Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Didn't Celtic have 2 players making blatant dives in their following SPL game, one of which saw McGeady sent off?


Shame about UEFA - whether or not there was minimal contact is irrelevent as he was already going to ground before the phantom clip of the heel. A strong message had been sent but now it seems UEFA is condoning simulation / diving for the cleverest players.

matthew123 Wrote:

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

> Didn't Celtic have 2 players making blatant dives

> in their following SPL game, one of which saw

> McGeady sent off?

>

> Shame about UEFA - whether or not there was

> minimal contact is irrelevent as he was already

> going to ground before the phantom clip of the

> heel. A strong message had been sent but now it

> seems UEFA is condoning simulation / diving for

> the cleverest players.


Strong message? dive and you get a ban - complain/appeal and you will be ok. What strong message.


Uefa are a farce. Make the right decision and stick to it.

Ladygooner Wrote:

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

> I think the whole point of contact is very

> relevant.


Would he have gone down like that if he was running for the bus? Course not. There may have been some contact like the wind blowing through his hair but that should not give the right to hit the turf like he'd been shot in the back. We need to get away from this, someone brushes your baggy shorts and automatically you have the right to perform a triple backward somersault. It's wrong.


As for Celtic taking the moral ground well that was blown out of the water with their own diving antics just a few days later. It's unfortunate but likes of UEFA and FA have a knee jerk reaction to these things and once it dies down in the media they tend to lose their resolve for action. Once Adebayor gets his ban for celebrating in front of the Arsenal fans there will be an outcry in the media about worse celebratory offences that went unpunished. I suspect what Adebayor did will be repeated by someone else but next time it'll be all about 'if the fans dish it out they got to take it as well'.

???? Wrote:

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

> Good to see there are some decent people in

> football still

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2009/09/ca

> rl_baker_and_stockport_an_ex.html#138740


That is what football needs to remind itself of now and again. We are all people living normal lives at the end of the day.

The proposed 2 game ban was for simulation and attempting to fool the ref into giving a penalty. However, if this can not be proved unequivocally then there should be no ban. If you watch the alleged diving incident the keeper's knee appears to clip Eduardo. This would throw an elemant of doubt, however unlikely, upon whether he dived or not.

Arsene Wenger - We proved he was actually touched and he had to go down. Sorry - what a load of absolute bollox Arsene.


This is not a team v team issue or a moral high ground issue (matt!), I just hate cheating, I hate even more UEFA being feeble and buckling under pressure and I hate even more the Arsene Wenger/Eduardo double act saying patronisingly that justice has been done.

The whole thing is a joke and diving will be a plague on the game as much as ever. UEFA will not now ever have the balls to charge a player with diving as they will never get a more blatent dive in a widely viewed match.


To deal with the contact issue - anyone who says Eduardo was touched and therefore he did not dive or attempt to mislead the referee is missing the point - any objective person can see that Eduardo decided to fall and was 2/3 down before this alleged contact could have taken place.


If you fall over before being touched - that is a dive. Anyone that protects Eduardo is protecting a cheat. Bad news for football.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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



any objective person can see that Eduardo

decided to fall and was 2/3 down before this

alleged contact could have taken place.


And of course your veiws are in no way subjective at all are they. If you are so objective why haven't you taken your own players to task or berated their diving? It's because you are a Celtic supporter and your opinion is therefore, by default, bound to be subjective. Get over it, you are out of the Champs league and in the Europa League, turn your attention to that. If you don't like ungentlemanly conduct, or unsporting behaviour why are you not berating the antics of Adebayor and Scholes during the last weekend?

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Its not a team issue and I'm not going to mention

> Celtic. Its just a good opportunity missed by

> UEFA.



You're not going to mention Celtic but it's not a team issue. Have a word with yourself. (!)

Anyone see the penalty awarded against Real Madrid last night? It was worse than Eduardo. If UEFA had stuck to their original punishment then perhaps the Zurich player may have thought twice before diving. It's a shame but UEFA reversing their decision is worse than if they'd swept the original Eduardo incident under the carpet.


Good to see Ronaldo fitting in at Real Madrid with his new team mates. All Guti had to do was make a 10 yard square pass for him to complete his hat-trick in front of an empty goal - but instead Guti made it 5-2 with an audacious 20 yard chip over the keeper.


Not sure where Flamini learnt his tackling skills but his two footed torpedo lunge against Marseille was pure thuggary - but I guess it's a sign of how weak UEFA Rules are that the Ref only dished out a yellow card.

matthew123 Wrote:

Anyone see the penalty awarded against Real Madrid last night? It was worse than Eduardo. If UEFA had stuck to their original punishment then perhaps the Zurich player may have thought twice before diving.


As the clocks were ticking you could Bank on the Zurich player doing a Swiss Roll to gain the Penalty.


Hard Cheese on Real though.

Football writer Oliver Holt believes UEFA were wrong to rescind their ban of Arsenal striker Eduardo, after the Brazilian born Croatian dived against Celtic. The respected sports correspondent intimates UEFA?s actions now suggests diving will be tolerated in the modern game.


Holt told mirrorfootball.co.uk: ?Uefa have made fools of themselves by climbing down over their suspension of Eduardo for diving against Celtic.?


He added: ?Their instinct might have been correct but it had no real precedent and their decision to rescind the Croatian?s ban amounts to nothing less than a diver?s charter.?

An altenate view to that is on the Sky Sports website on which Andy Gray (a scotsman) states that he doesn't believe Eduardo did anything to merit a ban in the Celtic ban. Nuff said, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

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...