Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I shared that on FB yesterday. It even got a show on MOTD.


Crazy crazy match, can't argue with


1. United's first half performance

2. Mata's second goal

3. Gerrard's sending off.


What I do argue with quite strongly is Jones not seeing red. But hey ho, still 8 games to play, I don't think yesterday has settled anything.

He's on the bench but not starting Kane is typical of Hodgson's middle-management approach.


Whatever happened to putting players who are bang in form straight into the team? I thought the keeping-with-the-tried-and-tested died a death after the pathetic 'Golden' generation?

I think Hodgson got it spot on to show loyalty to the players who've already done a good job for you, i.e Wellbeck, who not only scored but put in a man of the match performance, get the result and then introduce him. Didn't take him long to score and impress did it? That may not have been the case if he'd come on from the start. He'll be more than ready to face the Italians on Tuesday now.
I thought he did the right thing not starting Kane. Bed him in gradually. There's already too much press hype surrounding him, which is exactly how the 'Golden Generation' came about. Better to send him off to the Under-21 tournament in the summer and see how he performs at that level first...

We'll just have to disagree - Welbeck et al were part of the problem at last WC finals - they didn't perform.


Sure they've 'done a good job' against mediocre opposition but then England have a habit of doing well in the qualifying. I think Kane needed to start not come on when the team were 3-0 up with 20 mins left. Starting a game when it's all up in the air is a different thing.


Still - I'm sure Rooney's miss three score one approach will see England through like it always does.

Really TJ? But surely a home banker v Lithuania is as low-pressure as a competitive start can get? Otherwise when does he start a competitive match? If loyalty is all-important then surely not until the others have failed, i.e. in the EC finals when it's suddeny crucial.


A point doing the rounds today is that if Sterling had a 'long standing toe complaint' (there's an ironic pun in there somewhere) he shouldn't have been risked anyway and Kane could have started alongside Rooney and Welbeck (though personally I think Sterling did better then m.o.t.m. Welbeck).


My point about Rooney maybe a bit harsh (calm down RD) - I think he's improved a LOT for England over the last year or so - just not so sure about him in tournament finals.

I just think because he's on such an unusual trajectory this season that everyone needs to calm down a little and nurse him into the team rather than throw him in, regardless of oppo. Not sure three strikers would've been right (Sterling and Kane very different). It just seems as though the country is so desperate for a superstar/saviour (an English Bale or somesuch) that if he's started and not performed against weak oppo the papers would've very quick to give it the old 'flash in the pan' headlines or blamed Hodgson for throwing him in too early. By holding him back it was a no lose all round- if we were losing/struggling and he came on and did poorly it wouldn't have been his fault but if he'd turned it round he'd have been a saviour. If he came on when we were winning and did nothing it wouldn't matter. Or, final scenario he comes on when we're comfortable and performs it does his confidence even more good with less pressure.


I'm probably overanalysing- but as it happens it seems to have been the right decision by Hodgson, either by luck or design

Hodgson might be as inept in the Euro finals as he was in the WC. Happy for him to prove some people wrong but if I were England FA he'd never have got the job in the first place.


Also, it's not helpful for England to have no challenges in qualifying. Always good to qualify though! Unlike Ireland.

True - but the manager doesn't have to be English. I understand you would prefer that he is English but when the resources are particularly low its the time to look elsewhere (again).


Redknapp's tax case was the undoing of his chances, even though he was "innocent". Only the judge and Harry's dog thought he was innocent.


Will be interesting to see if England can do better come the finals - i'll be supporting them, but not too expectantly.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> Most strikers miss a couple for a every goal they

> score. If it was a friendly I would've started

> him. Not when there's more pressure.


Bale had about 11 chances and scored 2 against Israel - most

made by some great play by him


Looking at him play - he needs to be the superstar in the team

Maybe thats why he has problems at Madrid.

I'm quite jealous of Welsh fans at the moment, if they qualify it will be huge for them and they'll love the tournament whatever happens.


Can't muster any interest in England because we'll more than likely qualify then more of the same. What's the point even watching?

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...