Jump to content

Recommended Posts

national teams - who should play for them?


this is pretty much how I feel (from Arseblog):




Wilshere has been talking about internationals and how national sides should only choose players from that particular country:


The only people who should play for England are English people. If you live in England for five years it doesn?t make you English. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I am not going to play for Spain.

Yes, but if you?ve got parents who come from a different country and you?re born in England then you have something of a choice to make. Or if you?ve lived in England from a young age. Or if you?ve got English parents and you?re born abroad. Or if you fake your own death in one country and buy an English passport from a dodgy site on the deep web and assume the identity of an Englishman and turn out to be good at football and Roy Hodgson needs you.


It?s complicated, in fairness. As an Irishman, I can talk about how we revolutionised international football in the Jack Charlton era. Of course there were many players of Irish descent in the UK. Emigration from this country was a fact of life, and I myself, personally, was born in London to Irish parents and could have been forced with that most difficult of choices had I not been a) more interested in beer and girls as a teenager and b) not quite as good as Alan Kernaghan.


Yet we, and by we I mean Charlton, took it to extraordinary levels. Players who had Irish parents were one thing, but we had the grandparent thing going on. Then possibly the great-grandparent. Then it was anyone who might once have read Flann O?Brien, enjoyed the stylings of Gilbert O?Sullivan or listened to Terry Wogan in the morning. In fact, it went so far that Tony Cascarino?s Irish ?qualifications? were entirely fictionalised (I think it was Samuel Beckett?s last contribution to Irish life), and the toothless would-be striker admitted to it in his autobiography (in which he probably also talked about wanking and other dressing room japes).


Did it really matter to anyone? Not at all. These men were embraced, they were green to the core, although it probably helped that the nation enjoyed its most successful spell at international level under Charlton. Ok, so the football was horrendous, but it didn?t really make that much difference when you were playing Italy in the quarter-finals of the World Cup and everyone single person in the country was out on the piss. Even the pioneers.


Anyway, my point is, who really cares? The world is hardly defined by boundaries any more. We?re a jumble of races, creeds and colours in almost every country, and international football is just a gigantic scam to ensure that FIFA remains rich and can host decadent parties at which corpulent, piggish executives can quaff wine and gobble expensive food served on the backs of orphans whose parents have died building stadiums in the desert because an oil rich nation has bought the rights to host the World Cup when there?s simply no good reason to hold the tournament there in the slightest.


Other than to make the rich people richer, of course.


Which is exactly what will happen because the players and the fans, the ones who actually make football what it is, are just an afterthought. They?re way down the list after sponsors, corporate shills, advertisers, TV companies, sports gear manufacturers, event managers, and assorted hangers-on to all of those people.


I mean, I get where Jack is coming from to an extent, but international football isn?t really about representing your country any more. There?s no core of morality to the game at this level. You can pick a racist over the brother of the man the racist abused and people will accept that because they think it gives them a better chance of winning. So let?s not jump on any high horses about nationality, especially as England have exploited the ?rules?, such as they are, down the years.

So JW is basically saying Mo Farah shouldn't have represented Britain then?


I'm not that fussed I guess but I do want it to mean something for someone to represent their country in a shirt.


If international football just becomes mercenarised a la the rest of football then I'll care even less than I already do.


I never really believed the shirt rather than the participation mattered for Zola Budd for instance, but for Mo it clearly did. It's a pretty loose test but it's the only one I've got.


I still think Di Canio should have played for England!!!!

I thought the most interesting part of the JW quotes was this:


"We have to remember what we are.


We are English. We tackle hard, are tough on the pitch and are hard to beat.


"We have great characters. You think of Spain and you think technical but you think of England and you think they are brave and they tackle hard. We have to remember that."


Are we doomed to have a national team that conform to this stereotype? I suspect we probably are, and that most established national teams, and individual players, have a strong sense of their own national footballing character that is hard to resist, even when as a player it's not your character.

Thanks to Patrick Barclay for this in the Evening Standard recently. Fancy that, a footballer daring to say what he actually thinks. Where will this scandalous behaviour end?


Thanks, Jack Wilshere, for being so refreshing



Published: 10 October 2013 Updated: 15:29, 10 October 2013

Kevin Pietersen, like so many people these days, is over-obsessed with rules, guidance and definition. ?How do you define foreigner?? he asks Jack Wilshere, tendering a list of names of sportsmen that is headed, all too predictably, by his own.


Wilshere, with the politeness he has shown throughout the debate he started by saying that only English people should play for England, replies that his interest lies only in football. Once more he speaks for many of us. Cricket and other sports can do what they like.


My own view, as one of the millions who concentrate on football, is that nationality matters more than ever in a game that has put everything else up for sale, especially club allegiance, and that the noises emanating from Greg Dyke as FA chairman are therefore disturbing.


Dyke has called Wilshere?s views ?too extreme? and such has been the volume of similarly mealy mouthed reaction that the Arsenal and England midfielder feels obliged to claim that they do not specifically apply to Adnan Januzaj, the Manchester United teenager who scored two exquisite goals on Saturday.



No wonder footballers are scared to express themselves. All Wilshere did was neatly, to borrow Pietersen?s phrase, ?define foreigner?? Without using the words, he defined foreigner as ?Adnan Januzaj?, or ?a chap born in Belgium of Albanian-Kosovar parentage who came here at 16?.


That, for the moment, is all we need to know. Sooner or later the FA will come up with a batch of rules, guidance and definition of their own and this will confuse matters, much as their worthy attempt to legislate for post-match justice over the Torres/Vertonghen farce.


But for now, thanks to the refreshing candour of Wilshere?s initial briefing, we have a stance that in all of our hearts we understand, whether we are English ? I?m British myself, or European ? or not.

???? Wrote:

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

> Agree absolutely, but we,ve seen debuts as dynamic

> (nearly) but then they fizzle out, I think another

> Spurs player, Lennon would be a good example. I

> think his England debut was hugely impressive?



Anyone remember Alan Hudson? Tore the world champions West Germany apart in a two-nil win on his debut. Played in the following game - a five-nil defeat of Cyprus and then never played for England again. Disgraceful really as he was a hugely talented player.


I'm not going to get carried away with Townsend's debut as impressive as it was. He's still young and got a lot to learn.


And PD - would you have agreed with Wiltshire's comment if he'd been a Spurs player or say John Terry had spouted the same thing? I'm not so sure you would. As for Januzaj himself he's played a handful of games for Man Utd so let's not get carried away and he's got five years to wait before he is elegible to play for England. I'm sure he'll choose to play for someone else before then.

V good debut - the kind one looks for from y. players - time to get rid of the last of the old (Lampard, and er... Lampard... tbh not really impressed with Carrick either) and the 'tried but failed' (Walker)


Expect Engand to qualify (as they did for S Arica) then fail miserably (as they did...etc) as the usual timidity, lack of confidence, and conservatively unadventurous approach to the beautiful game returns.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> I was wondering when you'd bite PD. *packs up rod

> and puts bait back in tin and heads home*


Just like all the other Tottnum fans on the social networks, they all went walkabout when they got ripped a new one by West Ham and when a guy that has had ONE game for his country and scores ONE goal they all come slithering out of the woodwork. Best place for you Jah is the bait tin with the rest of the maggots. 61 never again, ?110 million 6th place, Tottnum and its fans are the gift that keeps on giving. Try and again mate and lets see what other gems you come up with. Bite on that.

Has that Ladbrokes Townsend, Andys son, scored a hat trick for his country, no? The way Tottnum fans are piping up you'd think he was as good as Ronaldo or Messi, but we've come to expect delusional behaviour from Sperz fand. Lets see how he does in the Prem against decent opposition and not some lack lustre international cannon fodder that most Championship sides would tunover.

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...