Buckley and Demetriou discuss mid-year hiatus
Roar Guru
By Pippinu, 24 Oct 2009 Pippinu is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Buckley, Demetriou, football, World Cup football
271 Have your say
Gold Coast United FC head coach and director of football, Miron Bleiberg (centre) celebrates with Football Federation Australia (FFA) CEO Ben Buckley and Gold Coast United CEO Clive Mensink at Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
It’s about six months out from the deadline, the FFA has to put in its formal bid to FIFA for Australia to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, and the fans of Australia’s more popular domestic codes have discovered the sacrifice they will need to make smack bang in the middle of their seasons.
No less than an eight week hiatus over June and July.
It’s inconceivable that the AFL would ever agree to such a drastic action, considering that Melbourne has not gone with more than one weekend without its own brand of football over the course of 150 years.
Interestingly, Ben Buckley would know this only too well, having operated as Demetriou’s right hand man up to a few years ago.
So what precisely is happening?
The clue to the game being played out is in the manner in which Frank Lowy always publicly mentions 2018 as if Australia is a realistic chance to win hosting rights.
We all understand that Australia has a snowball’s chance of winning the rights to 2018 (it’s a slightly different matter for 2022), and most importantly, Frank Lowy would know that better than anyone else.
This is our main clue to what is truly happening.
That which is being played out before our very eyes has nothing to do with winning hosting rights for 2018, and everything to do with the Federal Government (and State Governments) believing that Australia is a realistic chance for 2018.
With the bid due in May 2010, and the details of all dozen or so stadiums that will be required around Australia needing to be finely calibrated, at some point over the next few months, the Federal Government (along with any State Government wanting to get further into debt) will need to commit two or three billion dollars over the next six years to put in a credible bid in relation to 2018.
Whether 2018 is won or lost is not the key here – nailing those billions of dollars in government funding is the name of the game.
The money will be locked into the forward estimates of the 2010-11 budget by May 2010, and that will be a victory in its own right.
Pretending to win 2018 means the money is committed sooner rather than later.
What if both 2018 and 2022 fails? Some heavy duty lobbying will need to commence to ensure that as much money in the budget as possible is salvaged – but the all important first step is getting it in there.
So as you read this, Ben Buckley is meeting with Andrew Demetriou in Jolimont, and the conversation is going something like this:
AD: Two months??!! You never said anything about closing shop for two months.
BB: It’s all right Andy, it’s not going to happen, we won’t win it, you just have to pretend to agree to it.
AD: But mate, footy fans will want my head for this.
BB: You just have to ride it out, think of all the loot that’s waiting at the end of it all!
AD: All right Bucks, let’s talk about how we split it up.
BB: We both get a multi purpose stadium in Adelaide.
AD: Tick. And can you throw in an upgrade of Subi?
BB: Ok. We get an upgrade of Bruce, and you get an upgrade of Manuka.
AD: Tick.
BB: We get upgrades of the grounds in Wollongong and Newcastle, and a new ground out West somewhere; you get your upgrade of the showgrounds.
AD: Hmm ok, but we need that one pretty quickly.
BB: I’ll try and set that one up as the first cab off the rank.
AD: Ok.
BB: We get an upgrade of Dairy Farmers, and you get an upgrade of Carrara. How’s that looking?
AD: Hmm, can you throw in an upgrade of the oval at Cairns??
BB: Geez, how am I going to sell that one?
AD: Tell ‘em Costa Rica will use it as a training base.
BB: Good one Andy!!
AD: Is it really this easy to get money out of the Feds?
BB: Yeah, it is, we just keep telling them that for a $3 billion investment in sports infrastructure, we get $5 billion back in economic activity (which includes their original $3 billion, but they don’t know that), and we leave our kids a lasting legacy – it wins the argument every time!
(The above dialogue, and indeed the whole of this article, is completely made up and is not intended to cast aspersions on anyone’s good character except my own).
Enjoy 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)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Gulf influence cripples the FFA again (40)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (95)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (6)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Redknapp tight-lipped over England job
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (95)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (6)
- 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, Ben Buckley, Demetriou, football, World Cup football
Kurt said | October 24th 2009 @ 3:35am | Report comment
Nice article, I think the truth won’t be too far from what you describe – i.e. – the AFL will agree to co-operate up to a point (although clearly the 8 week break is a non-starter) in return for significant investment in infrastructure. Although this investment will have to be VERY significant for the AFL to play ball given that they already have access to great stadia in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. A hundred mil or so for each of Subi and AAMI / Adelaide Oval would be nice but not sure they’ll be enough. Maybe $200m for a complete upgrade of Etihad which the AFL then takes full ownership of shortly thereafter will be enough to get the deal over the line.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Kurt
the price extracted will be very, very high – and why not – if governments are going ot throw billions around on big stadiums, then it makes sense that the only sport that can actualy fill them on a regular basis is in receipt of a significant portion of the largesse (in exchange for what amounts to a significant impost).
Robbos said | October 24th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
A small price to pay to let the vast majority of Australia know what you & Mr Demetriou, whoever he is, already know.
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
…..which is???
dasilva said | October 24th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
I don’t know Pippinu
I don’t think there’s no requirement to actually build or upgrade anything until you actually win the bid (although it may help though).
The only thing we have to do in terms of stadium is to commit to FIFA we will upgrade or build new stadiums if we win the bid in 2010. If we don’t win the bid, the government can easily just pull out of the funding agreement right?
Even this we have trouble doing this from the state governments.
So I don’t really think this is an issue
In any case from AndyRoo’s Post
From the Newspaper
“The key is determining what FIFA regard as a major sporting event and every indication is domestic rugby and football competitions would not count. Bledisloe Cups, Test cricket, even a Lions tour, on the other hand, would be disqualified.”
Therefore FIFA will allow AFL to participate. ALthough in which stadiums is another issue.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
das
it’s interesting that this small point of clarification has arisen, after quite a few football (and general sports) journalists made it clear that both the AFL and the NRL would effectively break for 8 weeks.
But as the quote says: “the key is determining what FIFA regard as a major sporitng event…” – and on many measures, the AFL is not “major”, so it might work out ok.
But FIFA might view League as major? (a football code played internationally)
The AFL will still be looking for recompense for not having access to both the MCG and the Dome for 8 weeks – there is still uncertainty whether the FFA requires both – but if it is both – that remains a major obstacle that requires compensation (and thus the conversation in Jolimont).
But nevertheless – we all know 2018 is imossible – we all know that Lowy would know this better than all of us put together – so why the charade on 2018?
Early commitment of government funding seems to be at the heart of it.
dasilva said | October 25th 2009 @ 1:06am | Report comment
I think FIFA won’t try to force any domestic leagues to shut down. However they probably will have a problem with any major international matches.
I don’t think FIFa is going to stop League or AFL as a precondition to host the world cup
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
das
I forgot to mention – let’s assume $2 bill to $3 bill gets locked into the forward estimates of the 2010-11 budget (without that, the FFA would basically have no bid to present to FIFA come May 2010).
Let us assume that at the end of the year the cards fall the way of the bookies’ odds, England in 2018 and the US in 2022.
What’s the immediate response for Bucks and Lowy?
It will be to argue that both England and the US were in the box seat because they have the facilities now – and did not need to make future promises.
So they will argue quite strongly to leave the money in the forward estimates, and to continue with the plans to have the facilities built in the near future, with a view to being in a positon to go for 2026 or 2030.
But the primary objective would have been achieved – top class facilities now rather than later – that’s the primary objective.
dasilva said | October 25th 2009 @ 1:04am | Report comment
hmm, I seriously doubt the government is going to give away money for a bid in 2026/2030.
We are already having enough problems in getting promise from the state government to promise to either upgrade or supply a stadium even if we win the bid. For us to get upgrades in football infrustructure with no guarantee of a world cup to pay it off. Well I doubt the Australian public or the opposition will accept that kind of giveaway.
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
The point of clarification is minor – - i.e. FIFA won’t force the domestic leagues to shut down….but, 32 training venues, 12 match venues and 24 ‘simple-training’ venues all locked away for the best part of 8 weeks kinda leaves stuff all leftover…….when we’re considering 16-18 NRL teams and 18 AFL teams at the time.
One or two teams here and there being displaced for a week or two is rather different to say 36 multi-multi million dollar domestic clubs being out on the rrrr’s. After all, the FIFA WC is a billion odd dollar event….but, so is the combined AFL/NRL season of footy.
AndyRoo said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
It also doesn’t seem clear that the Dome will be needed.
I am not sure what you mean by compensation. It’s pretty shortsighted to not see the benefit to the AFL of this world cup guaranteeing that there will be 12 stadiums over 43k and all modernised.
That’s the type of Infrustructure that has paved the way for a mass renaisence in the Bundisliga. The South Africans are a little less organised and more political but it’s also the type of spend that would enable them to lay down the foundation for Africas best ever football league.
getting Adelaide and Subiaco over the line would be massive for AFL, and will be done at zero expence to them as opposed to Docklands.
Peter said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
I cracks me up that these alf cheerleaders think the entire world revolves around the poxy southern game.
FACT: Its the NRL that will be hit the most. Up two 7 stadia in NSW/QLD/ACT will be required for the WC. The rest of the country ………..one (MCG). And yet its the alf twats that think its them that are ‘most affected’ I swear they must drink their own bathwater . Oh Dear!
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Peter
It’s like this.
the AFL uses the MCG because it gets big crowds – very big crowds – crowds which are comparable to any other big sport on Earth.
Are you able to understand that?
So if you miss out using the MCG for 8 weeks, that’s 2.5 games per weekend, or 20 games in total, times 60,000 per game (conservative estimate), that’s 1.2 million paying patrons missing out on seeing footy during a period when they expect to be able to see it – and for most of them, to be honest – FIFA are a bunch of corrupt foreigners – so they are hardly going to by sympathetic of FIFA demands!! (and rightly so)
Throw in loss of sponsorship and TV rights for the period – and let me make it very clear – it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.
Peter – would you drop your dacks for corrupt foreigners? Nor should any proud Australian organisation.
People like you probably think the MCG was built for cricket – but that would be an extremely ignorant view.
Let me put it this way – there’s not a 30 year wait on MCC memberships because people are dying to see the boxing day test!!
Do you understand now? or have I spoken a bit too fast for you?
Luke W said | October 24th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Well I’m sure the AFL will use some clever scheduling to reduce that number of 20 matches missed out at MCG, but if they are moved to Etihad (which I assume they would be) with a capacity of 55k, only 100k people would miss out, if the average crowd is 60k.
Also, cut the corrupt foreigner bit. I’m sure that the vast majority of NRL/AFL fans would love to see the football World Cup in Australia, regardless if their competitions suffered an impact for 2 months.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Luke
1. That depends on whether the Dome is actually available (still a bit unclear).
2. It’s not just a simple mathematical calculation – even if the Dome is available. What may have been split across the MCG and the Dome (and 9 Melbourne teams share those two venues – so I can assure you that they get reasonable use during Winter) – must then be shared across the Dome, Skilled stadium, and maybe Princes Park if it become available – so it becomes both a matter of inconvenience to patrons who pay a pretty sum to watch footy at the G all through the Winter – it becomes a matter of halved capacity (maybe much more).
Either way – people appear to be underestimating the financial loss from such a disruption – even in the very best case scenario where the MCG is lost for 8 weeks (that’s the best case scenario!!!)
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
It could be that we could not care less about how much money the AFL loses out on. Why would we care?
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
michaelunt
yes – I understand many don’t care – but such people probably need to take a course on contract law.
Robbo said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Pip, we all know the AFL pulls some very impressive crowds – but the MCG isn’t pulling anything like 60,000 as an average. Hell – even Collingwood is “only” getting low 50′s as an average. Richmond/Hawthorn are in the high 30′s (in fact both 39,000) and Melbourne is low 30′s. Very impressive – by almost any standard – but there isn’t any point exaggerating it.
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Oh yes, Robbo – - Pip went perhaps a tad too far one way….but, per-lease, check your facts before going too far the other way.
MCG Home and Away
Season Matches Avg
2009 46 49,085
2008 46 49,228
2007 45 47,187
2006 39 45,350
So, around 50,000…..
AndyRoo said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Those averages suggest at least half of the games that get played at the MCG could be played at Docklands and not one soul would be left out.
But then we are talking about 2018 or 2022 and alot of what we are talking about now could become irrelevant by then.
Pippinu said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
These are averages.
So for every crowd at 40,000, there’s a crowd at 60,000 (and that’s ignoring the 10 or so games that are above 80,000).
In other words, use of the Dome will most certainly result in financial loss that needs to be compensated.
Redb said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
AndyRoo,
Your forgetting memberships, both club and stadium chew up seats in both the MCG and Etihad.
So even though on face value its looks as though you could squeeze 48-49K into Etihad from an MCG crowd, there is room at the MCG for a much greater walk up.
I dont know the exact figures, but on average I’d estimate that only 70-80% of members attend every game, thus their seat at Etihad is consumed even though they dont turn up.
Drop the crowd average to 40K for the MCG and that is more realisticially transferable to Etihad.
At this stage the FFA are demanding Etihad, this is the main problem not the availability of the MCG for blockbuster games all of which can be scheduled for either side of the mid season break for the WC.
Redb
AndyRoo said | October 26th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Agree with Redb
Pip, I am not a fixturing genius but I would guess the ones played against 2 Melbourne teams are the ones that go over the average and that if it involves an interstate team it’s pretty safe to pay it at Etihad. I know there are some travel repercussions involved but it’s not “overtly difficult”
Of course it’s very early to predict the future but it seems the Lions are doing their best to annoy their Melbourne membership (a new lion has been designed) so I am guessing the interstate teams will remain less of a draw in future years. But who knows by 2022 if the West Sydney team filled itself with NSW players than they could be the biggest drawer of all in Melbourne J
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
As for the NRL being hard hit – yes – David Gallop has actually been more vociferous tha Demetriou about this whole matter.
But – the AFL relies far, far more on the MCG than the NRL relies on Homebush.
It could also be argued that with the NRL will gain far more than the AFL with the redevelopment of rectuangular stadiums.
So there is actually less incentive for the AFL to play ball.
Redb said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Yes this runs counter to the Sydney journalist Magnay on the Offsiders who said the AFL has more to lose than the NRL. Yet the NRL and some club CEO’s are the ones kicking up much more of a stink.
AndyRoo said | October 26th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I would say that’s to do with rugby leagues “rent a quote” culture.
There all club bosses chipping in with their 2c.
Nothing in rugby League happens 100% unanimously
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Peter
I know you are having trouble understanding this concept of commercial imperatives and compensations for loss of income, but this might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Australian_football_code_crowdshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Australian_football_code_crowds
Scroll down you will see a list of all the football games of all codes in order of size of attendances.
The top 100 games are AFL games, with 5 NRL games. The top 20 games are at the MCG (with one at ANZ, being a Swans game).
Can you understand what I am saying?
So armed with this info – on what basis would any commercial organisation relinquish its main earner of revenue for two thirds of its season without adequate compensation?
I struggle to understand how anyone thinks that would happen.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
We can understand what you are saying in your patronisingly painful way. What we are saying is we do not care. The FIFA world Cup puts AFL in its rightful place as a minority sport. Thats the way it rolls.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
michaelunt
The AFL won’t drop its dacks without plenty of compensation – it’s as simple as that.
I am getting the impression that there are two types of Australians:
1. Those that will gladly drop their dacks to a corrupt, foreign and unelected body such as FIFA; and
2. And those that ask: stop for 8 weeks?? What kind of drugs are you on??
The thing is – a big enough number of the latter type of Australians will be enough to put the kybosh on the whole deal anyway.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
There is a third group you missed – those that do not care – its only sport, you follow a minor one so bad luck.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
It is small – exceedingly small.
And yet the AFL is at the table. Why?
For mine, the solution appears very simple.
Put up the money to build the necessary facilities, and leave the AFL alone to enjoy its minisicule sport.
Honest, during the World Cup, no one willl even know it’s there!!
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Know whats where?
Dogs Of War said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
If it wasn’t for the fact they put AFL on the news first in NSW on 7 and 10, I wouldn’t know that it was played either.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
That’s great – we’re all in agreement – just dont’ invite the AFL to the table and put up the World Cup bid already!!
What’s everyoen waiting for??!!
Dogs Of War said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
The World Cup bid is going to happen no matter what. Really their is no point going into details until we actually win the thing. At that point I am sure with the lead in time, suitable arrangements/compromises can be made
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
michaelunt
so you are the sort of Australian that would drop his dacks to a corrupt, foreign, unelected body?
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
DOW
yes – the bid will go ahead – but it does need details if we are to continue the pretence of actually trying to win it.
But yes, it’s hard to imagine we can put up anything that is remotely competitve against England in 2018 and the US in 2022.
For starters, about one third of the grounds the FFA want to use are ovals!!!
That will really impress the snouts in the trough.
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Pip – the irony….we’re meant to bend over backwards for a once off event that might generate a couple of billion dollars over the top of the ‘costs’…..the costs come from the public purse, and lots of the financial activity will go to the Packers of the world.
Now, b/w now and 2022, there’s 13 more seasons of AFL…the AFL is a ‘minor’ sport, but is an annual $1 billion industry in this country…..that’s $13 billion of activity spread evenly over that time.
Now, at least something like the F1 GP is an annual event for the public ‘cost’ burden and overall interruption.
Personally, you can focus too much on the circus coming to town once……and when it’s gone you can find that all that’s left is a lot of empty stadia that cost heaps to maintain/service……Japan anyone??
For now – NRL crowd avg 15-16K and HAL struggling to top 10K…….we sure as heck can’t justify a whole array of 40-50K rectangular venues……..even in the heartland of soccer/rugby in Sydney……what was that?, another sub 9K crowd at the SFS for SFC.
(inflatable stadia anyone??)
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
No Pippinu I only drop my dacks for my missus. Now describing FIFA i such a way on this little board might seem brave but its not really very sensible.
I do not know and I do not care whether FIFA is ‘corrupt’ as you have chosen to call it on this Public Discussion Board.
I do not care whether it is elected or not.
And I am sure that FIFA does not give a flying F what whether you think it is ‘corrupt’ or now. And that is probably a little lucky for you.
But I do know that FIFA is a body representing a sport that makes yours look like a duck pond compared with the Pacific Ocean.
As such it will treat the AFL and its bloated egotistical leader with the contempt it deserves.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
michaelunt
You may not care whether FIFA is corrupt or not (it’s hardly a secret, plenty of independent research has been conducted on it).
But the point is that a large segment of the Australian will care and will be concerned that a corrupt, foreign, unelected body, with zero executive powers within the sovereign, independent state of Australia, would make demands on how Australians should go about enjoying their sports and leisure.
But I’ve said it a few times – why is the AFL even being mentioned?
Build the grounds, and do the bid already!!
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Hmm – you keep saying this so you might truly believe it I assume.
Yes lets all get the flag out and run to the barricades to save Australia from ….
wait for it
FIFA!!!!
Sorry mate but I think your nationalistic fervour is getting the better of you.
We are discussing sport – at least I am. God knows what yo are doing.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
michaelunt
When a game has been played continuously for 150 years, and there has never been a break of more than one week during the Winter months, during that time, then we are starting to talk about something more than just sport.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Pippinu no we arent.
All we are discussing is a tiny sport on a world scale with some obsessives who place it well above its weight.
Your obsession with AFL is demonstrated by you postings here. Not everybody thinks like you or feels like you. But this ‘to the barricades’ crap is too much.
dasilva said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
michaelunt
It doesn’t matter how much you think AFL is small
A contract is a contract is a contract.
As long as there are an agreement between AFL and the stadiums that FFA wants to used.
This “small and insignificant sport” in your opinion will have to be at the table in terms of negotiation.
If someone going to take away what you legally own with zero compensations even if it is for a good cause (let say the government wants to built a new stadium for the world cup and wants to built it over your own home without compensating you any money for it) then you will be against it as well.
This is not about which sport/size of penis is bigger. It’s a legal matter
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
That’s correct das.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I could not care less about the compensation issue at all. Thats why I do not address it. My point is simple. I am more interested in Pips attempts to make this a them V us issue and the ‘to the barricades’ BS he is posting. We are talking about Sport you know. This isnt Poland in 1939 !!!!
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
michaelunt
You may not care – but someone cares – because that is precisely what the discussions are going to come down to.
Of course the FFA could simply invest $3 billion plus into new infrastructure, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.
Norm said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
I think michaelunt has succinctly summed you up pippy boy, a lot of hot air. You are the one who introduced afl to this topic via your article. The clown prince of misrepresentation.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Norm
another worthwhile post.
You provide so little on the Roar, no one could ever accuse you of being full of anything.
Norm said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
I can only conclude pippy boy that it must only take a “little” to unravel you.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Norm
on the contrary, I’m heartened by your need to return to my threads, time after time after time.
At least I know you are eager to learn, to educate yourself, to improve yourself – you are a reminder to all those out there far less fortunate than I, that one can indeed improve oneself with a bit of determination and dedication.
You set an excellent example, seek out the most learned people that you can – you have come to the right place – and I’m only too happy to impart my knowledge to you.
Please – come back as often as you wish – you are most welcome – with some effort – you too will be able to write a whole sentence.
Kurt said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
Absolutely correct – we AFL types are but a tiny gnat on the hairy rump of the great FIFA behemoth. So once again I ask – why does our sport need to be shut down for 8 weeks and the stadiums built with AFL money taken over? Surely we can continue to play our little sport whilst the WC funds its own stadiums? Afterall no-one apart from us obsessives will be interested in AFL whilst the WC is on. So let the FFA go ahead with the WC bid and leave us out of it.
mahony said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
I am not a cross-coder by any means, so I agree with your sentiments ‘michaelhunt’. I also agree with Pip that the AFL will put up a fight and that it will be compensated if the bid succeeds. What I will say brazenly is that if the FIFA World Cup were to be hosted in Australia it would change our country and its sporting landscape forever. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. The AFL know this and this will be their greatest problem. Where I disagree with Pip is only on his description of FIFA. There is some evidence for what he says, but I think that for all of its faults, FIFA represents multilateralism through a common love of The Beautiful Game and its global values. This is a geo-political philosophy that I support very strongly. Remember Pip – FIFA are not forcing us to apply to host their event.
Kurt said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Wow, there’s some serious anger there Pete. Why don’t you jump back in your pram while the adults have a discussion.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Thats a low comment Kurt.
michaelunt said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Inviting the AFL to the Table? What Table and why? And Where? And by whom?
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Ben Buckley has indicated there’s a table for starters,
and that he needs to discuss with AFL and NRL,
btw – AFL might not be so concerned except the Vic State Govt went and stuffed up the new soccer stadium by putting a immovable modern art roof on top of a 30K venue with foundations for 50K that ain’t gonna happen……which means FFA are eyeing off Docklands stadium too. Before hand, the assumption was the AFL would have Docklands plus perhaps Geelong and perhaps a new 30K boutique venue and could track along pretty okay.
Dogs Of War said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
I’m sure Sydney would be more than willing to be the city that hosts 2 groups.
Redb said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
DOW,
Theres no doubt Sydney could do with a lift, but the FFA will not want to forgo Melbourne.
Redb
Kurt said | October 26th 2009 @ 12:04am | Report comment
Says the person who makes reference to the Nazi invasion of Poland to support his views about the AFL. You might want to google ‘Godwin’s law’.
Redb said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
yeah theres a few kids around these days.
AndyRoo said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Seems one less today although a few of his comments still remain.
Must say I sighed in relief when he said he didn’t support Football
Midfielder said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Pip
Great article … ROFL… BTW you better be careful otherwise you may get BB & AD heavies over seeing how you put the bug in on their phone calls…
BTW any chance that Bluetounge can get a bit of a tidy up too…
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Mid
re Bluetongue – Of course!
The trade off will be an upgrade of Princes Park (which would actually allow the AFL season to continue – if they are allowed to – which is still a bit vague).
Dogs Of War said | October 24th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
It may be perfect for the AFL to get that 3rd Stadium they want for the smaller drawing games (like when teams play West Sydney and the Gold Coast).
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
DOW
there may well be light at the end of the tunnell.
Norm said | October 24th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
‘(The above dialogue, and indeed the whole of this article, is completely made up and is not intended to cast aspersions on anyone’s good character except my own)’….you certainly acheived that goal.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Norm
as the futurists and dadaists were able to show – there is much instruction to be gained from the “theatre of the absurd” – a lesson that my good mate Con Stama knows only too well.
What has been the most heart warming aspect of this whole exercise is the manner in which Sydney fans from the great divide (I’m referring to the Barassi line), have come together in the spirit of co-operation and brotherhood, recognsing that it is unAustralian for an unelected and corrupt foreign entity to dictate terms on how Australians should enjoy their sports and leisure.
They have been able to put aside their differences and come together in defence of something they hold true and dear.
Indeed, witnessing this has brought a tear to my eye.
As I said above to your very good friend and comrade-in-arms, Peter, it has been David Gallop who has been the most vociferous of all, and I quote from this morning’s paper:
“We will obviously wait until they do that, but on the face of it, we couldn’t see how it would work:.
Demetriou has chosen to simply say he is wating on further details from the FFA, and left it at that.
Now we know that Demetriou has the manners of an alley cat, so why is he being so demure at the minute with an overseas sporting body wishing to take away his jewell in the crown?
The explanation is to be found in the “theatre of the absurd” – read carefully Norm, read carefully, and all will be revealed.
Norm said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
you overrate yourself.
Kurt said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
No danger of that happening to you Norm.
Norm said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
You’re right Kurt. Unlike you & pippy boy I don’t take myself too seriously.
Kurt said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:58pm | Report comment
Even less danger of anyone else doing that either Norm!
Norm said | October 26th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
True again Kurt which means, unlike you, I’ll never disappoint colleagues.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
At least one thing we can say about Norm is that he knows his place in the world, and never tries too hard to over reach himself.
I say good on him!!
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
And to think that I thought I was the king of self-deprecation.
there is just no satisfying you Norm.
Curtis said | October 24th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Play all AFL games in Tasmania for 8 weeks. This way there can be a mini “AFL w-cup” of sorts with matching Tassie carnival atmosphere and no need to postpone a good portion of the season. Intrigued international visitors can attend when their nation is knocked out of the W-cup on the mainland too. Tassie, the AFL, the W-Cup, Tourism Aus all benefit. Win-Win-Win. Think outside the square (or rectangle in this case), many times compromise hides many other opportunities – they just need to approach this creatively.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Curtis
it’s one of many possibiities – and not a bad one – as long as the AFL receives proper compensation for commercial loss.
Rob said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
The answer is really simple for both the AFL and Nrl, 8 weeks back at their suburban homes..heritage..blah blah blah…they love that kind of shit
The real problem is the grounds themselves. Im really interested in seeing some of the stadia details when they come through because more than anything the whole AFL thing appears to be the deal breaker. Ovals are simply shit places to watch football…adaptable stadia are not a lot better…Etihad looks like a squatters camp in rectangular mode. Homebush is crap and will remain so until they ditch the oval and fill in the ends.
FIFA wont accept the world cup being played at the Melbourne “Cricket” ground, or the Adelaide “Cricket” Ground. FIFA also wont tolerate the post cup legacy of facilities going to other sports as it did after the Olympics. Im a little worried that there might not be enough real footbal folks on the bridge at FFA to properly recognise this sort of thing..hope im wrong.
Like I said it will be very interesting to see the details
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Rob
it might actually be possible to proceed without either of the MCG and the Dome – in which case – the AFL is not even involved in any way – and would not need to be compensated (because it would continue its competition).
It then becomes a matter of the FFA getting sufficient money out of the Federal and State governments to build about 8 new 43,000+ capacity rectangular stadiums, and to upgrade a further 4.
I reckon that could occur for about $3 billion.
Under this scenario – the AFL doesn’t even have to be involved in any way shape or form.
Rob said | October 25th 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
Definitely the ideal solution, and I think the only one that would give us a real chance.
..there just seems to be a lot of talk about cross pollination…cant see that flying with Fifa myself..
..Im an architect with some stadium experience..and I can assure you (as you all know as fans anyway) that multipurpose arenas …like all compromises …end up average at best and excel at none of their stated goals.
.
Kurt said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Oh no, well if FIFA won’t accept it we must all doff our hats and cringe at our woeful inadequacy as a nation on the face of this august body.
Rob said | October 24th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Your missing the point Kurt. if FIFA are shopping for apples then whats the point in trying to sell them oranges (or maybe lemons).
Joe FC said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
During the preparations for the Sydney Olympics I remember the bitter complaints from some local residents about the construction on Bondi beach of a temporary stadium to host the beach volleyball competition. Self-interest, malevolence and utter ignorance thus inspired what eventually proved to be futile protests designed to stop the project from proceeding. Ultimately Sydney’s & Australia’s reputation was enhanced worldwide with the hosting of a spectacularly successful games and Bondi beach today remains one of our nation’s most famous and delightful attractions. Being a fan of one’s “own brand of football” no doubt provides joy and excitement but it shouldn’t obscure the mysteries and beauty the world has to offer.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Joe
completely different cases – this is about compensation for commercial loss – it’s not about people being unable to access a public good.
See my answer to Rob above.
With the right amount of money from government – the AFL can be left out of the equation entirely -afterall – we all know the MCG is crap for soccer – so why use it?
Spend the money and build appropriate rectangular stadiums in the 10 largest cities in Australia.
Many have already said – in 1994, the baseball continued merrily through the WC – it uses different grounds.
The AFL uses different grounds as well – so there is actually no need for the AFL to be involved in any official capacity (if the FFA doesn’t want its grounds that is).
Joe FC said | October 24th 2009 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Wrong Pippinu this is about perception, demanding one’s rights and the failure to see the big picture. The Bondi protesters were never being denied access to the beach & they knew it. Their complaint was based on the belief that somehow their enjoyment of the beach would be taken from them and they were determined to demand what they saw as their rights regardless of whatever else might be happening around them. They singularly failed to comprehend the world beyond their narrow, dogmatic enclave. And we’re now seeing the same scenario play out all over again.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Sorry Joe – I still can’t see the connection.
The AFL has watertight contracts with both the MCC and Dome to use those stadiums during the Winter. If they don’t have access to them, as is their legal right, they will suffer a substantial commercial loss.
Any court of law in the country would rule that the AFL is suffering substantial damages and would order immediate redress.
This is what I have been trying to make clear as soon as we discovered a possible gap in the season of 8 weeks (one third of a season).
The other action you refer to is more about a moral right to access a public good – the local council and state government has the power to rule on that, but the citizens weren’t necessarily seeking redress because of a legal wrong.
Joe FC said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I wasn’t aware that legal action had been threatened.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Joe
it hasn’t.
That’s why they’re sitting around a table trying to work it out.
Some people think the AFL shouldn’t be at the table – and that thought has merit.
So, I’ll say again, simply leave the AFL right out of it.
The FFA and Government just has to come up with the money to build all the infrastructure, and the AFL continues playing its tiny, insignificant game.
Afterall, the reps of korfball aren’t at the table – so why is the AFL there?
Dogs Of War said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Really the AFL needs to be careful. Demand too much and Melbourne itself may be the loser, with the FFA deciding that the MCG is too much trouble and going with a different venue in Melbourne. Thus 30-40K of people miss out on watching the World Cup each match in Melbourne. I am sure that would go down well.
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Ultimately, that’s what the negotiations are about.
But someone has to pay the piper.
Joe FC said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Then why do you raise the spectre of court action and a damages payment?
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Joe
there are many on here who think the Government would simply dictate that the AFL/NRL give up all their current contractual rights.
One could be assured, that such a move would land up in the courts.
Otherwise, a negotiated settlement is required, and somone is going to have to come up wiht a payment that works out similar to what a court of law would come up with.
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Back to the theme of the NRL being more vociferous than their AFL counterparts, there’s this quote from Penrith CEO, Mick Leary:
” What do you tell the players, you can go to the beach for the month? Then you’ve got your membership to think of, and when are we going to finish playing, on Christmas Eve or something? ”
Manly chairman, Scott Penn:
” The notion of postponing the competition is going a bit too far. For us not to play for a month in peak time is stretching the friendship”.