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 2012Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, football, Football World Cup, NRL, Rugby League
October 23rd 2009 @ 9:54am
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Their is a difference between being a puppet and selling your soul to the Devil, and respect. You cant buy back your soul.
Respect earns you the right to win the hearts and minds of a nation. Lose that and you lose the war.
Something to think about, the balls in the AFL’s court. They are after all, the largest code in oz. Rugby league will just play the “we would never sell our soul line”.
I think you all know who would win this battle. This is going to be the biggest decision in AFL’s history, they had better get it right. Your future rides on this announcement. Just remember, you heard it here first, from Oikee. The peoples voice.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:02am
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Seven to help out heir mates at the AFL bought the rights to Soccer for 10 years…to bury it
You think respect in Australia will be earned by stopping one of the biggest football parties coming to Australia because their in a position of power. That’s not respect that is being a dog, using whatever power you can to better your self interest and exactly why a lot African countries are such basket cases.
Did NZ get the world resect when they lost their share of 2003 RWC rights to Australia?
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:06am
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Oikee – I’m with you on this.
I still don’t see why the AFL MUST compromise,
or why they should even be asked to.
It’s not the AFL short comings on parade here,
it’s – if it get’s to it – the short comings of everyone OTHER than the AFL.
Surely.
(let alone that the NRL probably stand to lose far greater access to venues both for matches and training).
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:43am
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
For Australia to host the world cup we need big stadiums that can hold at least 43k people from all over the world.
The AFL is along with the NRL our biggest domestic code and would normally be using these stadiums at the time. Without their cooperation the stadiums will be unavailable ….. not hard too see that if the AFL refuse to cooperate in making the stadiums available then we won’t be able to hold the world cup.
There is also a 4 week free air clause but I would suggest it is in AFL’s best interest not to play during those 4 weeks anyway.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:52am
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
AndyRoo
there is another way.
The FFA talks the Government into investing a few billion dollars in building rectangular stadiumks in towns that do not host AFL games, e.g. Alice Springs, Hobart, Albury, Wagga, Wollongong, Newcstle, Gosford, Townsville, Canberra, etc.
This would effectively appease all parties.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:56am
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Could do that, but there talking about building a 65k (oval) stadium in Perth (announced yesterday) in part because of the world cup.
I don’t see why that isn’t a massive win for the AFL, at very little cost (having a mid season holiday)
Would love too see Hobart, Townsville, Canberra, Newcastle and even the Central Coast (no space at Gosford I would say (perhaps Woy Woy) get grounds.
Only the Hobart Stadium would be a total white elephant.
October 23rd 2009 @ 11:38am
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
It’s not necessarily about the AFL refusing to co-operate.
One assumes (as they have stated) that they would be willing to co-operate,
but, what if it’s not enough.
Is that the AFL’s fault??
It’s up to the soccer interests to make the case compelling…..and not via legislation.
btw – it would be in the AFL’s best interest TO play – - – how great a promotion would it be, people come to Melbourne, FIFA WC match at the ‘G on Friday night and AFL at Docklands on Saturday…….brilliant way to showcase Melbourne and something unique about us to the world.
AFL fans would still have their seasons tickets, and a good proportion of the ‘sports tourists’ would soak up what they could,
obviously, the tourists would include ‘sports tourists’ as well as ‘soccer purists’. Many Australian’s who headed to Germany were there more for the ‘party’ than the soccer itself…..how many didn’t even have tickets to games.
Would FIFA be able to handle that??? Probably not. But, is that the AFL’s issue?? The IRB didn’t have any issues that we had Aust host Ireland during the 2003 RUWC at Docklands, bookended by Aust v Ireland Int Rules at the ‘G and a nice Irish flavour in the Melb Cup on the TUesday. All the events benefitted from each other and made Melbourne a great place to be for that extended weekend.
No raining on parade talk there.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:41pm
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Now we are getting somewhere, exactly, why lock out your countries best selling sports products to invest in a game, (and lets face facts) that wont take-over our landscapes.
So what we are doing is selling ourselves short for FIFA. The world wont grow with only 1 code dominating all landscapes. England is a classic example of this, take your average povety line and look at football. They all work to sink their last dollar into this game.
Most have not stepped foot outside the country, most cant because they have crime records. If you want to push towards this then roll over, lay down and do nothing. The way i look at football in england is the way i look at religin, just a way of controlling the masses. AFL needs to be carefull they dont keep brainwashing their masses.
Hey M.C.
But yes, mostly agree with your post, we only get one shot at this, hopefully we find a good balance, and no comprimises, tell FIFA we will build stadium where we want, and how we want, like it or go somewhere else, and take us off your list of countries who want to hold the game, stick it where it fits, be firm. The more countries that do this means the lest FIFA has of making it a world event. Now thats politics.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:43am
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
I’d suggest oikee wants the AFL to stand firm and potentially create a PR disaster. Sheep in wolves clothing or something like that.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:16am
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Roo, i am not talking about the past, i am talking about the future, your future. I never said dont hold the world cup here, all i say is dont let someone dictate your future. Comprimise yes. I love the fact we will have the world cup here, we all will. But lets not comprimise our future for the game, which in all reality, we dont really need to have.
Like i said, we lose the respect of the world if we just lay down like smelly dogs cataring to everyones beck and call. And thats something we can never earn back. Sometimes you just have to stand firm, it hurts, but at least you show that we are a nation of firm beleif. This can erase past in-justises as you have put it.
October 23rd 2009 @ 11:07am
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Let’s be honest here, the Sydney olymoics was the best olympics ever. People will say the same about Australia’s world cup and then once everyones gone home (with empty wallets) normal programming will return.
The rules are out in the open market right now. We can accept them and be in the running for the biggest event in World Sport or we can be a nation of could haves, would haves and should haves.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:21pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
are they hard and fast rules…..or a starting point from which to enter into negotiations??
if they are hard and fast rules, then,
obviously only one party will be asked to compromise.
if the AFL aren’t given a sufficient package of inducements to compromise sufficiently…..don’t blame the AFL.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:48pm
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I will blame the AFL if an agreement can’t be made.
If they don’t comprimise because they want $$ then we don’t get the world cup.
Pip says the AFL is a billion dollar business they won’t even have to lose any weeks of their event they will just be in different weeks than normal, they will also be getting a 65 k Stadium in Perth. Moot point it seems I doubt that we will get the world cup now, you ahve to really want it or be an economic power and it seems we are neither.
Never have I seen anyone take such glee in another sports dificulties as I do in your posts Michael.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/soccer/frank-lowy-admits-a-league-is-fragile/story-e6frey4r-1225789455036
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:52pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
AndyRoo,
As I wrote above I think its a bit easier for other cities to fit this in.
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.
The issue is decidely grey and unfair to blame footy fans, the AFL has to listen to them as well.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:25pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
AndyRoo -
glee….hardly, just pointing out some supporting facts.
Frank is doing a bit of ‘spin doctoring’ at the moment, and this admission comes a little out of the blue. The other day he was talking about all the growth etc……well……the HAL is exhibiting expansionistic contraction!!!!
we probably wouldn’t see the SMH print that quote though???
So…it’s out there…..Frank said it…..but, one paper is burying it.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:09am
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Look, i can even stand behind the best stadiums in the world comment. Our Australian company built the New Wembley stadium, and are building the new Asian Games stadium. We have the MCG, and the Olmypic stadium, along with suncorp.
3 World class stadiums.
Anyone can build a stadium, but nobody understands them better than we a nation , sports loving nation, as we do. We dont need to brag, but for goodness sakes, grow some spine. Go pull some weeds out in the garden, you will feel a whole lot better.
Other countries look on at us with envy, dont let us then make them laugh at us like fools. The ball is now in Demitriou’s court.
This will determine weather he is a true leader, or just a man with to much money in his pockets.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:11am
Rellum said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I think maybe some people should head down to their local GP, panic attacks can be a serious issue
Correct me if I am wrong but the NFL, MLB and the like didn’t shut down during USA 94, and as far as I am aware most teams organize their own training grounds and facilities, generally not stadiums.
One reason stadiums are locked down for a month before the Cup is to make sure the playing surface is pristine for the games. Endless games of league and aussie rules will churn the surface up, limiting the passing games of teams and affecting the spectacle. Well in theory. Security, ticketing, and endless other organizational matters would require this request.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:23am
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Australia doesn’t really have the same spread of suitable venues to cope as the US did.
Really bad example as, practically every NFL venue is a suitable FIFA WC venue…..and then there’s the college stadiums.
In Australia we’ve only a handful of cities. The entire state of California would cover Australia with room to spare…..
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:39am
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Still – it’s curious if FIFA didn’t force the NFL to stop its season.
But let us all be honest – the US – big country, a feather in the cap for FIFA, they aren’t going to argue with the NFL (who are one of the few sporting bodies in the world with the muscle to chew them up and spit them out again).
Then we come to Australia – home of the pissants – at the arse end of the world – so beloved of sports that no one else gives a damn about – when the FIFA exec hears that the AFL aren’t happy – they will ask: “who?”
In other words FIFA aren’t going to give a damn about a pissant mob like the AFL – let’s be honest – they aren’t the NFL.
But oikee makes a good point – should we, as a nation, succomb to cultural cringe yet again and just let a bunch of foreigners walk all over us on our own turf?
Have Australians no self-respect??!!
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:46am
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
I would say the 1994 World Cup was probably the catalyst for such a rule, and before that Tournamnet it would never have existed as it would have been anon issue.
If the Americans can’t promise free air for a month and we can then I suggest that would probably be the end of their bid.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:12pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
the reason the nfl didn’t shut down during the usa world cup is because nfl is a winter sport and the world cup was played in the northern summer.
October 23rd 2009 @ 11:50am
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Could not agree more Pip, you can’t compare the NFL to the pissant that is AFL.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:03pm
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Robbos
this is why the AFL must not roll over – for the self-respect of all Australians!!!
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:21pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
No Pip it’s not about respect, it’s about the bottom line & you have told me that many times when comparing the difference between AFL clubs & HAL clubs.
The Football world cup will generate billion & billion of dollars, which unfortunately the AFL cannot compete, self respect or not.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:35pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Robbos,
Yes the soccer WC is massive and represents a huge economy. So why arent other ‘major’ sports allowed during a World Cup apart from venue clashes which can be worked around anyway?
As you’ve just espoused the AFL is tiny in world terms and cant compete, but the FIFA wont allow our game to be played in our city during this time.
Explain that will you.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:22pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Redb, you need to speak to FIFA on that, I have no issue the AFL being on at the same time. But big organisations are very wary of competition.
See AFL encouraging channel 7 to hide to after midnight timeslots, the NSL a competition so tiny ,that even I as a football fan had trouble following it, why did the AFL do that.
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:38pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Robbos,
The AFL had nothing to do with encouraging Ch 7 to do that. (which was disgraceful)
So is this is driving the FFA bid, some payback on the AFL. Is that the mentality we are dealing with here.?
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:25pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Redb, where is FFA in all this?
This is a FIFA mandate, nothing to do with FFA. It doesn’t pick on Australia, it’s any countries who owns the right to the World cup, don’t be so precious!!!!
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:31pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
FFA have to negotitate with the AFL over venues not FIFA.
Yes precious
from someone who doesnt give a stuff about the AFL and its right to exist I’ll take that with a grain of salt.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:37pm
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
But their Fifa’s rules.
It’s not the FFA’s idea. I am sure they wouldn’t really care if AFL or the NRL is being played at the same time.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:41pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
With regard to Etihad versus MRS it is the FFA that have changed their mind.
In early discussion between the AFL and FFA , the AFL was to use Etihad, now according to some soccer journos, Etihad is the 2nd venue in Melbourne all of a sudden when the new bubble stadium’s foundations were purpose built for such an event should it occur.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:42pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
on the topic of negotiating, who actually owns/operates the stadiums? while i’m sure they’ll try to cooperate as much as possible, and i’m not advocating any type of bullying etc, the afl don’t (and won’t by 2022) own the mcg or docklands. the stadiums will still be run by, ahat, government/mcc/docklands trust etc? i mean, hopefully they’ll still all play nice, but at the end of the day the afl’s not really in a position to flat-out refuse to leave the mcg are they?
redb, i disagree that the ffa have conveniently decided against using the mrs. i think it was a design mistake and the ffa are reacting to it. it would be in their best interests to have a dedicated rectangular pitch if possible – they’re settling for second best here, they’re not undermining their own bid purely to disrupt the afl.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:46pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Redb, my feeling towards AFL don’t matter one iota in this matter.
Yes FFA needs to deal with AFL on this, but it’s the FIFA who has this requirement.
For FIFA to award the WC to Australia, their requirements (FIFA) must be met, nothing to do with FFA.
For Australia to meet the requirements of FIFA, the FFA needs to negotiate with the AFL, yes.
But no this is no payback or code war or any malice aimed at AFL. This requirement would be exactly the same if Pippinland was bidding for the WC & Koftball, the main sport in Pippinland was affected.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:47pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
well that would just be chaos. it’s a brave man who comes between those pippins and their koftball…
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:51pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Danny,
There is no argument about the MCG, apart from the level of compensation.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:57pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
I think AFL has every right to exist, I think AFL has every right to be the no 1 sport in Australia. I think AFL has every right to be as popular as any sport in the world.
This is a sport & I love sport & encourage sport all around the world in whatever shape or form.
It’s just that I don’t believe in the propaganda from some of your fellow AFL cohorts, that AFL is Australia’s game & that this game represents all Australians or that you are lacking self respect not to follow our national sport. To most New South Welshmans, this is a Victorian sport, this is not a bitter feeling, this is fact.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:59pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Danny, this is why the Pippinland did not bid for the WC.
October 23rd 2009 @ 3:04pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
that, and their state and federal governments couldn’t agree on how to split the costs on new infrastructure. damn pippinland politicians and their short-sighted politicking.
October 23rd 2009 @ 3:22pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
Robbos -
the AFL may be a Melbourne sport to you…..correctly or not,
to many people, the FFA and HAL and soccer in Australia is a Sydney sport….
so, there’s a problem there from the outset with this Sydney/NSW centric sport expecting to be given “GOD-rights” to the land and get the locks changed on all the stadia plus an exclusive key.
October 23rd 2009 @ 4:03pm
Robbos said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Michael C, read my posts above. This has nothing to do with the FFA & definately nothing to do with The HAL.
This is a FIFA mandate & the FFA are negotiating with AFL, the AFL has every right to say ‘No, please go away’. Not sure how the government would feel about it, considering it has pumped money into getting this world wide event.
Your dislike for football or my dislike for AFL has nothing to do with, this is not & I repeat a internal code war in Australia.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:11pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
The 2nd Melb venue should be the new rectangular stadium not Etihad anyway. This allows Etihad to be available to the AFL right up to the WC and during the first 2 weeks.
The MRS was to be 2nd venue according to early talks between the FFA and AFL – what changed and some journos floating a test balloon to soften up the public on this?
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:13pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
new stadium can’t be upgraded to the required capacity without exhorbitant sums of money being thrown at it
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:17pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
That sounds like a myth. Regardless by not forcing the AFL off Etihad for 4 weeks before the WC it would ensure a much lower compensation bill to the AFL and give Melbourne a bigger rectangular venue for the future.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:22pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
absolutely agree, a larger rectangular venue would be the ideal outcome for all parties involved. but yes, if only it were a myth. the problem is the entire roof (which is single-handedly contributing to the initial high cost of the stadium) would have to be completely dismantle and reconstructed to allow for any expansion.
maybe the best outcome would be for fifa to refuse to include docklands and mandate that if melbourne wants a second venue they have to expand swan st or build a new rectangle. that’s be interesting…
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:28pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Until I see an engineers report published I’m not going to take Michael Lynch (chief soccer writer) of the AGE’s word for it.
Too much cost sounds like it’s easier to displace the AFL for 4 weeks and ensure the rectangular stadium does not lose a season for soccer games prior to the WC when it is being redeveloped.
Plus Etihad clearly gives the AFL options for games in Melb prior to the WC, taking both the MCG and Etihad locks them out of a viable venue for 8 weeks.
With the AFL season majorly disrupted for 8 weeks, FFA kick off the A League following on from the WC.
From the outset the new rectangular stadium was designed with foundations capable of handling 50,000 seats. If it costs more money so be it.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:34pm
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
I think they erred in not just making it 45k from the start.
Suncorp feels ok with just 20k in their. With the advantage of a rectangular ground that would be a pretty easy miniumum target for the MV and I think the Storm and Rebels would never dip below that either.
Form their it gives them a fair bit fo space to grow.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:36pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
on one level you’re probably right, they’ve decided that it IS just easier to displace the afl. but i’ve seen many more than just lynch discussing this, and as far as i’m aware it’s because of the design of the roof not allowing single segments to be removed. yes, it could be expanded, but no, it’s not a realistic alternative.
as a massive fan of both the afl and the a-league, i honestly would have preferred an expanded swan st and the g, with afl continuing at docklands. i have no doubt that the ffa and afl would prefer that too. unfortunately, it doesn’t look like happening and we’ll just have to hope a suitable compromise can be arrived at.
andy – the reason it wasn’t more to start with was because docklands management have a contract with the government for no stadiums greater than 20,000 until 2010 (hence the original capacity) and none greater than 40,000 until 2015.
October 23rd 2009 @ 2:47pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Really the cost of redeveloping the MRS is probably comparable to some of the full construction work required to build stadiums in other cities.
Given that the FFA have just made it much harder for the AFL to work through this disruption, not only is compensation likely to be higher but negotiations more complicated and difficult possibly jeopardising the unity FIFA will want from a bid.
The FFA should stick to its original plan and not be so greedy in trying to starve the AFL for 8 weeks.
Redb
October 23rd 2009 @ 3:27pm
Dogs Of War said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
I heard to remove the roof, expand, and put the roof back on, would cost just as much as it did to build the stadium in the first place. Why did they put that roof on if it was going to defeat the purpose of building foundations that would let it expand by another 20K? Those foundations would have cost a fair bit to put in.
October 23rd 2009 @ 3:58pm
danny said | October 23rd 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
cos the roof looks awesome
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:13pm
Pippinu said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
redb
I understand that the new rectangular stadium can’t be used afterall – so the FFA will want the MCG and the Dome for 8 weeks – this is the problem (and I can’t see them getting it without coming up with big, big bucks).
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:20pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Yes it can, it will cost dollars to take the roof off that’s all. Compensation will be far less if the AFL is able to keep Etihad as originally planned, that is a sensible compromise surely.
it is the FFA’s issue if the new rectangular stadium is not available during redevelopment. The AFL should push back hard on this on behalf of the fans.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:14pm
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Either way, Pissant sport or not, if you make a noise then other sports also make their voice heard, and lets be honest, FIFA does not want to go into battle against AFL, rugby league,(small capitals) and Rugby Union because on a global scale, these 3 codes would make quite a nice ripple effect to make FIFA look like a bully, and America to look at oz as being persecuted or discrimised.
Believe me, give the yanks a opening and you really have a fight on your hands, they would love to sink the boot into that pissant sport they call soccer.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:36pm
AndyRoo said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
It’s not Fifa that has to bully us. They set their criteria down and we have to meet it.
It’s all between aussies wether we can sort it out or not and meet the criteria. If we can’t then we won’t meet the deadline early next year to submit the documents we need and will just have to watch it on TV for the rest of our lives or pay our money to go overseas and live in tent for a month (what a lot of Aussies will be doing in South Africa).
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:49pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
as I pointed out below, FIFA are seemingly very open to multi-purpose venues that might also be used for cricket, US football, rugby ….and concerts etc,….
….okay, no mention of Australian Football in that, but, nor as an exclusion!
So, we happily sail down the path of multi-purpose venues in Perth and Adelaide. The MCG is too big so AFL retains that and FIFA can have Docklands and they can help fund the new roof over the expanded Melb rectangular stadium.
October 23rd 2009 @ 10:02pm
big Kev said | October 23rd 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
You guys are forgetting one major thing. The AFL doesn’t own any of those stadiums and in the end they wont have a choice! The Federal and State Governments will force the stadium trusts to lock out those 4 – 8 weeks (13 years time!) in the next ground hire contracts. Tough titty. National interest and all
October 26th 2009 @ 9:00am
Dave1 said | October 26th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
ANZ Stadium is owned by a Consortium led by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25679037-36418,00.html
“…….A CONSORTIUM led by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick has bought control of the ANZ Stadium in Sydney, The Australian Online can reveal.
The Diversified Infrastructure Trust has about $220 million in funds under management, including Stadium Australia, owner of Sydney’s ANZ Stadium.
ANZ will announce the sale of its infrastructure arm, which counts the stadium among almost $1 billion of funds under management, tomorrow.
The deal is believed to be worth more than $30 million.
Mr Fitzpatrick, who founded Hastings Funds Management before selling a controlling stake to Westpac, will take a 50 per cent interest in ANZ Infrastructure Services……”
In 2025 tha fl takes over control of Docklands Stadium
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:23pm
Timmypig said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
The USA 94 tournament wouldn’t have had the problems with ground access that Australia (or South Africa next year for that matter). The grounds used in that tournament that are NFLl stadia – Foxboro, Soldier Field, Giants Stadium, RFK, the Silverdome – all were vacant pending the start of the following NFL season.
I suspect that FIFA were less concerned with exclusive access to stadia than they would have been concerned with US media airtime: during the World Cup and in its immediate lead up were the Stanley Cup, the US Open (golf), the NBA playoffs and finals series, 3 CART Indy Car races, and most significantly the 1994 baseball strike (the season was still going in June, the strike started in August).
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:32pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
FYI – from the RSA FIFA WC 2010 regulations:
“The stadiums and the official venue-specific and team base camp training sites shall be available and free of nay and all commercial activities and identifications, e.g. boards and other signage other than those of FIFA’s Commercial Affiliates, from at least 10 (ten) days prior to the first match played in a stadium or training session held at the official training sites.”
continues….
“These stadiums and official training sites shall not be used for any other matches or events as from 10 (ten) days prior to and throughout the final competition without the express permission of the FIFA Organising Committee. Any violations of this stipulation may result in disciplinary sanctions.”
also,
“Official training sites, in good condition and situated near the team base camps and the venue-specific team hotels in each venue, shall be made available at least 5 (five) full days prior to each team’s first match in the final competition.”
(and the conditions as above apply likewise to these venues).
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:54pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
to summarise:
Official training venues and match venues need to be exclusively available for FIFA at least 10 days before first match or training session.
If the MCG were only required for quarter finals on,…..then, the AFL would probably have to lose it for 4 weeks anyway.
I just wonder, are the official training sites NOT included in the team base training sites – - i.e. must they be mutually exclusive??
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:56pm
oikee said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Andyroo, by being a country that does not give a rats arsee**^^^ , we are a country that makes a statement to other countries and sports codes. Our laidback attitudes is our strength, (you might not realise that) but it gives us good negociating power, because if we act like we dont give a damm, then they will want to concern us. (FIFA)
But to answer your point, we will hold the world cup, one day, and once its over you will never see another in your lifetime, (so your being able to see it here does not hold water.) Eventually you will see it here. IF not now, maybe 30 years time, but one day it will happen, but as i said, lose your status as a firm nation and you never get that back, maybe in 200 years when all the glitter is gone. By selling our main sports short we are just telling the world we are worthless and have no future, . Maybe its ok for you, you can just run off to another country that is laughing at us and join in, (i dont know you, you could be russian for all i know). But this is what would happen. America will just tell them to piss-off when its their turn.
Like i said, hold the world cup, but dont sell our export products short, and that is what we are doing, we might as well sell off vegimite, hold-on, we already have.
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:23pm
prowling panther said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
in 200 years Australia will not be a country as sea levels will rise and sink the nation
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:39pm
Redb said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Move Sydney to Cooma and Melbourne to Mt Buller – she’ll be right mate
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:02pm
Michael C said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
looking at the technical stadiums doco, the playing field orientation – - – one wishes Docklands architects had read it:
“Great care must be taken regarding the angle of the playing field in relation to the sun….”
“..the effect of a stadium’s roof on the playing field must also be considered. When there is a natural grass pitch, it is critical that there is enough light and air movement to sustain the healthy growth of graa. All sides of the playing field must receive a reasonable amount of direct sunlight.
“A north-south field orientation is often considered ideal but more sophisticated analysis has led stadium designers to choose an angle equal to the average direction of the sun at half time in an afternoon game.”
I’m assuming these learnings have all come about……after Docklands stadium in Melbourne was designed and built!!!
at any rate – section 1.6 Community Relations : illustrates a fine case that new stadia are supposed to be more than just a soccer venue, and section 1.7 Multi-Purpose stadiums reflects this., recognising stadiums to be used by other sports and non-sport events. i.e. after Japan??, they don’t want to again leave a legacy of white elephant stadiums that don’t economically justify themselves……so, this’ll be important in Perth and Adelaide.
Under section 4.1 Recommended Dimensions Playing field : length : 105m, width 68m
but, with the auxilary area,
Length: 125m, width 85m.
with a minimum of 5m of ‘grass area’ on the sides and behind the goals. (down to 3m’s around the corners).