Bromance At Brunton Park

Image for Bromance At Brunton Park

Good morning.

The morning after the night before and a job well done. There’s only one piece of footage of highlights of the goals only. It’s shockingly poor and it is here.

I know close to nothing other than the score and that it’s been alleged that a Carlisle fan lost his mind and decided to take on stewards, coppers and anyone else who fancied a piece of him.

Games like this need to be televised. It’s not complicated. The cameras are there, sell a stream for a fiver a pop, cut Carlisle in and everyone’s happy. What was infuriating was that Capital One and talkSPORT announced ‘a partnership’ yesterday afternoon and yet the station chose to cover the game that was on television. The lack of commercial awareness in relation to all this beggars belief.

There is a sniffy attitude about games like this and friendlies that I just don’t understand, I just don’t have any time for. I’m happy to watch our lot train, to be quite honest. Oh well.

And last up, there is a delicious rumour flying around that ***** may be off to Nottingham Forest. Let’s hope we get a grip this time and just let him walk. If they are prepared to re-home him for free, then we’ll have had a touch.

Share this article


  • LosLorenzo says:

    Have to agree about the lack of a pay-per-view option for games like this. As a consumer it is infuriating to sit there, willing and able to pay to watch a game I know is being recorded by cameras, and not be given the option. In the world of business there aren’t many prospects where you have a ready-made market just aching to spend money. Just goes to prove that not every part of football is run by businessmen. In general I guess that’s a good thing, it’s just a shame when the few parts of football that SHOULD BE run by businessmen, aren’t.

  • LosLorenzo says:

    Also, is it just me, of does Thudd look particularly ‘not fat’ in the picture?

  • The Tottinghams says:

    The goals looked good. Odd team selection though!

    See yah *****

  • Bobbles says:

    Couldn’t even find a free stream!

    Would definitely have paid a fiver for a decent stream via Spurs TV – in fact, I think I’d pay a fiver for that for every game, even if it was available free elsewhere. The quality of the free ones is still a bit of a lottery.

    Couldn’t see Sky being happy about that though…

  • LLL says:

    Though I was also frustrated not being able to find a hooky stream anywhere and instead listening to a couple of bores slag Spurs off for 90 minutes on BBC London, I don’t believe it’s likely to be as simple as someone just streaming it online for a fiver a pop. Such things as licensing and TV / broadcast rights and all that would maybe, just maybe, come into play. Possibly these games don’t get shown as they are not deemed commercially viable when all the legal fees etc are sorted.

    Also annoying, mind, was that BBC’s league cup show also opted to show extended highlights of the games which had been televised in their entirety. :angry:

    • LLL says:

      If we had been dumped out, you can bet your bottom that we would have got the full 10 minutes!

    • Bobbles says:

      But all it would take is for the relevant people at the broadcaster, the FA and both clubs to sit down for 5 minutes and agree that if a game isn’t going to be a feature game that it can be streamed.

      Too much money and complexity involved for Prem games perhaps, but for League and FA Cup? Surely not.

      As long as peoples gets their cut then everyone’s a winner.

      • Pete says:

        Yeah, but the problems is, you would be taking away views from the live game shown on Sky. Last night,it was Newcastle Vs Utd. I would have not watched that if the Spurs game was streamed… as would other fans with no affiliation with the club should their clubs also have streamed games. This would reduce viewing figures for the game, having an effect on the broadcasters advertisements, money received from which would help pay for the broadcasting rights.

        Should this happen, it would make the broadcasting of the competition less actractive the next time the broadcasting rights go for bidding.

        It’s not quite such an easy thing. I bet sky have this kind of thing tied up pretty tightly in a contract

    • LosLorenzo says:

      Actually, when it comes to the early round domestic cup games, I think part of the reasoning from the FA (who are the ones who would have to administrate the sale of TV rights) is that it would have a detrimental effect on the supporter turnout for games. That’s not a terrible case, and it is especially in the interest of the smaller clubs that people turn out when the “big boys” come calling.

      So I could live with it if they decided not to show the games on TV in England. What really burns my ass is that those of us living abroad don’t have an option to buy. I don’t believe the arguments relating to it being difficut to administer. They already have the rights in place with regard to league games. Why just not make the cup games part of the package to the same parties who have the league rights abroad, stipulating that they must be sold on a case-by-case basis through existing channels? No capital investment, only extra income.

      • LLL says:

        Ahh, but surely gate receipts AND TV Money of some kind equals Bingotime for the little league clubs?

        As for it being complicated, I just mean that it probably is too complicated for us to suddenly decide to stream the odd game on the Spurs website. And for a tie as unglamorous as this, perhaps no TV operator proper thought it financially worthwhile? Just a theory.

        • LosLorenzo says:

          That’s where a pay-per-view comes in. Just price it so that it DOES cover costs. Can’t lose money. Of course, it could still be that it’s not profitable enough to spend time on (i.e. they can make more money putting their effort into something else).

          Still, then I feel it should be up to a smaller actor to see the potential and get involved.

          I firmly believe the root cause is the FA, and their unwillingness to think in new ways.

      • essexian76 says:

        Did they put a blanket ban on televised games via the net as was proposed after the court case last year?

        • So what? says:

          Why do people care if SKY lose money? The main reason football has been ruined is because it takes into account the needs of ‘advertisers, sponsors, nephews of sponsors and ESPN’. Sod the lot of them. They don’t own the game and shouldn’t be allowed to dictate who gets to see what. The sooner these money hungry funts are told to do one, the sooner the game becomes more of a spectacle. It will be a great day when SKY folds, which should be anytime soon, because it’s owner is a fucking criminal.

          People that pay for SKY are helping to ruin the game. We should all be watching streams, as a big ‘FUCK YOU’ to the corporate wankmeisters, who have to ruin everything in the name of buying ten Bentleys for their ugly, overpriviledged, underworked kids.

        • LLL says:

          Right on!

        • essexian76 says:

          How can the game be more of a spectacle than it already is? Sky allows clubs like ours access to funds and to the world at large, that allow us to compete with clubs far bigger than ours.
          Are you really suggesting that we can compete without the TV money and the revenue our sponsors pay us because of the exposure we get worldwide?
          For heavens sake get real and in the real world-it was never ‘our’ game, but instead of the local rich butcher or property magnet-we’ve now got Arab oil billionaires heading the clubs.

        • So what? says:

          Essex.. please don’t make silly claims. ‘Get real’? It’s obvious you pay for SKY and that’s your choice. Ticket prices, player wages, advertising and sponsors, are killing the spectacle. Costs have all quadrupled for even the shittest of talents, because of SKY. People complain about loyalty in the sport.. there was plenty until players got paid 100 million for wearing a particular t-shirt. This all falls under the category of ‘Corporatism’. Without SKY and their disgraceful monopolisation of most sport, it wouldn’t have happened. They’ve even managed to manipulate the F1 coverage, which is a taxpayer funded sport. Bastards and tyrants. They offer ‘interactive/multiple cameras’ – wow.. who pays 40 pound a month and watches from behind the net? No one.

          Furthermore, why do you think there is so much controversy in the Premier League and poor officiating? The so-called best league in the world, decides games every week, by shit officials. Why? It creates talking points. Who benefits from the talking points? Sky and networks that cover the games. More people pay for the package as a result, because everyone loves talking about the non tackle that shouldn’t have been a red. It’s all fake.

          We’ve got 24 hour news channels that are only valid for ten mintues a day, otherwise it’s repeat repeat repeat… pundits tapping up players, Sky journo’s creating bullshit news, lying incessantly about transfers, constantly interfering in club affairs, attacking managers that aren’t their ‘favourites’.

          People who say SKY have been good for football, are either ten years old, or value money far too much.

          The billionaires wouldn’t have come and ruined the game, if not for SKY paying 400 million a season to show Everton v Villa on a Monday night.

          Man U are still the only team to be on every week. Why? If Sky has been so good, why are Man U the only team guaranteed to be shown every week?

          SKY are really great yeah. They even tap up servicemen’s phonelines and promote Zionism 24 hours a day too. It’s nice to know you have no problem with that.

          It’s not me that has to get real. Money isn’t everything and the only reason people say ‘The Prem League is the best!’ is because SKY propagandise that lie constantly, to justify the cost and stupid money they pay to broadcast it.

        • So what? says:

          P.S.. I’ve not got SKY and I have seen every Spurs game via stream this season apart from Carlisle. If I had shitty Sky, I would have only watched the Reading game. And it would of cost me over £140 for two months ‘viewing’. At least I could have watched all the Cancer adverts and Only Fools and Horses reruns eh?

        • Hartley says:

          I’ve got sky……..and I love it ;-)

        • essexian76 says:

          Everything has always been about the money-the clues in the title PROFESSIONAL football-i.e. They play we pay. It’s us fans who demand the best and the chairmen are the ones that pay for the best via whatever resources available. But you delude yourself that there was a time when it wasn’t if you like, its your choice-the same choice you make when buying a ticket-or Sky for that matter-no one forces you to watch the game do they?

        • So what? says:

          How can you say no one is forced to pay mate? Unless you get the internet and search for streams, how else can you watch the games? SKY have monopolised the Premiership viewing figures. Without their dish, without paying excess money, when a tv licence is already ‘required’, how can fans that have no access to tickets, or work in other areas of the country, view games? They can’t. So it’s pretty obvious SKY have forced people to part with hard earned cash. Terrestrial tv should be the place, where people can watch their national sport and TEAM. But no, SKY managed to fool people to pay for ENGLAND matches too.

Comments are closed.