AFL, NRL shutdown threat a media beat-up

Roar Rookie

By Chuq, 28 Oct 2009 Chuq is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:: AFL, football, media, NRL, stadiums, World Cup

Related coverage

Jarryd Hanye in action during the Week 3 Playoff NRL match between the Bulldogs and the Parramatta Eels at ANZ Stadium in Sydney, Friday, Sept. 25, 2009. AAP Image/Action Photographics, Grant Trouville

There has been considerable discussion on news stories, forums and blogs about the apparent “threat” to domestic codes of our World cup bid. The reality of the situation is very different.

“FIFA is forcing the AFL/NRL to shut down for eight weeks” is not an accurate statement at all.

First, FIFA are not forcing the World Cup on Australia – Australia is bidding for it. We are inviting them to allow us to host it.

Second, the “stop playing” bit isn’t accurate – there are two separate rules that come into play here:

1) Stadiums used by the World Cup must be solely available to the Cup for the duration of, and for the 4 weeks prior to, the event.

There are many reasons for this – issues with advertising and signage for example. The stadiums will not be known by the sponsored names, but by names such as “Brisbane World Cup stadium”, “Melbourne World Cup stadium” and so on.

Signage must be adjusted to suit, e.g. remove all the Etihad Stadium (or whatever it is called in a decade!) signs. The venues may be used for official pre-cup functions or publicity events. The grounds must be curated to appropriate quality for football (different sports have different “ideal” turf heights).

The AFL/NRL turf markings must be removed completely. Security audits must be carried out, and so on.

The other codes can still continue during this time at grounds that will not be used.

In the AFL’s case, this would include the ‘Gabba, SCG, Football Park, Kardinia Park, and whichever Western Sydney venue is used. They could also utilise part-time grounds such as York Park, Manuka Oval and Marrara Stadium.

Similarly, the NRL will have venues such as Wollongong Stadium, Central Coast Stadium, suburban Sydney grounds, Swan St Stadium, Robina Stadium and Ballymore Stadium at their disposal, as well as venues in New Zealand.

2) No other major sports can be run at the same time as the Cup in any of the host cities.

This is mainly for logistical reasons. Accommodation, transport, security and so on will be extremely busy (that’s an understatement!) during the Cup. It also makes it easier for media coverage, obviously everything but the Cup will be battling for a spot on the news.

If England wins one of the bids, they will need to reschedule both the Ashes and Wimbledon. Neither the English Cricket Board nor the All-England Lawn Tennis Club are howling in protest at this.

The kicker?

It hasn’t even been clarified as to whether the AFL and NRL are classified as “major sporting events”, so they may not even come under this rule!

However, I believe it would be to the AFL and NRL’s benefit to slow their competitions during that time, due to the limited number of venues we have in Australia – most of them play host to many sports. There are only so many matches that can be played in Wollongong, Launceston or Geelong in a weekend, and it would be ratings suicide to put games up against World Cup matches.

One example of a suitable arrangement would be two split rounds for the 4 weeks preceding (for a 20 team AFL competition, this would mean 5 matches a weekend), followed by a single round for the five weekends of the WC itself (yes, five – the Cup starts on a Friday, lasts for 31 days, then ends up a Sunday) – so using the same example, 2 AFL matches per weekend.

It appears many in the mainstream media are either uneducated about how it works, or are just keen to try to agitate fans of all codes whenever they see the opportunity.

I guess it sells newspapers!

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.

The Crowd Says (244) | Page 1 of Comments

Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:08am | Report comment

““FIFA is forcing the AFL/NRL to shut down for eight weeks” is not an accurate statement at all. ” – You’re missing the point. Neither the AFL nor the NRL get a choice in this, that’s the problem. If Aus gets a football WC then they have to stop their season, that’s it, two unrelated “rival” sports will be stopped in the middle of their season.

Personally I’d love to see the AFL season in particular continue, tourists from around the world could be drawn to the games if the AFL market it right and it would gain exposure like never before.

The Sydney olympics were held in one city right around AFL grand final time – not exactly the best time for foreigners to be trying to get tickets and the Melbourne Olympics are so long ago I can’t really say a lot but I’d imagine back then the VFL (as it was in 1956) didn’t care a lot about the image of their sport. 2018 would be a different kettle of fish.

“If England wins one of the bids, they will need to reschedule both the Ashes and Wimbledon. Neither the English Cricket Board nor the All-England Lawn Tennis Club are howling in protest at this.” – These aren’t tournaments played over many months. Wimbledon is a two-three week window, it will simply be moved, the same goes for the Ashes, they might be longer but they would fit into an english summer with the WC.

“The stadiums will not be known by the sponsored names, but by names such as “Brisbane World Cup stadium”, “Melbourne World Cup stadium” and so on.” – If that’s true I’ll be pretty pissed off. The MCG is the MCG, that’s that and just because a WC game is held there doesn’t mean it should be called anything other than what it is, they’d never sell naming rights to such a prestigious stadium so why should they “unbrand” it when it is a generic name already?

Reply
- Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
  
  I’ll probably have to wait until lunchtime or this evening to read and reply to most of these comments in detail, but just on the final point about the Melbourne Cricket Ground – It is not a commercially sponsored name, so the name MCG (I expect) would stay. I was thinking of stadiums with commercial agreements for naming rights, such as Etihad, ANZ, Suncorp, and so on.
  
  Reply
Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:17am | Report comment

Chuq – firstly I take your point that there is an element of ‘beat up’ in all of this and that the reality may be something less disruptive than has been originally reported.

But even if your description of what may happen there’s still a lot to be concerned about for the AFL (and I’ll confine my comments to the AFL although I acknowledge that the NRL will be equally affected, perhaps more so). Losing access to its two biggest stadiums for 2 months in the middle of the season is simply a non-starter and won’t be acceptable without massive compensation – the difference in gross revenue between 60,000 at the MCG and 20,000 at Kardinia Park is clearly massive.

The solution really is very simple – we’re repeatedly told that the WC is a vast sporting event that generates billions and billions of dollars for the host country. Putting aside my scepticism about these benefits for a moment if they are indeed true then it should be a relatively simple matter to fund the construction of soccer-specific stadiums. Build a 60,000 seater somewhere in inner-Melbourne (maybe the inner west – well served by PT, plenty of available ex-industrial land). Everyone’s happy.

And as for ‘ratings suicide’ going up against WC matches – you’re right, it would be a bad move for the WC to go up against a major AFL match, getting slaughtered in the host-country ratings wouldn’t please FIFA.

Reply
- constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 3:58am | Report comment
  
  love having debate with an afl fan. firstly i am aware ffa will be compensation the afl for the missing 40k, the reason for this is simple… the profit from a world cup is outof this world.
  
  point 2: a 60k all purpose ‘soccer’ stadium is premature for the time being. i suspect our league will grow like the j-league and mls did but a 60k all purpose stadium most likely wont get the thumbs up.
  
  point 3: a bit lump sided. lets take an example of carlton v collingwood up against brazil v spain. globally; brazil v spain will attract 80% of the worlds population to a tv, in australia (based on past world cup ratings) it looks like the wc match would get more. queensland and sydney you would naturally suspect would prefer to watch wc then that game. in melbourne we have to remember alot of peopl are fans of both codes and would choose to watch a once in a lifetime match compared to something they see regularly.
  
  i dont disregard your view, neither do i pretend to be a expert on AFL; however alot of AFL only fans dont realize the significance of this sporting festival or the amount of round ball lovers in australia. just because news ltd beats it into us to hate anything foreign that has a roundball does not mean that everybody listens.
  
  Reply
  - Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
    
    Having lived in Europe for two world cups I don’t underestimate its size nor the level of global interest. I also accept that taken globally the TV audience for Brazil V Spain will probably be a tad larger than Carlton V Collingwood. But that’s not really the issue. The fact is we have a large global enterprise potentially coming to Australia and demanding that local competitors shut down to give it free access to the market and key facilities. A much fairer approach would surely be for that global enterprise to undertake to build its own facilities and accept the competition from local players. If it’s as popular as you claim then this really is a non-issue for FIFA and the FFA – the WC will make enough money to fund its own infrastructure and if the AFL loses out due to competition with the global player then so be it, that’s life.
    
    The only real issue then becomes coordinating public transport when AFL and WC games clash and Melbourne is currently capable of hosting multiple sporting crowds of 50K within a few kms of each other so I reckon we’ve got that one covered too.
    
    Reply
  - AndyRoo said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
    
    Swan Street should have been able to hold 45k to 50k from the outset.
    
    They paid for the foundations for such (wouldn’t have been cheap) and I really think in 5 years time the city of melbourne would be abe to get it 75% full quite frequently with the victory, Rebels and Storm.
    
    Reply
- Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
  
  Trust me, I’d love to see new rectangular stadiums in Perth, Adelaide, Geelong, Hobart, as a result of the World Cup bid. FFA have a design drawn up for a series of 40k venues which can be downsized to 25k post-WC. It’s a great opportunity to build rectangular venues with the capital cost being absorbed by the revenue the WC will generate.
  
  However, the WA and SA governments aren’t having a bar of it, and Geelong and Tassie won’t be hosting by the looks of things (although Canberra seems to be volunteering their position …)
  
  Reply
  - AndyS said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
    
    I’m pretty sure the WA and SA state governments would be all over it if they were given the money. But it seems they would be expected to build the grounds on tick, in the hope that somewhere down the line they will get the money back. Perhaps an indication of the number and attractiveness of the games they would expect to get relative to the big population centres on the East Coast.
    
    I guess it comes down to how “billions and billions for the host country” gets distilled into a lump of cash available for use. That can only be done by either government or whichever sporting entity gets the money and, in practice, that means the government against projected incremental tax revenue. Given that the Federal government will ultimately wind up with it all (through the inevitable reduction in state funding if nothing else) maybe they should be a bit more proactive. But I would agree that stadia are the best use of any such a windfall – at least it results in a concrete piece of infrastructure that would (historically) be very difficult to otherwise justify. It would be rectangular stadia though – user pays, and if you are going to build something new it will be whatever best suits. I can’t see the AFL benefitting when their grounds would largely suck for the soccer.
    
    Reply
    - Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
      
      They don’t have to spend any money at the moment. They just have to say that if we win the hosting rights, they will agree to a new rectangular stadium at a certain spot. I don’t know about how the cash will be distributed, I’ve heard in the past that FIFA gets a loan from the World Bank, or the host nation gets a loan from FIFA, but google is telling me nothing of the sort so wherever I read it must have been making it up!
      
      SA is already agreeing to upgrade Adelaide Oval, spending almost as much money as a new rectangular stadium would cost.
      
      A note about match allocation:
      Going by past events, generally the minimum a city would get is 5 games – 4 group games, and a round of 16 match or a final. The five major capitals would be assured of a quarter final or higher. Allocation of matches are done prior to the draw – so it is random, the only difference being the host nation’s matches would be predetermined (obviously going to the biggest capacity venues).
      
      I chose 2 random stadiums from WC2006 to see what sort of matches they ended up with:
      Colonge had: Angola v Portugal, Czech Republic v Ghana, Sweden v England, Togo v France, Switzerland v Ukraine.
      Geltzenkirchen had: Poland v Ecuador, United States v Czech Republic, Argentina v Serbia, Portugal v Mexico, England v Portugal
      
      You rarely get a bad match at a World Cup; in Germany, Australia v Japan would have been classified as one of the “lightweight” matches but it turned out one of the best matches of the tournament (even to a neutral spectator!)
      
      Reply
constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:13am | Report comment

tbh i am also very interested to see if rugby league and australian rules will classify as major sporting events. and to all the afl fans opposing this bid (i have no idea why) its a great way to get people on board the sport. i know they say we dont care if its not an international sport; if you knew how exciting it is backing your country in a high intensity sport then you would change your mind. its a good sport and it will be good to get other countries on board; the best way to do that is by letting the world into our country. and what unites our entire planet…. a simple round ball

Reply
- Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:24am | Report comment
  
  Fair point – people can watch Carlton V Collingwood at the G then jump on a tram across town to catch Brazil V Spain at the new Craig Foster arena that night, rounding it off with a few beers in Docklands. Sounds like a pretty good day actually.
  
  Reply
  - Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
    
    I like that: Craig Foster Arena complete with the Tear Drop stand
    
    Reply
    - AndyRoo said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
      
      Get your own “living legends” and stop trying to steal them from NSW.
      
      Reply
  - constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
    
    lol @ the craig foster arena
    
    Reply
- True Tah said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
  
  constantine
  
  I dont believe AFL fans are opposed to hosting the FIFA world cup, ideally they want to be able to have both. I believe Melbourne could accommodate a FIFA world cup game and an AFL game the same night.
  
  I do think it is unfair for FIFA to ban any major sporting competitions in the same city for those 8 weeks – does FIFA really want to be seen as a global ogre swallowing everything, why are they scared of insular, backwater codes anyway? To be honest, I think FIFA hasnt really come up against anything like this before, maybe US 1994 would be the closest. In most countries, FIFA executives are treated as gods, so they can pretty much do whatever they please.
  
  It will be interesting to see how 2010 goes, if the Currie Cup competition goes on for the tournament, seeing as only some of the rugby stadiums will be used (Free State, Loftus, Coca-Cola Park). And South Africa’s infrastructure is light years behind our own. I suspect the SARU will schedule the Currie Cup so that games are hosted in some of the regional areas – Kimberley, George, Nelspruit.
  
  Im not sure about a round ball uniting the whole planet – Iraq won the Asian Cup and it hardly united the whole country now did it?
  
  Reply
  - constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
    
    yes but dont forget in europe (where most of the execs are) they dont have this dilemma. you can see it as negative, but this supposed ogre is doing what they have to do to ensure that the largest event this planet has ever seen will function without a single problem. i can understand the problem with transport especially. if there is an afl match you will see 40k (or however many) on board the trams, trains etc. if there is a world cup game any stadium will sell out, you will see 100k on the same transport. it gets more sticky when you have to accomodate for the other 100k heading down to flinders st and crown to watch the game. with such congestion it will be a farce, thats why they need to relocate other sports.
    
    Reply
    - Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
      
      constantine
      in the context of Melbourne’s sporting precinct – those numbers are par for course
      
      Reply
Col The Bear said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:19am | Report comment

I thought about this the other day..picturesque North Sydney oval would be available for NRL games as well.also Leichhardt would get more games over this duration.it could be back to the boutique grounds for a few weeks, that could be nice.

But aren’t they are also looking at these grounds for training purposes for the soccer..

Reply
- Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
  
  exactly -
  
  the devil in the detail,
  
  what 64 venues will be offered as training base options……32 of which will be used,
  
  and another 24 (2 per each of the 12 match venues) venues required as ‘simple-training’ venues for teams to access as ‘local’ warm up venues immediately prior to a match.
  
  The FFA has id’d MCG and Etihad in Vic, but, in NSW ACT looking at SFS, ANZ, Canberra, Newcastle and in QLD Gold Coast, Suncorp and Townsville.
  Take those out and the 14 NSW-ACT/QLD ‘simple-training’ venues plus just how many of the 32 training bases will be in those 2 states??
  
  and, just where/when will State of Origin be played that year?
  
  Reply
  - danwighton said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
    
    Tokyo.
    $$$$$$$$$$$
    
    Reply
tifosi said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:30am | Report comment

Firstly the AFL needs a world cup.

It will be the only chance they ever get to try and show the game to a worldwide media contingent and fans.

Secondly, I dont quite understand the AFL/NRL being so concerned. The reality is that Aussies for 6 weeks or so will follow the world cup, but after that they will go straight back to following the AFL/NRL.

Look what happened after the Rugby World Cup.

Sometimes I wonder if the AFL/NRL really worry too much about the impact football will have in the future.

I see richard hinds from the SMH thinks that will be the case. The fear shown is quite funny.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/world-cup-evangelists-play-holier-than-thou/2009/10/27/1256405389238.html

Reply
- Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:40am | Report comment
  
  Are you serious Tifosi – where’s the ‘fear’ in this article? He just asks the reasonable question as to why the AFL & NRL should meekly accept the government’s sponsorship of a rival football code. You can’t have it both ways and claim that a) the WC will provide a massive boost to soccer in this country; and b) that the AFL and NRL should just keep quiet and allow themselves to be evicted from stadiums funded by their respective games.
  
  As far as I’m concerned the answer is clear. If the WC will be as massive as everyone says then it should:
  a) Pay for the development of its own facilities thus providing the sport of soccer with the state of the art dedicated stadiums they say they want; and
  b) Accept a little competition from local codes and not ask other sports to shut down for two months.
  
  That way everybody wins – soccer gets its facilities, AFL & NRL get to play their normal seasons and visitors get the opportunity to enjoy a bit of local colour.
  
  Reply
  - Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
    
    Why build stadiums for two months that will probably go unused afterwards when there are perfectly good existing grounds already?
    
    Reply
    - Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
      
      But I thought the point was they weren’t perfectly good? They’re ovals and even I know that’s not the best shape for playing soccer.
      
      Reply
      - Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
        
        They will be upgraded. Instead of spending the money on new stadiums, upgrade existing ones. I don’t see the difficulty in understanding this to be perfectly honest.
        
        Reply
        
        Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
        
        And that would be a reasonable argument if the regular tenants of those stadiums who fund their very existence weren’t being asked to leave for 2 months in the middle of their seasons. I don’t see the difficulty in understanding that.
        
        Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
        
        There needs to be balance.
        
        Obviously for the final, you want a big ground, you aren’t going to build a 80-90-100k rectangle when Melbourne and Sydney both have suitable grounds.
        
        On the Gold Coast, Robina Stadium (27k) cannot be upgraded (grrrr!) so instead of building another 40k rectangle (which would be redundant after the WC, with 55k Lang Park and 27k Robina nearby), they upgrade an oval (which will also be used for AFL, cricket and Comm Games later on) – that’s practical, disappointing but logical..
        
        In Perth, they already have plans for a brand new 60k convertible stadium which got shelved once the GFC rolled around. Apart from maybe a once-yearly Socceroos match, football didn’t come into it – notice the video only references rugby, cricket and AFL – but it is now perfect for a WC venue with the cantilevered stands!
        
        Suggestion out of left field – convert the bottom tier of the MCG into movable seating so it can be moved in both for the WC, as well as future Socceroos and Wallabies internationals. (Do it properly I mean – not badly like at Docklands where they never do it because it is so difficult/costly/damaging.)
        
        Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
        
        Chuq,
        
        The cost of your last suggestion sounds astronomical. !
        
        AndyS said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
        
        The plans are there in Perth, but not much enthusiasm and it would still be very much an AFL ground. Only the 22k terrace seats would move, with all the elevated seating being fixed at least as far from the action as at the MCG. It would be better than Subi as it stands, but still a long way from perfect.
        
        That said, I would find it very interesting to see what the great and good would elect to do – commandeer the good seats and sit out in the open, or go for luxury in the sucky seats a country mile from the action without any of the envy that makes those seats so palatable.
  - Tom said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
    
    That article is an embarassment. He criticises unnamed ‘cheerleaders’ who are apparently demanding that the AFL acquiesce without any compensation.
    
    I have not heard one footballing figure state that the AFL will need to shut down its entire competition for eight weeks without compensation.
    
    Hinds is just making stuff up for the purposes of being inflammatory.
    
    I want the world cup to be held in Australia. I want the AFL, the NRL and the FFA to negotiate a solution. I refuse to be lumped in with the ‘don’t-call-it-soccer crowd…blinkered by their long-held ambition to see the rest of the world’s game universally adored here’, whoever they might be. I notice no one is mentioned. Must be a very small crowd.
    
    This article is downright offensive to football fans and doesn’t help anything.
    
    Reply
    - Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
      
      it is an opposition opinion piece to Cockerill’s article in the SMH. Cockerill being the cheerleader, maybe also a after a bad lunch with Craig Foster.
      
      Reply
      - Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
        
        Redb, if it’s an opposition piece, the football writers are due much more media space to put our opposition pieces against the likes of the Wilson sisters, Fitzsimmons, Hinds, greg Baum, Vossey, Sheedy & numerous Daily Terror & Herald Sun journalists.
        
        Reply
        
        Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
        
        oh boohoo Robbos.
        
        Let’s keep it relevant and not turn this into a diatribe on every single comment ever made on both sides ever.
      - Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
        
        and sadly Cockerill was just repeating the lies of Ben Buckley in asserting that the AFL had reason to be thankful for Sydney 2000 Olympic soccer with respect to the MCG……blatantly false.
        
        And yet, Buckley states it and his soccer fan club media lapdogs go rushing to the presses without stopping to think for a minute.
        
        It’d be nice if this could all be kept real.
        
        It won’t though.
        
        Again – as I’ve said for a while. It’s NOT the AFL’s issue. If the bid fails because of something the AFL does or doesn’t agree to….then it’s a patently BAD bid.
        
        If the bid fails because the spend is too great – then, it’s a bad bid.
        
        The value add on building/upgrading rectangular stadia is more to do with the 3 rectangle codes – - if they together can’t justify the spend. Then, why on earth should the AFL have to come to the rescue??
        
        Reply
        
        Tom said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
        
        Does anyone have a link to that Cockerill article? I can’t seem to find it.
        
        And what were Buckley’s comments about the MCG? I can’t find those either.
        
        Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
        
        Link to the Cockerill article : The $2b football bandwagon is big enough to even give dinosaurs a lift
        
        Tom said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
        
        Cheers Michael.
        
        Yeah, I’m not sure what he means about stadiums in Melbourne being upgraded because of football. Not sure which stadiums these were.
        
        Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
        
        The reference to the Melbourne stadium – Docklands was proposed as a rectangular ground to start with. Due to the state of soccer and RL in Melbourne at the time, it was decided to make it convertible to allow for AFL as well. AFL agreed and signed on as a major tenant. A decade later and the AFL have pretty much moved in full time and the movable stands rarely move. It’s not the AFL’s “fault”, it may not have been built otherwise – but the end result is, the AFL gained more from the Olympic soccer competition than soccer did.
    - AndyRoo said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
      
      Maybe he reads the Roar, because AndyRoo isn’t too keen to hand over any $$$ to the AFL
      
      I do think the FFA should do the right thing though and get Andrew D a free Socceroo shirt.
      
      Reply
- Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
  
  I read that article & that was the first thing to jump into my mind the ‘FEAR’.
  
  I find it funny that when the AFL are big boys in town, the media & their fans think it’s alright to throw their weight around, but when little pathetic Soccah in this country much bigger brother comes to town, the AFL cries bully.
  
  No-one in Sydney feels a need for a 2nd Sydney team, no-one in Sydney feels a need for more junior AFL competitions or are they interested in the Magpies or the Hawks or the Cats, but this doesn’t stop the AFL & their media pumping in the money to drive this game into our psyche. The West Sydney councils have all sold their souls to the AFL, building new grounds, complexes & more money into their council coffers. The kids are enticed to play Aussie Rules, why, not because they want to or want to emulate a Abblett, not they are enticed by goodies.
  How can the AFL do this, they have more money, they have the media, both Ch 7 & Ch 10 have way too much AFL news that is warranted compared to the interest in Sydney. How do they do it? Money, they are the big boys in Australia.
  Now a FOREIGN game, (anything that is foreign is bad, don’t trust it, is their cry), comes to town is now the big man in town, something that dwarfs their pathetic little ‘Australian’ game, they cry wolf. Suck it up Richard Hinds & take it like a man, at least your CEO, Andrew whathisname, has the courtesy to wait till the details come out before commenting, unlike you jumping on the media beat-up bandwagon.
  
  Reply
  - Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
    
    Up to your normal rigorous standards of intellect and logic Robbos, good work. Funny though that no matter how big soccer is, it’s apparently not quite big enough to host a world cup without using stadia built for other codes. Like I said, the solution is impeccably, wonderfully simple – soccer builds & funds its own facilities and puts on a great world cup for those that love the game. Job done.
    
    Reply
    - Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
      
      Coming from you Kurt it’s a compliment. A person who hangs in Football threads for negative posts in protection of your beloved ‘Australian’ game. Taking on the ex pat song ” I live in the land downunder’ abit too far.
      
      Reply
      - Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
        
        Actually it’s “I come from a land downunder” but let’s not go there! Seriously though, what’s wrong with the central thesis of my argument, namely that the WC should fund its own stadiums and leave the AFL and NRL to continue their competitions uninterrupted? The only co-ordination that would be required in Melbourne is to not hold simultaneous WC and AFL matches purely from a public transport perspective. I’m pretty sure that’s achievable and the end-result is a win for all parties.
        
        Reply
        
        Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
        
        Look, like what Chuq stated in starting this thread, we do not know the details, so how can we come up with alternative theories. These theories I’m sure are discussed by the powers to be, the likes of the ARU, AFL, NRL FFA & any other sporting organisation affected, to how best to meet the demands with as little affect on the local competitions with holding a huge sporting event like this.
        
        Would I be upset if the shoe was on the other boot, if AFL was the big huge global game & their world cup was going to affect me watching my tinpot A-League competition, yes most probably, but i would wait for details to understand everything before I go shooting from the hip like Richard Hinds. Noone has officailly said anything yet.
        I would have no problems with any events running in concurrence with the WC.
        
        But they way I see it, all this has done is allow the zealots amongst other codes to vent their hatred on the game, especially from the media.
  - Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
    
    Robbos
    
    Hinds, reiterated by Kurt, is that the AFL operates in a competitive market utilsing its own resources, while soccer is using the World Cup to get access to government money.
    
    I said at the very start – go back to my article – this is all about getting access to government money – it’s got nothing to do with actually staging the World Cup – at the moment our bid looks laughable.
    
    Reply
    - Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
      
      Like you have brought up previously Pip, money talks, why is there a West Sydney AFL side instead of a Tasmanian side in the AFL where the interest & the need is far greater than in West Sydney, where it’s interest is extremely lukewarm at best.
      Money talks Pip.
      
      As Chuq mentions, this is a media beatup, I have not heard one word from FFA (Buckley or Lowy) that they expect AFL or NRL to close for 8 weeks & that they just expect these organisation to just accept it.
      All I have heard is alot of media people sticking it to other codes & giving the ammo to the likes of Kurt & other AFL cohorts to vent their hatred onto football.
      
      Reply
      - James said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
        
        Open your eyes
        
        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ffa-keen-to-avoid-football-war/story-e6frexni-1225790886877
        
        “The FFA boss insists soccer’s world governing body (FIFA) is not being arrogant by forcing the NRL, ARL and Super 14 Rugby to shut down should Australia be successful with their bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.”
        
        Reply
        
        Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
        
        You trust anything written in the DT?
    - Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
      
      “soccer is using the World Cup to get access to government money” – what a shocking way to look at it!
      
      It’s more like “soccer is suggesting to the federal government to use the World Cup to get access to overseas money”.
      
      Reply
      - Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
        
        Well – it’s true that with the current budget deficit (to remain for up to a decade at least), it’s likely that the Federal Government will need to borrow the whole of the $3 or $4 billion from overseas to fund the new stadiums.
        
        Reply
- danwighton said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
  
  Reply
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment

Hinds’ makes many points that we have already made on the Roar:

1. The AFL is a commercial organisation that looks after its own interest and that of its stakeholders first and foremost.

2. Aussie rules money has built the MCG and the Dome – so it doesn’t just give away access to those stadiums without massive compensation (and I’ve said it many, many times, the compensation would be massive).

3. The AFL uses ovals, soccer needs rectangular stadiums, so the AFL could never, ever be accused of sabotaging anything – it doesn’t even possess the facilities that soccer need to stage the game properly.

Hinds’ last few lines are worth a read:

” It has been seriously suggested other codes should bite their tongues because they stand to benefit from the $2 million in stadium redevelopment the World Cup would bring. This will get a laugh, particularly from the AFL, whose massive box office appeal – more than taxpayer funded grants – has funded the rebuilding of the MCG, the logical venue for a World Cup final.

Despite the FFA’s self-serving call for everyone to get behind the bid in the ”national interest”, surely it is the AFL and NRL’s prerogative – perhaps obligation – to hold their ground against their passive-aggressive rival.

So spare them the pious lectures and allow them to do, without massive taxpayer support, what the FFA is doing so well with the government purse – looking after their own best interests. ”

This whole issue is about the FFA getting access to government money – actually staging the world cup is secondary.

Reply
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment

Wrong !

It was in fact Michael Lynch chief soccer writer for the Melbourne Age that ‘broke’ the story of FFA wanting the other codes to shut down for up to 8 weeks. His article was also carried in the SMH online.

Hinds article is spot on, have been arguing something similar right here on the Roar.

Reply
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment

Part of the problem is the lack of certainty.

the other part is that from the outset, Buckley lied on Friday when he attempted to claim credit for the MCG redevelopments due to Sydney 2000 Olympic soccer.

And, really – Buckley should know better. He can’t claim Sydney ignorance on that front.

So, if lies and misleading statements are coming from the top of the FFA…..it’s set the standard really.

Reply
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment

Is there any chance this thread will break the world record for posts on the Roar

Reply
- Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
  
  Quite possible Redb, I can see this going on and on like one of those rugby threads – http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/09/25/time-for-league-and-union-to-merge/ – 793 comments they managed on a TOTALLY impossible hypothetical, quite amusing.
  
  Reply
  - Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
    
    yes there is also a strong hypothetical element about this thread, always best for conspiracy theories.
    
    Reply
    - Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
      
      Pippinu didn’t author this article though……his recent 800 plus effort required much effort (on his behalf) to repeatedly resurrect what appeared a lapsed thread.
      
      But, the best way to push up the numbers is to have a lot of silly natter on the periphery or even barely tangental of the main thrust of the article.
      
      Reply
- Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
  
  Depends if MC gets his claws into the agruement.
  
  Reply
- AndyRoo said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
  
  But we have had 3 similarthreads so people are tired. The key is to get people after they have had a break and then hope you get lucky with someone bringing new information.
  
  That “two codes should merge” article was the worst. At least Pip’s artilce had the great work of Foz involved and so the sentances were rich with meaning and importance
  
  Reply
Robbo said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment

“but by names such as “Brisbane World Cup stadium”

Please tell me you meant to say “Lang Park”.

Reply
- Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
  
  No-one knows really. It was called “Brisbane Stadium” when a World Cup qualifer was played there last year, I think because as part of the naming rights agreement there is some sort of penalty (financial or otherwise) whenever the venue uses the name “Lang Park”? I’m not 100% on that. To some “Lang Park” is the ground that used to be on the site, and should never be used to refer to the redeveloped stadium.
  
  In Germany, 7 of the 12 venues were named “FIFA World Cup Stadium, [city]“. The others already had suitable non corporate names, such as “Olympiastadion” or “Fritz-Walter-Stadion”.
  
  Reply