World Cup would force other codes to take a break
By Guy Hand, 23 Oct 2009 Guy Hand is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, football, Football World Cup, NRL, Rugby League
285 Have your say
The AFL and NRL will have to take mid-season breaks of up to eight weeks should Australia host the football World Cup in 2018 or 2022.
Football chiefs are in advanced discussions with the AFL, NRL and rugby union about having first use of the nation’s best multi-purpose stadia leading up to and during any Australian-hosted World Cup.
The rival codes would have to agree to at least a four-week mid-season shutdown while the tournament is underway in June and July, because of FIFA regulations locking out other major sports in each host city.
And FIFA also demands a four-week lead-in period at each host venue prior to the World Cup.
That means AFL and NRL matches during that period could not be played at stadia being used for the tournament.
Football Federation Australia chief executive Ben Buckley admitted his sport would have to convince the AFL and NRL to rejig their seasons in some way during an Australian World Cup.
But he believed the outlook was positive for cross-code co-operation, especially with the carrot of improved stadia as part of any World Cup hosting.
“We’ve met with all the sporting codes and they’re all in broad agreement about the importance of the FIFA World Cup for Australia and the legacy it would deliver in terms of sporting infrastructure,” Buckley said on Thursday.
“There’s a precedent in relation to the Sydney Olympics and the Rugby World Cup.”
Soccer would need to get all other codes on-side quickly and publicly, with visible disharmony usually spelling death for World Cup bids.
But the upside for the AFL, NRL and rugby union is the prospect of taxpayer-funded redevelopment for their existing stadia, or brand new ones which would be used for their sports post-World Cup.
With at least 12 stadia needed, the MCG, ANZ Stadium, Etihad Stadium, Sydney Football Stadium and Suncorp Stadium predictably head the list of World Cup venues.
Redevelopments of Newcastle’s EnergyAustralia Stadium, Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville, Carrara on the Gold Coast, Canberra Stadium and a western Sydney venue to the FIFA-required 40,000-capacity are also part of the plan.
The two uncertainties are Adelaide and Perth.
The FFA is keen on a redeveloped 55,000-seat Adelaide Oval.
But the road block is tension between the venue’s tenants, the South Australian National Football League (SANFL) and the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA).
And there is divided opinion over redeveloping Perth’s Subiaco Oval, or building a new stadium in the city to host World Cup matches.
The FFA has just over a week to present its final costings to the federal government, while it must lodge stadium and infrastructure plans for the World Cup bid by May next year.
FIFA will decide the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts in December next year.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Sydney and Perth eye A-League crunch game
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (46)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)
- Explore:
- AFL, football, Football World Cup, NRL, Rugby League
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Why does FIFA ‘lock out’ other sports during their tournament?
Venues not being available aside as obviously the MCG and other stadiums would be needed for actual matches, but why does FIFA insist on no other sports? Why insist on a 4 week lead up?
This is the ‘world game’ why would it be worried by an insignificant little sport like Aussie Rules? Surely as we are often told by followers of the round ball that the Aussie Rules has no presence on the international stage.
It’s a domestic sport, are other domestic sports like my daughter’s basketball competition going to be shut down as well?
They dont need to shut down the AFL competition its not international.
Redb
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I should add that the AFL should shut down for 2 weeks during the WC finals and play the other 2 weeks at country venues. The 4 week lead up is totally un-necessary.
Greg Russell said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
I agree completely. I often say that FIFA is a thinly disguised autocracy. Sadly, most of the world’s football fans accept their place as (powerless) serfs in FIFA’s feudal system. How else to explain things like the view that (officially) referees are infallible? Why does FIFA insist on such nonsense and why do football fans accept it?
Also sad is that he with the massive cheque-book can dictate to those with much less money, but that’s the way of the world. It is a fact that there are lots of people who would do anything to host a World Cup, so if Australians will not accept the “lock out” that FIFA decrees, then they are quite happy to tell us to b*gger off. I don’t like it, but I don’t see any choice.
As for why “the ‘world game’ why would it be worried by an insignificant little sport like Aussie Rules?”, there the answer is obvious. Imagine if an AFL game attracted 100,000 at the same time as a World Cup game attracted only 20,000, or if the back page of The SMH was about Manly vs Parra rather than Ecuador vs Bahrain? They would be major embarrassments which FIFA, a la Henry VIII, simply could not tolerate. So I do understand why they insist on a lock-out.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Complaints about referees are handled in house. Graham Poll was sent home after his mistake at the World Cup he doesn’t need to be chastised by Coaches and FIFA forcing him to retire.
The alternative, the constant complaining and bickering about referees and their interpretations in Rugby is not something I find attractive. That is why i accept that…I actually think their not protective of referees enough (see the players following the ref around the field)
If Australia was to get the World Cup it would not be for financial reasons as we are a small player hyping up the fact we are in the East Asian time zone as our economic savior. Now I think why give it to us at all?
We are not fianncially strong nor does it seem a lot of sports fans (but not football fans) who I would have expected to embrace it don’t want to accept the inconvenience of 4 weeks without their prefered code. I..e we don’t really really want it.
It now feels wrong to me for us to host it at the expense of a country like Indonesia who would love it.
Very sobering to realise I will never see a world cup match played in Australia.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Yep and FIFA are corrupt to the core.
Mr cheese said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Hi Greg,
I’m not sure I completely follow your logic. Why would it matter FIFA if the SMH chose to put Aussie Rules on its back page instead of proper football ?
It would only be a problem if newspapers in Europe / Asia / Americas followed suit. They wouldn’t, because they have no interest in Aussie Rules.
Compare the Cricket World Cup 2007 with the Football World Cup 2006 ( or, for an Asian example, 2002 ): the Cricket World Cup had lots of empty seats. How many matches in either 2006 or 2002 were played in front of 20,000 spectators ????
20,000 at a World Cup Football match is pretty unusual, I suspect.
Mr cheese said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
“Why would it bother FIFA….”, that is meant to say.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
It would be awesome for the NRL. Get some upgrades to grounds that really require it, and maybe even facilities in places like Perth and Adelaide that could be used for future expansion teams. Really the NRL needs to work with FFA so rectangular fields are built if they do get the World Cup, as these provide the best viewing for those types of games.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Stadium upgrade benefits go without saying, although I would suggest both Adelaide and Perth will need mutli-use stadiums to accomodate all codes. If this does not happen then the FFA cannot argue the World Cup will leave a legacy for the sports affected by the event.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Those multi use grounds though just can’t work properly. Not with so many sports wanting to use the facilities. As well those top levels are just too far away from the action when the grounds go into rectangular mode (as only the bottom levels move in). So while multi use facilities might look like a good idea, in practice they don’t work.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Perth and Adelaide will require multi-use stadiums as a legacy.
The MCG (nominated as tradtional) and Etihad (multi use) are both being used.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Why do they need that? The WA govt was prepared to build the ground to start with. Why should sports like Soccer and Union in WA have to play out of a 60K stadium which they will never fill. Soccer gets no benefit out of it, and I am sure that they will ensure that a suitable stadium is built. It’s not all about AFL you know.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Look I know its hard for you to get past your hatred of AFL and dont want anything to go to Aussie Rules in this country.
But, the FFA cant argue the facilties legacy will assist the AFL if nothing is built/redeveloped.
The MCG has just been re-built, the SCG, GABBA, etc wont be used.
Adelaide and Perth both need upgraded grounds, Subiaco is very poor I’m told, and having experienced AAMI stadium first hand a couple of times I can tell you its 30 years out of date and the Adelaide Oval whilst quaint is simply too small.
So these grounds used by AFL footy the dominate sport in those cities both require an upgrade.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Are you suggesting a boutique 20K venue with temporary FIFA WC seating for an extra 20K??
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Just so you understand, Soccer has a facility they can use week to week in Melbourne, it’s that new stadium that is being built, with big games going to the larger stadiums.
While Perth and Adelaide have run down facilities that DO NOT provide comfort for fans or the corporate facilities which are so vital in running a successful sporting club. Part of the World Cup is leaving behind facilities for Soccer that they can use week to week. Big 60K stadiums when they are going to only get 10-20K in the stadium is not what they had in mind. Not to mention the financial cost of hiring such a large venue will leave them with little money in the bank.
It’s not about hating AFL, it’s about wanting appropriate venues for the sport. I can guarantee that people who love sports that are played on rectangular fields agree, ovals grounds should never be used if possible.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
and the legacy for NRL and AFL is quite different in your prescribed view?
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
It’s not about the Legacy for either sport. It’s about the legacy for Soccer which requires appropriate facilities for itself in those 2 cities. It just happens that Rugby League & Union are played on the same size fields.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
“But the upside for the AFL, NRL and rugby union is the prospect of taxpayer-funded redevelopment for their existing stadia, or brand new ones which would be used for their sports post-World Cup.”
Perth and Adelaide may get redveloped oval stadia and rectangular stadia?
Michael C said | October 24th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
FIFA does have a couple of sections (1.6 and 1.7) in their stadiums technical requirements doco that run through Community benefits and this recognises that often multi-use (and other sports) stadiums are going to be best, and section 1.7 runs through Multi-purpose venues.
But, their document refers to rugby, US footy and cricket…and overseas, a few of the multi-use cricket grounds are pathetically small (the Wanderers in Jo’berg anyone!!?!). Poor old FIFA wouldn’t know what to do with themselves with Australian ovals.
True Tah said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
I dont think they’re talking about Penrith, Manly, Leichardt, grounds which really need some upgrades.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
That’s ok, most teams should be using the SFS or Stadium OZ anyway, though there was a whisper that a 40K stadium was to be built in Western Sydney, whether that’s an upgrade of an existing ground, or a totally new ground is another question.
Brett McKay said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Tah, the SMH has a similar artcile on this topic today, and in it suggests a lot of those type of grounds you’ve named might be candidates for use as training bases, etc. So they’d also be out of action during a block-out, and perhaps in line for a paint job too…
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Brett – From the article there’s recognition that the FFA must gain agreement and is in discussions.
One wonders at what point the Fed Govt would try to railroad the other codes if there’s a stumbling block.
“FFA chief Ben Buckley, formerly Andrew Demetriou’s No. 2 at the AFL, is optimistic agreement can be reached. Talks between all codes have been taking place, and Buckley argues that the legacy of improved sporting infrastructure for all sports when the cup caravan has moved on cannot be ignored.
FFA points to upgrades that occurred at the Gabba, Canberra Stadium, the MCG and Hindmarsh in Adelaide, because football was a key sport in the Sydney Olympics, as illustrative of the long-term gains from massive stadium investment.
“
I am trying to work out how much credit the FFA (Soccer Australia) really can claim for the MCG due to the 2000 Olympics?!?!?! THat’s stretching it a bit.
The major upgrades, firstly the Great Southern Stand, was started and completed in the very early ’90s, fully funded by the MCC. Sydney didn’t win the right to host the Olympics until 1993. There was no direct relationship.
What about the other 55%, the most recent development – - paid almost exclusively by the MCC with a tad of state funding….for the 2006 Melb Commonwealth games.
Soccer really can’t claim the MCG at all. Ben Buckley really has his hand on it trying to claim that one.
The problem for the FFA is that they aren’t just dealing with one other code…such as in RSA where RUgby will benefit with all venues being predominantly Rugby rectangle venues anyway…..cricket always misses out over there.
Here, if it were just the FFA and NRL,….no big deal. The ARU doesn’t really come into it. But, the AFL makes it all the more complex…..and, not just the relationship of the FFA with the AFL, and FFA with the NRL, but, so too the AFL with NRL. A really cool love triangle.
btw – even the Gabba…I’d've thought AFL and Cricket take a fair bit of credit for that….after all, if soccer we so important in a Rugby city then the Gabba would be more like the NZ/RSA style Rugby-cricket venues….painfully small. Instead, it’s a field the size of the MCG.
The FFA really are working hard on spinning.
(I’m sure everyone is super impressed by Bruce Stadium and Hindmarsh though!!).
big Kev said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
the strange issue in SA is that despite world class 50k + stadiums in Cape Town and Durban, new ones have been built in very close proximity. Big waste of money, but I guess the Rugby Unions who own their own grounds didn’t want to give them up for 8 weeks in the middle of the season!
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
so rugby union’s reluctance to offer up their grounds DID NOT derail South Africa’s bid. There ya go folks.
big Kev said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
But the Rugby Unions own the stadiums, so they had every right to do so. In Aus no football clubs owns it’s ground, they are all owned by the state or public trust. Big difference.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
The Vic Govt owns neither of the MCG or the Dome.
True Tah said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I dont know if that was the case, from what I gather, Western Province were considering selling Newlands and becoming the flagship tennant of Green Point Stadium, however there has been a change of heart and it looks like post-WC, Green Point Stadium may well become a white elephant.
Robbo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
What did they think was going to happen? South Africa had a massive array of huge rectangular stadiums to begin with. Newlands and ABSA stadium were both easily capable of holding Soccer world cup games. What does the South African government do – build two new stadiums right next to them of course!
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Can anyone here honestly envisage the AFL shutting up shop for 2 months mid season?
People have been arguing for decades about not playing on Good Friday!!!
The one week break per year causes palpitations!!
How on Earth can a professional comp, turning over about $1 billion per annum, shut up for one third of its season??
Don’t forget that many grounds are used for cricket immediately before and after the season – so there isn’t much scope to find two lost months.
BB must know that he is pushing shit up hill.
He will know that the AFL completely controls the MCG during the winter months, and will just about own the Dome by 2022 (can’t remember the exact timing).
A break of that length would require massive compensation – massive – on commercial grounds alone.
On top of that – the AFL will exact some big advantages for themselves – but here is the rub – they have the least to gain from upgrading of grounds.
Subi, AAMI, MCG, Docklands, Gabba, SCG – these are all doing fine for the moment and only the MCG and Docklands will be required (although it’s possible that Docklands won’t be needed).
What’s the big price?
I will leave it to your imaginations – but make no mistake – for an interuption of that magnituge – the price will be very, very high.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
The comp only has to stop for a month. Just means that the NRL and AFL have to think outside the square in regards to where they play their games for a month.
Might be a good thing, with both codes going on a 1 month country carnival. The compensation can be upgrading grounds in country areas so that a legacy is left in areas which wouldn’t have normally felt the affects of a big event like this coming to Australia.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
DOW
no – they’re talking two months – that’s the big issue – 4 weeks would almost be possible to accommodate – but 8 weeks is nigh on impossible – without someone paying big, big bucks in compensation.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
There will probably be a comprimise, if the FFA say they don’t mind some games going on then FIFA will let it slide abit. THe only thing is where would the AFL play,
Skilled Park, the Gabba, Carrara and the SCG are probably the only grounds available as any comprimise wouldn’t entail letting them play AFL on a potential world cup surface.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
AndyRoo
if it was only for 4 weeks – I think the AFL would be able to work it out without too much of a problem.
But I honestly think 8 weeks is one step too far.
However – if the compensation and incentives are juicy enough – anything is possible.
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
it’s no games at all during the cup, and no games on the cup venues for four weeks in the lead-up. so the afl could play right up to the cup, provided it spread the games to, for eg, aurora, kardinia, princes park, manuka, darwin, scg, gabba, +/- football park, waca etc.
one month’s possible.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
and Etihad Stadium in Melbourne.
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
maybe. i’d presonally have preferred there NOT to have been a giant cock-up with the planning of the new swan st stadium, so that it could have been used with the g. but at the end of the day, if people are too stubborn to put up with one or two months’ inconvenience in order to experience the sporting event of a lifetime, that’s their (and the entire country’s) loss. the annoyance of it all would be forgotten 6 months down the track, but the benefits would last for generations.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
for SOuth Africa, it’s FIFA exclusivity to a venue at least 10 days prior if it’s for a match venue or an official training base venue,
and at least 5 days prior for a simple ‘training’ venue — i.e. warm up venue when prepping ‘in town’ for a match but not at the teams official training base.
SO, 32 teams need 32 official training bases…..with no other activity,….and then there’s got to be 12 match venues with probably 2 ‘warm up’ venues each???? is that 68 venues???
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
No, it’s 1 month the comp must stop, and 1 month that the grounds being used for the World Cup must not be used.
So people go with the 2 months because obviously that impacts both the AFL and NRL in where they play currently.
All I was pointing out that it doesn’t have to be 2 months. So AFL abandons there pre season comp for one season, and the NRL does something similar (or play into October for one season).
With that other month being a country carnival, with destinations like Darwin benefiting with a game of both AFL and NRL each week for month, and other places also getting similar benefits. Do you think the state government may even make sure that those venues are upgraded so that when the AFL and NRL put there games out to tender for that month, that they make sure that suitable venues are available (not ground size as much as ground quality)
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
The NRL is also a sizeable competition but they seem to be allright with this……
This is why people see the AFL as the enemy, along with the dog act of what happened with 7 and Soccer you are saying they will try and white ant Australia hosting the World Cup because they want a lot of $$$.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
NRL still plays in suburban and regional grounds – so Wollongong, Penrith, Gosford, etc would all be available to them to keep going – they wouldn’t have to shut down.
But if the AFL can’t use the MCG and the Dome AND can’t even play in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth – well – that’s pretty hard to get around!!
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I don’t know about that. Many of those grounds will be used as training bases. If anything I prefer the games to be taken to Armidale, Tamworth, Darwin, Ipswitch etc as that 1 month could do more for the game than anything else they try. People need to be at the event to have that connection.
Timmuh said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Docklands would still be available. Only one city can have two stadia used in a World Cup (or, at least, so those who say they know abut these things tell me). That would be Homebush and the Sydney Football Stadium. With the MCG used for the WC, Docklands would not be taken.
Regional grounds in Launceston, Canberra and Darwin would be available; as would Football Park and Kardinia Park, plus presumably Subiaco. Those grounds would not be used for a WC, it may be the last time they would be used at AFL (or not, grounds suitable for Association Football are not generally suitable for Australian Football – even the MCG would only be used due to a lack of choice, its horrid to watch soccer at).
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
The NRL no doubt see the stadium upgrades as vital. It is more geared towards TV so it can be played at smaller stadia and still maintain the vibe and feel of the comp.
The AFL has always attracted big crowds, people take out memberships and go to many games – its simply a culture of attending sport and part of the social fabric of Melbourne.
An equivalent in Sydney might be banning any boating in the Harbour or swimming off the beaches for 8 weeks during Summer.
In winter, attending the footy is a much bigger part of the social fabric of Melbourne. That is reality and why it means more.
Redb
True Tah said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
The rugby world cup was held after the AFL and NRL seasons, and I dont believe the IRB demanded that no NRL be played for a month before kickoff.
I just question if it is true that FIFA does not want any other sporting event to be played in the host cities for 8 weeks. If it is true, then that is a bit too demanding. The NRL could play at suburban grounds, but would FIFA still want to kick the Tigers out of Leichardf, the Dragons out of Jubilee? When it was played in 1994, did FIFA say no NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL be played during the world cup?
This is going to be a lot more problematic for the AFL, as FIFA will probably want both Etihad and MCG. I cant see Victorians being in favour of it, and prima facie it looks like that FIFA do not understand that Australians generally prefer watching sports other than the world game.
If all of this is true, then I cannot see us winning the rights to host the World Cup.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
True tah,
“If all of this is true, then I cannot see us winning the rights to host the World Cup.”
I dont know about that, bit I’m sure the threat will be used by the FFA as one of their bargaining chips.
Redb
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Really the Vic’s wouldn’t want the World Cup because they would have to start their AFL season earlier and finish later?
Victorians really are different.
If the AFL sunk the World Cup bid that would be a PR disaster for them. At least in my household.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
How would it be the fault of the AFL?????
Surely it would be the fault of the FIFA processes,
and the fault of the FFA and Federal Govt.
Don’t go trying to blame the AFL (or NRL for that matter) if they aren’t willing to be completely trampled in negotiations.
WOuld you imagine that FIFA would have a bit of flex????
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
It’s not the AFL, its the fans who would object to a 4 week leadup with no football – that is simply an un-necessary and unfair impost.
Blaming the AFL and its fans for FIFA being unfair is unAustralian.
Redb
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
There are 32 teams that need a training base and a lot of warm up friendlies that is the reason for the window.
Once the teams arrive it starts I can’t imagine too many people in NSW or QLD complaining.
Federation was a big mistake.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The AFL has 7 million spectators annually it is the biggest player being displaced here.
32 teams need training venues – so that’s FIFA’s justification for not playing any football before the WC even begins?
You dont need the MCG and Etihad to train.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Not even Collingwood gets to train on the MCG or Etihad – why should the likes of Bahrain and Honduras!!
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
and those 32 reams would be split up around the country. Might be 6 based in Melbourne.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
They wouldn’t train at those grounds more than once because we dont want people wrecking the grounds.
For really big games of football the FFA trys to book the stadium a couple of weeks in advance becasue the quality fo the surface is much more important in football.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
There are stacks of suburban grounds that can be used as training bases.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
You expect Brazil to train on a cow paddock.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
We don’t stand on ceremony here in Australia and drop our dacks for anyone.
If the cow paddock is good enough for Collingwood – it’s good enough for Brazil.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Harry O’Brien is Brazilian born and plays for Collingwood dont hear him objecting
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
heh, heh – he is too!!
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
This is exactly why you can’t keep the AFL going, we are going to need to share training facilities. If collingwood are on an 8 week break they will likely only need to train for half a day and can share.
If their in season they will need those facilities a lot longer.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
AndyRoo,
Apart from the cultural differences of AFL and NRL, Melbourne and Sydney, there is also the problem of fitness.
AFL players do a massive pre season, starts in December for a start in Feb/March, players who miss the pre season often struggle all of the following year. So taking 8 weeks out of game time will cause problems for match fitness for the rest of the season.
2 week break is OK.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Two months is a massive break – it’s one third of a season in a competition turning over $1 billion per annum.
No commercial operation shuts down for that amount of time without some form of compensation.
If it has to happen – someone has to pay compensation – and a lot of it.
Not just that – I expect the AFL will extract a heavy price over and above the compensation.
But – what can it gain from anyone in terms of infrastructure?
It already has access to (or controls outright) some of the best stadiums in Australia.
Perhaps a bit of horse trading in relation to a ground in West Sydney is on the cards?
That will provide a bit of compensation – but that alone won’t be enough.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
What an overstatement
They can masage the dates of starting and ending, AFL could easily play until the end of October…Nothing is happening now to stop it is their? The MCG isn’t set to be used for International cricket until boxing day
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Traditionally, the grand final has been on the last week of September – tradition is very important to Australians.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Tradition is what you make of it. Would you be that upset if it was played into October? Remember that the AFL season comes back around quicker the next year.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
A two month break still remains a massive obstacle.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Why do you skip the points I made in response to your comments earlier about it being really a 1 month break only. Just means that the sports have to think outside the square in where they play there games. And really things like country carnivals could be the best things to ever happen to the sports, with both AFL and NRL getting back to there roots. As well the comps can play in October easily to make up the time.
It’s only too hard if you don’t bother to look at alternatives.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
One year in a lifetime (more likely at least 3 lifetimes) and the dates of your grand final are a big issue. It’s a grand final you could put it on at 1 am on a tuesday in the middle of summer and it should still rate.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I dont have a problem with playing the AFL Grand Final in October for one year. I think its important to focus on the things that materially matter.
The 4 week leadup is just wrong and not fair.
I would give 2 weeks free air – the AFL breaks for a week mid season now (and that kills most of us), 2 weeks is almost unbearable.
If the MCG and Etihad are used for the other 2 weeks, I dont see why Princes Park could be not used for bigger games , Geelong, Ballarat,etc. But FIFA wont allow that either it seems.
Redb
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
That sounds like a fair comprimise, wouldn’t be surprised if after we actually got it that it gets massaged a bit so there is only really a 6 week break.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
No I’m talking about a 2 week break of AFL footy, but 8 weeks of free MCG and Etihad.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
The World Cup (actual matches) go for 4 weeks.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
yes i know, 2 weeks of AFL footy elsewhere, 2 week break for WC finals.
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
You will have a little event called the World Cup to watch which may help you get over the AFL not being on that month.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I can watch both. Cetainly interested in Socceroos in first 2 weeks, can fit around AFL games and finals where no AFL footy will be on.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Redb -
I could imagine Richmond supporters might be pretty receptive…..by June their year would be on the scrap heap already…..like usual.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Are people listening to redb here – a 2 week break would be unprecedented in 150 years of Australian football!!
so how on Earth does anyone honestly think that 8 weeks is the least bit realistic.
Believe me folks – it’s not the least bit realistic!!
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Pip
Maybe they are listening to Dogs of War becasue he seems to have some knowledge of the facts.
The 8 weeks is only if for 4 weeks the AFL wouldn’t be prepared to play in non World Cup venues.
Their is 4 weeks (while the world cup is on) that free air is required, then the 4 weeks lead in the Wordl Cup stadiums can’t be used but you would be free to play in Cairns.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
well maybe you should Dogs comments about Perth/Adelaide stadium upgrade above.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Well it seems they are pretty serious about a 65 k oval for Perth Now. (Apparently on Perth news yesterday)
The premier has announced it so there getting in quick to grab one of the oval spots.
Edit: Sorry Redb if the previous comment came accross as more rude than intended. Was more about Dogs bringing up the clarification about the two different 4 week requirements tahn anything you said which to me diffused Pips issue about the 8 weeks (it’s only 4).
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
AndyRoo
this is precisely how it works:
“The rival codes would have to agree to at least a four-week mid-season shutdown while the tournament is underway in June and July, because of FIFA regulations locking out other major sports in each host city.
And FIFA also demands a four-week lead-in period at each host venue prior to the World Cup. ”
(source: Herald Sun)
So there is a complete ban on any sport being played for 4 weeks (which is bad enough) – plus the MCG and Docklands can’t be used for 4 weeks prior to that – which in the AFL context effectively means an 8 week gap.
I had always imagined that they would have worked around the MCG not being available for 4 weeks (because I thought Docklands would remain available).
But this is different – this is a complete break – plus those venues not being available for a further 4 weeks – that’s a massive ask for any commercial entity – which will require massive compensation.
that’s the commercial reality.
Then we get to the reaction of half a million members – but we can wait for that as the news slowly filters through the community.
And what about the feeling of Australians generally, being dictated to by an unelected body from overseas?
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
“which in the AFL context effectively means an 8 week gap.”
Well it means that the AFL has to think outside the square in how to get matches into Melbourne. I am sure there are some older stadiums that clubs used that could be used for that period if the AFL wanted to continue to play on. But from your tone, it seems it is just too much for the AFL to do. Are you sure you ain’t Andy D?
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Can still play at other venues. Skilled park etc, …did you really think that you could have an AFL game and then 6 days later play a world cup match on the same surface?
If that’s the feeling in Victoria then I am all in favor of dumping the MCG from the Event and having the final in Sydney, hopefully they find diamonds or something in Newcastle to fund building a 43k stadium in Broken Hill or such to meet the criteria of 12 stadiums.
“And what about the feeling of Australians generally, being dictated to by an unelected body from overseas?”
There the rules, they are out in the open. Dictated would mean we wouldn’t have a choce. Their the rules and we know what where gettting in for if we get it. It’s not a hidden trap like say electing Anna Bligh and a whole raft of policy changes not mentioned in the election come out 4 weeks later.
It’s probably a once in 3 life time event for Australia, I guess it’s up to Australian’s if they want it and are prepared to meet the criteria or not.
I would vote yes, you would vote no. Fair enough.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I think most Melburnians would support you in dumping Melbourne from the roster.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Suncorp
New – Townsville
Subiaco
Adelaide Oval
Newcastle
Homebush
2nd Western Sydney Stadium
Wollongong
Canberra
Central Coast Stadium
Gold Coast/ANZ
Hobart White elephant
Only cost an extra billion but we could do it without the Vics if they really cant live with footy actaully not being played at two of their grounds for 8 weeks…. would have thought a World Cup final was compo enough but oh well.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
There is no reason to justify the FFA’s request for Etihad Stadium with a brand new rectangular venue available, foundations for 50,000.
Even if the AFL were to agree to a 4 week break, why would they not be able to use Etihad in the 4 weeks leading up to the WC? A subtle change in direction from the FFA here I wonder why?
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
AndyRoo
thanks for being understanding on this one – you just don’t realise what it means to Melburnians to have an uninterrupted Winter.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
It transpires that with that fancy roof they built for the new stadium – the whole lot has to be demolished and rebuilt to get to 40,000 – and the minimum is 43,000 anyway.
so yes – there has been a big change the last few months.
prowling panther said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
probably won’t need Etihad anyway. I pretty sure that only one city may use two venues as part of WC guidelines. Every chance that its Sydney to use ANZ and SFS so AFL only sacrifice MCG for the WC period
PS: the WC bid is recently getting murdered. At this stage FFA have alot of work to do in getting a competitive bid let alone win the thing
Hammer said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
One other major problem – FIFA won’t be too keen on oval’s being used MCG, Etihad, a redeveloped Adelaide Oval and possibly redeveloping Subiaco … that’s too many – and especially if the FFA are considering putting the final on at the MCG – that would almost be the killer …. I don’t think Australia are really in the hunt – but oval grounds aren’t going to help the case
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
There’s a fair bit of truth in that.
although it has to be said that Germany used athletic stadiums that were essentially oval in shape.
Until Bruce stadium was redeveloped, it was an athletics ground, and it was possible to play aussie rules on it – the circumference of an average aussie rules ground is about 400 metres – very similar to an athletics track – I only mention that to illustrate that soccer played on a ground surrounded by an athletics track will be very similar dimensions to a cricket oval.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
the 2006 FIFA WC FINAL was played on the Berlin Olympic Stadium with running track all around it……if that was good enough for FIFA for the showcase final, the biggest game of soccer every 4 years,
then, I reckon they’ll be fine about the MCG.
or the Gabba, or any other oval.
funny thing is if you look up Berlin Olympic Stadium Ground dimensions, you only ever find 105m x 68m,…which is the soccer pitch in the middle.
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
We could do something like promise the extra space on the oval for free tickets for underpriveleged kids to sit there (have to be kids so they don’t obscure the view) from throughout Australia and the world.
Grass is much more comfy than an athletics track. Turn a negative into a positive.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
It’d be like the Auskick and little league games at half time. THe main little league game runs across the ground, and up each end they run 3 games each end of about 6 a side (grid-games).
Soccer could do the same…..it’d provide some extra entertainment should some of those time wasting countries like Ghana, Paraguary, Iran or Serbia-Mntg be playing……
(note : time wasting countries re FIFA official stats from 2006 FIFA WC first round pool matches).
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
I could imagine adelaide which only has one Football team would get a redeveloped oval.
But Perth where they have a Rugby Team and a HAL team with the prospect of an NRL team would get a rectangular stadium.
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
whilst the AFL ground lies in disrepair and screaming out for redevelopment.
What do Perth glory crowds average? – 8,000?
the Force ave about – 18,000?
There is no Perth NRL team, lets talk about reality not potential.
The West Coast Eagles alone have 50,000 members and a huge waiting list – it gobbles up the lot.
be realistic.
Redb
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
And those 50,000 members (not even counting Freo, which is something like 40,000), who pay big bucks per annum, are going to go without footy for 2 months – while their taxes get directed to providing sports facilities that they cannot use? (and will barely be used thereafter)
I dunno – but I can’t imagine too many AFL fans being thrilled about the prospect.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
It will take superman powers to pull it all together and get everyone to agree …
Trouble is everyone has their own wants and many wants are coming from different camps wanting different things…
But may be Obie Wan can do it… he is a kinda football superman … there will be a tad of fighting …and Pip just for you (I know you like my song choices) but to BB or Obie wan … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84b949k8HCw
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Mid,
Cant we just win the right to host the World Cup and then tell them later about how it works here.
Redb
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Sounds good to me … all together now … In Frank We Trust…
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Sounds like a plan
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
mid
that’s just beautiful (sob, sob)
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Does this mean everytime the World cup is on we have to shut down our comps. ? Well you give-up something like this and you are opening the door for total dictatorship of how weak we are as a country. Everything that i have ever stood for is then out the window. I have no problem holding any world cup or olympic sporting event. Good for bussiness, but to reroot your most popular sports for another sport does not make sense to me.
We could start the season early and comprimise over the last few couple of weeks, so any overseas visitors can maybe attend our local games before the world cup action. I dont mind giving football a leg-up, but total domination is just plain absurb.
You can argue the millions and billions of dollars or numbers watching all you like. To be honest, we in Australia dont need any help with funds, we do queit fine without any help. I have always argued that oz punches above its weight. You only have to look at our postion in the world at the moment to see, this is not a lame statement.
We are not a 3rd world country FiFa is dealing with, if they get away with this, then everything that Australia stands for is out the window. Your future as a nation is in their hands if we all just sit back and let them dictate to us. You all seem happy to peddle this nonsense.
New Stadium, better faciliaties, blah blah. we can get these without any help from Fifa, we already have some of the best grounds in the World. Take the game to 3rd world countries, maybe thats what FiFa should be doing, we can all watch from a nice comftable lounge chair.
Your future as a country is now in FIFA’S hands, let them dictate to you and you lose all respect. Remember this in fifty years when you tell your grand-kids. All over a few million dollars. Or Hundred Million, or Billions, whatever you want to throw up. We dont need their so-called money tree. We make our own, as a country that punches above our weight.
Thats all i’ve got to say.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Oikee
I can imagine that many AFL fans will view it precisely this way – a bunch of foreigners coming in telling them they can’t watch their footy for two months.
Not even the Great War stopped people form enjoying their footy.
I honestly can’t see the AFL stopping for two months unless the carrot is exceptionally juicy:
1. compensation for missing one third of its season (in an industry turning over $1 billion per annum)
2. very generous infrastructure bonuses on top of that – and I do mean very generous.
Midfielder said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Oikee
Yes each time the WC is played no matter where RL has to close down… ARRRRr it’s as REM sing .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
If the AFL comprimise, i will lose all respect for them as a sport. And i think you will find many others who will only see this as a dollar victory, true respect will fly out the window.
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
oikee
but AndyRoo reckons that if the AFL stands firm – all Australians will hate them as well!!
Looks like the AFL can’t win – may as well take the money!!!
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
I said I only speak for my household
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I still struggle to see why the AFL would be responsible if it fails due to the shortcomings of the process and inflexibility of FIFA and lack of FFA’s own venues.
That’s not an AFL issue or failing.
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Its a failure M>C, because melbourne totally ignored other codes to concetrate on 1 code, in effect becoming a basketcase like england has by suppoting only the 1 code. Now it has all these big stadium vertually useless for any other sport except AFL, and cricket summers which are becoming less attractive.
So 3 main codes have been left to fend for themselves because of Melbournes insecuirity to have their so-called own game and wanting to force it onto everyone else.
Sorry, had to sink the boot in a little bit, i read that post Andyroo posted in the paper, you seem to love sinking the boot in, so do i, but you got caught sporto.
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
at the time, 150-100 years prior, a focus on cricket wasn’t a bad move in Australia.
Soccer has been around almost since day dot and have stuff all to show. That’s the failure.
btw – where was I wrong in that post that AndyRoo posted?? I wasn’t being ‘anti’….just telling it like it is.
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Thats nonsense, if they stand firm everyone will respect them. I know i will, and i cant stand the mob of twats.