AFANA Footy BBS

Hi all,

AFANA, as I expected (sadly), is getting lots of messages with complaints that the AFL (and /or AFANA) is unfair to cable subscribers (or DISH Network subscribers, etc.) because they are going to be on satellite only. We are also getting compaints that the coverage reflects some terrible planning on the part of the AFL and it won't help the game grow here, etc.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that's not what has happened here. In my opinion, the AFL has listened very closely to what AFANA has told them over the past two years and has done the best that can be done given the current situation.

AFANA continues to advise the AFL on what to do with coverage here and Setanta wouldn't even be on the radar screen unless we had spoken up. And AFANA will again take the brunt of this change financially, because unhappy readers don't join or renew. The AFL won't suffer as subscriptions to the online package will increase.

No one made a conscious decision to shut out cable subscribers. Rather, the AFL was unable to get any channel carried widely to pick up the coverage so when Setanta expressed interest as did MHz they did what they could to get the best coverage possible. No one at AFANA or the AFL is happy that it is only on satellite but truthfully, as AFANA has been saying for some years now, it is likely that the future of footy coverage in North America is pay per view. This is probably the first step in that direction. Conventional sports channels no longer want to carry stuff like Aussie rules unless you bring big dollar sponsors with you, which the AFL doesn't have in North America. We aren't the flavor of the month (e.g. poker) so programming directors aren't going to risk their careers on footy.

To potentially get live coverage, something we have worked toward for 11 years, is a big plus in what is otherwise a
less than ideal outcome.

Believe me, I would rather footy be live and be on ESPN every Friday night but it's not happening in my lifetime. If you would read the stuff we got back in 1998 when Fox Sports World took over (and was in a whopping 2% of US homes) or in 1996 when it was on ESPN2 (and in 1% of US homes) you'd understand that I do appreciate it's not ideal as the newsletter stated.

A reality check is in order here. If I or the other volunteers at AFANA thought the AFL had done a bad job here, we'd say so. Eleven years of our honest reporting should tell you that much. Recently, we fought for a decade to get an AFL exhibition here but when it was mishandled we said so. Other web sites refused to criticize the AFL and the organizers but we did. We're on your side.

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA Newsletters - Subscribe Here

If it helps at all - I realize that AFL is a niche market in the USA, and this is - given the TV landscape here - as good a deal as we could reasonably hope for. I don't know how many AFL games per round Setanta is planning to carry, but considering they charge $9.95 for single Rugby matches on a PPV basis, $12/month is not unreasonable.

I understand the disappointment - I live in an apartment and am simply not in a position to put up a second dish, or switch to DirecTV. I'm afraid that's the price of being a fan of a sport most people in the USA don't even know exists. No one should be dissing you or AFANA.

Thank you (and everyone else at AFANA) for doing your best. At least there is somewhere to get Footy in the USA, and let's face it - the fact Setanta will apparently be carrying full games (not the edited down versions) is a big upgrade in and of itself, and the possibility of some live matches is icing on the cake for those for whom Setanta is an option.

Judging by their website, Setanta would like to be on DISH Network and various cable systems, so maybe that's where those of us who have other providers need to lobby them to consider carrying Setanta's programming.

George Madison

I
> don't know how many AFL games per round Setanta is planning to carry, but
> considering they charge $9.95 for single Rugby matches on a PPV basis, $12/month is
> not unreasonable.

Seem like last year I had to pay Directv about $12 a month for the Fox sports package which included FSW/FSC. So price wise the switch to STS is about the same. And if we do indeed get live games, it is 1000 better than the late night, washed down, delayed coverage of FSC.

> Thank you (and everyone else at AFANA) for doing your best. At least there is
> somewhere to get Footy in the USA, and let's face it - the fact Setanta will
> apparently be carrying full games (not the edited down versions) is a big upgrade in
> and of itself, and the possibility of some live matches is icing on the cake for
> those for whom Setanta is an option.

A big thanks to Rob and AFANA

> Judging by their website, Setanta would like to be on DISH Network and various cable
> systems, so maybe that's where those of us who have other providers need to lobby
> them to consider carrying Setanta's programming.

Hopefully Dish will see the light!

Bill

> And if we do indeed get live games, it is 1000 better than the late night, washed
> down, delayed coverage of FSC.

Well the coverage is still going to be late night, Especially if it's live. Coverage would go from around 11PM - 4AM Central.

Hey fine by me. Any time the Eagles are playing live, I will stay up for them. As for the other teams, the VCR will work just fine!

Any word yet on when the first game will be telecast?

Bill

> Any word yet on when the first game will be telecast?

We should know within a few more days but looks very much like mid-April for the full matches as well as the full up schedule on MHz. FSWC will follow suit as they are going to get it from the other two.

All the networks are workly closely with AFANA and have agreed to supply us with schedules.

Personally, one minor upside to the end of the coverage on Fox networks is no more battles with a company that considers forward schedules to be company confidential information.

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA home page

I just emailed Setanta regarding the footy and got this response, "we're still working out a carriage deal with SKY..."

ARGH! The season starts this weekend, I changed my satellite provider from Dish to Direct (much to the dismay of my husband and children b/c Dish has a much better DVR system), paid my extra $12/month and now this?!?! >

They better get stuff worked out SOON!

Indira
Footy Goddess from Portland, OR
Home of the Portland Power

> Hi all,

> AFANA, as I expected (sadly), is getting lots of messages with complaints that the
> AFL (and /or AFANA) is unfair to cable subscribers (or DISH Network subscribers,
> etc.) because they are going to be on satellite only. We are also getting compaints
> that the coverage reflects some terrible planning on the part of the AFL and it
> won't help the game grow here, etc.

> Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that's not what has happened here. In my
> opinion, the AFL has listened very closely to what AFANA has told them over the past
> two years and has done the best that can be done given the current situation.

> AFANA continues to advise the AFL on what to do with coverage here and Setanta
> wouldn't even be on the radar screen unless we had spoken up. And AFANA will again
> take the brunt of this change financially, because unhappy readers don't join or
> renew. The AFL won't suffer as subscriptions to the online package will increase.

> No one made a conscious decision to shut out cable subscribers. Rather, the AFL was
> unable to get any channel carried widely to pick up the coverage so when Setanta
> expressed interest as did MHz they did what they could to get the best coverage
> possible. No one at AFANA or the AFL is happy that it is only on satellite but
> truthfully, as AFANA has been saying for some years now, it is likely that the
> future of footy coverage in North America is pay per view. This is probably the
> first step in that direction. Conventional sports channels no longer want to carry
> stuff like Aussie rules unless you bring big dollar sponsors with you, which the AFL
> doesn't have in North America. We aren't the flavor of the month (e.g. poker) so
> programming directors aren't going to risk their careers on footy.

> To potentially get live coverage, something we have worked toward for 11 years, is a
> big plus in what is otherwise a
> less than ideal outcome.

> Believe me, I would rather footy be live and be on ESPN every Friday night but it's
> not happening in my lifetime. If you would read the stuff we got back in 1998 when
> Fox Sports World took over (and was in a whopping 2% of US homes) or in 1996 when it
> was on ESPN2 (and in 1% of US homes) you'd understand that I do appreciate it's not
> ideal as the newsletter stated.

> A reality check is in order here. If I or the other volunteers at AFANA thought the
> AFL had done a bad job here, we'd say so. Eleven years of our honest reporting
> should tell you that much. Recently, we fought for a decade to get an AFL exhibition
> here but when it was mishandled we said so. Other web sites refused to criticize the
> AFL and the organizers but we did. We're on your side.

> -Rob de Santos
> AFANA Chairman

Portland Oregon Footy Team

> I just emailed Setanta regarding the footy and got this response, "we're still
> working out a carriage deal with SKY..."
> They better get stuff worked out SOON!

Take a deep breath. All will be well. As we reported in our TV newsletter, the contracts haven't yet been finalized. However, everything we have been told by all parties concerned suggests this is just the necessary legal details being worked out and a deal is done in principal. So, Setanta told you exactly what they are telling everyone (and should be saying!).

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA Newsletters - Subscribe Here