Spurs have broken top 10

[Bedfordspurs]

No surprise that despite being the main challenger to Chelsea for much of the season - and mostly by common consent, playing some of the most entertaining football - fewer of our games were televised compared with City, Liverpool and United (who finished sixth). Even Arse, who like United also failed to make the top four were televised the same number of times as us.

Clear evidence that it's more about appeasing fans of the money-doped clubs than entertaining audiences as far as Sky is concerned.

It's about viewing figures for advertising

Leiceter weren't on TV as much as us last season and they won the league

 

[parklane1]

No surprise that despite being the main challenger to Chelsea for much of the season - and mostly by common consent, playing some of the most entertaining football - fewer of our games were televised compared with City, Liverpool and United (who finished sixth). Even Arse, who like United also failed to make the top four were televised the same number of times as us.

Clear evidence that it's more about appeasing fans of the money-doped clubs than entertaining audiences as far as Sky is concerned.

One of the reasons for that is there are more ( at the moment) armchair supporters of those clubs ( which is all Sky care about) then they are for us. Anyone who thinks Sky cares about the traveling supporter is nuts ( imo) and as Bedford says above is all about advertising etc.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Fair points. Still evidence whichever way you look at it that entertainment and merit come a poor second where Sky are concerned.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Fair points. Still evidence whichever way you look at it that entertainment and merit come a poor second where Sky are concerned.

I just can't wait for "Red Sunday II" (Mogadon on the Mersey) next season

 

[SteveAWOL]

Guess we'll break into this Top 10 list too, when our new stadium is up and running...

 

[Rorschach]

No surprise that despite being the main challenger to Chelsea for much of the season - and mostly by common consent, playing some of the most entertaining football - fewer of our games were televised compared with City, Liverpool and United (who finished sixth). Even Arse, who like United also failed to make the top four were televised the same number of times as us.

Clear evidence that it's more about appeasing fans of the money-doped clubs than entertaining audiences as far as Sky is concerned.

The worm is turning.

 

[Rorschach]

Guess we'll break into this Top 10 list too, when our new stadium is up and running...

That is amazing. Some of those PL teams would be better served spending their money on good scouts.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

No surprise that despite being the main challenger to Chelsea for much of the season - and mostly by common consent, playing some of the most entertaining football - fewer of our games were televised compared with City, Liverpool and United (who finished sixth). Even Arse, who like United also failed to make the top four were televised the same number of times as us.

Clear evidence that it's more about appeasing fans of the money-doped clubs than entertaining audiences as far as Sky is concerned.

Surely comparing audiences between us and them proves the point as they don't give a brick if you enjoy it as long as you watch the adverts

 

[glasgowspur]

It's about viewing figures for advertising

Leiceter weren't on TV as much as us last season and they won the league

It definitely is, and that's what annoys me most about sky, they charge £70 a month for the chance to sell you stuff.on top of their sponsors like nissan and whoever it is has the clock in the corner of the screen it's a joke.they should be paying us.

 

[jts1882]

That is amazing. Some of those PL teams would be better served spending their money on good scouts.

When Sunderland have a higher wage bill that Atletico Madrid that does seem a reasonable conclusion. Atletico clearly have an excellent first team and running the big two close is impressive, but they have the third highest wage bill in Spain, so have an advantage in most games. I wonder if they have the squad to cope with the PL season.

 

[Raziel]

That is amazing. Some of those PL teams would be better served spending their money on good scouts.

I don't think its a case of scouts. To me Spurs isn't successful because of scouts (despite great buys in last decade, we have had our misses as well).

It's about have an overall strategy & vision for the club, and working the other pieces (scouting, manager acquisition, financial decisions) into/as part of that vision. If you think about it, its exactly what Spurs fans have criticized Levy for, run the club as a business with clear objectives.

Lots of clubs have no general strategy when buying players, no specific style and will change the requirements completely based on change of manager. And if you change your manager every year ... it can get expensive very quick. Also a lot of clubs (yes West Ham, Stoke, Southampton) simply think they are bigger than they really are, and fail to see well managed mid level PL results as success and overreach.

 

[Rorschach]

I don't think its a case of scouts. To me Spurs isn't successful because of scouts (despite great buys in last decade, we have had our misses as well).

It's about have an overall strategy & vision for the club, and working the other pieces (scouting, manager acquisition, financial decisions) into/as part of that vision. If you think about it, its exactly what Spurs fans have criticized Levy for, run the club as a business with clear objectives.

Lots of clubs have no general strategy when buying players, no specific style and will change the requirements completely based on change of manager. And if you change your manager every year ... it can get expensive very quick. Also a lot of clubs (yes West Ham, Stoke, Southampton) simply think they are bigger than they really are, and fail to see well managed mid level PL results as success and overreach.

That and better scouts