That's probably good.
That's probably good.
I always thought Kayo was as bad as you could get, but there you go
Originally Posted by pv4
What's wrong with kayo?
Ever tried to use paramount?
So good to see Craig Foster becomming even more of an insufferable prick in his new role as Republican movement boss.
Im all for changing our system but for Griffs sake why do these people think that employing the biggest fart sniffing wankers out there is going to give anyone the motivation to join in. First Fitzsimmons, now this twerp.
Email from the club
PARAMOUNT PLUS MEMBER OFFER
The member discount offer to Paramount+ is no longer available.
For the 23/24 A-Leagues season, Paramount+ will not be offering members an exclusive discounted offer. Instead, football fans should keep an eye out for new offers, promotions and platform improvements heading into the new season.
From the FAQ
Q: Will playback options such as pause/rewind, start from beginning etc. get added to the service in time for the 2023/24 season?
A: Live time shifting is currently being tested and will be rolled out as soon as possible. We will keep you updated.
Time to save some $$$
I wonder if Stan Sport/9 will have any interest in the A League.
After initially sounding promising, the Paramount/10 deal has been a failure.
I see Paramount no longer have the FA Cup rights. They've gone to Optus.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
really? that's awesome news
I think the way people consume media has changed an awful lot since the a league started.
Only option to watch was go live, or Foxtel subscription.
If you had Fox you could basically just flip on the tv and have the shows and games. The commentary and shows were entertaining (at least compared to the monotonous garbage served up now). There was a main sports channel and it was loaded with football over the season.
Now, many people don’t even have aerial tv. People have to actively go out of their way to consume the product. Most households have multiple subscriptions to services. I’d hazard a guess and say most have Netflix. Stan, Binge, Amazon. Into sport? Kayo has the best options. Into football? You’d probably consider Optus sport for the EPL, Euros, WC.
It’s a catch 22. If you were to make a play at Kayo/Fox to take us over, they’d offer unders. But the incidental exposure and other things Kayo offer would allow a bit more reach. Or you’ve got an option like 10/paramount who offered the most, but most people don’t really want a paramount subscription. Matilda’s probably responsible for most of their traffic over the last 12 months.
Not sure what the move is.
The sustainability of clubs at the moment relies on broadcast deals. We need to shift that reliance imo.
Not saying it’s the way forward but a lot of NRL clubs have associations with Leagues Clubs. Panthers are a brand and successful. Wests and the Knights. Etc. It’s additional revenue that reduces the reliance on mummy and daddy at APL saying here’s your pocket money for the year.
Other ventures from clubs could be the way forward in the medium term.
WSW and their facility for example. Could be running comps on their artificial turf 5-a sides or hiring out to community for use. Not sure how the break even would be for artificial pitches and infrastructure, but it could be a steady revenue. Community is Crying out for fields for games to be played on. AL clubs could take advantage of this.
Id love to know how Paramount came up with the subscription figure that subsequently enabled them to reduce the monies paid to the APL citing a lack of subscriptions.
Was the club membership model + Paramount subscription used as the soul metric ?.
Take me for example my Paramount subscription has never been a add on box tick to my Jets membership, I subscribed independently. My primary motive for a Paramount subscription was the A League but here is the kicker. Has it been included in the KPI Paramount have used to justify a reduction in there payment for the broadcast rights ???
I know of at least 3 other household who's subscription is independent of there A League club membership but the primary reason.
The potential for Paramount to manipulate and exclude theses subscriptions figures in this way has always bothered me, especially when they are so critical to what Paramount has to pony up for financially
Would be a great question for the new bloke or our seldom seen seldom heard from EC.
The fee paid by Paramount to the APL has not changed, the distribution of that money by the APL to clubs is the only thing that?s changed, don?t get confused peeps, the APL still received the amount owed from paramount, that didn?t change
APL are *****
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ls-Sydney.html
A lack of subscriptions from A-League fans for Paramount+ is the reason why grand finals for the next three years will be played in Sydney, it has been reported.
Last season, a five-year, $200million broadcast deal was signed with Network 10 and Paramount+ - but a key clause in the contract revealed a certain number of subscriptions for A-League coverage on Paramount+ was integral.
Once those targets were not met, the flow-on effect saw less money passed onto the A-League and its clubs - leaving Australian Professional Leagues CEO Danny Townsend to chase a deal worth at least $10million with Destination NSW, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.
When Townsend announced the deal on Monday, many football fans, players and clubs were blindsided.
The backlash has been severe, with supporters from Melbourne City and Melbourne Victory planning to walk out of this weekend's derby at AAMI Park in protest.
A lack of subscriptions from A-League fans for Paramount+ is the reported reason why grand finals for the next three years will be played in Sydney - it left APL boss Danny Townsend scrambling for a new deal, which he struck with Destination NSW
A lack of subscriptions from A-League fans for Paramount+ is the reason why grand finals for the next three years will be played in Sydney - it left APL boss Danny
Simon Hill reported on his podcast saying the money given to the APL hadn?t changed 🤷*♂️
I don't think an article from the Daily Mail is worth putting any stock in.
Its been pretty widely reported that the APL isnt receiving the full amount from Paramount/10 due to the metrics built into the broadcast deal.
Thats the fault of whoever negotiated the deal in the first place - Im assuming that was Danny Townsend.
Pretty sure there was an article on codesports that went into some detail on it and the other wastages at the APL.
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
Nonetheless the revenues from the broadcast deals has always been divided up amongst the club for there salary cap hence there has always been a salary cap floor ( min spend) so club owners could not pocket any of it.
As Furns has explained this is common knowledge that KPI's were not met ie subscription numbers and as a result the amount Paramount cough up is substantially less. This prompted my question just how did Paramount come to the subscription figure when many would not have attached there Paramount subscription to there membership like myself and several others i know.
It was another one of DT's cluster %^&8 decisions and certainly no secret since the prostituting of the GF as a revenue raising decision to make up the shortfall from Paramount. I don't think there has been one single season where Paramount have been made to pay up the initial reported amount citing unmet targets.
There has never been any financial benefit for them to improve the quality of product they provide as the increase in subscriptions probably wouldn't be greater than the amount they get to wriggle out of paying the APL to broadcast the game.
Last edited by 380; 07-07-2024 at 07:42 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote