Why do Sky hate us - my theory

[nicdic]

Merged the two threads.

 

[Gassin's finest]

View attachment 30123

Bumped into him Sunday and said I'm glad it's you and not Alan Smith.

I see he's still persisting with that shit 'tash/goatee effort that he's been growing since 2002...

 

[olliec]

Didn't see this thread, but certainly deserves its own so we can bring it to attention.

 

[Kiedis]

They had to talk about something... since the delay wasn't plan for.

It just says something about the low standards that are accepted. If they knew their shit, and were able to meaningfully talk about football, they could easily have talked about tactical aspects from the game, or about the football the team has been playing this season, in terms of the numerous tactical tweaks there's been, our set piece routines or something actually interesting or enlightening.

"But how can they expect to know all that stuff?"

Henry is paid 4 million per year, and Sky has a bloody big staff that hands these blokes stuff to talk about. If even I can speak at lenghts about Bournemouth and Watford in terms of footballing stuff, then it should be beyond these blokes to talk about interesting football related topics as a filler instead of always diving into lazy narratives to pass time.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

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.

I've never shared the view that this "Oh no" was en expression of his own disappointment or bias. It was exactly the sort of thing I'd say if I was watching a game between two teams I don't support that turned so disastrously wrong in the very end for the team in trouble. It sounded perfectly natural to me when I heard it and still does. It in no way suggests the slightest bias against us.

In fact there's an element of relish in his voice. Not quite irony, but not far off. It is 100% definitely not the despair of a supporter.

 

[bomberH]

I've never shared the view that this "Oh no" was en expression of his own disappointment or bias. It was exactly the sort of thing I'd say if I was watching a game between two teams I don't support that turned so disastrously wrong in the very end for the team in trouble. It sounded perfectly natural to me when I heard it and still does. It in no way suggests the slightest bias against us.

In fact there's an element of relish in his voice. Not quite irony, but not far off. It is 100% definitely not the despair of a supporter.

I was talking about the Tyler commentary and the complete unenthusiasm in his voice. Bobbins posted the other 'oh no' commentary, but even so, did the commentator (Tyler I think) of the Newcastle v Liverpool 4-3 matches shout 'oh no' when the winner went in? No, they were ecstatic after a great game of football. I think when someone's first instinct is to say 'oh no' rather than 'oh yes' then that person has more of an affiliation with the losing team because it goes against how commentary should be done (unless it's an England match or European match when the commentator would be rightfully biased toward the English team).

 

[mpickard2087]

Precious thread.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

I was talking about the Tyler commentary and the complete unenthusiasm in his voice. Bobbins posted the other 'oh no' commentary, but even so, did the commentator (Tyler I think) of the Newcastle v Liverpool 4-3 matches shout 'oh no' when the winner went in? No, they were ecstatic after a great game of football. I think when someone's first instinct is to say 'oh no' rather than 'oh yes' then that person has more of an affiliation with the losing team because it goes against how commentary should be done (unless it's an England match or European match when the commentator would be rightfully biased toward the English team).

The context was entirely different. It was all about the immediate sense of the (apparent) inevitability of the consequences: relegation. It really isn't comparable with the Toon/Scouse match, and the entire mood was different. I'm as convinced as it's possible to be that a reflection of empathy with the loser in those very particular circumstances, giving voice to the mood of the home crowd, is not the same thing as bias, not at all.

 

[MarkyP]

I don't think Sky or the Media in general hate us. I just think they are finding it tough to adjust to any perceived "shift in power" or sustained challenge to the established "big four or five" teams that have dominated the upper echelons of English football for the best part of 20 odd years.

Any team that has mounted a successful attempt at breaking into that established group have fallen by the wayside and eventually faltered..
Blackburn win the title.. team picked apart, they disappeared.
Newcastle came close before imploding.
Leeds / Villa, both had a decent go at it breaking the top four (Leeds doing so) and establishing themselves as CL regulars.
Leicester win the league and then spend the season fighting relegation.
Look at them all now....

So based on history alone, its enough to suggest that teams outside of the established top 4 or 5 for the past 10 years or so, aren't in it for the long haul, and will drop away.

We are proving to be the exception to the rule, and I think the Media are struggling to adjust to it. Which is blindingly obvious with the comments along the lines of "can spurs keep hold of X" and "they aren't used to winning things"... "can they sustain it for another season" etc.. In the past we came close, but fell away, we had our best players taken from us, etc - the trajectory we are on now, the last two league finishes suggest we are here to stay and challenge, and not lose our best players.

Until the media get used to the fact that Spurs are now among the "elite" in the PL (to hopefully stay), there will always be an air of doubt or scepticism about us - which we, as fans, probably view as hostility.

 

[Hazardousman]

No sky bias they say...this was when SSN was talking about the "big managers and teams" on the lead up to the final day of the season, not the first time they have snubbed Poch either.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

What bollocks. The paranoia on display in this thread is fucking embarrassing, I don't see why the media have to pamper to anyone's sensibilities much less a bunch of people who outright ignore anything positive shown or said about us but leap on anything that can even remotely be perceived as negative and highlight it as 'agenda'......there's only one agenda going on here.

All teams get good comments/treatment and bad. All teams. This isn't a conspiracy, it isn't agenda, it's somehow snowballed so far that people just look for the bad then throw it out there, its a self feeding entity.

The other night Martin Tyler said what a very very fine team Tottenham Hotspur are, but later didn't say something so is therefore a biased ****. Even the tone of his voice is being measured by 'experts' in the field and used against him..........

It's laughable just how much the positive is conveniently swept under the carpet and all that counts is anything that can be seen as negative.

 

[tiger666]

No sky bias they say...this was when SSN was talking about the "big managers and teams" on the lead up to the final day of the season, not the first time they have snubbed Poch either.

We'd be pissing ourselves if this was on RAWK.

 

[DJS]

View attachment 30123

Bumped into him Sunday and said I'm glad it's you and not Alan Smith.

Is he taking a pic of you as well?

He can then post it on Man U community or wherever he likes to frequent and say I met Wellspurs and was glad it wasn't *insert own choice of SC member here*

 

[Shadydan]

Funny thread...literally every other teams fans say the same thing.

 

[Hazardousman]

We'd be pissing ourselves if this was on RAWK.

Why are they leaving Poch out? Rather than taking a swipe can you explain the reasoning behind leaving the manager out of a graphic showing the best teams/managers in the league when he has guided us into second and been in a title race two seasons in a row?

Can you explain to me why people, despite overwhelming evidence, are choosing to ignore an obvious ignorance towards our achievements in the media? I am not suggesting we don't get a few platitudes here and there but it's pretty evident it's through gritted teeth at this point and always followed by "But can they keep their players?" or some other extremely negative viewpoint.

It's quite easy to criticise people for suggesting it's all "conspiracy bollocks" but that's not really a compelling argument against the evidence being shown is it?

I am also honestly puzzled as to why the same people continuously defend this behaviour as well, when you have ex professionals at the club and even our own manager highlighting how the media are always talking about us selling our players etc and yet the same 4-8 people on this board that pop up every time something like this is discussed seem to think they know better than the majority of people complaining about this issue and yet never offer any compelling evidence or reasoning to oppose the arguments.

Just comments like "It's like RAWK on here sometimes, embarrassing"

 

[dagraham]

No sky bias they say...this was when SSN was talking about the "big managers and teams" on the lead up to the final day of the season, not the first time they have snubbed Poch either.

They are drumming up interest for viewing figures for the final day.

Liverpool, Arsenal and City are all in the mix for the only thing of interest. And like it or not, Chelsea are the champions.

The only one there who isn't is Mourinho, but he's Utd and United will always be shoved in there regardless, and they still have the EL final and the question of whether the will be in the CL next season.

Fact is our season is run and today's match is an irrelevance other than to Spurs or Hull fans.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Why are they leaving Poch out? Rather than taking a swipe can you explain the reasoning behind leaving the manager out of a graphic showing the best teams/managers in the league when he has guided us into second and been in a title race two seasons in a row?

I have no idea but i'll offer up a guess.......They all have things to play for this week. We're at Hull. Massive news that.

Can you explain to me why people, despite overwhelming evidence, are choosing to ignore an obvious ignorance towards our achievements in the media? I am not suggesting we don't get a few platitudes here and there but it's pretty evident it's through gritted teeth at this point and always followed by "But can they keep their players?" or some other extremely negative viewpoint.

Platitudes here and there? A vast majority, if not all of the pundits have been very very fulsome in their praise. You're actually doing to Sky what you claim is being done to us. Being very VERY selective. Plus have we actually won anything? I can't remember the last time finishing second was back page news or was the lead story on Sky for sixteen weeks It really does come across as if you expect Sky to be the Spurs channel.

It's quite easy to criticise people for suggesting it's all "conspiracy bollocks" but that's not really a compelling argument against the evidence being shown is it?
You make it easy. There is no 'evidence'.......Whatever positive is balanced by anything negative. If you don't want to hear things you don't like, subscribe to Spurs TV. The media aren't there to pamper your sensibilities.

I am also honestly puzzled as to why the same people continuously defend this behaviour as well, when you have ex professionals at the club and even our own manager highlighting how the media are always talking about us selling our players etc and yet the same 4-8 people on this board that pop up every time something like this is discussed seem to think they know better than the majority of people complaining about this issue and yet never offer any compelling evidence or reasoning to oppose the argument's.

That's because they don't have to offer up anything, anyone who wants to can see it for what it is. You'll like or dislike, agree/disagree with pundits/media comments, that comes with the territory and it doesn't mean there's an agenda. See above.

Just comments like "It's like RAWK on here sometimes, embarrassing"

Name for me please any other club who are victim of this rampant bias. Surely there must be a few? Or are we going to descend into even more ridiculous realms of fantasy and become a posh Millwall with only one difference? No one likes us BUT we care?

The majority of this stuff exists only because you're looking for it.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Why are they leaving Poch out? Rather than taking a swipe can you explain the reasoning behind leaving the manager out of a graphic showing the best teams/managers in the league when he has guided us into second and been in a title race two seasons in a row?

Can you explain to me why people, despite overwhelming evidence, are choosing to ignore an obvious ignorance towards our achievements in the media? I am not suggesting we don't get a few platitudes here and there but it's pretty evident it's through gritted teeth at this point and always followed by "But can they keep their players?" or some other extremely negative viewpoint.

It's quite easy to criticise people for suggesting it's all "conspiracy bollocks" but that's not really a compelling argument against the evidence being shown is it?

I am also honestly puzzled as to why the same people continuously defend this behaviour as well, when you have ex professionals at the club and even our own manager highlighting how the media are always talking about us selling our players etc and yet the same 4-8 people on this board that pop up every time something like this is discussed seem to think they know better than the majority of people complaining about this issue and yet never offer any compelling evidence or reasoning to oppose the arguments.

Just comments like "It's like RAWK on here sometimes, embarrassing"

OK, there's some negative stuff. But you and others dont seem to get (or ignore) that there's an important difference between some negative stuf and bias, let alone systemic bias.

Every club gets some negative stuff. And we have got plenty of positive coverage, to the extent that our equally myopic equivalents on RAWK and all the other forums often call Spurs "the media darlings". They believe it because they are also besotted, and it clouds their judgement.

Anyway, uncomfortable though it may be, the question of whether we can keep this wonderful squad together is obviously pertinent, and is usually framed in positive terms, suggesting there no limit to what we can achieve with this team.

We should grow up about this. We all know how the media works. Don't we?

 

[Wellspurs]

Is he taking a pic of you as well?

He can then post it on Man U community or wherever he likes to frequent and say I met Wellspurs and was glad it wasn't *insert own choice of SC member here*

Millsey?

 

[CheeseGromit]

Led Zeppelin's post

"Anyway, uncomfortable though it may be, the question of whether we can keep this wonderful squad together is obviously pertinent, and is usually framed in positive terms, suggesting there no limit to what we can achieve with this team."

Their (Sky@s) questioning is very pertinent when you consider the financial muscle of the club compared to those around us. The question could be asked "How can we sustain the progress year in year out" but that is less dramatic the singling out players who might go to other clubs and asking how we might keep them

I want Spurs to turn into a dynasty but it will take more than unearthing talented youngsters to supplement the group we have at present. The stadium is start but transfer fees and wages will play a major part in the success or otherwise