Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't know, it wasn't that depressing. The first goal was class and I think their heads dropped a bit after that. I thought Beckham started to look like his old self and Wright-Phillips was superb, excellent work rate. We had some fairly notable absesnses last night against what was a pretty full strength Spain side.

Mathew....that's not strictly true...you need luck in tournaments and England don't always get it...and we're shite at penalities. I'd have said we COULD have won any of the following tournaments


1982 - we went home unbeaten becuase of the mad format then...we were probably the best team in the group stages


1986 - Maradonna beat us singlehandedly (GET IT)...other than him Argentina were very average and we nearly beat them...I think we'd have made the final..thn who knows


1990-enough said, we were far better than West Germany by the latter stages, we'd have won apart from penalties


1996 - penalties again stopped us


1998 - penalties but I think we'd have been out in the next round


2002 - a real opportunity...no especially good teams, we were poor but had the players


2006 - the biggest opportunity..Sven's awful tactics and selection meant that we never got going in an emminently winnable tournament, won by a well organised but very average Italy

According to those pundits allegedly who know about such things, England is a side full of world class players. Oh yea??? I didn't see any in our side last night, I saw 11 on the opposing side. They are class, we were poor, and we've got no chance in the world cup 2010. When and if we become as technically gifted as our opponnents we might stand a chance, until then we don't stand a earthly. Spain mugged us off last night, and were a joy to watch, we were painful to behold, all fart and no poo!!!

red devil Wrote:

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

> At least we won't have the tabloids big build-up

> to the next World Cup about how we are going to

> win it!



Eh? Of course we will, we have it all the bloody time.


England football team is wnak anyway. Could not give a flying fook about the NT at all.

I can never get as enthusiastic about International tournaments in the same way that I do with Arsenal. It's just not the same. If it's a choice between us or the national side doing well, sorry it's Arsenal everytime. And I know there are more & more people out there who feel the same.
You're probably right Atila, and It would be hard to beat the feeling of seeing Liverpool lift the champs league a few years back, but I just love that thing when you're in the pub with all your mates watching England, and you're all on the same side, and you feel a bit of pride (until you see Englnd fans involved in some punch ups).

I agree that 86 was winnable, 90 we should have, and 96 we really hit our stride, a joy to watch until those dreaded penalties.

Barring that then yes, pretty awful and Ericsson's tenure was an utter waste of potentially talented teams.


Having watch Spain frustrate me just as much over the years there's nothing to say things can't change, but last night was definitely a good lesson to show how much we need to progress over the next 18 months or so.


There's a very good review of the game here: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/campeon/freno/elpepudep/20090212elpepudep_1/Tes

Which basically says Xavi is the heartbeat of the team, that though England were poor, without Rooney and Gerrard it was a C team *coughs*. And that despite Capello England haven't evolved at the same rate as it's clubs, that we were England of old and nothing to be afraid of, especially when we didn't play to the strengths of the towering forwards in the second half.


There was also a bit of criticism of Torres as they marvelled at Spain's patience, saying he's been infected by the pace of the Premiership and was snatching at chances that the other players had the maturity not to waste.

Inclined to agree that he was trying to hard to impress himself upon the team, when the goals and chances will come for him, but it's an attractive theory.


I guess we could take from that that either England should learn those lessons, or it should play more like a premiership team, but at them moment we're in a rubbish football limbo, neither classy and patient nor direct and effective.

Nah I don't go along with that theory Piers, look at the pass Alonso made last night for David Villa, or the goals scored for Brazil by Elano and Robinho. It's a bit like Craig Burley, on Setanta Sports, blaming Liverpool's zonal marking for conceding goals without addressing why all the other teams in the league who man mark don't keep clean sheets every week..


What worries me about Capello, btw I'm very happy to see England lose, is why are the likes of Heskey, Crouch and Carlton Cole getting minutes on the pitch ahead of players like Michael Owen (when fit)? The one thing which I find very odd is how on earth David James is England's number 1... extraodinary! We all know David James still switches off in games, and the higher the pressure the more likely he'll fumble the ball. Capello may get England to the World Cup final or semi final... but with David James in goal it's an accident waiting to happen! I'll never forget how David James single handedly cost Liverpool the title in 1996/97 season and then came out with a bag of excuses regarding his Nintendo was to blame... hopeless!

It only takes one friendly after the highs of Croatia and Germany and oh dear suddenly we're shit again. I really don't think we're as bad as all that. Spain were excellent but they were up against a seriously depleted England side.

We can certainly take some lessons home with us and I'm sure one of the things Fabio Capello learnt last night was that Matthew Upson ain't bloody good enough.

I guess the question really is just how good are Spain Mockney? We completley dominated Germany and don't forget we recently massacred a team that everyone, until then, rated highly - Croatia...we didn't have anything like our A team out there last night but Spain looked a notch above us but I'm still reasonably upbeat for South Africa...you must be delighted as you've 2 decent options as I think Spain look by a mile favourites but England could well feature...

I actually thought there were alot of positives to take away from that game, and I think I said as much in my first reaction to the game. I didn't think we were all that bad at all, but as you say quids, how good are Spain, awesome.


In fact the closest they've come to losing in their ludicrously successful 29 match run was that desperately horrible game against a brutal and cynical Italy. I think what I was getting at above was that you can't play Spain on their terms unless you're an on song Argentina or Brazil basically.

For those of you who support teams in the Champione League this season - be afraid, be vey afraid. Here are some of Barcaa stats so far this season. 22 games, 19 victories, 98 goals in all competetions from 638 attempts on goal!!!


They play the fastest and best football I've seen played by any team in Europe this season. Whoever manages to turn them over should win the Champs League.

Anything is possible in a Final with nerves and strokes of luck, but to beat them over 2 legs is going to be nigh on impossible. Having said that, the Premiership team best equipped to beat Barcelona over 2 legs is probably Liverpool with their conservative style of play - but even then Barcelona could easily sweep Liverpool aside.

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...