Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm going to go with the pragmatists and think Big Sam will get WH straight back up. His transfer style will be well suited to Gold/Sullivan, low on fees (preferably free) and pay the wages - let's face it, he managed to lure Okocha, Djorkaeff, Bobic and Campo to Bolton and got good performances out of them (plus he signed the man mountain/legend that is Radhi Jaidi). Plus, he was one of the first managers to embrace sports science/Pro=Zone analysis before it became popular. Just expect most of his signings to come under close scrutiny.

bleat bleat bleat, home of football, 1966, the academy, Bobby moore bleat bleat bleat.


This is not the swinging sixties and Carnaby street is no longer the place to buy your purple loons. England will never win a world cup again and you are unlikely to see Pink Floyd play their experimental choons above a pub off Oxford street


Apprently it is impossible to go back in time, but possible to go forward if you speak to physicists, so lets work on than rather basic assumption


Alladyce is a professional,thoughful meticulous manager. The reputation he gained for dull football is mostly unjust and pretty much a myth propagated by men in the pub.Given the time and support, SA will not only take Wet Spam back to the PL, but ensure their long term survival and "mid table mediocrity". he may also get a sniff of Europe in time.


Up there with expat deluded Manc Filth Demanding the Glazers walk away and Arse fans demanding Arsene Wenger should be sacked because he has failed to bring in a trophy in the past couple of years.Boo fucking hoo. Morons get too much airtime.



Turn off Talk sport and think about things before voicing an opinion.


/end

maxxi Wrote:

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

> If this Tony Fernandes thing turns out to be more

> than media puff then I think big Sam could be

> shortest-lived appointee in history. Would love to

> see Lotus as a shirt sponsor. Vroooom!!!


Or you could end up with Lotus' owners on the shirt - Proton.

'bout now Wrote:

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

> You can have him then kpc.


There are many Birmingham fans who would take him over Big Eck right now. I do not include myself in that number, but our style of play needs to change and it is easier to take a revised approach in the Championship.

Oh hunky you old curmudgeon you got it wrong again!


A desire for attractive football is not mindless nostalgia nor is the happiness of the average footy fan measured in top-of-the-table glory or European triumph.


There IS a tradition of attractive attacking football and a desire for it but it didn't end with Bobby Moore. I remember being thrilled by the McAvennie-Cottee partnersip back in 86 and having my freezing cockles warmed by little Stuart Slater at a night cup game in 89/90, ditto Di Canio's 1st season in 98 and his goal of the season in 2000.


I've seen Rio and Joe Cole and others come in as kids and depart to greener pastures and would like to hang on to them but understand the realities of modern football and am glad I got to see them play when I did. I just worry when a manager says he will play two different syles for home and away. That may sound pragmatic but it is inflexible and will rely on set pieces and discipline rather than flair and creativity.


And another thing...


You CAN still buy purple loons in Carnaby street.

you want attractive football, then you can display it for the next few years against Coventry,Doncaster & Scunthorpe. And the odd hammering by Millwall should get the blood flowing.If thats your thing.


Personally, Survival is preferable to Flair in these hard times.Insanity I know, but Im a crazy guy.


Still, you can live the dream and appoint absurd managers - A DeCanio & McAvennie dream team would tick all the boxes. Once DeCanio has been sacked.


Krays / The Queen Mum / Blitz / jellied eels


Laaavley

"Survival is preferable to Flair" I think you should have this tattooed on your knees (particularly as you seem to think it's an either/or equation).


I never asked for an absurd management appointee and would rather have seen kevin Keen given a shot - some people were calling for Chris Hughton to go to Upton Park because he was given a shot at Newcastle and took it - I think Keen would have too.


On the other hand If Bilic had been available/keen (no pun) that would have fulfilled 'fantasy' criteria and avoided the 'absurd' tag pragmatists are always so keen (again no pun - really) to hang around WH supporters necks. I am waiting with bated breath to see what happens at Swindon and am certain that whatever it is, it won't be dull.



Anthony Blunt/Quentin Crisp/CND marches/hummus

Snorky touches obn some truths


Heresey as it seems, I'm going to give Big Sam the benefit of the doubt


Nice guy - no, but look where nice guys Zola and Grant got us


Route 1 football - not utterly convinced that's fair, and the "I'd arther go down playing with flair" is a bit overstated. To be honest I'd rather go down with some spirit, hich with the exception of Parker and Noble (neither who can be described as flair) wasn't much the case this year. I think Big Sam's one dimension is a cliche of the Arsenal loving media...we will soon find out.


Big Sam has absolutely got a good record and is CRUCIALLY enough of his own man to not take shite from Sullivan & Gold ....Houghton and/or Keen been able to do that? He also says that southern and London based media never report on his teams with anything other than cliches, I suspect there's a kernel of truth in that.


Firs time we've been down and appointed a proven at all levels manager - Macari had just had seuccess at Swindon and Pardew at Reading. Billic has no form whatsoever managing Croatia...mmmmm


I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now....I think he's more to him than Curbishley for instance (and we'd have still been in the Premiership with Curbishley) and to a degree our future, where we deserve to be, as a well suported mid-ranking premiership club depends on us getting back up there asap.


Let's face it our supposed purism an/or need to appoint 'west Ham' People has seen us yoyo fsince the Premiership started - the two decent managers we've had, Pardew and Redknapp have had to leave for, ahem, non football reasons.


COYI and, with some reservations, BIG FAT SAM'S CLARET & BLUE ARMY


PS Pity he played for the Scum tho

Not asking for a nice guy (saw too much of that with Roeder). Macari wasn't nice but was still $#&! and Pardew was no pushover but was one of the best of the bunch.


"Let's face it our supposed purism an/or need to appoint 'west Ham' People has seen us yoyo fsince the Premiership started - the two decent managers we've had, Pardew and Redknapp have had to leave for, ahem, non football reasons."


Although he was pre Premiership I think that's a little harsh on Bonzo - up then down then up in three seasons is yoyo style yes but he was another who was pushed out when the club were mid table in top flight and that second promotion behind Newcastle was the culmination of a great season.


I am willing (there's no choice, idiot) to get behind big Sam (where no one can see me) but am still concerned by his determination (not to mention advance notice to the rest of the league) to play two styles home and away (hums home and away theme tune and suspects it will catch on). Perhaps he could persuade Joey Barton (no, wait, just think about it for a minute) to come and add the 'spirit'? When Parker goes we'll need a strong captain and Barton is mature enough for that now. They should go after him - he's not getting in the England team anyway (history) so what does he have to lose? Who else is after him?


As for Gold et al - they should shut up for a year.


so coyi indeed - and I hope we draw Swindon in the cup.

only latterly - when WH went down in 92 (before Harry arrived) they were favourites to come back up in 93, a spirit and attacking style of play and a never-say-die attitude that had been built up by Bonds was the reason. Redknapp was definitely a better coach in the long run but I think Bonds got shafted and has been airbrushed out of history a little. Now answer the question.... Barton?

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...