SYDNEY MEDIA

[Faunac8]

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.

[Bloods05]

RWO

So when someone links to an article in the old media, do you read it?

[barry]

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 An outdated model.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.

[Bloods05]

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 An outdated model.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.

[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.

[Goal Sneak]

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?

[Faunac8]

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. ????

[Faunac8]

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

[Aprilbr]

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!

[Faunac8]

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.

[liz]

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.

[royboy42]

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.

[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

[barry]

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.