By Adrian Musolino
May 17th 2009 @ 6:46am
Related coverage
Our World Cup bid lacking a united vision
Australia's Mark Viduka with Soccer Australia President Frank Lowry after Australia defeated Uruguay during the 2006 FIFA World Cup Qualifier match at Telstra Stadium, Sydney, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005. Australia defated Uruguay in a penalty shoot out qualifying them for the World Cup in Germany. (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
Question marks over stadiums, aside from the politics of the bidding process, were for many the biggest impediment to Australia potentially hosting the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. Well it certainly is for Adelaide with the city given the blunt declaration from the FFA: build a new stadium or forget being part of the World Cup. The states officials aren’t budging.
The FFA declared that the three possible alternatives in Adelaide are all unsuitable.
AAMI Stadium is too far from the CBD and the grandstands too far from the action, Adelaide Oval doesn’t have the capacity, likewise Hindmarsh Stadium.
However, the State Government rejected FFA’s suggestion for a rectangular 40,000 plus stadium to be build on the outskirts of the CBD, reaffirming their already held position that they will seek to possibly redevelop AAMI or Adelaide Oval and will not commit to a new stadium, at least not until the World Cup bid was won.
Despite the frustrations of South Australian football fans it’s an understandable dilemma in a state with stadiums adequate for its sporting sides and in an economic climate that has resulted in governments running at record deficits.
But the impasse points at a greater problem, the lack of a united vision of the World Cup and the frustrations of doubt.
What struck me most in the response to the stadium dilemma was the ambivalence many felt towards a World Cup, the scepticism that it’s just not going to happen.
Is this the result of ambivalence toward the world game or is the FFA not doing a good enough job in drumming up support and enthusiasm for what would be the greatest sporting event ever held in Australia?
Regarding the stadiums and in this regard we are paying the price for our divergent sporting culture that for the past hundred years that has favoured our indigenous codes such as Aussie Rules and our stadiums are a mere reflection of that culture.
Only now is football getting on an even keel, a process that has only just happened in the past half a decade and therefore we don’t have the infrastructure in place. And now we want to stage the game’s, if not all of sport’s, biggest tournament.
Such dilemmas were always going to be apparent therefore.
The problem with Adelaide’s example is it damages the World Cup bid process.
Putting cynicism aside about why World Cups are handed out to certain nations when they are, on a purely infrastructure standpoint we still have a way to go and waiting on a successful bid will naturally impact the bid process itself and our chances.
While some may say the eastern seaboard can manage without an Adelaide, assuming FIFA is flexible with its city and stadium requirements, it won’t be a true Australian bid.
The World Cup is about more than economic concerns.
It should result in a lasting legacy for football in this country and that should include all major metropolitan areas.
While most focus on 2018, we should instead hope for 2022, not just as a more realistic target with 2018 surely earmarked for Europe, but also so we have that extra time to get the state governments on board and also the sceptics.
Thankfully FIFA allowed multiple bids for the two World Cups.
Let’s hope by then the public is a little more in touch with how big this event would be.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(83)
Kurt said | May 17th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
This seems like a pretty easy problem to solve at least on the surface. Our federal government has already ‘committed’ to hosting the world cup insofar as they are supporting the bid and therefore must understand that if we are lucky / unlucky enough to win (delete as appropriate) they will have to find a few billion to build essential infrastructure much as they did for the olympics. So couldn’t they get together with the SA state government and approve the construction of a nice shiny new rectangular stadium and simply make construction conditional upon us winning the bid? Perhaps that’s what they’re holding out for – the feds to underwrite construction. Even Germany built several new stadiums for the 2006 world cup, and I’m sure not all of those would have gone ahead had their bid been unsuccessful.
Perhaps I’m oversimplifying things but you’d have to think this would be a relatively easy issue to overcome.
andrew said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I agree with Kurt. I don’t know why the SA government didn’t say that they will build a new stadium with construction starting in Dec 2010 (just after the hosts are announced) . Then again, since when have SA politicians ever been progressive or govern with a long term vision for the benefit of the state.
tifosi said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Kurt, this is what Ben Buckley had to say :
“This does not mean the stadium has to be built or even has to be commenced in that timeframe,” he said. “It simply means that there needs to be a commitment to a FIFA compliant option on the basis that the bid is successful.”
The SA media reported it as an ultimatum which wasn’t the case.
The more this goes on the more i wonder if Australia can even afford to host the World Cup.
An article in last weeks Canberra Times mentioned, that an FFA audit of Canberra’s capability of hosting World Cup matches hinged on :
a) Upgrading Canberra Stadium to 40,000 Seats – Which would cost at anywhere between 50 and 100 Million dollars
b) building 3 new 5 star hotels.
Temporarily Upgrading the stadium wasnt a surprise but the need for 3 new 5 star hotels was. Canberra doesnt need 3 new 5 star hotels.
I dont see how Canberra, with its narrow commercial and tax base could possibly afford to do this. Also The last time Canberra Stadium was upgraded it cost the local Liberal party a lot of backlash when costs went over.
Add to that the temporary upgrades needed for Newcastle, Gold Coast, Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Members Equity Stadium in Perth and hotels and training facilities then it will be in the Billions of dollars range.
FIFA have yet to make the number of stadiums required official, but i would say if adelaide dont get on board, Australia would struggle to get it, in particular when the USA bid committee has 58 stadia it is looking at.
True Tah said | May 17th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Tifosi agree about 5 star hotels – why the hell would Canberra need them? If we get the WC, surely supporters both domestic and foreign wouldnt mind about staying in backpacker hostels?
Millster said | May 17th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
This will come as perhaps surprising a post to some given my love for the game of Football and my dream that we do get WC2018 or 2022.
But I have some sympathy for Adelaide’s position. We are a very peculiar country with respect to geographic size versus population, and that combination carries the huge risk of ‘white elephant’ infrastructure if planning is not done carefully and conservatively.
I compare Australia’s problems to the situation of my other country – France – in facing the 1998 World Cup. In France, yes they needed the requisite number of venues. But the business case for these was quite different – not only did the 2 most popular codes (football and rugby) week-in week-out on that country justify in large part the infrastructure, so did the basic geography of the nation.
Lets take Toulouse or Marseilles as an example. They have decent football clubs and also a rugby presence. But more importantly they are only 3-4 hours from the entire rest of France by TGV (very fast train) and therefore will always be sure to get great nation-wide demand for the football and rugby internationals held there, as well as for any continental championships etc.
The issue with Australian cities are that they are simply not as accessible to each other – especially Adelaide and even more so Perth. As per my description above I would not think twice about doing an overnighter to Toulouse or Marseilles to see a big match if I was based in Paris or Lyon for example, and indeed I could probably do so at relatively low cost and with relatively little time penalty. But would I think twice and would it be a hassle (and significant cost) to do a mid-week trip to see a match in SA or WA from Sydney? Of course it would.
So that’s the problem at the level of the individual fan.
But the problem mirrors itself at the Federation level in terms of distributing games. Again in France, its not such a huge probelm. the FFF can give the requisite number of games to Paris and Lyon and then ‘divvy’ out the rest to the other major cities, again knowing that core fans have the ways and means to attend those games from wherever they are in the country.
But for Australia the questions mout very quickly… how many games are there to start with to ‘divvy out’? (far less than for France I suggest, though our entry to Asia has fixed this a bit). How many to give to the ‘core’ cities of Sydney and Melbourne which are our primary ‘windows to the world’. And then do you preference Brisbane and Canberra (and to a lesser extent Adelaide) due to them still being somewhat ok to get to from the big cities? How do you deal with Perth’s distance versus giving fans there a ‘fair go’? The picture rapidly ends up being one of compromise, and one in which realistically Adelaide and Perth may share at best 3 Socceroos/Wallabies internationals and probably not the best ones at that. And so we come the full circle to the question as to how a sustainable business case for a new specific stadium can be produced out of such circumstances…
And all I can do is end with that question mark as I don’t have a clear answer. Two of the central ingredients seem to me to be the design of GENUINELY reconfigurable multi-use stadia that are as good in ‘tighter’ rectangular mode as they are in oval mode, and also a real push for a long term strategic alliance and vision on facilities by all the rectangular codes (RL/RU/football) which puts aside competition in other areas. But even they are two general ‘gut feels’ and not a specific answer to what, to me, is a vexatious issue.
Yes we want and we need WC 2018 or 2022, for all sorts of reasons. And we want the whole nation to share in its excitement and benefits. But this desire and focus cannot justify potentially billions of dollars of infrastructure in our more remote, minor states for which there is no longer-term sense.
MVDave said | May 17th 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
As Tifosi said bit of misreporting by the Adelaide media…shock horror! Certainly caused a significant amount of anti Sokkah sentiment in the newspaper letters/email section. As long is the commitment is there by 2010 when the final bids are in they will be part of it and yes the Feds will need to cough up some dough and yes the stadium will need to be GENUINELY multi purpose.
BTW By 2018 it is likely there will be 36 teams in the WC not 32, so more games per city etc.
Kurt
Germany didnt build any new stadiums but refurbished most of the existing ones. BTW Bundesliga have smashed all attendance records with ave so far of 43,000 per game ie give them good facilities and they will come and watch.
GaryGnu said | May 17th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
This is not a shot at the author, but is a question that has gnawed at me for a while and is sufficiently close to the topic of the thread for me to ask:
Is the correct word for the plural of stadium stadia or stadiums?
The SA Gov’t may be wary of reporoducing a white elephant on the scale of Stadium Australia. Useful and the correct size for its initial purpose but only rarely after that. Stadium Australia at least was partially privately funded but is still burning a hole in the pocket of ANZ Bank.
In this economic climate does is Government spending on major sporting infrastucture really supported by the economic benefits that one off major sporting events bring? It would appear that at this stage the Governments of WA (Memebers Equity stadium) and SA would say not.
Working Class Rugger said | May 17th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
With Member’s Equity the reason why they haven’t approved the $75 miilion re- develop is according to govt sources they evaluating the value of the Greefield site. The site was formerly a power station. With a seating capacity of 25,000 but with the ability to increase with as temporary seating increase of up to 20,000 supposedly.Either way a decision won’t be made until next year at the earliest. And the plural for multiple Stadium is Stadia
Cameron said | May 17th 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Australia hosting the FIFA world cup is an absolutely horrible idea and the South Australian government’s refusal to bend to the FFA’s demands is wholly understandable.
1) Soccer is a fringe sport in Australia
2) FIFA’s stipulations for venue sizes would create white elephant stadia across the country, a drain in years to come, Adelaide simply does not need another 40000 seat stadium. The only rectangular field sporting team there is the a-league one, the notion that a soccer team could draw 40 000 people to a game is laughable.
3) As you allude, Adrian, why should we make an attempt to foster a foreign sport at the expense of our native game, or sports that are already entrenched in our culture with strong followings and fans that already exist, not ones that need to be ‘cultivated’ through the creation of new facilities?
Soccer will be like the NBL in Australia — its coming off its novelty value after the ‘06 world cup and they are already overextending themselves with all this talk of new franchises, basketball had its time in the early 90s and was a big growth sport and an international game; look at it now.
andrew said | May 17th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Ah Cameron, all I can say is embrace the world and embrace the most played sport in Australia.
Dave said | May 17th 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Err Cameron…heard of Melbourne Victory? 4 years old close to 20,000 members and ave 28,000 incl finals with 53,000 plus capacity at GF. Start laughing!
BTW Socceroos are the biggest and most popular of all the football code national teams in Oz! Bet you cant wait for the SA WC to begin?
Michael C said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Should we win the right to host -
there will be plenty of time to build a venue.
But, why the heck would the SA Govt go down the path of a minimum 40K rectangle venue?? On all present evidence, it would be a white elephant. Can’t be justified. (in a QLD, NSW or Vic maybe – - but, not the SA economy).
FIFA is happy enough for the 2006 FINAL to be held at the Berlin Olympic Stadium, what with a full running track around it which leaves the fans too far from the action………..so,……what’s the issue.
Reality in Adelaide, it’s not a ’simple’ equation including the tensions b/w the SACA and SANFL around Adelaide Oval and AAMI.
Dave -
MVFC, didn’t they drop back to 17K members this year and avg crowd at Docklands down to around 24K from 32K (H&A matches) a couple of years ago – - despite winning the whole thing again this year. And, MVFC are the biggest soccer club in the country by a long….long….long way.
the Socceroos are great, but, A. aren’t based here, and B. only rarely appear here, and invariably play 1 game here, 1 there etc…..hardly justifying a SA govt to build a venue on the odd chance that the Socceroos might appear there once every 3 years.
Adrian -
ambivolence towards a soccer world cup might include a couple of things:
A. many don’t feel Australia ‘warrant’s it as a ’soccer nation’ – - i.e. the boost the local game might get would be in essence a huge and undeserved free kick (on several fronts)
B. we don’t need to keep ‘proving ourselves’ to the world, we’ve done the Olympics, twice
C. many perhaps don’t think we’re a realistic chance to ‘win it’ anyway – so, why go building very hard to justify stadia for the rectangle codes (just in case), when the issue of stadia in Perth and Adelaide is presently more an issue of the size limitations of Subiaco and AAMI stadium (other than for the Power!!)
the reality is that whilst there can be a healthy respect for soccer – - the world is more than just that, so, it’s not a case of ‘drop everything’….at this stage anyway. For now, just have the plans for a couple of options.
And Adrian – the call for ‘unity’ etc – - your simply line It should result in a lasting legacy for football in this country and that should include all major metropolitan areas. is pretty clear. Soccer advocates see a huge potential upside – - that will undermine the ‘competition’. A simple point is, is this the way ’soccer’ want’s to ‘win’ Australia. i.e. can’t do it without hosting a world cup and getting ‘free’ infrastructure??
keeper11 said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
oh cameron …..haha
might see you at one of the outdoor marquees with the rest of tens of thousands of australians who will support australias national team in next years ‘fringe’ sockah WC…
you know the same outdoor screens that were meant to cater for the supposed thousands of fans that were meant to turnout for some world cup i recall was held here last year by one of ‘your’ native aussie sports….
jub jub said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
LMAO@ Cameron
South Africa are in a VERY similar situation as Australia and are on track to host a successful WC. I believe we mostly have the stadia in place.. we’d only need to upgrade a few/build a few. For Adelaide, a multipurpose stadium which could be converted between rectangular/round would do the job before, during and after the world cup.
To say that soccer in Australia is a fad is a very, very ignorant view.
jimbo said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
Soccer Australia and FFA’s position has been not to become owners of football grounds and Stadiums and to rent them when football needs them. We will need them to stage a successful WC and upgrade some of them too.
As we’ve been discussing previously, to stage a successful WC in the middle of the AFL, Rugby and NRL season will take a lot of goodwill and cooperation to host the world’s biggest sporting event.
We definitely need a united vision that can look beyond the current economic downturn and imagine what can be achieved if we all work together, but unfortunately a lot of sports administrators and politicians are as narrow-minded as Cameron, so it’s not going to be easy.
Captain Random said | May 17th 2009 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
Cameron!
I posted that code wars article specifically to get the thoughts of people like you! Why did you hold out on me? WHY?
Julius said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:37am | Report comment
Hello from Brazil, I have stepped on this article and its discussion and I can´t resist giving my opionion (perhaps a fresh one from the other side of the world!).
Well, I really wish Australia gets 2018 or 2022. After 2006, Australia got my heart. I am delighted whenever your national, and I have Japan x Australia on my schedule (schedule: day of drinking lots of beer), lol.
Now to the world cup. My opinion is that Australia, particularly Adelaide, should make some modifications to its already existing stadium. To avoid a white elephant? Just don´t make it look like something that can be seen from the Moon, as were all German stadium before the crises. Make a simple one, but beautiful. Australians are known worldwide for their passion for nature. Make it the theme of this new stadium. As for the 3 new 5-star hotels. That´s something that FIFA demands for its personnel and all the upscale traveller that surely will come. I think the best solution for this, is the same that Rio is adopting for bidding for 2016 Olympics: don´t have enough money or see any use in building 3 white elephants, then they decided to use cruise ships, 5 stars ones, as hotels. Wow! Even I would like to stay in , say, Queen Elizabeth ship. After the games are over, then there she goes crossing the seas, and no white elephant in the middle of the tea room! And what´s better: no money spent in something you see no use afterwards. As for the maximum use of this stadium, and with the problem that our French friend cleverly showed us above – the continental size of Australia – then the sole solution would be this: FFA makes an agreement with FIFA asking that Adelaide and Perth receive more games and always with the same groups. For instance, Adelaide could host group E which will comprises 4 teams, and all the matches within this group would be played in Adelaide solely. This would avoid tourists having to travel to, say, Sidney. They would stay in just one city and this surely would create a mini-world cup in Adelaide, attracting the tourists of said group. I would be delighted if Brazil could come to Adelaide. We are a bit noisy, but we are fun!
Well, good luck with your bid! Australia is my favorite.
Michael C said | May 18th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Hmm, airlift some cruise ships into Lake Burley Griffin.
It just might work.
Anyway – I always reckon there’s a test that should be applied before stadia development – and that is ‘would the private sector build it’. If NOT, then, why not? Bad business model? Is the public sector supposed to bank roll it into the future?
A soccer world cup is a nice tournament, goes longer than the Olympics – - but, still, after the event the same issues apply. So, the more Australia could get away with upgrades, temporary seating, etc the better. But – - still – - the amazing thing right now is for people to have a go at a cash strapped state govt for NOT building something now that isn’t overly needed and is really just an ‘in case’ justification……..when the state govt has other stadium concerns to deal with – - and would obviously prefer a cash efficient one size fits all or a cash efficient upgrades program.
Kurt said | May 18th 2009 @ 6:18am | Report comment
Julius
A very interesting post, but I see one flaw in your suggestion about using cruise ships as floating hotels in lieu of building new ones. The city in need of the hotels is Canberra which happens to be roughly 100 km inland. Apart from that full points for lateral thinking.
MVDave – I’m pretty sure there were new stadiums built in Germany in the lead up to the world cup such as Bayern Munchen’s new home ground. Although I admit I don’t know if that would have been built regardless, I guess they are a big enough club to support such an investment.
Robbos said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Michael C in a another negative post on Sokka, another spin & another infactual post based on his fear of this game expecially his last line ‘can’t do it without hosting a world cup and getting ‘free’ infrastructure’.
Most football fans & even non football fans, even the government wants the football WC in Australia, WHY? You are bringing the biggest sporting event by along way to Australia, no not to prove to world, only inferior people or countries need to keep proving themselves Michael.
The Government is willing to make this investment of ‘free infrasturure’ because of the huge potential income it can make from hosting this event in this country.
Oh yeah, so apart from hosting the greatest sporting event that any proud sports follower in Australia would be excited about, the potential creation of jobs, infrastruture, sporting infrastruture & huge business growth, yes, you biggest fear, a freekick for football in this country.
I’m sure there is a blog about Crean’s view on how Australian business can benifit once China adopts the FOREIGN game played in Australia only.
Julius said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
@ Michael C, Kurt – I need to study geoghaphy some more (about Canberra being 100km inland)!
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Agree with Millster on most of his points.
Adelaide needs to build or redevelop a multi purpose stadium on the edge of the CBD for footy, cricket and futbol. I’ve been to AAMI stadium and its a hole in an industrial part of suburban Adelaide that is poorly serviced by public transport.
The answer has to be a redevelopment of Adelaide Oval. This would suit cricket, AFL, A League and the odd rugby game. It’s not a perfect for cricekt and futbol with the clash of seasons, use of pitches,etc. However, nothing will be perfect, It’s a strange mix for a major Australian city that the main cricket stadium stands dormant most of winter unlike the MCG, SCG and Gabba. Of course Perth is in a similiar boat, though I suspect in a bigger more vibrant city like Perth there should be enough funds/inertia to redevelop Members Equity Stadium and leave it fully rectangular.
Adelaide really stands alone on this issue and as correctly pointed out by Adrian it is in real strife.
As for the WC bid lacking a united vision I’m not sure that is a realistic assessment, what needs to be considered is that after/if the World Cup comes to OZ, the legacy of improved infrastructure reflects the multiple use of football codes and other major popular sports in Australia.
If there is any suggestion that any improvements/legacies are only to be of benefit to futbol this will only serve to divide the country as Australia is not confined to one single football code or sport and is limited in population size.
Redb
Pippinu said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Great to hear from you Julius – I always love coming across bloggers from Brazil on a football thread!
Here’s hoping our paths cross again in South Africa in 2010 – remember to come back hear for some friendly banter!
ate logo!!
Tifosi said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Doesn’t the opposition party in SA want to build a new multi-purpose stadium in the Adelaide CBD?
As much as i would like the FIFA World Cup to leave a lasting legacy for football in this country in terms of stadia, the reality is that due to our small population base this bid will have to leave a legacy for all football codes.
Australia is not wealthy enough or big enough, that each football(in all codes) team can have their own you beaut stadiums, unlike in England or the USA.
Stadia will always owned by the government or local councils or maybe by the ruling body themselves ie AFL, NRL, FFA ARU.
Where football should be looked after is in the training facilities.
A-League clubs and the state based teams should get the money to upgrade their facilities. Places like marconi oval, or edensor park in sydney or bob jane stadium in melbourne( which i believe is getting some sort of athletic upgrade shortly)
Money shouldn’t be spent for example on upgrading AFL/NRL training venues.
Ryan Steele said | May 18th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
It’s a funny ol’ situation – I was wondering how long it would take to reach The Roar. May as well put my two cents in, as well.
Another point is how it would benefit the Adelaide Rugby Sevens, which is hosted despite Adelaide not having their own team for some time (although the Sharks will be playing up to three games at Hindmarsh per year, if I’m not mistaken). Surely this, and the fact that Adelaide United’s #1 ticket holder is supposedly the Premier, should garner enough reason to build the stadium.
The main debate is ‘New stadium vs new hospital’, and while I support both ideas, I fear either of them could easily become white elephants. The stadium could become one, due to the reasons above – not enough events held in the stadium – and the hospital, because there are already enough hospitals in Adelaide in dire need of funding, rennovation, and staff, and a new hospital could see the same fate. The side in power are currently “go” on the new hospital, though, possibly building a small “entertainment district” at one of the current hospital sites (probably nothing more than some parklands and a theatre).
For those who aren’t aware of the shadow minister’s plans, he’s wanting to build an entertainment district, similar to Federation Square, complete with a stadium (multipurpose), restaurants, and the like. The funding would come from selling AAMI Stadium, and only rennovating one of the current hospitals, instead of building a brand new one.
One of the main problems I see with this is selling AAMI Stadium. The SANFL is not likely to budge the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power from the stadium, unless they are guaranteed ownership (or at least majority stakeholders) of the new city location, which potentially holds the other sports codes at knife’s edge.
An idividual body is ideal to control the stadium, but finding anyone would be the difficult part. All of this could be worked out once the funding is there – say revenue from a World Cup event or the likes – after which, a body could be created to maintain the facilities.
Of course, all this is easier said than done, and although I’ve always been an advocate of the saying, “If you build it, they will come,” in that interest will be generated simply by the appearance of a new stadium, I know that it doesn’t always work out that way. I’m not claiming to have all the answers, or even all the facts. I am, however, all for a new, centrally-located stadium, multi-purpose or not. It has serious potential.
It has been said, however, that a stadium would be built if Australia were successful in their bid, however we just have to trust that this has actually been said, and that the FFA will take it into account during their bid. One less city could seriously damage the bid, and quite possibly the reputation of the city (or what’s left of it for many).
… I may be just a little too passionate. Apologies if I’ve gotten too carried away.
jimbo said | May 18th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Hospitals and schools are more important than sport, but if we don’t get our sport and world cups we’ll all go mad and end up in hospitals.
Andrew said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Yeah this is interesting.. Multi purpose grounds make sense, however this is short sighted. As the A-League grows it will start to play into the winter months. We have all seen what happens to grounds after 3 teams play on it week in week out.. The pitch is extremely important for Football, not so much for AFL (it’s a scrappy game anyway)..
Also, A-League plays over the summer months. So if cricket is also played the ground would be too hard. So it’s not perfect the best idea is to have a retangular stadium for the use of Football, Union and League to use, and a seperate ground for Cricket and AFL.
As the WC will generate billions of dollars into the Australian Economy I think that the FFA has a fair point to push that the ground must be retangular. Doing this ensures best atmosphere, and securing the concerns of the pitch quality.
I think that the crowds at Adelaide will be around 25k today if it were based in a more central location close to parking and transport, in 11 years time, and I think 30-35k is very achievable, so this is not wasted money.
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Andrew,
Typical soccah attitude that will do and your ilk no good. Tell me what rugby league and union games are played in Adelaide? They dont have the demand, they get the odd NRL game and rugby sevens but no major teams in any rugby L or U comp.
you need to accept the spectator sporting landscape is dominated by AFL footy and any infrastructure solution will need to cater for the major sport(s) in Adelaide.
Redb
Andrew said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Redb you guys already have ample grounds in SA… The football WC will bring billions into the economy so it makes perfect sense that the money should be allocated on Retangular fields.. This is not the AFL WC.. And this is not being mean to AFL. FFA wouldn’t just make it retangular to piss off the AFL.. As I said there are valid arguments, pitch qaulity is the MAJOR reason. You can’t play football on a choppy pitch, but you can play AFL on a choppy pitch.
So my reasons are very justified.. Especially seeing as Adeliade have a history of supporting Football, and have sucessful football sides. A 40k stadium close to public transport in 11 years time would be viable. Adeliade should be able to pull 30k to a game by then.
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Andrew,
The point is that AAMI stadium is no longer suitable, the considerable number of AFL fans who do currently out number futbol fans by a fair margin in Adelaide and will still after the WC on a week to week basis, are fed up with a 1970’s stadium.
You may no realise that the Crows average 35-40K for each game in Adelaide, Power with a separate set of fans another 20K. AU are about 15-20K. This is the current profile of sports attendance in Adelaide and any solution will need to cater for both, that’s all I’m saying.
You go in with your opinion it’s a ’scrappy game anyway’ to the people of Adelaide they will soon tell you where to go.
Redb
Kurt said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
I’ve got the answer – modular roll-in roll-out pitches. No I’m not on drugs, hear me out on this one. You may have read about a recent trend in stadium design whereby the pitch is kept outside in the open air and then ‘rolled in’ to the stadium on game day. The Uni of Phoenix stadium is an example of this, I believe there was also one built in Japan for the 02 WC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix_Stadium.
So we build a stadium that can be configured either as a rectangle or an oval. That’s not too hard, all you need to do is build it so the wings can be pushed in and out, the hard part is the damage this does to the grass underneath. As some of you have also pointed out, soccer players don’t like playing on fields with any actual bumps (makes you wonder how the sport started out, but anyway…), so the answer is obvious – have TWO roll-in / roll-out fields, one for the soccer players, one for the rest of us. The football / league / union field could then be further divided into ‘modules’ where the wings are added when required for the crows and power to do their thing, or left as a rectangle.
Sounds a bit complicated but I’m sure with a bit of ingenuity we could make it work.
Millster said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
I think the balance between Andrew and RedB’s position is as follows :
Football needs to recognise that AFL is the dominant sport in SA for the time being, and that its own position does not yet justify a major facility of 30-40K. After all AU is not exactly regularly selling out Hindmarsh yet is it…
AFL however needs to understand that with its primary position and custodianship of facilities comes some ‘duty of care’ to other codes which are growing and to the national interest. The pitch quality issue is a critical one when it comes to football, and there needs to be goodwill on both sides to do with match scheduling when at common-use facilities with this factor in mind.
And finally the SA government and councils need to be careful here because Adelaide is already very clearly a town that is stagnating. All the above aside, an outcome which saw the state be ineligible to host part of the greatest show on earth for the reason that it had inflexibly/immaturely preferenced a little-known local code (and careful here you AFL zealots, I am not minding them preferencing AFL as long as it is done in a flexible and forward-thinking manner which includes football interests too) would be a massive nail in the state’s coffin.
Incidentally I have the same misgivings about the WA situation with the choice of redeveloping the inflexible Subiaco Oval over the building of a new state-of-the-art flexible venue which would STILL primarily serve the game of AFL over there but which would also provide a wonderful venue for the more global codes of football and rugby, where the state and nation are on show to the world. I happen to think as someone who grew up a fair few years in Perth that the city over the last 10 years, and even recently with the daylight savings issue and suchlike, are sending series upon series of negative parochial backward-looking messages to the rest of the country and to the world.
Millster said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
RedB – on one detail re the ’scrappy game’… you and MC talk on and on and on about part of the glory of AFL being the amount of randomness and contested posession. You therefore regularly celebrate that its a ’scrappy game’ (a very good description I thought) and argue till you’re blue in the face about how unique this makes AFL over the more structured codes. Why would you now smack Andrew for correctly pointing out this very characteristic that you yourself have so often brought up??
Andrew said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Hey Millster just on Hindmarsh and attendance, it should be noted that it has very limited parking and no decent public transport. So the attendance figures are actually pretty good.. If it were to be in a more central location close to say trains, then the sky is the limit.
Redb calling it scrappy is not being harsh.. It’s just what I see when I watch the game.. If i watch a RU or RL game and they continually drop the ball its scrappy.. AFL they fumble the ball all the time, so it me its scrappy.. So that is where the comment is coming from. It’s not having a dig.
Pitch is not really a concern for AFL as they dont play the ball off the ground, and even if they did, as the game is scrappy by nature, it doesnt overall change how the game is played.
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Millster,
You misintepret what is being said then.
There are scrappy games of AFL footy, too many stoppages, lacklustre efforts,etc, What is good is hard at it contested fast flowing football. The ball in contest means on the ground and in the air. The contest is apparent when one player tackles another and the ball carrier loses possession, by contrast in rugby league they get tackled and get to keep the ball.
The ball can be hit forward in AFL, when a player is chasing you, you need to propel the ball along out in front, because if youv’e got the ball and get tackled you lose possession, that is the contest. If the chasing player tackles the player and he does not have the ball at the time then that is a free kick. That is the contest, cat and mouse.
The ball is kicked to a contest between two or more players of different teams it is up for posession, ‘in contest’. Futbol which is also man on man has the same aspect but the mistakes in taking clean posession are not as obvious as the ball is not ‘marked’. The equiavenlt would be headers when a ball is kicked high and two or more players jump trying to head the ball, they often miss, the ball merely hits the deck and is kicked along, it is less obvious that a mistake has been made and probably looks less scrappy to futbol fans as a result. But if they are honest they know when players miss kick also, it happens regularly.
Redb
Millster said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
RedB – thanks for “football codes 101″
Actually I joke, I shouldn’t be so snappy, though lots of what you write didn’t need explaining.
I think its simpler though. Its to do with the uneven shape of the ball making for many ‘imperfect’ posessions (eg you can bounce the thing or tip it forward and it can – and often does – wobble anywhere). That combined with the higher scope in the game for outright tackling, pulling people off the ball, etc makees for a game which is messier, more fumbly, and… well… scrappier.
Thats not a problem of course, its just the ’style’ that results from the equipment used, tactics employed and the various rules of that particular game.
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Millster,
You take the good with the bad like in any game, few match the spectacle of a high mark though. But let’s move on, for someone who often makes statments about not attacking the game itself you breached your own rules.
Redb
Andrew said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Hey Redb, a high mark maybe impressive, but not nearly as impressive as a goal scored outside the box
jimbo said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Kurt,
Sydney Olympic Stadium was engineered for changes and has endured 3 refits since the Olympics.
Originally built to accommodate an athletics track, the Stadium was bigger and rounder and could house 110k spectators. After the Olympics, seating was removed and with moveable grandstands the ground was shrunk to a more rectangular shape with about 83.5k capacity.
A few years later the AFL persuaded the government to remove some more seats and make it more oval to accommodate Swans home games and now it has an official capacity of about 81.5k seating.
Australia’s historic playoff win over Uruguay in November 2005 attracted the current record crowd of 82,698. [Gosh! That’s nearly 4 years ago now – seems like only yesterday.]
Of course this could be done in Adelaide and the ground could be changed after the WC to host AFL games as well. But as the title of this article suggests, it needs a common vision, put down your differences and work together for the common good.
We did it for the Olympics, the Rugby World Cup and the Rugby League World Cup, why not the FIFA World Cup?
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Andrew,
I like them as well, just as I like goals kicked on the run in AFL footy, particularly those snapped over head. My favorite in futbol is Torres, some of his goals are sensational.
Redb
Andrew said | May 18th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Hey Jimbo, I think that those types of grounds make sense, but the point i raised was pitch quality.
However, if you can rotate a pitch, like someone else posted, at the flick of a switch… then wow.. thats awesome. That would fix ALL issues. You could then comfortably play cricket, afl and football games on different pitches, in different seating arrangements using differeing rotatable fields.
Not sure what the cost of such a system is though not only to implement but to maintain.
Redb said | May 18th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Kurt,
Rpating pitches sounds a bit on the expensive side, but yeah it could work.
Docklands….Colonial…..Telstra Dome…err Etihad Stadium was designed to have the wings roll in but as you say it damages the grass and incredibly stadium management has always insisted on trying to charge big bucks to the certain sport and the event who wanted to bring in the seats.
Growing the grass on the outside makes a lot fo sense, another problem ES has faced over the years.
Instead of replacing the whole pitch, why not just replace certain sections (carpet tile style) and keep the roll in wing aspect?
Redb
Mushi said | May 18th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Jimbo, I wouldn’t use stadium Australia as an example given the owners basically folded to their creditors, which was inevitable because new huge stadiums are generally dog assets in Australia.
tifosi said | May 18th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
With regard to field surfaces, one might take a leaf out of the new Dallas Cowboys mega stadium
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/cowboysstadium/stories/120308dnmetcowboysturf.2480de09.html
Of course playing on a synthetic field is a whole different story.
MVDave said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
The advantages of having a decent rectangular stadium;
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/2009InsideFFA/default.aspx?s=insideffa_newsfeatures_newsitem_new&id=27443
Celtic are expected to draw 50,000 to Suncorp. Melbourne will soon have an excellent rectangualr stadium and both Adelaide and Perth need, at the very least, decent multi purpose stadiums that can be configured rectangualr.
At the moment Adelaide is being by passed by international teams and clubs and so missing out. Dont forget Fulham are also touring.
MVDave said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
The competition has begun and lets hope Australia gets either 2018 or 2022…the English are very keen;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6311593.ece
MVDave said | May 18th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Qatar are going for 2022 and 50,000 watched the bid launch;
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/169419/qatar-launches-world-cup-2022-bid
Kurt said | May 18th 2009 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
Tifosi – thanks for the link, that is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about! the most expensive part of any stadium is the physical infrastructure – i.e. – stands, lighting, surrounds etc. So rather than build multiple stadiums, build one and use different surfaces depending upon the requirements of the game being played.
I’m sure if the AFL, SANFL, FFA, SA & Fed governments got together they could come up with the dosh for it, particularly if they make construction conditional upon the WC bid being successful.
RedB – I was just thinking of the fact that our round-ball playing brethren apparently need a carpet-like pitch to play on, otherwise their boodiful game apparently becomes quite ’scrappy’.
Julius said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
From the distance I am watching the 2018/2022 processes, it stands like this:
USA: could get 2018 or 2022, due to the record number of expectators in 1994. And they are efficient! There are more than 50 venues battling to be elected to become one of the 10 final host cities.
Mexico: hardly will get one of the WC, too many problems with violence and drugs, and the government is inert on these issues.
Japan: hardly will get it, because Australia is a better place for WC in Asia/Oceania. Plus, a lot of soccer fans would travel to Australia, but not to Japan (expensive, cold guests, visa barriers, etc…)
Korea: could surprise the 2022 contestants, but again Australia is favorite
England: with Portugal/Spain and Russia bidding in Europe, England is not the favorite anymore.
Russia: if they work well, they can get 2018 or 2022. Putin is a very efficient lobbyist. And Russia still is a superpower.
Portugal/Spain: the favorites (with Australia) for 2018. Soccer owns a lot to these two countries, and a WC there would be a success surely. These iberians know how to make a vibrant party.
Qatar: good to see an Arab represent in the middle of this bidding. But Qatar is very tiny, hardly it could get a WC unless in joint-bids with another powerful neighboor country.
Finally, Australia: due to the huge success of Sydney Olympics, the Socceros success and the fame of an well organized society and the wish of Fifa for an Asian WC, Australia is the favorite for 2018/2022. Australians should realise that: you are the favorites. If it helps: all my friends prefer to have a WC in Australia instead of all the bidders above.
Boa sorte!!
Julius said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Ops! Forgot the Benelux: it is a real pity that these 3 charming countries are squeezed among their giant neighboors. No chance. The only chance they could get it would be a single European bid – and that had to be them. Can anyone see Iberia, England and Russia doing this?
andrew2 said | May 19th 2009 @ 5:23am | Report comment
A lot of people have used the term legacy. Getting back to the issue of hotels in Canberra, an ultimate legacy of an Australian world cup would be the construction of a Very Fast Train between Canberra and Sydney. Travel time would be 1 hour. Fans who have a game in Canberra can stay in a hotel in Sydney. And Canberra international airport and take a lot of the overflow of people flying in. Any thoughts??? Canberra would forever be a different place
Robbos said | May 19th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Muito Obrigado Julius for your kind words about our world cup bid. Very positive to see how a great footballing nation like Brazil sees Australia’s bid, not being a traditional world football nation. But the times they are a changing.
Andrew said | May 19th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Hi Julius,
USA have already had it, so have Japan and Korea.. As brazil will be hosting 2014 that will rule out the America’s hosting it in 2018 and 2022.. Logically you think Asia has a strong chance of hosting 2022, and Australia would be the strongest argument in the region due to the game growing here and also the have proven that they can host big sporting events.
Ryan Steele said | May 19th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
MVDave, don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. Adelaide haven’t signed any big-club friendlies, because they have bigger things to worry about, like organising finances, and assembling a full squad. You can’t have a match without two teams.
Hindmarsh is, arguably, the best place to watch football, of all the A-League stadiums. It’s very similar to Omiya Ardija’s (J-League club) old stadium, in which you were as close to the action as you could get, without standing on the pitch. That’s one thing we could possibly lose, with a new stadium. Is it worth it, to be able to host major events? Absolutely. But it won’t have the same charm as “Our Hindmarsh.”
We’ve seen numerous times – in the likes of the AFC Champion’s League final, among other instances – that the State Government won’t even budge on stadium upgrades, unless the big-wigs force it upon them (at the 2000 Olympics, temporary seating was installed in Hindmarsh, for the football, increasing the size to around 20,000).
Redb said | May 19th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
MVDave,
Well done to Man U.
Redb
Michael C said | May 19th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Andrew2 -
NOW that’s the sort of legacy we need a far, far greater focus on that sports code specific or not stadium developments that may or may not be white elephants,
however, an oversupply of 5 star hotels might not be the highest on the list of priorities going forward, unless perhaps that they are ‘temporary’ hotels that then revert to apartments thereafter.
MVDave -
the argument that you can play one off games now and then against an overseas side – - – for whom you have to BID!!!! Don’t forget this. The news article you presented makes no mention of the financial arrangements of this deal.
Why is the Govt ‘bidding’ to buy an overseas club team to come and play a meaningless friendly?? It might fill suncorp but is it bringing tourists from all around the country/world? Or is it as much of a meaningless exercise as Becks mania?? Or is it on a level with ‘luring’ Andre Rieu to perform in ones city. (sports and theatre merge ever closer together). [reason I question this mainly is that down here in Victoria we had the hullabaloo about the state govt underwriting a portion of the Tiger Woods appearance fee to 'lure' him to Victoria. I wonder if the QLD opposition will launch an attack on Anna Bligh and this effort??]
Millster said | May 19th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Andrew2 – spot and and I have no idea why this isn’t already happening.
Kurt/RedB – Spot on to Kurt’s last comment about a crap pitch turning football into a scrappy game. The point is that this would be bad as the game is not designed to be so random/scrappy. But going back to RedB’s previous swipe at me I stand by what I said, which is not at all an attack on the game by the way because a core deliberate part of the design of AFL is to incorporate this scrappiness. In fact it is what makes your preferred code what it is.
Robbos said | May 19th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Quote from: National Press Club
The FIFA World Cup is the greatest show on earth – attracting bigger crowds, more corporate support and the biggest television audiences of all international events – and involving 32 of the world’s best teams in a five week festival of football.
With Australia set to participate in its second consecutive appearance at the FIFA World Cup finals tournament in South Africa in 2010, Football Federation Australia is also bidding for the right to host the tournament in either 2018 or 2022. We’re up against formidable opposition – including England, Spain, Russia and the USA – but FFA Chairman, Frank Lowy, and CEO, Ben Buckley, are confident of success in what is nonetheless described as a ‘David and Goliath’ task.
Frank Lowy and Ben Buckley outline the reasons why, the ‘nation changing’ benefits for Australia and the Asian region if Australia wins the right, and their plans for achieving success.
Timmypig said | May 19th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
A real dilemma all right …..
The Olympic Stadium in Sydney is a great example of what not to do. Yes, it gets a couple of big crowds a year, and some borderline crowds throughout the NRL season (by borderline I’m referring to bums on seats as a percentage of the capacity). But it’s a compromise … the wrong shape and seats are too far from the pitch for football, rugby and rugby league, and not really ‘oval’ enough for Aussie Rules or cricket.
It’s also in the wrong place. Homebush Bay the suburb may or may not have its attractions, but it’s a crappy place to have a night out. There is nothing to do before / after the match, it’s a long way from anywhere.
The multi-use stadium will probably be the way of the future. Roll in pitches like Kurt’s Phoenix suggestion; reconfigurable seating or stands; opening roof; something for sport, concerts, motocross, Papal masses, the works. Expensive? You bet. It’ll also have to be close to populations, right on top of a multi-mode transport hub.
Any such stadium will also then require cooperation between the potential users, and no single organisation could be allowed to control or exert undue influence over its booking. Having the ability to reconfigure and roll in a fresh playing surface will help. Football in particular DOES require a better quality pitch.
This one’s probably a stadium that’s just out of reach of a cash-strapped state government. Shame really.
BigAl said | May 19th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Millster . . . if soccer wasn’t scrappy, there’d be far, far more goals scored !
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Michael C said
“Why is the Govt ‘bidding’ to buy an overseas club team to come and play a meaningless friendly?? It might fill suncorp but is it bringing tourists from all around the country/world”
I presume you mean by this Celtics visit which is now confirmed. It is in fact the Annual “:Roar against racism” match which has taken place for the last 2 seasons.
Given the cause the bigger the club the more the Racism bit is emphasised. See below.
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/2009InsideFFA/default.aspx?s=insideffa_newsfeatures_newsitem_new&id=27443
Robbos said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Towser,
Don’t give Michael C facts, especially those he can’t twist. ‘He can’t handle the truth’.
Pippinu said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Obrigado Julius!
Interesting perspective.
I’m surprised you would be so dismissive of England in 2018 (surely only Russia is England’s main competitor for that year).
2022 is absolutely wide open and, yes, I agree that the US would be Australia’s main competition (but we shouldn’t discount China either).
Pippinu said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
The studies do appear to support the view that a WC generates far, far more turnover than even the Olympics for the host country.
That being the case, the question can legitimately be asked: perhaps it is ok to spend billions of government money on buidling/rebuilding up to 8 stadiums, even if over half of these new stadiums will never again be filled to any great degree ever again (and thus mean a long term drain of future government finances over and above the original price of building).
For instance, let’s say the rebuilding costs something like $4 billion, but the increased economic activity from the WC event is something like $6 billion – it would be acceptable to build white elephants if the present value of future maintenance and upkeep was anything less than $2 billion net (i.e. $2 billion in excess of the future revenue generated).
perhaps an econometrician out there may be able to put this equation into some sort of perspective
Ryan Steele said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Two updates on the debate in South Australia:
Adelaide Oval could be approved as Adelaide’s stadium foir the bid:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25504297-5006373,00.html
Premier Mike Rann supports Adelaide to be part of the World Cup bid:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25503642-5006373,00.html
Interesting developments – if they have much fact behind them at all. I’m still not sure about Adelaide Oval as a potential stadium, even after redevelopment, unless the playing surface and seating arrangements were changed to suit the event.
Michael C said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Robbos -
keep out of it lad, all you ever give is – and I quote “Spin, spin, spin”
Towser -
cool – - roar against racism……….and so tell me why is the Govt funding it again???
Ah, no – I see the answer Sport Minister Phil Reeves said it was another example of how the State Government’s decision to build a world-class stadium was attracting world renowned sporting teams.
SO, the Govt has to pay to lure teams to their world-class stadium to brag that it’s attracting world renowned sporting teams………..if you offer them a good enough deal!! So, come on Anna and Phil!!! What’s the deal???
(shouldn’t it be the Feds any way, given FFA now 51% owns the Brisbane Roar and the FFA is underwritten by the Fed Govt.)
Michael C said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Millster -
scrappy – -
perhaps it’s like soccer being F1 on perfect road surfaces to Aust Footy being Rally on less than perfect road surfaces……
that said, Aust Footy is far, far better on a perfect surface for a couple of key reasons -
A. the ball will roll/bounce in a predictable manner on a more carpet like surface, thus allowing players to anticipate better the roll/bounce of the ball based upon it’s ’spin’ and ‘trajectory’ (you may not realise, but, this CAN be done)
B. extension of above, kicking those miracle goals from the boundary along the ground with the deliberate curver of the rolling ball is far harder to achieve if there’s uneven surface or tussocky grass that kills the imparted roll of the ball.
C. have you ever tried bouncing the ball on average surfaces…..I remember once at Rosedale, the first bounce barely came back to me, the 2nd, I put more umff into it and it came back just right, the third, flew back at me too quick and over my shoulder and there was I left trying to come to a halt and turn with my opponent grabbing the pill and darting off the other way.
D. Aust Footy players probably spend more time than players of other codes on less than 2 feet (and less than 1 feet), which means a good surface for landing on and gaining stability to leap off – - is pretty important.
Scrappiness though – in the main, will be more a function of wind (even more the wind sometimes than rain – - wind just plays havoc with just about anything worthwhile!!)
ren said | May 19th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
any new stadia built for the soccer wc in either 2018 or 2022 has to be multipurpose (as far as SA and WA are concerned)
The crucial component of designing a multipurpose stadium is seating angle (for example wikipedia multipurpose stadia and read about gridiron/baseball fields). In regards to this the seating at ANZ stadium appears to be at an odd angle when the ground is set up for footy, and the seats also appear to be a large distance from the ground in places (around the foward flank/pocket i think).
On another note I think soccer can learn from the recent trend in baseball to go towards baseball only parks that are designed for the smaller crowds and with that unique baseball atmosphere (wiki retro ballparks).
But wether or not a stadium is needed or not is an entirely different issue to the type of stadia, and in the current economi climate is even more important (on a side note is the WA budget the only one in surplus this year?)
Dave said | May 19th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Thanks Redb
And the Bombers aren’t doing too badly either.
MC
There will be a significant proportion of fans from interstate for the Celtic game, which will add tourism dollars to the bottom line for the State Govt.
Truly multi purpose grounds are very expensive to build and as mentioned have the danger of becoming no good for viewing for any of the intended sports because of too much compromise. Nevertheless l still believe such a venue in the right location and with moveable seating could be a winner. Telstra Dome in Melbourne was to be such a stadium but for some reason the moveable seats were never….moved?
Towser said | May 19th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Michael C
Simply because it is a government initiative & has been from the start. Run by the Dept of multicultural affairs to help them in their fight against racism. A worthy cause using the Roar as a Multicultural team as their means to get their message across.
Millster said | May 19th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Ren – I tend to agree. Football is not about mega-crowds and we should not be lured into huge stadia just to try and compete superficially with the numbers from other codes.
In fact my dream, which I think is quite an achievable one, is that we populate the country with about 8 or 10 grounds modelled closely on the excellent little Canberra Stadium, maybe with a bit more roof area. 25K capacity, nice and intimate but also modern, with not a bad seat in the house. And who cares if they sell out from time to time… if its a really big game move it to a bigger venue (compromises and all) and if its just a normal one, well stiff shit concerts and all sorts of other things sell out too and a bit of unsatisfied demand is not such a bad thing anyway. And as for WC, surely something can be designed that would temporarily add 15K seats to get to the threshold capacity in the couple of cities that didn’t have a bigger suitable venue.
And yes Ren again spot on in terms of the baseball issue; it’s also been the experience of the Major League Soccer in the USA that the move from playing on re-marked gridiron pitches to their own specific venues has been a success.
ren said | May 19th 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
millster- in regards to expanding the grounds temporarily the main stadium for the london olympics is a great example and one that i would love to be able to examine in detail.
As far as boutique stadiums are concerned I’ve always liked the idea behind bluetongue, which is quite similar to some of the famous college stadiums in the US in that it has a horseshoe shape (well not a true rounded shape, but you get the general idea of it) and an open end, which i thought would be absolutely brilliant in perth on the river or something of the like.
Also using grounds such as the MCG would be a suitable compromise for the big games (60000 plus) in that the steep stands put you in a good position to see the ball anywhere on the ground. (having said this, I’ve only ever watched football at the ‘G but if i can watch a ball up on the otherside of the ground and follow whats going on surely it cant be too hard to watch a game of soccer which in my uneducated opinion is a bit more open than football)
tifosi said | May 19th 2009 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
1st) A Very Fast Train isn’t coming here to canberra EVER. No one is going to pay for it. World cup or not. Besides i can catch a bus and be in sydney central train station in 3 hours.
2nd) Smaller stadiums are built so that owners can charge higher seat prices.
Example :
The Old NY yankee stadium had 57,000 seats, the new one 52,325. Yet the old one didnt have seats that cost $2,500 a game. NYY supporters that had seats in the old stadium were asked to pay a lot more in the new one or move into the upper tiers. fans arent exactly happy.
Millster
Canberra Stadium isnt that great. You want a great 25,000 seater stadium, feel free to check out the MLS New York Red Bulls new stadium Red Bull Arena. Thats my dream for the A-league. Long way away though.
Robbos said | May 19th 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Michael C, another spin, since when is the FFA underwritten by the FED govt? You talk absolute dosh sometimes.
The govt gave the FFA money to try to obtain the Greatest sporting event to Australia, whether you agree with this or not, this is not FFA underwriting the FFA.
The govt also provides the FFA with money to assist with the 12 national teams it has to run, which represents this country & only the Socceroos are moneyspinners.
The govt also supports the FFA to support the women’s league which helps promote professional women’s sport in this country.
The govt does not support AFL, because if does not have an int’l event that even remotely important.
The govt also does not support the AFL because it has no National sides to support.
The govt does not support the AFL because there is no prefessional women’s league.
You really need to go on holidays outside of AFL obsessed states to understand what is really going on.
BigAl said | May 19th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Robbos . . . all I can say re. your last post is …
– well good on the AFL
Robbos said | May 19th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
BigAl,
Yes good on the AFL, the best adminstrated sport in Australia.
My response to someone who spins a line that FFA is underwritten by the FED Govt.
Andrew said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Actually there are some good smaller stadiums around Australia.
Parramatta and the new one on the gold Coast. There should be a third built soon in Melbourne.
Just on the governement funding and the Celtic game.. This alot more interesting than a game between Australia v Ireland in AFL.. That is just a joke.
I look forward to watching the celtic game, one of the best scottish teams up against one of the more (most) exciting teams in the a-league.
jimbo said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Even the AFC doesn’t have a unified vision.
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/2018-world-cup/australias-world-cup-bid-doomed-178045/
Doom, doom and more doom – where’s the Rebecca Wilson “Sokka Doomed” story in the Sydney Slag Rag?
MC,
What is really being underwritten by federal and state governments and local councils is the expansion of AFL outside of Melbourne.
Redb said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Jimbo
“What is really being underwritten by federal and state governments and local councils is the expansion of AFL outside of Melbourne.”
If true that’s great news.
Redb
BigAl said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Jimbo . . . don’t worry about Rebecca Wilson – you’ll do !
circus said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:19am | Report comment
It’s interesting that the UK Government has only pledged 5 million pounds to support the English Football Association’s bid for the 2018 World Cup (the Australian Government has pledged $43 million).
In contrast, the UK Government has provided an 80 million pound guarantee to the English Rugby Football Union for its bid for the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
Robbos said | May 21st 2009 @ 6:07am | Report comment
Well said Redb.
Likewide with all sport.
had enough said | July 11th 2009 @ 2:57am | Report comment
right on Dave i said the same thing to this joker he should have stare’d in batman not heath ledger they dont know nothing about this tournament the olympics and the world cups are 2 compleatly diferent tournaments but both big tournaments that we can manage these people were behind the olympics but not this tournament because they dont like the game the stadiums are going to be close to the cbds and they will get used by the afl and rugby just like i said before you dont have to build 110000 seat stadiums everywhere with the correct places to host it it will work for usand all this bullshit about anz being a white elephant the nrl grandfinal in 99 was a record crowd of 109000 people yes its a little furhter out from the cbd but they still get good crowds theyve gotten large crowds for the footy and theyle still get big crowds in the future im sure the games i mentioned and the games in the future are enough and if your so worried about white elephants then whats aami stadium the government plans to make it bigger and waste more money on a tram out there port powers crowds are dismal its up shit creek youve only got a million and a half people in adelaide if you have a stadium thats central then more people will time to go to the footyand aami will be closer to the people in port adelaide shit why didnt i think of that you see julius how ignorent some people are in this country take them to maracana maybe that will wake them up i said it before and i’le say it again thse people will only see the light when they open there eyes then we will see if they disagree with me