Yeah agreed. Realistically I already reckon I won’t get round to watching too many youth games because of the time difference so the content will be the main value judgement for me. Unless they blow me away with the offering I’ll probably not renew.
Hopefully they’ll have full match highlights of the youths so any games we miss live we can catch up on but yeah the docs is where they’re going to need to really make top tier content. £35 or £45 depending on your situation is a lot to be spending out on after a pandemic and on something that for the most part, many clubs do for free. As I said earlier I’m a mug as I knew I’d end up paying for it but there’ll be people that won’t be able too when that shouldn’t be the case. Someone will probably just rip the content soon anyway and chuck it on torrents or YouTube type sites, lol.
Given they have full re-runs of the senior games I wouldn’t be shocked if they do the same for the youth. Makes it worth it if you’re that keen on that sort of thing I suppose.
Bissouma and Forster have covid… brilliant. Conte says they’re self isolating, hopefully symptoms aren’t too bad.
Just watched a highlights vid. Richarlson has a lot to work on if he wants to be starting XI for serious games (and already one dive to his tally ) .
I thought Lloris was great last season. Like all goalkeepers he is prone to a mistake now and then, but overall he was very consistent. If we manage to replace him with someone better it will be some feat, as he’s by far the best keeper I can remember spurs having in my lifetime
He played pretty well to be fair to him, should've scored from a header but his link up play was good and he worked hard. For his first game with us having only had about three training sessions as well as only just returning from holiday about five days ago I think it was a promising start. Whether he becomes a regular starter or a good squad option, as long as he proves to be an upgrade on Bergwijn (and Lucas) whilst allowing Kane and Son to be rested more frequently then he should prove a decent enough signing, even if massively overpriced. He actually dived about three times though, which I guess is still modest by his standards!
I think that the club take too much from the fans as it is, but I also think this is a bad financial decision. How many people are realistically going to pay for it? Might make half a million, at a push? Making it free would attract more fans and increase engagement with the current ones. Isn't that worth it for a pretty insignificant percentage of our revenue in return? I think charging £45 will actually cost the club money in the long run.
Everyone makes their own choice. How may fans pay twice that on a piece of cloth. That is ridiculous pricing! I don't think the plan is to make money ( although they will make alot more than half a million ). It's the principle of not giving it away for free. There were 64,000 at the game today.
What do you think the "mission statement" should be for the club ? I suspect that supporters of all clubs would like to have viewing access to broadcast quality Internet streams of all home games, at a cost at worst comparable to all the collective broadcast subscriptions that would be needed to see all such games. And if the revenues from such a service went in the main directly to the cllub, then all the better.
I was just doing a little browsing on Gue-sung Cho, the scorer of their first goal. He's currently playing for Gimcheon Sangmu, which is the Korean Army team. He's doing national service for two years and that's how it's being applied. This counts as being on loan from his contracted club, Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors. He'll move back in September and will have completed his obligation to his country. Should free him up for a move abroad, if he fancies it, though JHM are one of the big teams in Korea.
Man Utd: £29.99 a year or £7.99 a month Liverpool: £49.99 per year or £4.99 a month (and their site does not make the subscription fees clear...) The Sheikh Mansour Team: £2.99 per month Chelsea: £0.00 Arsenal: £0.00 So cheaper per year than Liverpool and (technically...) cheaper per month than both Liverpool and Man Utd, but as we don't offer a monthly package yet that "technically" is doing some heavy lifting - but when the best we can say is our price plan doesn't look as fan hostile as Liverpool's does, that's when it's clear we should have aimed for the £35-40 sweet spot There is one thing I'm wondering, though, and that's if the reason the current SpursPlay price is so high so that the admins can monitor the load being put on the online infrastructure and adjust, which is also why the first event to test what it can handle is a pre-season match on a Wednesday lunchtime instead of, say, highlights of a 3-0 NLD win. And there's a reason I ask this, because a decade ago when wrestling companies started using the iPPV model there were numerous indies who were caught with their pants down as fans were irate at paying $20-25 to stare at a buffering stream for two hours
