Did an ethnic move in next door?
God I hate it when that happens
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Media Amazon fly-on-the-wall documentary about Spurs
- Thread starter Stanley
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
God I hate it when that happens
I havnt got an agenda, and your attempt at explaining was horseshit
I think games of losing to fodder and conceding possession to relegation teams speak more than an edited documentary mate.
We literally all fell asleep one the last day of the season but that's now a distant memory cos Jose told the TV to fuck off in a choreographed scene.
He had a final say in the final editing and narrative - much like City did, etc. What's the big deal anyway?
Not really - it simply didn't fit your agenda
Following on from this post, I found the following article which explores the likely editorial control balance in the Man Shitty and All Blacks All or Nothing series.
The principles outlined below are likely to have formed the core of the agreement that Amazon and Spurs signed up to.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Editorial Control
Whilst there are clearly benefits to sports rights holders featuring in a documentary, they must recognise the inherent risk of exposing their brand when they hand over creative control to a third party. This will often lead to complicated and lengthy negotiations at the outset, with the club, production company and commissioning platform all battling for editorial control of the series.
The commissioning platform will almost always end up with final approval rights, but the club will certainly want to ensure it has some protection. Here are some of the compromise solutions which are not uncommon:
· The club having the right to veto particular scenes - Man City reportedly had the right to veto any scenes which divulged commercially sensitive information or personal details;
· The club having approval rights or consultation rights over the script and storyboard;
· The club having the right to restrict camera access to particular training sessions, team meetings and matches of their choice;
· A cross-party group being set up to make decisions on all creative aspects, with specific roles and powers designated to individuals from all parties; and
· A panel of independent lawyers being established to decide if particular scenes are damaging to the reputation/public image of the club or its players.
Whatever is eventually agreed, it’s crucial that the details are well-documented in a contract before any filming begins. Without this contractual certainty, disputes are far more likely to arise further down the line.
-------------------------------
My specific thoughts.
1) The club having the right to veto particular scenes - Man City reportedly had the right to veto any scenes which divulged commercially sensitive information or personal details;
Note this is a veto over commercially sensitive information or personal details. The veto would not apply to Mourinho stating "you need to be a bunch of cunts for 90 minutes" because that is not commercially sensitive.
2) The club having approval rights or consultation rights over the script and storyboard;
This is the big one. There is a world of difference between approval rights, which are essentially a veto, and consultation rights, which are a right to see the script before broadcast. In my experience at the BBC etc, the major broadcasters would NEVER cede approval rights to another party. It is possible, but not proven, that Amazon may have broken this taboo.
Also note though that the rights are to the script. If Mourinho or Levy or Kane or whoever say something on camera, it is certainly arguable that their spoken words are not part of the "script", and would NOT be covered by such a clause. In documentary terms, the "script" often refers to the words written by the production team for the commentary - ie the words Tom Hardy mutters in the film.
3) The club having the right to restrict camera access to particular training sessions, team meetings and matches of their choice;
I'm almost certain Spurs have exercised this right. This is why we have not seen Levy fire Poch, or Eriksen's first meeting with Mourinho.
4) A cross-party group being set up to make decisions on all creative aspects, with specific roles and powers designated to individuals from all parties;
This is basically an arbitration panel agreed in advance in case things become hostile between the parties.
5) A panel of independent lawyers being established to decide if particular scenes are damaging to the reputation/public image of the club or its players.
This is the legal version of 4 and essentially protects Amazon from Spurs stating "you can't broadcast this because our lawyers say it's damaging". Amazon could refer the issue to independent lawyers, rather than having to accept what Spurs' lawyers claimed.
Also, this is the reputational damage clause. If Spurs wanted to argue that Mourino's "bunch of cunts" speech was reputationally damaging to Spurs' international image, this is the clause they would probably have to use.
Sports documentaries: what really goes on behind the scenes? — Digital Sport Club
We played out a draw to guarantee a spot in the Ropey league rather than fuck up, lose and end up with nothing.
I'm not a fan of the ropey league at all, but tell that to the players and staff at the end of the match who celebrated getting a spot in it.
We played horse shit football for a fucking long time under Poch so it's about time people stop holding him to such high esteem.
My favourite bit so far.
Except it wasn't a guarantee. If Wolves beat/tied Chelsea then we would be out. What was the plan if Wolves scored two quick goals? Hope the news got down to Jose fast enough that he could tell the boys to flip the switch and go out a score? That seems like a pretty risky plan.
And are we really so poor that we are scared that if we try against Crystal Palace who were on a run of 6 defeats in a row that we would give up a goal? What does that say about our team that we have to play to protect a tie against Palace because it is too dangerous to play them straight up?
It was the safest thing to do.
I'm not saying it was right or that I would have done it.
The fact is, someone used that game as a yard stick and it shouldn't have been that game.
People quickly put a lot of Mourinho games out of of their minds when talking about entertainment. Selective memories to make a point. Same with Poch, they, reference good games and gloss over the utter dross that also ocurred quite regularly.
If that game was a one off I could understand but it was another game in which we failed to create chances, which was a constant problem under Mourinho, and before he got there as well to be fair.
It wasn't close to the safest thing to do. The safest thing to do would to go out and score multiple goals, against a much weaker side that had shown it was fine riding out the season and losing.
All it takes is a crap bounce or Wolves getting two goals against a shakey Chelsea defense for it to go tits up. The safest thing to do is to have Kane, Son and GLC go out and score against Palace. If that is too difficult for us to do or too much to expect then we have massive problems going forward. There is zero reason to be scared about going head to head against Palace for a half in that situation.
Again, I dont have an agenda. Asked a question which you proved quite incapable of answering, instead trying to steer it all to "but Levy".
Its almost sweet, but its still pretty tragic
I answered it very clearly - your blind prejudice however prevented you for understanding it
My issue is that Mourinho is being blamed for things that are not down to him.
Most of what has been bad in his stewardship was already bad under Poch, In some cases, far worse.
People are not being fair and they're chosing bits here and bits there to make their point.
I'm not the Special One but I will say my strategy to get chances against shite like Newcastle etc would be to give them the ball. Maybe it was a tactic. If a team is happy to put 10 men behind the ball and never come out of their own half when we have the ball, why not give it to them and see what they do?
August at home, we lose 0-1 to Newcasltle. We have 85% posession and don't manage to force a save. It was one of the worse games of football I have ever seen. Although it wasn't an isolated case.
After lockdown, Newcastle 1-3 Spurs - have had less than 50% posession, scored 3 goals and could have had more.
Dominating posession doesn;t work when the opposision let you have it.
Most of what has been bad in his stewardship was already bad under Poch, In some cases, far worse.
People are not being fair and they're chosing bits here and bits there to make their point.
I'm not the Special One but I will say my strategy to get chances against shite like Newcastle etc would be to give them the ball. Maybe it was a tactic. If a team is happy to put 10 men behind the ball and never come out of their own half when we have the ball, why not give it to them and see what they do?
August at home, we lose 0-1 to Newcasltle. We have 85% posession and don't manage to force a save. It was one of the worse games of football I have ever seen. Although it wasn't an isolated case.
After lockdown, Newcastle 1-3 Spurs - have had less than 50% posession, scored 3 goals and could have had more.
Dominating posession doesn;t work when the opposision let you have it.
House phone? I don't have one.
You're right of course. This isn't the place.
Must remember to ALWAYS be nice to you.
Christ! Sounds like America.