SYDNEY MEDIA

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Faunac8
    Senior Player
    • Mar 2014
    • 1548

    #31
    Originally posted by lwjoyner
    another blow for us supporters who use fox. more money for us to pay. soccer has done the same and i know it has lost viewers.
    It’s the only reason I still have fox and every offseason I go to cancel and they find a way to make it cheaper. It is still more expensive then other streaming options and I would happily pay the current Paramount monthly price to watch it as it would save me $20 pm.
    I suspect Fox and Seven won’t give the rights up without a fight however.

    Comment

    • Bloods05
      Senior Player
      • Oct 2008
      • 1641

      #32
      Originally posted by barry
      RWO
      So when someone links to an article in the old media, do you read it?

      Comment

      • barry
        Veterans List
        • Jan 2003
        • 8499

        #33
        Originally posted by Bloods05
        So when someone links to an article in the old media, do you read it?
        You being a bit pedantic. Remember the OP said "Nothing has changed in the 40 years since the Swans came to town. The Sydney Herald on Saturday and Sunday had zero articles on AFL. No idea if the Tele had anything.".
        That implies you read Sydney papers, and see no AFL, which is old-media dictating what you can and cant read. An outdated model.

        I actually get most of my news from aggregators such as Google News which pulls articles from various sources, and I can delete sources I dont particularly trust.
        Google news is now not dictating what I should read or find interesting, it is I who is directing it to find stories I am interested in. Eg. AFL. So I dont see any "zero articles on AFL" because there are always articles on AFL from "the age" through to "mongrel punt" in my "sports" section.

        RWO does the same, it aggregates news items even more specifically, to the swans. I often dont need to read them, because the RWO thread summarises the interesting bits anyway.


        Now, not to say I dont ever venture over to www . smh . com. au or switch on the TV news, but I do only for interests sake to see what the poor bastards stuck on those platforms are being feed that day.

        And in a round about way, what I'm saying to the OP is that it doesnt matter whats in the print media, because its dying a slow death, already irrelevant to under 30's.

        Comment

        • Bloods05
          Senior Player
          • Oct 2008
          • 1641

          #34
          Originally posted by barry
          You being a bit pedantic. Remember the OP said "Nothing has changed in the 40 years since the Swans came to town. The Sydney Herald on Saturday and Sunday had zero articles on AFL. No idea if the Tele had anything.".
          That implies you read Sydney papers, and see no AFL, which is old-media dictating what you can and cant read. An outdated model.

          I actually get most of my news from aggregators such as Google News which pulls articles from various sources, and I can delete sources I dont particularly trust.
          Google news is now not dictating what I should read or find interesting, it is I who is directing it to find stories I am interested in. Eg. AFL. So I dont see any "zero articles on AFL" because there are always articles on AFL from "the age" through to "mongrel punt" in my "sports" section.

          RWO does the same, it aggregates news items even more specifically, to the swans. I often dont need to read them, because the RWO thread summarises the interesting bits anyway.


          Now, not to say I dont ever venture over to www . smh . com. au or switch on the TV news, but I do only for interests sake to see what the poor bastards stuck on those platforms are being feed that day.

          And in a round about way, what I'm saying to the OP is that it doesnt matter whats in the print media, because its dying a slow death, already irrelevant to under 30's.
          Pretty much the answer I was looking for, thanks. I do much the same.

          Comment

          • Aprilbr
            Senior Player
            • Oct 2016
            • 1803

            #35
            On the topic of subscription TV etc., Foxtel cost $45 plus to subscribe. Kayo is a lot cheaper and essentially has all of the AFL coverage of Foxtel anyway. That is why so many have migrated from Foxtel to Kayo. For those of you in Sydney who feel you miss out, I suggest you download the free SEN app. You can listen to the Victorian feed there which is wall to wall AFL coverage. I live in Melbourne and subscribe to the Herald Sun and The Age digital versions. I don't think there would be anything stopping people up in Sydney subscribing to either of these should they wish.

            A word of warning about the potential move to streaming services. People who follow soccer in Australia are now subject to paying various streaming services, especially if they want to watch English or European leagues. For example, the English Premier League is on Optus Sports, the English League Cup and FA Cup games on Foxtel and the Champions and Europa League games on Stan. To subscribe to all three involves quite a hefty layout! Is this what we want for the future with AFL? Let's be careful what we wish for.

            Comment

            • Goal Sneak
              Out of Bounds on the Full
              • Jun 2006
              • 653

              #36
              Originally posted by barry
              And in a round about way, what I'm saying to the OP is that it doesnt matter whats in the print media, because its dying a slow death, already irrelevant to under 30's.
              I'd go as far as under 40's. I can't understand why anyone would buy a newspaper these days?

              Comment

              • Faunac8
                Senior Player
                • Mar 2014
                • 1548

                #37
                Originally posted by Goal Sneak
                I'd go as far as under 40's. I can't understand why anyone would buy a newspaper these days?
                To line a birdcage Ruperts Rags are an ideal size I understand. ????

                Comment

                • Faunac8
                  Senior Player
                  • Mar 2014
                  • 1548

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Aprilbr
                  On the topic of subscription TV etc., Foxtel cost $45 plus to subscribe. Kayo is a lot cheaper and essentially has all of the AFL coverage of Foxtel anyway. That is why so many have migrated from Foxtel to Kayo. For those of you in Sydney who feel you miss out, I suggest you download the free SEN app. You can listen to the Victorian feed there which is wall to wall AFL coverage. I live in Melbourne and subscribe to the Herald Sun and The Age digital versions. I don't think there would be anything stopping people up in Sydney subscribing to either of these should they wish.

                  A word of warning about the potential move to streaming services. People who follow soccer in Australia are now subject to paying various streaming services, especially if they want to watch English or European leagues. For example, the English Premier League is on Optus Sports, the English League Cup and FA Cup games on Foxtel and the Champions and Europa League games on Stan. To subscribe to all three involves quite a hefty layout! Is this what we want for the future with AFL? Let's be careful what we wish for.
                  Isn’t Kayo a Foxtel offshoot anyway? By threatening to quit each offseason I have my standard Foxtel plus sports for $29pm currently which is only a few dollars more than Kayo anyway.

                  The streaming segmentation can potentially be an issue for some sports with various competitions such as you described with soccer but I don’t think AFL would have those issues unless they split the AFL and the AFLW which I cannot see happening.
                  It appears that the pitch is saying that AFL games would be split between Paramount and 10

                  Comment

                  • Aprilbr
                    Senior Player
                    • Oct 2016
                    • 1803

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Faunac8
                    Isn’t Kayo a Foxtel offshoot anyway? By threatening to quit each offseason I have my standard Foxtel plus sports for $29pm currently which is only a few dollars more than Kayo anyway.

                    The streaming segmentation can potentially be an issue for some sports with various competitions such as you described with soccer but I don’t think AFL would have those issues unless they split the AFL and the AFLW which I cannot see happening.
                    It appears that the pitch is saying that AFL games would be split between Paramount and 10
                    I commend your persistence and ongoing negotiating to get your Foxtel subscription down to $29, Faunac8! There is a message in that for all of us!

                    Comment

                    • Faunac8
                      Senior Player
                      • Mar 2014
                      • 1548

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Aprilbr
                      I commend your persistence and ongoing negotiating to get your Foxtel subscription down to $29, Faunac8! There is a message in that for all of us!
                      It took 3 seasons it used to cost me about $60 pm then they went to 49 then 39 and now 29 which is basically what the sports package costs . This year I said I would just go to Kayo but they countered with some points on why they were a better option and the 29 offer. I was surprised considering they are essentially all part of the same company
                      I don’t think I can screw any more out of them.
                      Last edited by Faunac8; 28 April 2022, 09:48 PM.

                      Comment

                      • liz
                        Veteran
                        Site Admin
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 16773

                        #41
                        Originally posted by Goal Sneak
                        I'd go as far as under 40's. I can't understand why anyone would buy a newspaper these days?

                        I've not bought a newspaper for longer than I can remember, though on the rare occasions I decide I should polish some shoes, I am at a loss.

                        Comment

                        • royboy42
                          Senior Player
                          • Apr 2006
                          • 2078

                          #42
                          Originally posted by Faunac8
                          It took 3 seasons it used to cost me about $60 pm then they went to 49 then 39 and now 29 which is basically what the sports package costs . This year I said I would just go to Kayo but they countered with some points on why they were a better option and the 29 offer. I was surprised considering they are essentially all part of the same company
                          I don’t think I can screw any more out of them.
                          I call foxtel every six months and ask for the same or better deal than they are offering people who join on that day,
                          It's always heaps better than what I'm paying.
                          They bleat about it only being available to new customers to which i say I'll just cancel and start again.
                          At that they ALWAYS find an offer to keep me, and its always only for six months.
                          Hence the half yearly calls.
                          They appear desperate to not have you cancel.
                          There's always something they will do to prevent that.

                          Comment

                          • erica
                            Happy and I know it
                            • Jan 2008
                            • 1247

                            #43
                            We tried sports on Kayo when it first became available but it was only in standard definition which we did not like.

                            Does afl now stream in high definition on Kayo?


                            Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
                            All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

                            Comment

                            • barry
                              Veterans List
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 8499

                              #44
                              Originally posted by erica
                              We tried sports on Kayo when it first became available but it was only in standard definition which we did not like.

                              Does afl now stream in high definition on Kayo?


                              Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
                              That's foxtels Vs kayos point of difference. Foxtel is a premium service with 4k resolution.
                              Kayo is lesser quality via the internet.

                              Comment

                              Working...