Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The grotesque underhand tactics of the CSL come as no surprise.


Most of the 'Big 6' long ago sold their soul to the world of franchise and stuck two fingers up to tradition when changing their original names, and in some cases, upped sticks to pastures new, leaving their fanbase emotionally distraught and homeless.


Mockney Piers Dons, so much to answer for...

This 'new rule' for the CSL is akin to scrapping the offside law or taking a free kick to yourself. This is not the game of 'hundreds' we grew to love over the years. The 'fans' will soon get bored of it. Meanwhile, I will be reporting this thread to the VAR (Value at Risk) committee where I fully expect the rogue post to be reported to Admin for potential deletion.

The CSL is delighted to welcome back those rogue (or misguided) members who sought to take part in a breakaway thread (or 'a malumbu' as it is known in the game) which is now confidently expected to collapse. We at the CSL have always believed in the integrity of the FF and hope future attempts to establish rival threads will now not be attempted.


We have assured fams of this thread of its continuing and can only assume that "The game of hundreds we grew to love over the years" does not include the previous attempted breakaway by this member with his short-lived 73 game.


Also, somewhere Laddy Muck is screaming blue red murder

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> 'The Derry City Story' is on BBCi player. It's

> worth a watch. Well, I enjoyed it.


More than worth it doc, I thought it was brilliant - 'Different League' shows what football can really mean to a community.

The Derry City documentary is excellent, although they had a bit of an up and down history subsequent to being reformed. I worry that the documentary hides some of the secretarian issues that surrounded the original demise - although that is for a separate thread.


On fan power not sure why some had to get into Old Trafford last night. On my one visit in the 00s it felt that there were still some hard core fans who were still after a fight after the match. A little uncomfortable and took me back to the 70s when there was always bother when Man U came to town. Maybe I am being unfair and many clubs still have a hooli element.

On the odd occasion I've been to the new place the 'hoolis' all seem to be hipsters. At the Boleyn they were more old school although I remember the Phil Mitchell incident (genuine banter between the away end and the old boys in the Chicken Run). Are you said Phil Mitchell lookalike quids?
  • 2 weeks later...

So much to love about yesterday's FA Cup final.


The romance of the Cup was back with Leicester winning it for the first time.


A world class goal and save, and even VAR played its role.


The 'good' guys beating the 'bad' guys, especially apt as is was against one of the ESL 6, greedy owners that sought to deprive clubs like Leicester from achieving their dreams.


Proof that a club can have foreign ownership yet connect with its fanbase, furthering its role at the heart of a community, a club that can be well run and successful without sportswashing or leveraged debt.


And of course, fans being back, something we took for granted and underestimated how important they are to the spirit of the game. Football is nothing without the fans...

Pleased that Leicester won, but thought another shocking decision by VAR, if a player is level using the naked eye (real time or on the screen review) then the goal should stand. Don't use lines down to a few mm's. Couldn't be bothered to watch the analysis so others may have different opinions.


To contradict myself very happy with goal line technology, apart from it failing and (Sot) Villa staying up last season.

It was the constant griping from players/managers/fans/pundits and TV slo-mo analysis about refs/assistant refs getting 'naked eye' decisions wrong that brought about VAR in the first place.

Asking VAR to make the same 'naked eye' decisions surely defeats the purpose. Once you bring in an arbitrary rule you get lots of inconsistencies, which leads to lots of griping.

You will always need some 'line in the sand' that can't be crossed. If it shouldn't be down to a few mm's, how far should it be for it to be called offside?

Goal line technology works because it's quick, it's easy to monitor as you're dealing with fixed points in a confined zone, unfortunately that can't be transferred to the vast open pitch...yet.

I'm in favour of scrapping VAR but everyone then needs to accept refs will make mistakes...

The decision should be what's in the interest of the game. I'm pretty sure that in the past for offside there had to be some clear blue water between attacker and defender, otherwise the benefit of the doubt went with the former. More goals, more excitement. But of course not infallible, due to official error.


Putting that on screen so the official can see in real time whether a 'reasonable person' could decide whether the goal scorer or others were clearly offside would be a way forward. Of course decisions would vary but there again Liverpool were gifted two key decisions on Sunday that another official would have given the other way.


Don't get me started on the player having a hand or a nose in an offside position, that really is getting silly and favours the defending team as they will naturally lean towards the other goal, and vice versa.

  • 2 weeks later...

Any Chels fans embarrassed about your celebrity fan? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57355599


There is no mention of Gove's pastimes and hobbies in wiki, although a reference to a Grauniad article that says he is a Hoops fan. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/19/diary-michael-white-wembley-qpr-derby


Well I suppose it could be worse, Cameron supports the Hammers, Villa, Burnley and Scunthorpe - the last pretty appropriate when you think along the lines of John Cooper Clarke.

  • 4 weeks later...

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...