Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Bhoy in Singapore Wrote:

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

> Mick not saying you are wrong but Lennon's first

> season saw us go out to Braga in the Champions

> League and then out to Utrecht in the Europa

> qualifier.

>

> SCSB79 you really are a boring prat. Enjoying the

> Petrofac Training cup? When do you reckon you will

> go bust again? Cant come soon enough.


Oh pick up your dummy and crawl back into your pram.

It's called banter and everyone is allowed to throw it around.

To be fair it's an important technicality, the player was suspended from playing. The fault lies firmly with Legia.

You can't make allowances just because a team easily beat the other team, otherwise teams will deliberately play suspended players knowing they won't be kicked out...

Embarrassed....? Embarrassing for whoever it was at Warsaw who cocked up. I'm not sure Celtic will be embarrassed, feeling very fortunate maybe.


The 3-0 rule is there and doesn't really allow for UEFA to use discretion or more importantly they put in place so as they are not required to think in a subjective manner, the breach and the punishment is set out in advance. Just happened to be the score Celtic needed.


Seems completely wrong for a 4 minute appearance but that still constitutes fielding a player so UEFA had nowhere to go.

And while the news was well-received at Celtic Park, former Rangers loanee Vladimir Weiss was certainly not amused and went on a Twitter rampage to vent his fury.


?Un f***** believable.. Got r**** 6:1!!! Should never be allowed to play champions league after that.. Embarrassing #f***celtic,? he posted.


Charming :)

Legia coming out fighting and blasting UEFA.



http://www1.skysports.com/football/n...medium=twitter



Legia Warsaw head coach Henning Berg has vowed to appeal the decision to expel his club from the Champions League over a 'small administration error'.


Berg reacted with fury after UEFA ruled the Polish champions had fielded in ineligible player in their 2-0 second leg defeat of Celtic at Murrayfield on Wednesday.


The victory completed a 6-1 aggregate win and should have secured Legia a play-off place before the game's governing body claimed their defender Bartosz Bereszynski had not been properly registered.


Bereszynski had been sent off against Apollon in the final match of Legia's Europa League campaign last season and was handed an automatic three-match ban. He missed both ties against St Patrick's in the second qualifying round and then sat out the first leg against Celtic.


But UEFA decided he had not been registered in Legia's squad for the games against the Irish side in order to allow a three-match suspension to take effect.



Speaking to Sky Sports News, Berg said: "We will appeal this, definitely. We will go as high as we can because we do not think this is the right decision.


Shocked


"We are absolutely shocked at this decision. For UEFA to make this, with the consequences of it for what has happened, is unbelievable.


"We have a player from last season playing in the Europa League being suspended for three games after a red card. This season he did not play the first two games against St Patrick's and the first game against Celtic and then he was ready for the fourth game.


"He should have been ok. The technical mistake which our administration made was not to put him in the squad for the two first games against St Patrick's for him to serve his suspension.



"I think this goes against every intention of fair play and fair competition and I think there has been a case like this before. In 2010 Debrecen from Hungary also used a player and their case was not even as strong as ours and UEFA told them because they acted in good faith the result stood and it was not affected."

Henning Berg


"And this little technical mistake for him not being on this paper without even playing has taken away our chance of getting into the Champions League which would have been a dream for this club and these players who have worked so hard for us to get to this position.


"He has been registered to us for all this time so we were not trying to hide anything. This has been open and this is just a little small technical mistake in the administration and the consequences for us now is very, very difficult to take."


And Berg has called on UEFA to show consistency, pointing out they have used different punishment for similar offences in the past.


"I think this goes against every intention of fair play and fair competition and I think there has been a case like this before.

Good faith


"In 2010 Debrecen from Hungary also used a player and their case was not even as strong as ours and UEFA told them because they acted in good faith the result stood and it was not affected.


"So for them to make a different decision this time with consequences like this is very, very difficult to take. European football should be about fair competition and fair play.


"The financial implications of this impact hugely on the club, on how we want to build it in the future. We are progressing as a club, we have won the league two years in a row and we are building for the future and I feel for the players who have worked so hard to get us to this position.


"There has not been a Polish team in the Champions League for 17 or 18 years and we felt we had a good chance to get to it and it has been taken away from us because of this technical mistake and the decision from UEFA."


Legia chairman Boguslaw Lesniodorski believes Celtic should have refused to accept the ruling after being so convincingly beaten by their Polish rivals.


Im very disappointed, once again football and sport lost," he said. "We hope that Celtic will react and follow fair play rules. For us what happened on the field matters.


Following the decision, Legia were placed into the final qualifying round for the Europa League where they were paired with Aktobe of Kazakhstan, while Celtic were drawn against Slovenian side Maribor in the Champions League play-offs.

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...