Chris Heck - President of Business Operations

[eamonn]

Of the so called Big Six Spurs should not be in there purely on merit. They have won fuck all across the years the other 5 sides have hogged all the trophies. They are there purely on geography and, frankly, because it’s good radio for their inevitable fuck ups from every conceivable position of advantage.

People forget - Spurs have only won the title twice, and the last time they did it was closer to the reign of Queen Victoria than to today.

With them, it is.

1. London - so they've always received more media attention than they've deserved.
2. Repeated European competition qualification - including a CL final
3. Nice big stadium so they now generate way more revenue than lots of other similar clubs.

4. Saying they are. Give a journalist a line and they'll invariably accept it, especially if it's something they don't know much about. Lady Brady was good at peddling the woman in a man's world guff and saying they were the final Big Club to get into the Premier League.

I think regardless of points 2 & 3, they'd still have a huge profile. The London thing is interesting - why is their profile so much bigger than West Ham? Spam's dramatic 1980 FA Cup win and their "class of 66" shtick gives them weight amongst those of a certain age but large spells outside the top flight and perhaps lacking a genuine East London rival has seen limits to their general appeal.

Spurs seem to have had high profile success at just enough intervals to make them puff-out their chest and shoulders. A UEFA Cup in both the 70's and 80's - back to back FA Cups the years we won the bigger trophies.

The 1981 FA Cup win is embedded in football/popular culture (see a few posts above someone referring to them as "Tott-ing-ham" - that's straight from the line sung by Ossie Ardiles in their song for that final).
Ricky Villa's solo winner in that final jogs much more memories than anything related to what the real Villa accomplished that year.

Fast-forward a decade and the cult of Gazza meant that their 1991 FA Cup semi-final/final win are also given huge coverage then and now comparatively to other finals of the era.
During these times they often seemed to have a star English player, from Hoddle to Waddle to Gascoigne. Enough to withstand a fairly dismal decade and a half from 1991 to the mid 00's.

[VillaTim]

Spurs are no bigger than Wolves or West Brom.

In fact I'd say Wolves are bigger.

Its the height of cheek how they're considered part of this Big 6 club.

Most of it is down to location but a bit of it is being associated with Arsenal and being their shitty local rivals.

Got a lot of high ranking supporters at the likes of BBC too which has helped with their profile building down the years

[eamonn]

I don't have hard evidence to back this up but I've always thought spuds get more attention than they deserve because a lot of the national journalists are from London and so a disproportionate percentage support them.

Londoners are also ignorant to the rest of the country, especially here.

I remember Merson saying when he came here he thought we had won one FA Cup and it blew his head off when he learned it was actually 7.

If we had the London postcode we'd be Big 6.

No offence to any London Villa fans hehe x

Post-PL history now matters little to the modern fan/player. Ditto pre-war(s) history to players of the last 50 years.

[PeterWithesShin]

Main reason Spurs are considered the way they are compared to us is down to our own failings over the last few decades. That's what needs to be fixed, not trying to find reasons why Spurs are rated so highly.

[edgysatsuma89]

Sours have spent most of my life marketing themselves far far better than we have. Especially in this era now of social media. We spent most of the last decade being shit and irrelevant to the world, they spent most of it telling everyone how great they are and in the CL.

As examples

Twitter
Us 2.4m
Spurs 8.8m

Insta
Us 3.9m
Spurs 17m

Us old fuckers may think stuff like that is crap but it's a massive difference in reach, brand awareness and people potentially buying a shirt or something. I don't overly like it but it's the world we live in.

I'm hoping we're now going to be actlng like we belong up there.

Most of those Spurs numbers are from the Country where the ****** eat dogs for breakfast . Scum .

I'm sure it's only second to Cornflakes. Fuck me.

[OCD]

That's ok because in future decades there will be people who will struggle to believe we went so long without winning things or that we briefly went down to the Championship.

[adrenachrome]

That's ok because in future decades there will be people who will struggle to believe we went so long without winning things or that we briefly went down to the Championship.

Or that we briefly went down to Division 3.

[edgysatsuma89]

If we spent a most of the last 14 uears in the top 6, most of which top 4, then we would have been in the "Big 6". If they'd have been mid table fodder that whole time then they wouldn't, revenue etc wouldn't make a difference. I think they obviously do get a lift up being in London and having London based journalists but ultimately it wouldn't matter if they didn't do it on the pitch. I think we're writing that off a little bit too much, however annoying it is. I think in 5 years we'll be very much a part of the conversation.

[tomd2103]

The 'big number' concept has been around for decades now, and membership has changed several times.

In the 80s, it included Everton and occasionally us. I remember talk of a big 6 which included Sheffield Wednesday. Imagine 20 years ago suggesting Man City or Chelsea being in such a grouping. 20 years ago, Newcastle would have been included.

The fact we hear about it so much is driven in large part by the need to segment clubs in some way, the need to drive marketing.

I understand why it exists but it makes me want to vomit.

Especially the idea of Spurs in it, which makes me want to vomit AND shit the bed at the same time.

When you look at the financial landscape, you do see that those six have pulled away from the rest over the past few years.  Whenever any club has got near to being in that picture, their superior finances have meant that team gets stripped of its best players and sent back into the pack. 

The tide seems to ge turning a bit now though.  Manchester United and Chelsea are both a mess, Liverpool could well slip down after Klopp and a couple of players leave and Manchester City could be out of the picture for some time if they are punished properly.

[Sexual Ealing]

Main reason Spurs are considered the way they are compared to us is down to our own failings over the last few decades. That's what needs to be fixed, not trying to find reasons why Spurs are rated so highly.

Correct.

[Nev]

You only need look as far as Glenn Hoddle, lauded then and still as a legend. I believe Sid was a better player but then that is subjective. Until you look at the facts and the objective facts are stark when it comes to honours.

That's not to say that Hoddle wasn't a good player. Of course he was. Just not as good as Sid.

[Sexual Ealing]

You only need look as far as Glenn Hoddle, lauded then and still as a legend. I believe Sid was a better player but then that is subjective. Until you look at the facts and the objective facts are stark when it comes to honours.

That's not to say that Hoddle wasn't a good player. Of course he was. Just not as good as Sid.

I'm too young to remember peak Sid, but my impression was he was a different type of player from Hoddle. He could do everything, in that all-action midfielder way that England produces semi-regularly. Hoddle, particularly at that time, played in a way that was very unusual for an English player in the years after the Charles Hughes farrago.

I dunno, that's what I've always thought anyway.

[Paul.S]

You only need look as far as Glenn Hoddle, lauded then and still as a legend. I believe Sid was a better player but then that is subjective. Until you look at the facts and the objective facts are stark when it comes to honours.

That's not to say that Hoddle wasn't a good player. Of course he was. Just not as good as Sid.

No he wasn’t. Cowans is the best midfielder I’ve seen at our club. If I see one of the same level as him again we’ll all be very, very lucky.

[PeterWithesShin]

Even when they've been shit compared to us, they've often acted bigger. In an era they were signing Gascoigne, Lineker, Waddle, Klinsmann, we were signing Ormondroyd, Cascarino, Saunders as our big money signings. Even when shit they've mainly acted like they're a big club, i've often felt that even when we've been good we've acted more like we considered it a happy accident that won't last.

[VillaTim]

For many years The Director General at BBC was a Spurs fan hence the over-emphasised hype they get on there that still pervades to this day.