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).
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Buckley, Demetriou, football, World Cup football
October 24th 2009 @ 3:23pm
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
If you’ve got the tranny on, put it on ABC Grandstand right now – I think’s it’s going round the country, they’ve been discussing this issue on and off the past half hour, and it’s to be continued on and off for hte remainder of the evening – with plenty of interesting comments from the punters.
The commentator, not sure who he was but his voice is familiar, responded to one SMS talking about the benefits to all the codes of improved facilities – but he simply said that the MCG, the Dome and Lang Park are NOT earmarked for upgrade for the WC.
Furthermore, the new stadium being buillt in Adelaide is actually not required by either the AFL or NRL (I’m not sure who will need a 55,000 stadium in Adelaide either side of the WC).
I’ll post up more comments as I hear them – it’s a fascinating debate.
October 24th 2009 @ 4:22pm
gazz said | October 24th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
so……..we’re gonna get the world cup in 2022 then?
October 24th 2009 @ 4:33pm
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Well – we’re not going to get 2018, that’s for sure.
That’s the only safe bet there is.
October 24th 2009 @ 4:41pm
Tifosi said | October 24th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
All this should have been sorted out before a bid was placed. It will be a huge embarrassment if the FFA say well we cant bid anymore because we cant have access to stadia etc.
At any rate this is a non issue. Unless they can build some new stadiums, the bid wont even get this far.
And upgrading subiaco and adelaide oval wont even be worth it. One look at those and FIFA will be saying to themselves
“Are these guys serious” ?
Also i find it funny how people think that the World Cup needs to leave a legacy for other sports.
FIFA want to leave a legacy for football. They couldn’t care less about AFL,NRL, rugby. FIFA would look at the bid and say hang on how does this help football in Australia?
Playing at MCG, Docklands,Adelaide oval or Subiaco oval, SFS, Lang park,canberra stadium,Sydney olympic stadium will do nothing for the game.
If the World cup does not leave a legacy for football in terms of what the americans call Soccer Specific stadiums, then Australia shouldn’t get it.
Pip, Do you really believe FIFA will be willing to pay compensation when there are other countries willing to do it for nothing?
Not a chance.
October 24th 2009 @ 4:47pm
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
tifosi
I’m saying someone has to pay compensation, the FFA, Government, someone.
Or the Government puts up the money to build all the necessary stadiums (upgrading 4 or 5 that are already rectangular, like Bruce, Newcastle, Wollongong, Gold coast, Dairy Farmers, etc.)
Add Homebush, Lang Park and SFS – that actually only means that four have to be built from scratch.
Rebuild the new bubble dome in Melbourne, add Perth and Adelaide – that’s one more.
I’ve said already – why does the AFL even need to be involved at all??
October 24th 2009 @ 6:15pm
Tifosi said | October 24th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Send the bill to the Australian tax payer !!!
October 25th 2009 @ 12:41am
Rob said | October 25th 2009 @ 12:41am | Report comment
makes sense Pip..its just that this conversation exists now because the current rumblings from the afl states is that they wont be prepared to finance rectangular stadia.
October 25th 2009 @ 7:21am
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Rob
that could partly be because they’re waiting for the Feds to flash the cash.
October 24th 2009 @ 8:47pm
Pippinu said | October 24th 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
One of the claims put forward was that the AFL may as well shut up shop for 2 months, because not an inch of newspaper space will be dedicated to the local game.
Let us ignore for a second that by 2022, God only knows what the primary media will be (it most likely won’t be print and FTA as we understand them today).
But do people believe that the local media would completely ignore the local codes while Bahrain and Estonia battle it out for the final spot in the group of 16?
It’s hard to say – but I’m looking at the front page of the Herald Sun, here in front of me.
It’s not footy season, so clearly it can’t possibly dedicate the front page to the AFL – can it?
Surely the front page will be about interest rates, or boat people, or that we’re all about to die from global warming.
Well it’s a full page photo of quite an attractive woman, and the headline reads: Carey Affair Fury.
So Wayne Carey has done something again to get a headline???
No, no, no, no – this is all about his affair with the wife of a team mate from 8 or 9 years ago!!
You read that right people – a bit of an affair that happened 8 or 9 years ago, that was public knowledge, is on the front page!!!
So do people on here honestly think the AFL won’t get a bit of coverage during a world cup – you’re kidding??!!!
October 25th 2009 @ 12:54am
danny said | October 25th 2009 @ 12:54am | Report comment
god bless the little paper
October 25th 2009 @ 2:28pm
Forgetmenot said | October 25th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Yes the media is a very interesting one.
Perhaps by 2022 papers like the Herald Sun, SMH and New York Times will be considered local papers, and people will be reading global papers like the Global Round, or the World Telegraph on a daily basis. There may be no need for the local papers to cover the soccer in any great depth, and the global papers would cover the International sporting events such as the soccer world cup, and the hugely successful IPL, and also other events like the AFL International Cup …
I think that by that time all tv could be over the internet, and every sport can be viewed whenever anybody around the world wants to … ie people in africa have the same stations available to them as those in America, or Australia
October 25th 2009 @ 2:19am
aubgraham said | October 25th 2009 @ 2:19am | Report comment
There is no doubt that the AFL will demand compensation if their long-term stadium contracts are broken. Let’s try and put a ballpark figure on it. A few assumptions need to be made. I’m going to assume that there is 8 weeks unavailability of the G even though I think it would be 6 weeks like South Africa.
Everything else will be based on a best case scenario for the World Cup bid (i.e. minimum compensation). I’m only going to look at the AFL as I believe NRL grounds have more flexibility (since they have less crowds). I’m also assuming that there is no FIFA requirement for AFL to take any break.
Other assumptions
1 Etihad can be used.
2 Princess Park is available at the current ground capacity (35,000K)
３ 16 games will need to be moved (hard for AFＬ to argue that it needs more than this based on current constraints – in 2009 there was 1 round with no games and 4 rounds with only 1 game at the G). (Yes, there will be two more teams but no more Melbourne teams by 2018).
4 I assume there is no increase in average attendance from 2009 (bit of a stretch but as I said, best case scenario).
Based on 2009 crowd figures (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Australian_football_code_crowds) the lowest attended games are
13,004 Melbourne Fremantle
14,129 Melbourne Adelaide
23,149 Melbourne West Coast
28,279 Melbourne Western Bulldogs
28,707 Melbourne North Melbourne
31,470 North Melbourne Western Bulldogs
32,216 Richmond Sydney
32,583 Hawthorn Adelaide
33,274 Hawthorn Port Adelaide
34,466 Western Bulldogs North Melbourne
34,466 Richmond Brisbane
34,779 Richmond Hawthorn
34,794 Collingwood Port Adelaide
36,932 Melbourne Geelong
36,932 Melbourne St.Kilda
37,438 Melbourne Richmond
However, most of these are Melbourne teams so if I give every team that shares the G at least one home game that needs to be scheduled I get
13,004 Melbourne Fremantle
14,129 Melbourne Adelaide
23,149 Melbourne West Coast
28,279 Melbourne Western Bulldogs
28,707 Melbourne North Melbourne
31,470 North Melbourne Western Bulldogs
32,216 Richmond Sydney
32,583 Hawthorn Adelaide
33,274 Hawthorn Port Adelaide
34,466 Richmond Brisbane
34,466 Western Bulldogs North Melbourne
34,779 Richmond Hawthorn
34,794 Collingwood Port Adelaide
39,395 Hawthorn Melbourne
41,470 Essendon Brisbane
50,784 Carlton Richmond
So if the AFL could move 4 games to Etihad, then nobody misses out (assuming the rest are moved to Princess Park). There should be room to move these games to Etihad: in 2009 there were 6 rounds with 1 game.
Under this scenario what compensation should the AFL get, thousands, millions? I would imagine it is closer to the 1 million than the 10 mill. AFL revenue is $308m per year but most revenue is TV revenue. As long as they are able to broadcast the game those revenues will be unaffected by breaking the ground contract. I would think that moving these poor crowds to smaller venues would be a benefit. Melbourne quote a crowd figure of 20,000 to break even. (note that in all this I haven’t factored in the split round)
Of course if Etihad is needed for the World Cup then things change a lot but I haven’tworked through that yet.
October 25th 2009 @ 2:33am
aubgraham said | October 25th 2009 @ 2:33am | Report comment
There is no doubt that the AFL will demand compensation if their long-term stadium contracts are broken. Let’s try and put a ballpark figure on it. A few assumptions need to be made. I’m going to assume that there is 8 weeks unavailability of the G even though I think it would be 6 weeks like South Africa.
Everything else will be based on a best case scenario for the World Cup bid (i.e. minimum compensation). I’m only going to look at the AFL as I believe NRL grounds have more flexibility (since they have less crowds). I’m also assuming that there is no FIFA requirement for AFL to take any break.
Other assumptions
1 Etihad can be used.
2 Princess Park is available at the current ground capacity (35,000K)
３ 16 games will need to be moved (hard for AFＬ to argue that it needs more than this based on current constraints – in 2009 there was 1 round with no games and 4 rounds with only 1 game at the G). (Yes, there will be two more teams but no more Melbourne teams by 2018).
4 I assume there is no increase in average attendance from 2009 (bit of a stretch but as I said, best case scenario).
Based on 2009 crowd figures (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Australian_football_code_crowds) the lowest attended games are
13,004 Melbourne Fremantle
14,129 Melbourne Adelaide
23,149 Melbourne West Coast
28,279 Melbourne Western Bulldogs
28,707 Melbourne North Melbourne
31,470 North Melbourne Western Bulldogs
32,216 Richmond Sydney
32,583 Hawthorn Adelaide
33,274 Hawthorn Port Adelaide
34,466 Western Bulldogs North Melbourne
34,466 Richmond Brisbane
34,779 Richmond Hawthorn
34,794 Collingwood Port Adelaide
36,932 Melbourne Geelong
36,932 Melbourne St.Kilda
37,438 Melbourne Richmond
However, most of these are Melbourne teams so if I give every team that shares the G at least one home game that needs to be scheduled I get
13,004 Melbourne Fremantle
14,129 Melbourne Adelaide
23,149 Melbourne West Coast
28,279 Melbourne Western Bulldogs
28,707 Melbourne North Melbourne
31,470 North Melbourne Western Bulldogs
32,216 Richmond Sydney
32,583 Hawthorn Adelaide
33,274 Hawthorn Port Adelaide
34,466 Richmond Brisbane
34,466 Western Bulldogs North Melbourne
34,779 Richmond Hawthorn
34,794 Collingwood Port Adelaide
39,395 Hawthorn Melbourne
41,470 Essendon Brisbane
50,784 Carlton Richmond
So if the AFL could move 4 games to Etihad, then nobody misses out (assuming the rest are moved to Princess Park). There should be room to move these games to Etihad: in 2009 there were 6 rounds with 1 game.
Under this scenario what compensation should the AFL get, thousands, millions? I would imagine it is closer to the 1 million than the 10 mill. AFL revenue is $308m per year but most revenue is TV revenue. As long as they are able to broadcast the game those revenues will be unaffected by breaking the ground contract. I would think that moving these poor crowds to smaller venues would be a benefit. Melbourne quote a crowd figure of 20,000 to break even. (note that in all this I haven’t factored in the split round)
Of course if Etihad is needed for the World Cup then things change a lot but I haven’t worked through that yet.
October 25th 2009 @ 7:29am
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
aubgraham
There’s no doubt that if:
1. Both the Dome and Princes Park are available; and
2. The AFL can continue (with maybe a two week break at some point)
there is less damage.
YOur analysis stands if, say, all the top drawing games can be scheduled outside of the the WC (it’s possible).
There are also probably sponsorship losses from not having the biggest ground available for one third of the season.
But the big hurdle that has emerged the last few days is the need for exclusive use of 64 training sites for the full 4 weeks.
That is going to have a huge impact across all three of the other professional football codes.
October 25th 2009 @ 8:06am
Robbo said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I’m not really following FIFA not allowing other sports to continue. Surely – or so Soccer fans would have us believe – they are big enough not to care about NRL, AFL and Union? I’m heartened to see that the NRL has effectively told them to shove it. Lets hope the AFL and ARU follow suit.
October 25th 2009 @ 10:52am
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Robbo
it’s interesting that Gallop has been the most upfront so far (in publicly demonstrating his dismay).
Demetriou has pretty much said no comment for now.
Haven’t heard boo from O’Neil.
But far too early to conclude whether any of that means anything.
October 25th 2009 @ 9:08pm
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Demetriou is usually pretty straight batted……i.e. when people ask him about a possible Tassie team he now just says “Never say never”, and re FIFA WC, he’s “Supportive, but need to see the detail”.
It’s all a shade of grey……but, that doesn’t stop people attempting to character assassinate him and the AFL……..on the basis of just what I’m not sure!?!?!?
October 25th 2009 @ 11:00am
Luke W said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
I can’t shake the feeling that the NRL and AFL executives are opposing the FIFA World Cup mostly due to the the absolutely huge exposure a rival code will get from the event more than anything else. I don’t want to start another “smell the fear” thing here, but I think if it was Melbourne trying to host the Olympics the AFL would be much more co-operative.
Pip, what is with the corrupt foreigner bit your pushing? Australians don’t want to host the World Cup, because all those dirty foreigners will flock to our beautiful country, some of them probably terrorists! Come on, that is absolutely ridiculous, and more than a little racist.
October 25th 2009 @ 11:27am
Luke W said | October 25th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Possibly, but I also ask the question, how exactly do you make the World Cup bidding process not corrupt? If host selection was set in stone with certain requirements for a country, only a handful of Western countries would qualify, and every second World Cup would be held in America (their stadia and infrastructure is mind-blowing). Thank god that process is “corrupt” so we can see the World Cup held in Africa for the first time, despite the security concerns and lack of world class stadia and infrastructure.
October 25th 2009 @ 2:08pm
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Luke
The World Cup would be a wonderful thing for Australia.
Jeff Kennett first put the idea on the table way back in the mid 90s (and he was derided by soccer people for doing so).
Most recently, Jeff Kennett has said that a way must be found, because he is still supportive – but at the same time he has conceded that an 8 week break is death.
So that’s where we are today – an 8 week break is impossible – no commercial business would contempate it.
But as I keep asking – why is the AFL even mentioned?
It’s the FFA’s baby, they have the government on side – in truth – this has nothing to do with the AFL.
Build the infrastructure (about $3 billion should do it) – put the bid up – and just leave the AFL right out of it.
And then everyone is happy.
We all agree that the MCG is terrible for soccer – so just leave it out of the bidding!! It’s not required.
We have ANZ Stadium, we have Lang Park – about five stadiums need to be upgraded to 43,000 – and just build another 5 more.
I actualy can’t see the problem with doing it that way.
October 25th 2009 @ 8:27pm
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
As I asked on the other thread…….how and why could any of this be seen as an AFL issue or AFL failing if the AFL some how got in the way.
It’s not the failure of the AFL.
It would be the failure of the FFA, FIFA and the Fed Govt……if the $40 odd million to launch a bid were found to be wasted…….because of the AFL…..that ain’t the AFL’s problem or the AFL’s wastage. It would instead be indicative of a naive govt and over optimistic FFA if they can’t make it work.
October 25th 2009 @ 8:55pm
AndyRoo said | October 25th 2009 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
You can think what you want Michael but if the AFL doesn’t make the MCG available I think it will be a bad look. Might go down allright amongst AFL members (although some have allready voiced support for the FFA) and sections of the public but their will be large sections of the population that won’t be happy.
Come the world cup final in 2018 even in melbourne there will be a fair few people thinking it would have been nice to have the world watching the G.
October 25th 2009 @ 9:02pm
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Tifosi has mentioned the possibility of the AFL/NRL being made fall guys for what was really a poorly thought out bid process to begin with.
I mean – to even pretend that 2018 is a possibility…
October 25th 2009 @ 9:05pm
Michael C said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
Ben Buckley is fully aware of the MCG and the AFL situation,
now…..if Buckley can’t sell the concept to the AFL…….it won’t be the AFL’s fault.
It’s up to Buckley et al to make an offer that can’t be refused….surely.
btw – good numbers of seats fail the FIFA maximal distance test re distance from the farthest corner. Would they be willing to sell out the stadium? or, only those seats inside the ‘maximal’ tolerance???
btw – would we want the MCG used just to hear people whinge it’s no good for football…….whilst we in Melbourne know it’s perfect for football!!!
October 25th 2009 @ 9:14pm
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
Yes – it’s true – I’ve just come across this a few times in 442.
The dimensions of the MCG are so large (not just the ground, the whole stadium), that large number of seats actually fail FIFA’s minimum requirements on how far away seats should be from the middle of the playing surface.
The FFA might need the MCG to make their bid look half credible – but there is actually some doubt as to whether FIFA will look on it favourably.
October 25th 2009 @ 9:20pm
AndyRoo said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Australia is hoping the MCG gets through on the “historical significance” part of the criteria. Up until Iran scored no one was complaining about the view in 1997.
It’s just m opinion but I think the AFL would upset a lot of people that currently have no reson to be upset by the AFL. That’s just my opinion so worth no more than you think Buckley will get the blame. He might by AFL writers.
We will see how that plays out in time and see what the AFL will actually do.
October 25th 2009 @ 9:32pm
Pippinu said | October 25th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
I dunno.
A lot of soccer purists actually dislike the MCG with a passion.
October 27th 2009 @ 3:57pm
mahony said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Spot on PIP. I would love a final at the MCG (viewing concerns allowed for) becasue it would be a supreme event – but the bid comes first, and if that means no MCG – then so be it!