Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Doesn't that then get us into Bosman territory and restriction of working practices etc? I'm guessing it's more complicated that just UEFA or FIFA making a ruling. I would also like to see a progression of jobs for the national mamnger like they do in france so you work your way through the teams to the top job.

Well England tried that with McClaren and look what happened. I think you want the best talent for the job - people want success today. Was the success of France in 1998 and 2000 because of this system or in spite of it? You could argue since 2000 France have underperformed with this promotion from within when you consider they've had some truly world class players in their team like Zidane and Henry. Managers like Capello and Hiddink are far better being parachuted in than allowing likes of McClaren or Stuart Pearce to work their way through the system.


If Spain can get away with it why can't they do the same in the Premiership, stop Managers moving mid-season between Clubs. How much did that bugger up Pompey last season when Harry Redknapp was allowed to down tools and join Spurs?

I recall Alan Hansen saying they won the league on season with a squad of 16. I can't see Europe having a say on squad sizes, just who can or can't be in them.


I tend to agree it can only be a good thing but at the very least it must be UEFA wide. I suppose the main fear is that it will cause homegrown talent to have even less opportunity in the bigger teams than they do now. Restricting ratio of imports would be desirable but I suspect unenforceable employmentwise

UEFA are able to control Champions League squads (both squad size and minimum home grown players) - that same model would be good for the domestic game. Of course this won't stop the big boys having the best players in the world, but it should stop a build up of quality surplus which are being denied to 'lesser' clubs. If and when we have a restriction of squad then the division between big 4 and the rest should be narrowed. With any long term injuries squads could only be reinforced with home grown / home nation u18 players - so players of tomorrow from this country can still come through.
Yes that would make sense the new money bag owners (assuming they've now taken control) would obviously want someone in charge who can deliver moderate success - and of course Harry Redknapp has a proven track record at Fratton Park and would almost certainly walk out on Spurs for the right price. I'd say it's more of a rumour, brace yourself for his imminent return!

Atila Reincarnate Wrote:

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

> Sandperson Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > God you are tedious. My actions aren't

> > unacceptable. I chant for a player. I chant

> > Argentina. I will now chant it louder than ever

> in

> > the hope that you hear it and your head

> explodes

> > in indignation. That is the only way I can see

> > this boring, protracted and pointless

> conversation

> > ending.

> >

> > I can only now imagine you wrapped in a Union

> Flag

> > growling at passersby who look vaguely foreign

> and

> > muttering about two world wars and one world

> > cup....maybe with a Staffie in tow.

>

> Chant long and loud dear boy, which will only

> serve to perpetuate my view of you sad Man Ure

> mob. My apparel is bespoke and comes from Gieves &

> Hawkes, shoes mand made by Lobb, and I have a

> labrador at my counrty retreat in the better part

> of Kent. Sorry to disappoint old fella, but

> clearly your perception of me is decidedly

> erroneous. Cheerio.



damn, and there was me thinking you were another stavros flatley

PGC - I'm afraid Mockers is probably correct. If there was a string of Dutch or French Shane Warne's out there the English clubs would field teams of them. But because there are not, you are able to limit the number of non-EEC players.


The Premiership could do that. Only two non-EU players for example. It would stop the poaching of young talent from Brazil/Argentina et al at 16 only to sit on the reserves bench for years and then be carted off back home when you don't make it.


Squad limitations seem a sensible suggestion. It keeps costs down, increases the chance of youth team players making a breakthrough in a workload heavy season and stops needless transfers a la Sidwell/Johnson et al to Chelsea where talent wastes away. The only downside I forsee is that Premiership teams would be more reluctant to farm out young players on long term loans to lower division clubs in case of urgent recall. But it seems a small price to pay.

Kaka for ?73 mill, it's obscene. How can any right minded indidvidual feel comfortable with this. Plus they say he will be paid ?10 mill a year after tax. I never cease to be amazed at how far detached the world of football is from reality. THis can't be right and is morally and ethically wrong. At a time when the world is in financial meltdown, it can't be right. Climbs down from soapbox having got this off his chest.

Sharon_H Wrote:

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

> The one with the dark hair looks as though she's

> had a Chang too many,belly wise that is. ;-)


That's Howard Kendall, he's 63 years old, he's allowed to enjoy himself a bit you know! ;)

Miaow Sharon_H. Ha ha.


Sandperson - be careful, fraternizing with the enemy and all..... I have to scrub myself when I get home from work now due to my new association with all things MUFC. Bleughhhh. Thank god I goosed my knee last year and no longer play for our netball team. Sports kit with the logo on is just so wrong.

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...