Why do Sky hate us - my theory

[Vwbottom]

Their coverage is beyond poor compared to other countries, and they wonder why people illegally stream.

Not necessarily their fault, but they've done absolutely nothing to rectify it.

 

[Gb160]

Their coverage is beyond poor compared to other countries, and they wonder why people illegally stream.

In what way?...why is it poor?

People stream for two reason...
1, Sky is expensive.
2, Sky don't show all of the matches.

 

[RickyVilla]

Apparently they aren't showing any more of our games this season

Conspiracy! Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.

 

[Hoops]

Every club forum has a why do sky hate us thread.

 

[Danners9]

In what way?...why is it poor?

People stream for two reason...
1, Sky is expensive.
2, Sky don't show all of the matches.

If you just watch the game itself, Sky is great. If you want more then it isn't. The analysis is superficial due to the adverts they must show in the build up and at HT, as well as the allegiances the pundits and guests have, and the commentary is incredibly cliched.

This season i've seen games on Sportsnet from Canada, NBC from the US and SBS in Australia and the level of insight they offer is so far ahead of Sky. Tactical analysis, an overall view of what is going on in the game/league and actual opinions on incidents in the match instead of sticking to their preconceptions even when the evidence is in front of them.

This goes for most of the games, it isn't about being biased against Spurs. SBS in Australia has Michael Bridges and Craig Foster and they are both very insightful, offering context, analysing incidents properly and they seem to have free reign to criticise when necessary. Robbie Mustoe and Craig Forrest on Sportsnet are the same and Robbie Earle and Kyle Martino on NBC as well.

Sky's team are like salesmen trying to keep up the 'best league in the world' image while the others are able to tell the truth. BT are worse.

 

[Spurger King]

If you just watch the game itself, Sky is great. If you want more then it isn't. The analysis is superficial due to the adverts they must show in the build up and at HT, as well as the allegiances the pundits and guests have, and the commentary is incredibly cliched.

This season i've seen games on Sportsnet from Canada, NBC from the US and SBS in Australia and the level of insight they offer is so far ahead of Sky. Tactical analysis, an overall view of what is going on in the game/league and actual opinions on incidents in the match instead of sticking to their preconceptions even when the evidence is in front of them.

This goes for most of the games, it isn't about being biased against Spurs. SBS in Australia has Michael Bridges and Craig Foster and they are both very insightful, offering context, analysing incidents properly and they seem to have free reign to criticise when necessary. Robbie Mustoe and Craig Forrest on Sportsnet are the same and Robbie Earle and Kyle Martino on NBC as well.

Sky's team are like salesmen trying to keep up the 'best league in the world' image while the others are able to tell the truth. BT are worse.

BT are cheaper. Therefore more appealing to UK football fans. Therefore better. Sky are a fucking disgrace. BT are fucking terrible too. I take a lot of enjoyment from streaming our games online. Fuck the Tory pieces of shit.

 

[Gb160]

If you just watch the game itself, Sky is great. If you want more then it isn't. The analysis is superficial due to the adverts they must show in the build up and at HT, as well as the allegiances the pundits and guests have, and the commentary is incredibly cliched.

This season i've seen games on Sportsnet from Canada, NBC from the US and SBS in Australia and the level of insight they offer is so far ahead of Sky. Tactical analysis, an overall view of what is going on in the game/league and actual opinions on incidents in the match instead of sticking to their preconceptions even when the evidence is in front of them.

This goes for most of the games, it isn't about being biased against Spurs. SBS in Australia has Michael Bridges and Craig Foster and they are both very insightful, offering context, analysing incidents properly and they seem to have free reign to criticise when necessary. Robbie Mustoe and Craig Forrest on Sportsnet are the same and Robbie Earle and Kyle Martino on NBC as well.

Sky's team are like salesmen trying to keep up the 'best league in the world' image while the others are able to tell the truth. BT are worse.

Like yourself I have access to virtually all of the broadcasters so I can more or less take my pick, the only time I'll listen is at half time, and also if Gary Nevilles on as he offers a much more balanced view than most.
But they have all been banging on about the same shit over the last few months...how amazing Chelsea are (after coming tenth and playing once per week all season), how amazing/likeable/eccentric Klopp is, and invariably how we're gonna struggle to keep hold of our best players.
Every single one of them is the same imo....TSN,Sportsnet,NBC,Sky,BT, the lot.

It's not surprising though, they're catering for the masses, 90-95% of their viewers couldn't give a shit about Spurs, and probably hate the fucking sight of us right now

So when the match finishes I just switch it off, as u say I watch the game and that's it.....in fairness I haven't tried the Aussie one you mentioned, so I'll give that a whirl next season, if they still have he rights.

 

[Danners9]

So when the match finishes I just switch it off, as u say I watch the game and that's it.....in fairness I haven't tried the Aussie one you mentioned, so I'll give that a whirl next season, if they still have he rights.

They show one game a week. The CL coverage is good as well, but it has to be to encourage people to wake up at 4.45am for kick off! Foxtel was better but Optus insists on having a main game and streaming the rest but, yep, the streams buffer continuously.

Some of the Asian channels show just the game and fill HT with promo videos. Often unrelated to the teams they are showing I wonder how much control the Premier League itself has on the broadcasts. Whether it's like Vince McMahon in the ear of the commentators during WWE shows telling them what to say.

 

[worcestersauce]

watching SSN last night going into a break showed Harry Kane with the golden boot and said "we'll speak to Harry Kane next" the adverts finish and they show ten minutes of Chelsea celebrating and racist john talking to the crowd on a microphone. The little liers.

 

[kmk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rive-Rachel-Riley-Sky-Sports.html?mrn_rm=als1

Who's the bottle job now Rachel?

 

[Bobbins]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rive-Rachel-Riley-Sky-Sports.html?mrn_rm=als1

Who's the bottle job now Rachel?

Good.

I wouldn't usually want to be this petty but her comments probably made me more angry than the actual result that night. She kicked off the whole "bottling" thing again in the media and on social media. It was pretty much the most stupid thing she could've said, as well as incredibly ignorant given we'd just won nine in a row.

As for the "hideous personal abuse" - I actually went on her Twitter feed a few times after the incident and apart from a literal handful of comments you could call abusive, she was mainly being called out by fans putting the facts to her and calling her an embarrassment.

She was also getting loads of "great bantz" style tweets from non-Spurs fans who obviously though it was hilarious, supporting her - she even responded to one West Ham fan who tweeted her by saying they'd all been jumping around celebrating in the studio when West Ham scored.

So she can do one. Glad her career's been damaged.

 

[markiespurs]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rive-Rachel-Riley-Sky-Sports.html?mrn_rm=als1

Who's the bottle job now Rachel?

I've seen her present a few different shows and take her away from a maths board and she is way out of her depth and comes across as having the personality of a wet lettuce.

 

[kmk]

I've seen her present a few different shows and take her away from a maths board and she is way out of her depth and comes across as having the personality of a wet lettuce.

Yes I much prefer the Vorderman. I wouldn't kick Riley out of bed on a cold night though.

 

[spurs mental]

She was shit at her job. The comment just heightened the awareness of how shit she was at it.

Presenter should show absolute objectivity. Stupid bitch couldn't be bothered to do that and got caught out.

Guarantee if it was a bloke there would have been similar uproar from fans. But it wouldn't be a story now. Someone is hoping for a sexism row from nothing.

If you're bad at your job you get sacked. Simple.

 

[shelfmonkey]

Good.

I wouldn't usually want to be this petty but her comments probably made me more angry than the actual result that night. She kicked off the whole "bottling" thing again in the media and on social media. It was pretty much the most stupid thing she could've said, as well as incredibly ignorant given we'd just won nine in a row.

As for the "hideous personal abuse" - I actually went on her Twitter feed a few times after the incident and apart from a literal handful of comments you could call abusive, she was mainly being called out by fans putting the facts to her and calling her an embarrassment.

She was also getting loads of "great bantz" style tweets from non-Spurs fans who obviously though it was hilarious, supporting her - she even responded to one West Ham fan who tweeted her by saying they'd all been jumping around celebrating in the studio when West Ham scored.

So she can do one. Glad her career's been damaged.

Anyone still believe SKY are not biased against us?!!!!!

 

[teok]

If you just watch the game itself, Sky is great. If you want more then it isn't. The analysis is superficial due to the adverts they must show in the build up and at HT, as well as the allegiances the pundits and guests have, and the commentary is incredibly cliched.

This season i've seen games on Sportsnet from Canada, NBC from the US and SBS in Australia and the level of insight they offer is so far ahead of Sky. Tactical analysis, an overall view of what is going on in the game/league and actual opinions on incidents in the match instead of sticking to their preconceptions even when the evidence is in front of them.

This goes for most of the games, it isn't about being biased against Spurs. SBS in Australia has Michael Bridges and Craig Foster and they are both very insightful, offering context, analysing incidents properly and they seem to have free reign to criticise when necessary. Robbie Mustoe and Craig Forrest on Sportsnet are the same and Robbie Earle and Kyle Martino on NBC as well.

Sky's team are like salesmen trying to keep up the 'best league in the world' image while the others are able to tell the truth. BT are worse.

I forget which interview I read this in so I don't have a link sorry. Sky don't really even try for good analysis most of the time. They are specifically trying to reflect what they think their audience is with their pundits. So for every gary neville talking tactics you have ten paul mersons mis pronouncing a funny "forrin" name.

 

[Dennism]

If they are not biased why are all our games covered by Arsenal pundits?

 

[Spursmatty87]

Success breeds success I'm afraid, we will get respect if we can do it over a 5-10year period. 1 of my friends is a Newcastle fan and when the fixture came out he said 'it could of been worse'. I mean really how the fuck could it of been worse for them? But I don't think he meant it with any malaise, just we aren't quite as respected as the other top 6 yet.

 

[kmk]

Success breeds success I'm afraid, we will get respect if we can do it over a 5-10year period. 1 of my friends is a Newcastle fan and when the fixture came out he said 'it could of been worse'. I mean really how the fuck could it of been worse for them? But I don't think he meant it with any malaise, just we aren't quite as respected as the other top 6 yet.

They gave us a thrashing in their last Premier League game and they have had a good record against us over the last 20 years.

 

[Disconosebleed]

Anyone still believe SKY are not biased against us?!!!!!

A couple of people who work for them having an opinion does not mean the company is biased against us, you maniac. I hope this thread is being used as evidence on rival teams' forums in threads called "Let's all laugh at Tottenham fans being insane, paranoid drips".