3 Possible Replacements for Hugo Lloris

[TottenhamMattSpur]

More chance of me clicking a dail fail link than that shit.

 

[Rob]

I would rather this sort of tripe was not on the site but surely in spurs chat or even better in a sub forum of spurs chat would be better than front and centre on the news page.

@Rob this is more than ill judged IMO, inflammatory click bait is more accurate. It sets a very low standard and really is not appropriate for an affiliated website to be posting on the front page. Please reconsider where this sort of garbage should be posted if it has to be posted at all.

To be blunt, I'd rather not have to fork out £400 per month for the site costs but sometimes we don't have a choice.

Would you "rather" have a few posts you can easily ignore or not have a site at all?

This article is a particularly bad example of the click-bait aspect of their content but please do give them some time to get it right.

 

[Phantom]

To be blunt, I'd rather not have to fork out £400 per month for the site costs but sometimes we don't have a choice.

Would you "rather" have a few posts you can easily ignore or not have a site at all?

This article is a particularly bad example of the click-bait aspect of their content but please do give them some time to get it right.

Apologies Rob I understand why you have gone this route, is front page news the only place they are willing for this crap to go? I have happily ignored the stuff in Spurs chat, but an article on the main news page on a Spurs forum proposing replacements for one of our best players as if a sale has been agreed is beyond the pale.

 

[guiltyparty]

It's still a learning curve. I agree this one was a bit misjudged and pointed that out to them. As I said before, please give them a chance to get the balance right.

Also, they're not just a spurs site so obviously have articles on other teams. It's pretty unfair to use that against them.

Completely, I was just passing comment on the palpable declining standard. I don't object at all to the deal in principle, you guys need funding - a lot of us chip in when we can (I'm definitely due) but I know that's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Branded content deals are what makes the internet go round and they can be genuinely positive things.

In this case, I quite enjoyed the first piece or two, relatively enjoyable if not insightful, but they have fallen quite quickly. While they are of course not a Spurs site, this content is being posted on a Spurs site, as part of a formal partnership, and they need to bear in mind the reaction they will get. Indeed, it is this reaction which was no doubt intended, in the wider world.

I happen to think they should be on the homepage rather than in the forums, as it separates user-made content and the outside world, but maybe marking them as Sponsored articles would distance things a tad? I'm sure you've looked into the legalities but this is fairly standard practice.

 

[Mullers]

I've seen a ton of articles posted which are much worse than anything I have seen on FW. Many of those from the nationals, there was one I commented on from the Daily Mirror which was absolutely dreadful but because it was a positive article nobody said anything about it.
4800 quid a year is a lot to fork out for a non commercial site, I wouldn't do it tbh.
They aren't the Daily Heil so I feel people should just suck it up unless they want to fork out 400 quid a month.

 

[guiltyparty]

I've seen a ton of articles posted which are much worse than anything I have seen on FW. Many of those from the nationals, there was one I commented on from the Daily Mirror which was absolutely dreadful but because it was a positive article nobody said anything about it.
4800 quid a year is a lot to fork out for a non commercial site, I wouldn't do it tbh.
They aren't the Daily Heil so I feel people should just suck it up unless they want to fork out 400 quid a month.

There is a subtle difference: they are posted by Spurs fans, not by the site-sponsoring company that is generating them

But yes you're right. Complaining about something you don't pay to use is fairly entitled. But in turn, people have the right to moan/pull down the poster, just as they would do if it was a user

Or if that's not palatable, mark it Sponsored and turn the comments off

 

[Mullers]

There is a subtle difference: they are posted by Spurs fans, not by the site-sponsoring company that is generating them

But yes you're right. Complaining about something you don't pay to use is fairly entitled. But in turn, people have the right to moan/pull down the poster, just as they would do if it was a user

Or if that's not palatable, mark it Sponsired and turn the comments off

They are still bad, nonsensical articles even if they are posted by Spurs fans and SC gets no financial benefit, on the contrary The Heil, Metro etc benefit.
FW is run by a spurs fan and a SC member.
I'm not saying people don't have a right to complain because they don't pay but just to look at it at from the other side and be fair when it comes to criticism.

 

[Rob]

While they are of course not a Spurs site, this content is being posted on a Spurs site, as part of a formal partnership, and they need to bear in mind the reaction they will get. Indeed, it is this reaction which was no doubt intended, in the wider world.

I was more referring to the Kane to Man U article that people keep pulling up. That's unfair to use that to beat them with as it's not been posted on here.

In general, I think the first few articles were decent, this one not so much and I've made that clear to them and think they'll see the same from all your responses.

Give them time to get it right though

 

[DiscoD1882]

People get angry about football whispers but totally buy into the transfer\ITK forum. Go figure1?

 

[Shadydan]

People get angry about football whispers but totally buy into the transfer\ITK forum. Go figure1?

Maybe because football whisper articles can be pretty much read on Newsnow, they're a bit needless aren't they?

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

To be blunt, I'd rather not have to fork out £400 per month for the site costs but sometimes we don't have a choice.

Would you "rather" have a few posts you can easily ignore or not have a site at all?

This article is a particularly bad example of the click-bait aspect of their content but please do give them some time to get it right.

Agree Rob.

The article is objective, and not unlike ANY red top article about any team.

If it upsets some on here that much let them donate a monthly amount to cover their sponsoship.

Half of those objecting diss the side in the match day threads anyway so pot, kettle, black. You will never satisfy them even if Playboy were the sponsor.

 

[Gb160]

Agree Rob.

The article is objective, and not unlike ANY red top article about any team.

If it upsets some on here that much let them donate a monthly amount to cover their sponsoship.

Half of those objecting diss the side in the match day threads anyway so pot, kettle, black. You will never satisfy them even if Playboy were the sponsor.

It seems the amount of ITK has decreased rapidly and people aren't so keen to donate as much/at all.
I suppose promoting youngsters to the first team and existing players happy to sign contract extensions means we're not churning through players like no tomorrow which also leads to less ITK and less donations.

Be interested to know your thoughts on this @Rob

 

[DiscoD1882]

Maybe because football whisper articles can be pretty much read on Newsnow, they're a bit needless aren't they?

Not really, as explained they are covering some of the cost of keeping this site open and free for those that don't donate or contribute. people dot have to click.

 

[Chedozie]

To be blunt, I'd rather not have to fork out £400 per month for the site costs but sometimes we don't have a choice.

Would you "rather" have a few posts you can easily ignore or not have a site at all?

This article is a particularly bad example of the click-bait aspect of their content but please do give them some time to get it right.

I think Rob is fantastic and doing a great job, I am firmly apposed to, any criticism of him. COYR.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

I think Rob is fantastic and doing a great job, I am firmly apposed to, any criticism of him. COYR.

Just where is that brown nosed icon when you need it....

 

[thelak]

Perhaps www.footballwhispers.com is not an ideal partnership website for www.spurscommunity.co.uk.

One is a reasonably serious forum. The other is largely clickbait and spam.

Out of interest how would you describe your posts on spurscommunity if you had to chose? Reasonably serious, clickbait or spam?

 

[Chedozie]

Just where is that brown nosed icon when you need it....

He's one of our own, he's one of our own, Rob, he's one of our own.

 

[Trix]

Isn't this site run by Spurs fans? Why are Spurs fans trying to link our best players away, and wouldn't Spurs fans know Pau Lopez would be the logical replacement for Hugo?

Because they are trying to be controversial in order to generate traffic to their site. May I suggest hiring Adrian Durham if the intention is to incite rage from Spurs fans?

 

[DIEHARD]

Fight fight fight

What do we want?

Porn links

When do we want it?

Now