Jump to content

Recommended Posts

MrBen Wrote:

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


> England tonight - a reminder that Scotland beat

> France twice (home and away) in the Euro 2008

> qualifiers. If we can do it against the odds

> you'll find it a walk over right?


That's the sprit MrBen, England will have no problem replicating Scotland's performances...cue 80F heat and running around aimlessly with very red faces

France showed more promise, but wre slighly off form I think.

Lucky for INGERLAND to draw them early on


I think Ukraine vs INGERLAND will be a stonker


Sweden will draw with INGERLAND btw


Scotland beat the France twice, but I had to admit that the Scots were on the defence for most of the game

I can't believe an England tournament game has garnered such little response, and even that from a foreigner ;)


England were better than I expected them to be. No standouts but a good team performance, though clearly we were set up to stymie the French we created chances and had some incisive breaks.


It's hard to tell with the French, they seemed a little disorganised, but whether they will improve or implode is anyone's guess.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> The Irish were pretty poor and I can't see them

> progressing. I suspect Italy and Spain will aim to

> improve their goal difference when playing against

> them though.


Ireland Spain is a disaster waiting to happen. Early goal from Spain and they might as well go home. I'm sure Ireland would love to hold out for a Nil Nil. If they lose to Spain, then I do feel for the fans who spent money to go for such a disappointing display. But it was a tough draw from the start and its always a tough tournament to get out of the group, as England know themselves.

The most important thing is not to lose the first game and England didn't. Basically, we parked the bus and hoped to get them on the break. On paper that was our toughest game in the group but I also think we'll draw against the Swedes and playing the Ukraine on their home turf after such a good win last night won't be easy.

Keep seeing comments along the lines of "why are they happy with a draw"? To be fair to England, France only managed a draw with them, Spain and Italy drew. Holland lost!!! One win and two draws would probably see them through, so not sure what the problem is.


I think they did quite well, especially given that France are unbeaten in 21 or something like that. Had Milner scored that early chance, it could have been a win... Or they could have gotten over confident and lost it.

England were as expected, dull and unadventurous, but played the way they had to. If they had opened up - like they did against Germany - they would have got beaten. I am hoping to see slow improvement each game and at least Roy has got us organised. How many times have you watched England before and not really known what the team and the players were trying to do? The hope is Rooney adds the strardust and links well with Young and Welbeck.

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Its occured to me that he might not just walk back

> into the 1st 11 teamsheet if the others do the

> business.


It has also occurred to me that I may have spotted another Alan Medic spelling error.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Motty reckons Young will move to the left and

> Rooney will play behind Welbeck...


Makes sense. Young will give England more width. I'd like to see Andy Carroll replace Welbeck due to the number of headed goals in the tournament.

Otta Wrote:

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

> England band stopped from playing.

>

> Thank God for that! If I was sat near them trying

> to watch the match, I'd want to kill myself!


Abso-bleedin-lutely. Let's hope others follow suit and ban the annoying little sods totally.


On the match I thought the Ox did well and showed he didn't mind fluffing it a little, wasn't scared to take a chance - hope this rubs off on neurotics like Gerrard et al and we see a less fearful England in future. He and Young have to stay in the team or they will probably revert to the long ball.

I thought the Ox played well considering his lack of England experience and first major tournament game. He showed glimpses of brilliance at times.


My main criticism of England is that they didn't stretch the French defence enough to allow the likes of Ox to go through with consummate ease.


Lots of positives. The French restricted to shooting from outside the box. England had enough clear cut chances to win the game. Milner should have put his chance away. Four points should be enough to go through to the knock out stages and it's likely England will beat Ukraine and Sweden.


To see the best of the Ox then I'd like to see Walcott play as well. The injection of pace will put fear to the opposition.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> It's hard to tell with the French, they seemed a

> little disorganised, but whether they will improve

> or implode is anyone's guess.


France had the greater possession so I'm not quite sure why you thought they were a little disorganised. Perhaps you're confusing disorganisation with their lack of ideas in the final third. Defensively, France looked weak but I thought they looked organised overall.

Maybe I'm confusing organisation with liquidity.


** or less flippantly


I think you're confusing possession for organisation.

Ceding possession and hitting them on the break in expectation of facing a more clinical side was clearly part of the gameplan.

France's lack of ideas in the final third isn't to be confused with a lack of oraganisation, it's utterly symptomatic of it.

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...