Why do Sky hate us - my theory

[Dougal]

I genuinely don't notice us getting any worse treatment than any other club. We're too sensitive.

Adrian Durham actually had it spot on yesterday on twitter (quelle surprise) when he said Talksport and Sky are not Tottenham Radio/Tv.

Sky's pundits bar Carra and Neville are desperately poor (Redknapp and Henry are awful), but their treatment is fairly level handed.

When Adrian Durham is arguing your case you have to question yourself.

 

[Stavrogin]

Sky only care about viewing figures, they don't care about of those other aspects, why would they? If Hull were playing the best football in the league they wouldn't suddenly take preference over us with Sky, the same applies with those clubs above us. There really isn't the need for such sensitivity, the whole discussion with regards to our players may not be what our supporters want to hear but it is absolutely a relevant dicussion point.

It's not as simple as that. What we're talking about are a bunch of pre-existing narratives that are wheeled out whenever remotely appropriate.

These narratives reflect a kind of self-perpetuating power structure, which puts the richest clubs at the top and their viewpoint first. Obviously our role is as a threat, so our narratives are frequently negative.

It's not outright propaganda, it's just the warping of perspective by those who are craven and genuflect towards wealth and power.

It sounds silly but it's so clear and obvious. As soon as Man City became wealthy their whole interpretation changed. Top players get called out for cheating far less. John Terry will be lauded no matter what he does. It's the very essence of britain, it's not surprising to see this happen here.

 

[Gb160]

They're just biased towards their favourite uber clubs, which makes it seem like they are biased against us.
Steal their content, thats what i do the fucks.

 

[Dougal]

We are showing the kind of strength and stability that Teresa May could only dream of and no-one likes to see people get their shit together when they have been an easy target for so long.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

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.

Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe blow all those Sky pillocks out of the water. Totally unbiased, insightful and honest across the whole of the PL. A joy to watch each weekend.

 

[Gb160]

Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe blow all those Sky pillocks out of the water. Totally unbiased, insightful and honest across the whole of the PL. A joy to watch each weekend.

And Rebecca Lowe

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

And Rebecca Lowe

Leave my girlfriend out of this conversation......

 

[Gb160]

Leave my girlfriend out of this conversation......

Tell her I'd drink her bathwater.

 

[Bobbins]

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.

Decent article - I love how you got a Disagree rating as though you wrote it and it's your fault for the author's opinion!

 

[felmani26]

When Adrian Durham is arguing your case you have to question yourself.

Every fan thinks Durham has in it for them but you have to accept what his role is in provoking reaction and generating calls.

The callers/fans irritate me far more than either him or numb nuts Goughy!

 

[Dougal]

Every fan thinks Durham has in it for them but you have to accept what his role is in provoking reaction and generating calls.

The callers/fans irritate me far more than either him or numb nuts Goughy!

I've accepted that. I've never called and unless he's trolling Gooners I usually switch it off.

 

[nightgoat]

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.

There was the time a few seasons ago when they covered our home game against Liverpool and their pundit line up was Carragher, Gerrard and Souness (who they had to introduce as 'former Spurs midfielder', with heavy emphasis as they were fully aware everyone knows Souness spent about half his career at Liverpool and couldn't possibly be considered the 'Spurs pundit'.)

 

[nightgoat]

I'd never noticed that before. Probably because I don't really listen to them. Probably because I was celebrating wildly at the time of the coverage. That's shocking and I'm not sure how the context led to it?

https://twitter.com/thfcnostalgia/status/650347986145398785

Couple that with how gutted Tyler sounded when Southampton equalised at Chelsea the other week.

 

[nicdic]

I think there's a very valid point about theirs and the media in general's desire to link all of our players away all the time.

A pro-Spurs voice that argues the vision of the club would be a massively welcome addition. As would having some genuine Spurs people in the studio/co-commentary rather than loads of Arsenal folk.

 

[bomberH]

I'd never noticed that before. Probably because I don't really listen to them. Probably because I was celebrating wildly at the time of the coverage. That's shocking and I'm not sure how the context led to it?

https://twitter.com/thfcnostalgia/status/650347986145398785

If I recall correctly, the context was that West Ham were almost certainly down after that result, though they actually stayed up by winning most of their final few games against all expectations. Still, never in the history of a match, particularly a 7 goal thriller, have I heard a more unenthusiastic commentary on an injury time winner. I was at the match and watched it again when I got home, still massively buzzing, only to think 'wtf' when I heard it.

 

[WorcesterTHFC]

Couple that with how gutted Tyler sounded when Southampton equalised at Chelsea the other week.

If you're a commentator or pundit, you lose all credibility (if you ever had any) if you allow your club allegiance to show in what you say, or your tone of voice. As Richie Benaud once said, for a commentator, there's no such team as 'us' or 'them'.

 

[mil1lion]

People wont turn off though. As long as Sky continue to show the games we'll continue to tune in just because it's the best way to watch outside of going to the games. Hell if Nazi TV showed our games I would subscribe. I tend not pay much attention to the pundits anyway. Fuck them. At least Sky have shown a good number of games this season. It's just a shame I have to pay so much to get Sky and BT sports rather than pay one fee regardless of who covers it.

 

[Gb160]

Just heard that by the time the season ends, Sky will have shown 29 of Liverpools 38 league games this season.

 

[tiger666]

Just heard that by the time the season ends, Sky will have shown 29 of Liverpools 38 league games this season.

Only 25 of ours

 

[nav007_2000]

Lets just hope Sky get outbid for the Premier League rights soon