What's new

Why do Sky hate us - my theory

CockOnBall

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
1,187
4,884
I think Sky's coverage of the last game at WHL has attracted criticism form a number of spurs fans. Mainly because of the following:

- Henry's presence
- Souness' 'this (whl) is not a place known for it's atmosphere' jibe
- Tyler's 'they've not seen much success here' comment just before kick off
- David Jones' constant questioning of 'can we keep our best players' or 'will Wembley move effect them'
- Jamie Redknapp errr....being Jamie Redknapp.

Some fans deny any sky bias. While there is a camp who vehemently believe sky hate us.

FWIW - I don't think sky executives hate us. I think we can all agree we're shown and discussed a sufficient number of times by them to not have a more valid gripe about being ignored like they do 80% of this league.

Therefore, our issue is not one of being ignored but more what is being said/debated by their pundits.

So why is it that spurs are often debated with a caveated negative slant? The obvious answer is that most their pundits are not only non-spurs, but ex pros with a deep seeded rivalry with spurs.

This is not deliberate by sky execs but a consequence of two factors.

1. Sky cater for the masses (globally)

The best support teams attract the most viewers = advertising and subscription revenue. We're a big club on these shores but globally we're a long way short of the established 'elite'. Liverpool have 7.3m twitter followers, Arsenal (9.8m) UTD (11.1m) compared to our 1.8m. If you looked at it from a pure cash perspective, which is what their execs would do, you'd cater to their fans over ours. What sky used to do was invite a current player, who unavailable through suspension or injury, to the studio for pre game but this player was so tightly gagged by the club, he’d offer nothing meaningful. Like any business, Sky would prefer to have a small group of employees who will be consistently used than a large base of ex pros which will be expensive to train and retain only be wheeled when their team plays. We may not see Redknapp (40 odd games in spurs shirt) as a spurs man but to sky, he'll do. He's also vanilla enough to comment on number of teams. The downside is that he offers little depth or insights to the majority of teams. This was badly exposed at the last game at WHL where David Jones was required to ask questions about the present and future of our club because quite simply, Jamie and co lacked the knowledge of our past. Yet how often will they be required to speak of a team’s history pre game?

2. Our lack of success

Sky's punditry team, with very few exceptions, is aimed at not only satisfying the elite sides but also having recognisable ex pros with big game experience so they can be marketable. Sadly, 30 odd years of failure from our club has resulted in very few credible pundits which meet the above criteria. If you notice, Chelsea have only just started getting a presence on their punditry panel because their 'illustrious' legends are now just retiring. If Spurs had a successful period like Chelsea and a version of Frank Lampard (articulate England international, PL/CL/EL/FA and league cup winner), Sky would have him. Fact is we don't. So we have to suck it up for at least a decade. In future, the likes of Kane, Walker, Rose, Alli would all be good pundits but we need to do our bit and be successful along the way.
 

Dougal

Staff
Jun 4, 2004
60,345
129,920
It's not just Sky. There's a lot of sneering in Spurs direction just because we believe we should be better. And there's nothing wrong with that ambition because we were better and we are again. Like you say, time will tell and all clubs go through it. Let's face it, Chelsea and Man City are top four and United, Arsenal and Liverpool don't like it. Even worse that another club has dared to enter the fray and actually compete for the title rather than 4th place.
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,338
77,592
I don't think they hate us. They just don't rate us highly. Even now that we're successful they still look for any opportunity to question us. We'll need to win titles to shut them up. They'll probably still question whether our top players should leave though. I think they're so used to our failures in the past that they're still expecting us to slip up.
 

Wheeler Dealer

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2011
6,863
12,282
I would tend to disagree, as if SKY wish to appeal to neutral ( broader reach), then we are the most attractive team of the last two years and most people who follow football recognise this and would be more inclined to watch us, along with following the club they support. SKY know we are an attractive entity for the mass and they would be foolish not to promote us ahead of other teams at the moment. Next season maybe different
 

the shelf

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2009
584
512
They don't hate us, it's simply to do with the fact that we don't have an awful lot of ex player pundits but even taking that into consideration, Neville, Souness (I know he was on the books as a youth player but c'mon on), Henry even, most of them are complementary to a point. Jamie Redknapp clearly holds some deep rooted bitterness bourne out from the way his dad was treated (in his eyes) but again for the most part he is complementary.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you though...
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,390
All of their main pundits have an affiliation to one of our rivals, as do the co-commentators. They all want at least one team to do better than us. If they had a Spurs affiliated pundit it would be less biased. I don't care anyway - in fact I find it quite amusing.
 

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,179
48,764
There's also the fact that Sugar was one of those negotiating for the clubs on the original Sky TV deal, and was jacking up the price. And he was playing both sides as Amstrad were making the Sky Boxes. So there might be a cultural f-you to Spurs in the company. But let's face it, they've done brilliantly out of that deal anyway.
 

lloydi200182

Active Member
May 18, 2009
244
208
There is a good article on this, credit: https://thespursreport.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/sky-sports-and-the-problem-with-spurs/

Ten minutes after the final whistle on Sunday — with Spurs sealing 2nd place for the first time in the Premier League era and completing an unbeaten home campaign, four dozen footballing legends ready to lead a grand farewell to one of the English football’s most famous old stages, and thousands of fans invading the pitch behind them — the conversation in the Sky Sports studio turned, inevitably, to the summer transfer window and whether Spurs would be able to keep stars such as Dele Alli.

Did it not cross the mind of the Sky host, Dave Jones, that this may not be the most relevant debate to be having, right now? Did it not cross his mind that, just maybe, tens of thousands of Spurs fans not fortunate enough to be at White Hart Lane on this historic occasion may be tuning in to soak in the atmosphere, celebrate a superb season, and bid goodbye to an old friend? Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the future of this Spurs team, the year away at Wembley, and the context of the success, achieved on a vastly smaller budget than the other occupants of the Premier League’s top six. But could it not wait, at least, for one sodding hour?

Even the best of TV hosts, which Dave Jones certainly isn’t, would struggle to wring a coherent thought on Spurs — or really anything — from Thierry Henry, while Jamie Redknapp is a malign and charmless presence, who cannot make it through two sentences without undermining Spurs.

“But can they keep hold of their players? But what if a big, big club comes calling? They should be smashing down the chairman’s door demanding a pay rise!”

Only Graeme Souness, a former Spurs apprentice who has fallen hard for Dele Alli and the strong, tough team Mauricio Pochettino has crafted, offered any semblance of a Spurs perspective on this huge day, But throw Souey a bloodied conversational rag — Spurs in the transfer market — and he’ll dive in two footed. Fortunately, the diggers were waiting to move in and Mauricio Pochettino was standing by in the tunnel, so this segment of the debate eventually came to a conclusion.

Sky’s coverage of Spurs has, to put it mildly, started to grate.

It wasn’t all that good to begin with, and hit a particular low in the run-in last season, with Cesc Fabregas of Chelsea and formerly of Arsenal being granted an undeserved platform to goad his upcoming opponents during one of Tottenham’s string of Monday night matches. But against West Ham, when both lead commentator Martin Tyler and presenter Rachel Riley (who is she?) took it upon themselves to suggest Spurs were legends as a nine-match winning streak came to an end during a fourth London derby in three weeks, what little patience was left evaporated.

The problem Sky have, or more accurately the problem we have with Sky, is that their roster of pundits and commentators isn’t built for Spurs being good.

For one season of fluke competence, Spurs being good was fine: a Leicester-lite surprise, who didn’t warrant further attention. But with Spurs showing all the signs of a sustained period of competence, Sky’s lack of a Spurs “voice” has become overwhelmingly apparent. Sending Thierry Henry, of all people, to the White Hart Lane finale was preposterous.

Spurs were selected for live TV coverage 18 times in 2014/15 and 21 times in 2015/16. This season, the final number will be 25. Of these, Sky will show 19 — so exactly half of Tottenham’s total games are being broadcast by Sky. Unless performances drop off significantly at Wembley, a similar number of Spurs games will be shown by Sky next season, in particularly given the lack of the Jose vs Pep narrative that drove a lot of live match selections in the first quarter of this season.

As the number of appearances has increased, the role of Spurs has changed. Spurs, up until now, were shown home and away against Sky’s chosen elite — a handy yardstick and almost certainly an entertaining game. Throw in a couple of London derbies, a goal-fest or two against Everton, something embarrassing against Newcastle and a whipping of Aston Villa, and that was Spurs on TV: repeat for 25 years. It didn’t require any thought, and certainly didn’t require any special treatment.

But now, Sky are aware that the situation is changing and they aren’t equipped to deal with it. Sky have some fine pundits such as Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, while Frank Lampard is as smart and articulate an ex footballer as there is. But there simply isn’t a Spurs voice in the building — someone capable of offering a counter-opinion when the conversation gets tedious, someone who understands the spirit of the club, and can explain to viewers the transformation that Pochettino is leading.

Excruciatingly, the solution has been to play up the Spurs credentials of Jamie Redknapp. Ahead of the North London derby, Martin Tyler grandly welcomed “former Spurs captain Jamie Redknapp” to the coverage. Once I’d finished vomiting, I had to look it up. Redknapp was indeed selected as captain in 2003/04 by Glenn Hoddle, but played only 17 games that season — and made just 49 appearances for the club in total. That’s five more than Edgar Davids made, but Redknapp wasn’t invited to the legends parade while the Pitbull was: at least Jamie could get a lift home with his dad.

Redknapp, as Tyler himself said on commentary earlier in the season, is a Liverpool fan — and there is nothing wrong with that after making more than 200 appearances for the Anfield club. Just don’t pretend to be something you aren’t: give me honest admissions of bias over false claims of balance, any day of the week.

Does any of this matter? Most of the time, not at all. At half-time, most viewers do the washing up or take the dog out; at full-time, most of us finish watching at the final whistle and do something else. But just occasionally, like on Sunday, as a fan you want to savour every moment, drink in the atmosphere as though you were there. And this is when you realise just how abysmal Sky’s coverage of Spurs is.

It seems that Sky — and many other media outlets — are stuck on repeat. After every victory, the question is whether Spurs can keep hold of our star players; after every dropped point, the question is whether Spurs lack mental fortitude. We won nine goddam games in a row, and Martin Tyler — the most experienced commentator and the voice of the Premier League — was accusing us of throwing away the title.

Is it any wonder Spurs fans feel we’re not getting the credit we deserve? Spurs are playing magnificent football, setting club records and keeping title races alive long after all the other “big” clubs have given up; we’ve got a vibrant young squad that is providing more players for the England team than anyone else; we’re doing it on a tight budget, using homegrown players, while building a world-class stadium with virtually no support from the public purse. Spurs should be a model, lauded for doing things “the right way”; instead, after every fucking game, we’re treated to Jamie Redknapp diminishing our achievements and trying to break us up.

I’m no Sky basher, as those who follow me on Twitter know. I think Sky’s sporting coverage is world class, and its football coverage is far better than BT Sport’s dumbed down approach. It’s just unlucky, really, that Sky are so shit when it comes to covering Spurs.

I know Sky don’t care. Liverpool and Man United are all that matters, in terms of the subscription model. We all regret the decision to give Thierry Henry such a prominent role, Sky Sports management included — only four years and £16m left on his contract, lads.

But, as they plan for the new season, I desperately hope Sky at least consider adding one Spurs voice to their line-up. If Crouchy or Robbo hang up their boots this summer, they’d be a welcome addition, or perhaps Matt Le Tissier, Saints legend and boyhood Spurs fan, could be given be a more prominent role.

To be honest, though, empty chairs and a couple more betting adverts would provide more insight into Spurs than Henry and Redknapp Jnr.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.
 

felmani26

SC Supporter
Jan 1, 2008
24,362
43,015
There is a good article on this, credit: https://thespursreport.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/sky-sports-and-the-problem-with-spurs/

Ten minutes after the final whistle on Sunday — with Spurs sealing 2nd place for the first time in the Premier League era and completing an unbeaten home campaign, four dozen footballing legends ready to lead a grand farewell to one of the English football’s most famous old stages, and thousands of fans invading the pitch behind them — the conversation in the Sky Sports studio turned, inevitably, to the summer transfer window and whether Spurs would be able to keep stars such as Dele Alli.

Did it not cross the mind of the Sky host, Dave Jones, that this may not be the most relevant debate to be having, right now? Did it not cross his mind that, just maybe, tens of thousands of Spurs fans not fortunate enough to be at White Hart Lane on this historic occasion may be tuning in to soak in the atmosphere, celebrate a superb season, and bid goodbye to an old friend? Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the future of this Spurs team, the year away at Wembley, and the context of the success, achieved on a vastly smaller budget than the other occupants of the Premier League’s top six. But could it not wait, at least, for one sodding hour?

Even the best of TV hosts, which Dave Jones certainly isn’t, would struggle to wring a coherent thought on Spurs — or really anything — from Thierry Henry, while Jamie Redknapp is a malign and charmless presence, who cannot make it through two sentences without undermining Spurs.

“But can they keep hold of their players? But what if a big, big club comes calling? They should be smashing down the chairman’s door demanding a pay rise!”

Only Graeme Souness, a former Spurs apprentice who has fallen hard for Dele Alli and the strong, tough team Mauricio Pochettino has crafted, offered any semblance of a Spurs perspective on this huge day, But throw Souey a bloodied conversational rag — Spurs in the transfer market — and he’ll dive in two footed. Fortunately, the diggers were waiting to move in and Mauricio Pochettino was standing by in the tunnel, so this segment of the debate eventually came to a conclusion.

Sky’s coverage of Spurs has, to put it mildly, started to grate.

It wasn’t all that good to begin with, and hit a particular low in the run-in last season, with Cesc Fabregas of Chelsea and formerly of Arsenal being granted an undeserved platform to goad his upcoming opponents during one of Tottenham’s string of Monday night matches. But against West Ham, when both lead commentator Martin Tyler and presenter Rachel Riley (who is she?) took it upon themselves to suggest Spurs were legends as a nine-match winning streak came to an end during a fourth London derby in three weeks, what little patience was left evaporated.

The problem Sky have, or more accurately the problem we have with Sky, is that their roster of pundits and commentators isn’t built for Spurs being good.

For one season of fluke competence, Spurs being good was fine: a Leicester-lite surprise, who didn’t warrant further attention. But with Spurs showing all the signs of a sustained period of competence, Sky’s lack of a Spurs “voice” has become overwhelmingly apparent. Sending Thierry Henry, of all people, to the White Hart Lane finale was preposterous.

Spurs were selected for live TV coverage 18 times in 2014/15 and 21 times in 2015/16. This season, the final number will be 25. Of these, Sky will show 19 — so exactly half of Tottenham’s total games are being broadcast by Sky. Unless performances drop off significantly at Wembley, a similar number of Spurs games will be shown by Sky next season, in particularly given the lack of the Jose vs Pep narrative that drove a lot of live match selections in the first quarter of this season.

As the number of appearances has increased, the role of Spurs has changed. Spurs, up until now, were shown home and away against Sky’s chosen elite — a handy yardstick and almost certainly an entertaining game. Throw in a couple of London derbies, a goal-fest or two against Everton, something embarrassing against Newcastle and a whipping of Aston Villa, and that was Spurs on TV: repeat for 25 years. It didn’t require any thought, and certainly didn’t require any special treatment.

But now, Sky are aware that the situation is changing and they aren’t equipped to deal with it. Sky have some fine pundits such as Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, while Frank Lampard is as smart and articulate an ex footballer as there is. But there simply isn’t a Spurs voice in the building — someone capable of offering a counter-opinion when the conversation gets tedious, someone who understands the spirit of the club, and can explain to viewers the transformation that Pochettino is leading.

Excruciatingly, the solution has been to play up the Spurs credentials of Jamie Redknapp. Ahead of the North London derby, Martin Tyler grandly welcomed “former Spurs captain Jamie Redknapp” to the coverage. Once I’d finished vomiting, I had to look it up. Redknapp was indeed selected as captain in 2003/04 by Glenn Hoddle, but played only 17 games that season — and made just 49 appearances for the club in total. That’s five more than Edgar Davids made, but Redknapp wasn’t invited to the legends parade while the Pitbull was: at least Jamie could get a lift home with his dad.

Redknapp, as Tyler himself said on commentary earlier in the season, is a Liverpool fan — and there is nothing wrong with that after making more than 200 appearances for the Anfield club. Just don’t pretend to be something you aren’t: give me honest admissions of bias over false claims of balance, any day of the week.

Does any of this matter? Most of the time, not at all. At half-time, most viewers do the washing up or take the dog out; at full-time, most of us finish watching at the final whistle and do something else. But just occasionally, like on Sunday, as a fan you want to savour every moment, drink in the atmosphere as though you were there. And this is when you realise just how abysmal Sky’s coverage of Spurs is.

It seems that Sky — and many other media outlets — are stuck on repeat. After every victory, the question is whether Spurs can keep hold of our star players; after every dropped point, the question is whether Spurs lack mental fortitude. We won nine goddam games in a row, and Martin Tyler — the most experienced commentator and the voice of the Premier League — was accusing us of throwing away the title.

Is it any wonder Spurs fans feel we’re not getting the credit we deserve? Spurs are playing magnificent football, setting club records and keeping title races alive long after all the other “big” clubs have given up; we’ve got a vibrant young squad that is providing more players for the England team than anyone else; we’re doing it on a tight budget, using homegrown players, while building a world-class stadium with virtually no support from the public purse. Spurs should be a model, lauded for doing things “the right way”; instead, after every fucking game, we’re treated to Jamie Redknapp diminishing our achievements and trying to break us up.

I’m no Sky basher, as those who follow me on Twitter know. I think Sky’s sporting coverage is world class, and its football coverage is far better than BT Sport’s dumbed down approach. It’s just unlucky, really, that Sky are so shit when it comes to covering Spurs.

I know Sky don’t care. Liverpool and Man United are all that matters, in terms of the subscription model. We all regret the decision to give Thierry Henry such a prominent role, Sky Sports management included — only four years and £16m left on his contract, lads.

But, as they plan for the new season, I desperately hope Sky at least consider adding one Spurs voice to their line-up. If Crouchy or Robbo hang up their boots this summer, they’d be a welcome addition, or perhaps Matt Le Tissier, Saints legend and boyhood Spurs fan, could be given be a more prominent role.

To be honest, though, empty chairs and a couple more betting adverts would provide more insight into Spurs than Henry and Redknapp Jnr.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.
Le Tissier?!

Just as prone to shitty soundbites and cliches along with a real tendency to come across as really bitter.
 

TheHood

.................................
Jan 17, 2006
1,671
2,104
They don't hate us and there is no conspiracy. In the grand scheme of it all we really are not that important.
 
Last edited:

Hazardousman

Audere est Facere
Jul 24, 2013
4,619
8,944
There is a good article on this, credit: https://thespursreport.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/sky-sports-and-the-problem-with-spurs/

Ten minutes after the final whistle on Sunday — with Spurs sealing 2nd place for the first time in the Premier League era and completing an unbeaten home campaign, four dozen footballing legends ready to lead a grand farewell to one of the English football’s most famous old stages, and thousands of fans invading the pitch behind them — the conversation in the Sky Sports studio turned, inevitably, to the summer transfer window and whether Spurs would be able to keep stars such as Dele Alli.

Did it not cross the mind of the Sky host, Dave Jones, that this may not be the most relevant debate to be having, right now? Did it not cross his mind that, just maybe, tens of thousands of Spurs fans not fortunate enough to be at White Hart Lane on this historic occasion may be tuning in to soak in the atmosphere, celebrate a superb season, and bid goodbye to an old friend? Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the future of this Spurs team, the year away at Wembley, and the context of the success, achieved on a vastly smaller budget than the other occupants of the Premier League’s top six. But could it not wait, at least, for one sodding hour?

Even the best of TV hosts, which Dave Jones certainly isn’t, would struggle to wring a coherent thought on Spurs — or really anything — from Thierry Henry, while Jamie Redknapp is a malign and charmless presence, who cannot make it through two sentences without undermining Spurs.

“But can they keep hold of their players? But what if a big, big club comes calling? They should be smashing down the chairman’s door demanding a pay rise!”

Only Graeme Souness, a former Spurs apprentice who has fallen hard for Dele Alli and the strong, tough team Mauricio Pochettino has crafted, offered any semblance of a Spurs perspective on this huge day, But throw Souey a bloodied conversational rag — Spurs in the transfer market — and he’ll dive in two footed. Fortunately, the diggers were waiting to move in and Mauricio Pochettino was standing by in the tunnel, so this segment of the debate eventually came to a conclusion.

Sky’s coverage of Spurs has, to put it mildly, started to grate.

It wasn’t all that good to begin with, and hit a particular low in the run-in last season, with Cesc Fabregas of Chelsea and formerly of Arsenal being granted an undeserved platform to goad his upcoming opponents during one of Tottenham’s string of Monday night matches. But against West Ham, when both lead commentator Martin Tyler and presenter Rachel Riley (who is she?) took it upon themselves to suggest Spurs were legends as a nine-match winning streak came to an end during a fourth London derby in three weeks, what little patience was left evaporated.

The problem Sky have, or more accurately the problem we have with Sky, is that their roster of pundits and commentators isn’t built for Spurs being good.

For one season of fluke competence, Spurs being good was fine: a Leicester-lite surprise, who didn’t warrant further attention. But with Spurs showing all the signs of a sustained period of competence, Sky’s lack of a Spurs “voice” has become overwhelmingly apparent. Sending Thierry Henry, of all people, to the White Hart Lane finale was preposterous.

Spurs were selected for live TV coverage 18 times in 2014/15 and 21 times in 2015/16. This season, the final number will be 25. Of these, Sky will show 19 — so exactly half of Tottenham’s total games are being broadcast by Sky. Unless performances drop off significantly at Wembley, a similar number of Spurs games will be shown by Sky next season, in particularly given the lack of the Jose vs Pep narrative that drove a lot of live match selections in the first quarter of this season.

As the number of appearances has increased, the role of Spurs has changed. Spurs, up until now, were shown home and away against Sky’s chosen elite — a handy yardstick and almost certainly an entertaining game. Throw in a couple of London derbies, a goal-fest or two against Everton, something embarrassing against Newcastle and a whipping of Aston Villa, and that was Spurs on TV: repeat for 25 years. It didn’t require any thought, and certainly didn’t require any special treatment.

But now, Sky are aware that the situation is changing and they aren’t equipped to deal with it. Sky have some fine pundits such as Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, while Frank Lampard is as smart and articulate an ex footballer as there is. But there simply isn’t a Spurs voice in the building — someone capable of offering a counter-opinion when the conversation gets tedious, someone who understands the spirit of the club, and can explain to viewers the transformation that Pochettino is leading.

Excruciatingly, the solution has been to play up the Spurs credentials of Jamie Redknapp. Ahead of the North London derby, Martin Tyler grandly welcomed “former Spurs captain Jamie Redknapp” to the coverage. Once I’d finished vomiting, I had to look it up. Redknapp was indeed selected as captain in 2003/04 by Glenn Hoddle, but played only 17 games that season — and made just 49 appearances for the club in total. That’s five more than Edgar Davids made, but Redknapp wasn’t invited to the legends parade while the Pitbull was: at least Jamie could get a lift home with his dad.

Redknapp, as Tyler himself said on commentary earlier in the season, is a Liverpool fan — and there is nothing wrong with that after making more than 200 appearances for the Anfield club. Just don’t pretend to be something you aren’t: give me honest admissions of bias over false claims of balance, any day of the week.

Does any of this matter? Most of the time, not at all. At half-time, most viewers do the washing up or take the dog out; at full-time, most of us finish watching at the final whistle and do something else. But just occasionally, like on Sunday, as a fan you want to savour every moment, drink in the atmosphere as though you were there. And this is when you realise just how abysmal Sky’s coverage of Spurs is.

It seems that Sky — and many other media outlets — are stuck on repeat. After every victory, the question is whether Spurs can keep hold of our star players; after every dropped point, the question is whether Spurs lack mental fortitude. We won nine goddam games in a row, and Martin Tyler — the most experienced commentator and the voice of the Premier League — was accusing us of throwing away the title.

Is it any wonder Spurs fans feel we’re not getting the credit we deserve? Spurs are playing magnificent football, setting club records and keeping title races alive long after all the other “big” clubs have given up; we’ve got a vibrant young squad that is providing more players for the England team than anyone else; we’re doing it on a tight budget, using homegrown players, while building a world-class stadium with virtually no support from the public purse. Spurs should be a model, lauded for doing things “the right way”; instead, after every fucking game, we’re treated to Jamie Redknapp diminishing our achievements and trying to break us up.

I’m no Sky basher, as those who follow me on Twitter know. I think Sky’s sporting coverage is world class, and its football coverage is far better than BT Sport’s dumbed down approach. It’s just unlucky, really, that Sky are so shit when it comes to covering Spurs.

I know Sky don’t care. Liverpool and Man United are all that matters, in terms of the subscription model. We all regret the decision to give Thierry Henry such a prominent role, Sky Sports management included — only four years and £16m left on his contract, lads.

But, as they plan for the new season, I desperately hope Sky at least consider adding one Spurs voice to their line-up. If Crouchy or Robbo hang up their boots this summer, they’d be a welcome addition, or perhaps Matt Le Tissier, Saints legend and boyhood Spurs fan, could be given be a more prominent role.

To be honest, though, empty chairs and a couple more betting adverts would provide more insight into Spurs than Henry and Redknapp Jnr.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

That was a great read and really articulated my personal thoughts on the matter, I don't see how people are unaware of the bias from SKY, I have been saying it for years and the truly sad part about it is, the media has far more influence on players than we like to admit.

The players and manager clearly listen to these pundits as well, we have seen on numerous occassions this season how Poch and Kane and Dier have all highlighted issues with the way we are spoken about and whilst some of it is true, most of it is just pundits wishful thinking, them hoping we cock it all up and go back to the "Spursy" team that they claim to know.

The team at SKY need a huge shake up, their coverage for the final game at the Lane was probably the worst I have ever seen for us for the reasons given in this piece, they need to understand the likelihood of us going away now is going to be minimal, that's two years in a row qualifying for the CL, two title races, this isn't fluke, that is consistency, we have a new stadium around the corner, one of the best in the world, this is going to be a sustained period where success IS expected, where finishing outside of the top 4 would be considered a failure.

Hell, it would be considered a failure now given our last two seasons.

Anyway, my point is, the longer SKY persist with this model of "old boys" and no equal representation for Spurs the more idiotic they are going to look and ultimately it will end up hurting subscriptions to the service I think.

I wish they would give us the option of turning off commentary completely, would rather watch matches without it anyway.
 
D

Deleted member 27995

They don't hate and there is no grand conspiracy. In the grand scheme of it all we really are not that important.
Yet we create a title challenge two seasons in a row for them to roll with and they are now creating stories out of 'things players said' without the context they were created in.

Yeah we are important in the grand scheme of things.

Small minded mentallity from the usual WUMs.
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
19,337
329,025
Every clubs fans think the media has it in for them.

People clearly forgetting G Nev(arguably the best pundit on UK TV), has done nothing but wax lyrical about us for two seasons.
 
Last edited:

CockOnBall

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
1,187
4,884
There is a good article on this, credit: https://thespursreport.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/sky-sports-and-the-problem-with-spurs/

Ten minutes after the final whistle on Sunday — with Spurs sealing 2nd place for the first time in the Premier League era and completing an unbeaten home campaign, four dozen footballing legends ready to lead a grand farewell to one of the English football’s most famous old stages, and thousands of fans invading the pitch behind them — the conversation in the Sky Sports studio turned, inevitably, to the summer transfer window and whether Spurs would be able to keep stars such as Dele Alli.

Did it not cross the mind of the Sky host, Dave Jones, that this may not be the most relevant debate to be having, right now? Did it not cross his mind that, just maybe, tens of thousands of Spurs fans not fortunate enough to be at White Hart Lane on this historic occasion may be tuning in to soak in the atmosphere, celebrate a superb season, and bid goodbye to an old friend? Sure, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the future of this Spurs team, the year away at Wembley, and the context of the success, achieved on a vastly smaller budget than the other occupants of the Premier League’s top six. But could it not wait, at least, for one sodding hour?

Even the best of TV hosts, which Dave Jones certainly isn’t, would struggle to wring a coherent thought on Spurs — or really anything — from Thierry Henry, while Jamie Redknapp is a malign and charmless presence, who cannot make it through two sentences without undermining Spurs.

“But can they keep hold of their players? But what if a big, big club comes calling? They should be smashing down the chairman’s door demanding a pay rise!”

Only Graeme Souness, a former Spurs apprentice who has fallen hard for Dele Alli and the strong, tough team Mauricio Pochettino has crafted, offered any semblance of a Spurs perspective on this huge day, But throw Souey a bloodied conversational rag — Spurs in the transfer market — and he’ll dive in two footed. Fortunately, the diggers were waiting to move in and Mauricio Pochettino was standing by in the tunnel, so this segment of the debate eventually came to a conclusion.

Sky’s coverage of Spurs has, to put it mildly, started to grate.

It wasn’t all that good to begin with, and hit a particular low in the run-in last season, with Cesc Fabregas of Chelsea and formerly of Arsenal being granted an undeserved platform to goad his upcoming opponents during one of Tottenham’s string of Monday night matches. But against West Ham, when both lead commentator Martin Tyler and presenter Rachel Riley (who is she?) took it upon themselves to suggest Spurs were legends as a nine-match winning streak came to an end during a fourth London derby in three weeks, what little patience was left evaporated.

The problem Sky have, or more accurately the problem we have with Sky, is that their roster of pundits and commentators isn’t built for Spurs being good.

For one season of fluke competence, Spurs being good was fine: a Leicester-lite surprise, who didn’t warrant further attention. But with Spurs showing all the signs of a sustained period of competence, Sky’s lack of a Spurs “voice” has become overwhelmingly apparent. Sending Thierry Henry, of all people, to the White Hart Lane finale was preposterous.

Spurs were selected for live TV coverage 18 times in 2014/15 and 21 times in 2015/16. This season, the final number will be 25. Of these, Sky will show 19 — so exactly half of Tottenham’s total games are being broadcast by Sky. Unless performances drop off significantly at Wembley, a similar number of Spurs games will be shown by Sky next season, in particularly given the lack of the Jose vs Pep narrative that drove a lot of live match selections in the first quarter of this season.

As the number of appearances has increased, the role of Spurs has changed. Spurs, up until now, were shown home and away against Sky’s chosen elite — a handy yardstick and almost certainly an entertaining game. Throw in a couple of London derbies, a goal-fest or two against Everton, something embarrassing against Newcastle and a whipping of Aston Villa, and that was Spurs on TV: repeat for 25 years. It didn’t require any thought, and certainly didn’t require any special treatment.

But now, Sky are aware that the situation is changing and they aren’t equipped to deal with it. Sky have some fine pundits such as Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, while Frank Lampard is as smart and articulate an ex footballer as there is. But there simply isn’t a Spurs voice in the building — someone capable of offering a counter-opinion when the conversation gets tedious, someone who understands the spirit of the club, and can explain to viewers the transformation that Pochettino is leading.

Excruciatingly, the solution has been to play up the Spurs credentials of Jamie Redknapp. Ahead of the North London derby, Martin Tyler grandly welcomed “former Spurs captain Jamie Redknapp” to the coverage. Once I’d finished vomiting, I had to look it up. Redknapp was indeed selected as captain in 2003/04 by Glenn Hoddle, but played only 17 games that season — and made just 49 appearances for the club in total. That’s five more than Edgar Davids made, but Redknapp wasn’t invited to the legends parade while the Pitbull was: at least Jamie could get a lift home with his dad.

Redknapp, as Tyler himself said on commentary earlier in the season, is a Liverpool fan — and there is nothing wrong with that after making more than 200 appearances for the Anfield club. Just don’t pretend to be something you aren’t: give me honest admissions of bias over false claims of balance, any day of the week.

Does any of this matter? Most of the time, not at all. At half-time, most viewers do the washing up or take the dog out; at full-time, most of us finish watching at the final whistle and do something else. But just occasionally, like on Sunday, as a fan you want to savour every moment, drink in the atmosphere as though you were there. And this is when you realise just how abysmal Sky’s coverage of Spurs is.

It seems that Sky — and many other media outlets — are stuck on repeat. After every victory, the question is whether Spurs can keep hold of our star players; after every dropped point, the question is whether Spurs lack mental fortitude. We won nine goddam games in a row, and Martin Tyler — the most experienced commentator and the voice of the Premier League — was accusing us of throwing away the title.

Is it any wonder Spurs fans feel we’re not getting the credit we deserve? Spurs are playing magnificent football, setting club records and keeping title races alive long after all the other “big” clubs have given up; we’ve got a vibrant young squad that is providing more players for the England team than anyone else; we’re doing it on a tight budget, using homegrown players, while building a world-class stadium with virtually no support from the public purse. Spurs should be a model, lauded for doing things “the right way”; instead, after every fucking game, we’re treated to Jamie Redknapp diminishing our achievements and trying to break us up.

I’m no Sky basher, as those who follow me on Twitter know. I think Sky’s sporting coverage is world class, and its football coverage is far better than BT Sport’s dumbed down approach. It’s just unlucky, really, that Sky are so shit when it comes to covering Spurs.

I know Sky don’t care. Liverpool and Man United are all that matters, in terms of the subscription model. We all regret the decision to give Thierry Henry such a prominent role, Sky Sports management included — only four years and £16m left on his contract, lads.

But, as they plan for the new season, I desperately hope Sky at least consider adding one Spurs voice to their line-up. If Crouchy or Robbo hang up their boots this summer, they’d be a welcome addition, or perhaps Matt Le Tissier, Saints legend and boyhood Spurs fan, could be given be a more prominent role.

To be honest, though, empty chairs and a couple more betting adverts would provide more insight into Spurs than Henry and Redknapp Jnr.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

This was what formed the basis of my article tbh. He rightly points out that ten minutes after the game the questions related to the present and the future. But the motivation for this wasn't hatred of spurs but necessity. How long can Jamie Redknapp, Souness and Henry talk about spurs' history? Do they know much of it? I don't think so. So the questions David Jones put forward was something they could answer. Fill the time after the pitch invasion delayed the start of the ceremony.

It's also telling that the writer could not put forward any plausible pundits that sky could have had that day. I am not sure what's happened to jenas in regards to sky but generally most of the credible ex players we have were on duty at WHL that day.
 

Dougal

Staff
Jun 4, 2004
60,345
129,920
They don't hate and there is no grand conspiracy. In the grand scheme of it all we really are not that important.
And yet in the last 2 years we've picked up way more points than anybody else. If we're not important, who is?
 

bomberH

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2005
28,455
168,213
I want to dislike Sky for the way they often talk about us but putting my Spurs bias aside, they're probably right to mention the things they do. When Chelsea won the league, they don't ask if they can keep their best players for next season because they pay their players £8.3m an hour, so of course they'll stay. And when there is genuine speculation about a move away, they'll cover it like any other subject and not shy away from it (Conte to Inter, Hazard to Real etc). It's a perfectly fair question to ask if we can keep our players knowing we literally pay half of what other big teams pay theirs.

The real issue is lack of ex Spurs pundits. Hoddle and Harry Redknapp on BT sometimes fight our corner, Jenas (and sometimes Lineker) does it on BBC, but there's hardly anyone on Sky who does it, bar a random ex player popping up from time to time. Jamie Redknapp only talks about us based on his limited time here, which was generally a shit period. It's all very Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal based and there's no one who can give a real insight to our club the way an ex player can. If King was more 'tv friendly', I think he'd be on Sky more often but he's not the best of speakers having seen him doing punditry before. Of the current side, Walker's been with us for years - if he does stay and ends his career here, he'd be perfect. Or someone like Edgar Davids. Or Ginola.

I think Sky have generally given us praise when it's been deserved. A couple of idiotic comments (Riley etc) shouldn't let that get in the way. Martin Tyler's horrific commentary of Stalteri's winner against West Ham was awful but then again he was gushing about WHL on Sunday when I got home and rewatched the game. He may have (correctly) said we haven't won much there but he was absolutely loving the legends and was immensely complimentary about WHL overall. Putting 2 or 3 awful pundits aside, I don't really think Sky are doing anything that wrong.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,913
Media outlets like Sky are not exactly looking for journalistic integrity.

They are looking for big stories and anything to gain attention. They love a transfer story costing huge money, it naturally gains a lot of attention and speculation.

Alli, Kane and Eriksen are all playing at a level and are at an age where their transfer fee will be huge.

The likes of Sky and the tabloids aren't going to concern themselves too much with how much truth there is in a rumour.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy against us. Hazard, Costa, Coutinho, Ageuro and any half decent player for Arsenal have also been constantly linked with moves away.

We notice ours more because we read more about our club than others. Play the victim and "everyone hates us" card as much as you want. The media want money, that's their agenda.
 

TheHood

.................................
Jan 17, 2006
1,671
2,104
And yet in the last 2 years we've picked up way more points than anybody else. If we're not important, who is?

We are not important in the scheme of things for a television network to hold agendas or to try distablise the football club by producing false narratives.

They are simply saying what the rest of the media and others club supporters are saying and maybe there might actually be something in what they are saying.
 
Last edited:

ryantegan

Block 33 Season Ticket holder :)
Jun 28, 2009
6,014
17,841
Sky have a right to answer the questions they do. We are at the table on merit but in doing so it raises doubts about sustainability.

For every negative question/comment, there is always a mention about pochetinos great work, the youth of the squad, the amazing new stadium, the english core...

unfortunately we hear what we want to suit our agenda

BT Sport on the other hand is a very strange set up. They appear to be so Pro-Liverpool its uncomfortable. Liverpools game this weekend (although on Sky) will ensure that they have been live more than any other team this season. How that can be justified is beyond me
 
Top