggro".


This isn't an anti Millwall tirade, just that if you want examples of bother this is a mine of such information.

Predictors, what are your thoughts on the up and coming FA Cup games, should we...


- Set up a separate competition/table, on a round by round basis, with points scored as the main league.


- Set up a separate knock-out competiton, following FA Cup format...players drawn against each other, highest score going through to next round. As there are only 13 teams, we would have to wait until the last 16, with 3 teams drawing a bye.


- Incorporate the FA Cup into the main league, so that it just becomes another week.


Any other ideas welcome...

Football and football fans are certainly different to what they were 40 years ago - but let's be honest, the whole of society has changed - I don't think you can put that down to seats!


The fact that football violence can still take place with seats is really missing the point - people still get killed in car accidents, but that doesn't mean seatbelts don't work!

The first option makes it too much like the 'league'.

The third option would need to consider which fixtures to include as presumably all 64 wouldn't be.

My suggestion would be to use the FA Cup from the 3rd round and have fixtures as:

AvBvC

DvE

FvG

HvI

JvK

LvM


6 winners plus two best runners up go through to the q/finals (i.e. 4th round) If you wait until the FA Cup reaches the last sixteen our Final will be based on just one fixture THE Final. Could cause complications.


I'd also suggest the Cup winners get bonus points added to their League tally. Something like equal to the highest score by anyone in one week.

Football fans are ordered to sit down, allegedly on H&S grounds, yet football grounds are often used for music concerts, where fans are freely allowed to stand and alcohol is widely consumed. Let's face it, going to a football match brings out the worse in a lot of people, it's become tribal/confrontational regardless whether there are seats or not...

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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