Related coverage
- Football news
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
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!
Recommend this story.
October 28th 2009 @ 7:56am
Brett McKay said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
I’m surprised Chuq you haven’t had more objection to “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!” by now..
Your points here make the ACT Government’s decision to withdraw their support for the WC bid (in favour of being an alternate venue for affected codes) all the more ludicrous. Bugger international tourists and travelling supporters, let’s try and get five thousand down from Sydney to watch Souths….
Also, am I right in my understanding that only one WC city can use two stadiums (or stadia)? And also that FIFA aren’t big on converted oval grounds? That being the case, if Sydney’s Homebush and SFS get the nod, the Etihad Dome would therefore still be available for the AFL, if the AFL isn’t classified as a “major sporting event”, of course
October 28th 2009 @ 8:01am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/10/23/world-cup-would-force-other-codes-to-take-a-break/
In initial comments on the Roar, this was my first statement re major sporting event, yet 282 posts later it didnt get challenged
Now its being used as a put down, oh well.
Can we have our crappy oval MCG back then too? it’s only good for AFL football, we hear that all the bleeding time.
Redb
October 28th 2009 @ 8:07am
Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Totally agree. Leave us with our rubbish little oval grounds and let us play our tiny little game in the shadow of sheer magnificence that is the FIFA World Cup (TM). No need for us to stop at all.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:27am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Yes – I’ve said it as well – let the tinpot local comp use its crappy ovals – and use the billions to build wonderful state of the art rectangular stadiums – build them all new – $3 billion is nothing in the context of the financial return of a world cup.
Just leave the AFL right out of it – they’ve got nothing to do with this at all.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:14am
Brett McKay said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
sorry guys, that wasn’t designed to be a put down – exactly the same could be said for the NRL if the SFS isn’t required for the WC. I was actually just seeking confirmation on the dual stadia city policy…
October 28th 2009 @ 8:24am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
not aimed at you.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:30am
Brett McKay said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
oh well in that case….
October 28th 2009 @ 8:20am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
FIFA has a specific document : Football Stadiums: Technical Recommendations and Requirements.
see
section 1.7 : Multi-Purpose stadiums
“Designing stadiums so that they can host other sporting and entertainment events will increase their utilisation and improve their financial viability.”
“They are also increasingly used to host other sports, such as rugby, cricket and American Football.”
all this is consistent with section 1.6, which is the Community Relations” section and seeks to ensure stadiums that enhance the quality of life within a community etc etc and not be a financial white elephant.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:19am
Firestarter Bob said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Re Chug’s point #2 as to why no other major sport can be played: “This is mainly for logistical reasons. Accommodation, transport, security and so on will be extremely busy (that’s an understatement!) during the Cup.”
So dear Chug, care to explain why the major entertainment centres don’t have to close down under the FIFA decree?
Why doesn’t the 20,000 watching a music concert at Acer Arena have to be shut down too?
What about 20,000 going to the horses at Flemington, Randwick or Rose Hill?
Can the AFL or NRL play a game in the centre field of Randwick?
What about the 10-15,000 people than inhabit every Westfield Shoppingtown every day during the FIFA WC? Shouldn’t Westfields be closed too?
Would any of that be ok with you soccerists?
October 28th 2009 @ 9:48am
Kurt said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Yeah, that one makes me laugh. Melbourne can currently cope with simultaneous sporting events at the MCG, Olympic Park and Docklands with a total attendance sometimes of 120K plus but apparently put on a WC game and the whole city has to come to a halt.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:56am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
But it’s not just the people who go the ground to see one match. Over a million tourists will come to see a World Cup.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:03am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Yeh – but they aren’t sitting in the heart of Melbourne all at once!
October 28th 2009 @ 10:05am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
True, but whatever city hosts the final could expect at least 500k tourists.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:11am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Sydney deserves to host it as Australia’s international city.
Melburnians would rather watch the footy in peace.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:02am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
The MCG has had to cope with the occasional home and away attendance of 90,000+ since the 1950s.
I think Melbourne has seen big crowds at the footy before.
How many attend Flemington on Melbourne Cup day? 150,000??
It’s true that transport can be an issue on such occasions – I’ve seen women swim across the Maribyrnong River in their frocks because they got sick of waiting for a cab.
But we can cope with 50,000 attending Bahrain vs Estonia at one ground, and 35,000 attending Carlton vs Hawthorn at another ground.
I think we can cope.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:05am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
This season AFL games attracted over 250,000 on one weekend and regularly get over 200,000 in Melbourne.
It’s a walk in the park – err literally.
Redb
October 28th 2009 @ 11:58am
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that there were already races and music concerts scheduled for June-July 2018 and June-July 2022.
You’d have to ask FIFA. Perhaps 20k isn’t declared a “major event”. Perhaps it because music events generally (though not always) don’t use sporting infrastructure. Perhaps it is because music events generally tour through many cities, rather than sporting events which are a one off event in one city, so their effect on accommodation and transport requirements is minimal.
Shopping centres? You are joking? People don’t travel from interstate, stay in hotels, then have 50k+ people go to the same shopping centre at once, then 2 hours later they all leave at once.
In any case, you are making up situations that no-one is claiming will happen, arguing against them, then claiming the same arguments apply to the actual situation.
October 28th 2009 @ 4:34pm
constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
firestarter bob: we are actually having a constructive discussion, we dont need stupid comments
October 28th 2009 @ 8:23am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
NOte -
The interesting point – “…it is important not to change the stadium to an extent that has a negative impact on its primary purpose for football”.
obviously meaning ‘soccer’, ……just what they mean by this I’m not sure. Would they not want to take credit for a stadium such as the Berlin Olympic Stadium……because, the running track and therefore size, has a negative impact on soccer viewing?
Or, are the FIFA optimal and maximal distances for crowd from centre of pitch and farthest corner, are all these numbers conveniently within the tolerances of the Berlin Olympic Stadium (given it hosted the 2006 Final??).
This is answered via the diagrams on page 37, which illustrate the optimal and maximal zones over laying the Olympic Stadium in Munich against the Giuseppe Meazza Stadium in Milan.
And quoted:
“Perhaps the largest cities of the world, with very large budgets and the objective of hosting the Olympic GAmes one day, might be capable of satisfying the needs of football and athletics. For most, however, surrounding a football pitch with a running track in a modern stadium should be avoided.”
So – I reckon it’s fair to suggest, the notion of ‘multi-purpose’ is very much directed towards multi-purpose so long as it’s a rectangular design.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:29am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
“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.”
Chug,
And Etihad Stadium. The second WC Melb stadium must be the new MRS – that is what it was designed for!
With Etihad, Geelong and maybe Princes Park we are talking about minimal disruption to the AFL with only the question of the MCG being unavailable to contend with some form of compensation – that is easy to work out.
It’s that simple, time for FFA to show some forebearance which itself is asking for.
Redb
October 28th 2009 @ 10:07am
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
World Cup supporters would love the MRS to be the second Melbourne venue as much as AFL supporters. (And yes, I know “WC supporters” and “AFL supporters” are not mutually exclusive but it’s a pretty polarised group on here!) We were told (before it was built) that it was capable of being upgraded to 50k. It now seems that is incorrect (or rather, it can be upgraded, but at the astronomical cost of rebuilding the entire roof).
If only FFA wasn’t being asked to upgrade oval venues across the country then perhaps they could re-allocate those funds into rebuilding the MRS roof!
October 28th 2009 @ 10:18am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Chuq
this specific issue is a mystery.
Surely, if we are going to invest $3 to $4 billion in stadium redevelopments, that we can afford a mere $100 mill to rebuild the bubble dome to the minimum 43,000 required – even if rebuilding the roof costs millions.
I mean – so what if it’s expensive to rebuild the roof – the whole damn thing is expensive!
Also, we are most likely talking about 2022 – so we would have used the Bubble dome for 12 years – so what if we have to rebuild the roof from scratch?
This bit of bull shit that is now circulating around makes me wonder whether the FFA is fair dinkum about any of this?
October 28th 2009 @ 10:18am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Chuq,
This is all news to us Victorian tax payers who have so far pumped $330 million into the MRS. For the record I’ve always welcomed it and walk past the bubble almost every day, reckon its great.
However, I dont accept it is not possible to extend the roof not with the dollars being thrown around.
The FFA are too quick to dismiss it as an option as i think they know the AFL has already agreed to the MCG knowing that Etihad was a viable alternative for all but the biggest drawing games of which they would be 5-6 in a 8 week period.
No Etihad stadium available sends the AFL to unused suburban grounds with little infrastructure, hopelessly inadequate (assuming they are allowed to play).
I drove past Windy Hill (old Essendon ground) the other day it is in total disrepair and would require major dollars to re-build.
The MRS is a purpose built facility, foundations built to accomodate an upgrade should OZ host the WC at some time in the future and now all of a sudden its too expensive to extend. Sounds like BS.
There is way too much upside for the FFA beyond dollars to effectively shut out the AFL in Melbourne for 8 weeks and amongst all the huge media WC hype and publicity somehow kick start the AFL after such an hiatus. Shortly after the FFA will kick off the A League season.
You never give a mug an even break, you definitely dont need to give a rival code backed by the Fed Govt anything more than absolutely necessary.
Etihad is not part of the deal.
Redb
October 28th 2009 @ 12:04pm
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Just to clarify (to you and pippinu) – I agree with you both, that the MRS should be used instead of Docklands. It would be the obvious better choice for supporters of all codes.
October 28th 2009 @ 1:45pm
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Good to hear.
cheers
October 28th 2009 @ 4:30pm
Michael DiFabrizio said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Surprised more wasn’t made of this at the time (mid-September):
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/09/16/1252780357089.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
“Melbourne’s new Swan Street stadium has been ruled out of the running because of a design bungle. Built with a capacity of 32,000, the stadium was supposedly future-proofed so that the foundations could support an increase to 40,000 and make the facility FIFA-compliant.
But while the foundations were strengthened, the distinctive bubble roof was not designed to be adaptable. Studies have now shown that increasing the crowd capacity would require the roof to be rebuilt, and would prove more costly than building a new stadium.”
October 28th 2009 @ 4:40pm
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Michael
thanks for the link and reminder.
I do remember it – I immediately thought it was a case of the State governments holding out for the Commonwealth to pay for it all 100%, and it might still be a case of that.
For Canberra, Perth and Adelaide – there is really not a whole lot of incentive to put their money into facilities that will not be needed after the WC – so it’s understandable that they will want the Commonwealth to cover it 100%.
And with NSW potentially providing 5 of the 12 venues that are required, it’s hard to imagine that they will be able to cover the cost without substantial Commonwealth involvement.
October 28th 2009 @ 8:41am
prowling panther said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
cmon people, whats a couple of months without football in ten years time? We should be 100% behind the WC bid as Australians for all the benefits such an event would bring to the nation. Im sure no one will die from being starved of a couple of rounds of nrl/afl. Everone makes it through a 5 month offseason afterall…
October 28th 2009 @ 8:59am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
who is not behind the bid?
The 8 week shut down as reported by the chief soccer writer of the AGE is the issue which previously has not been addressed.
The sudden inclusion of Etihad as a required WC stadium is the issue.
No AFL footy for 4 weeks (lead up) when there is no football of any code being played is the issue.
The massive disruption to the players season of no games for 8 weeks is an issue. AFL players spend 4 months in pre season to ensure they can get through the whole season, match fitness is different to training track. These are professional athletes in a professional comp that maybe small by world standards but is important nonetheless.
4 week no AFL is also 4 weeks of media time for the WC – FFA know this, teams arriving, setting up training, I guarantee FFA want all the lead up publicity to be on the WC. (conspiracy theory – but if I was the FFA I would like this)
Its not black and white but can be worked out.
Redb
October 28th 2009 @ 12:06pm
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
“No AFL footy for 4 weeks (lead up) when there is no football of any code being played is the issue.” – as the entire point of my article suggests, AFL footy will NOT have to stop for the 4 week leadup time.
October 28th 2009 @ 12:18pm
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
you omitted Etihad. If were going to debate please read my posts I reckon I’ve stated that point a few times.
It cant work for the AFL in Melb without Etihad.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:18pm
prowling panther said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Are you sure Etihad is a WC stadium?
Correct me if I am wrong but under FIFA guidelines, only one city may use two stadiums. Since they clearly prefer purpose built rectangle stadiums its unlikely the bid would use the MCG and Etihad. More likely SFS and ANZ stadium in which case Etihad is free for AFL in the 4 weeks up to the Cup.
Then during the cup they can play at regional centres and expansion areas, so the comp can continue. Minimal disruption to player training and match fitness…
meh I ain’t very knowledgeable when it comes to football
Anyways it just occured to me that Origin would clash with any WC. Now that is a different monster altogether…
October 28th 2009 @ 9:40am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
It’s good to see there are some people out there who still possess common sense.
October 28th 2009 @ 4:36pm
constantine said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
prowling panther: my point precisely, they have had 150 years of no competition and when it comes to a slight alteration for a meagre 2 months its time to cry fowl. anybody which follows both sports, or anybody that has any idea about economics will understand how important this festival is
October 28th 2009 @ 4:42pm
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
…or one could call it 150 years of ongoing activity, with no long breaks during Winter – why break for something that has nothing to do with them?
And the point about competition is incorrect – the VSL always played their season during Winter, as did the NSL for its first 10 years of existence, and as did the NBL in the early years.
October 28th 2009 @ 5:13pm
Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
constantine, they will just never understand, some people just don’t have the vision they think small & are happy, just like some sports don’t have the vision to go global.
October 28th 2009 @ 4:46pm
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Hey – that 5 month break is so long – we end up watching the A-League!!
October 28th 2009 @ 8:52am
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
My 2 cents.
No-one has mentioned the funding of these new or upgraded stadiums. Yes the Government will have to open up their coffers but we aren’t talking a few hundred million here and the few billion that has been mentioned won’t cut the mustard either. How many stadiums do we require with what capacity to host a WC? South Africa has 10?
So we aren’t talking about a couple of thousand extra seats and some terraces. We’re talking 50,000+ all-seater state-of-the-art stadia. Anything that would be “upgraded” would be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up or am I missing some stadium which has the capacity to be expanded to WC standards? (possible)
So basically Aus needs 10 new stadiums, none of the current football stadiums are suitable and the AFL/cricket stadia won’t be getting overhauled – trust me, if the AFL is forced into having an 8 week break they aren’t going to spend the 3 seasons prior to a WC with 50% crowds as the stadiums are redeveloped – so we basically need funds to build 10 stadiums from the ground up.
For something like the Emirates stadium in London we’re looking at a MINIMUM of $700 Million, for one stadium, $7 Billion for 10 and as I have no idea how the property/building market is in Aus it could be considerably more, then we factor in inflation and extra costs to get a project like this done on time, we might as well double that figure as a starting point.
And the WC is meant to bring in $5 Billion in return?
Yes the FFA wants government funding but they aren’t going to get those sort of funds. No other sport is funded by taxpayers to that tune or to anything in that neighbourhood, football, a “marginal” code can forget it too.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:03am
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
It strikes me that given our love of differing football codes, small population and the stadiums which are required that maybe Australia is actually not suitable to host a World Cup.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:10am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
That’s the conclusion I have been slowly coming too as well.
As Tifosi said, let’s host the Asian Cup first – then worry about the World Cup another time.
I just heard that Australia’s population will grow by another 12 million over the next 40 years – that sounds like a good time to host it.
October 28th 2009 @ 11:13am
BigAl said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
The World Cup and The Asian Cup are two completely different kettles of fish !
The only thing they have in common is Soccer – one is a PR tsunami, the other is . . . who knows!
Just consider the sad response to the recent Asian Cup game in Melbourne.
Holding this comp. in Australia could well be a PR embarresment to the FFA, doing absolutely nothing for the game in Aus. !.
October 28th 2009 @ 12:10pm
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
No obvious bias there hey redb?
October 28th 2009 @ 12:13pm
Redb said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
not the only one. When push comes to shove your opinion polarises.
The FFA’s approach has got many offside.
October 28th 2009 @ 5:20pm
Robbos said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Here we go again this close way of thinking. We are the only country in the world with a love for other sports..
October 28th 2009 @ 9:05am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Freud
that’s just about the sum of it – at least $3 billion – at least!! would have to be invested in stadiums alone.
Folks – our bid is nowhere and has nothing.
Canberra, the 7th largest population centre in Australia has just pulled out.
Where are the 8 population centres we need to host groups?
Our bid is a farce.
This was never about winning hosting rights to the World Cup – it was all about getting funds out of the Government and about getting the Government’s ear.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:09am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
what? did it have to be a shared Aust-NZ from the start?? (crossing over two confederations??)
October 28th 2009 @ 9:49am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
This bid was never about getting the Government on football’s side. It is about Frank Lowy wanting to see a World CUp in Australia before he dies, or as his legacy. I agree it is poorly timed. We don’t have the stadium or infrastructure, but Lowy won’t back down.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:05am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
as per South Africa
X – number of stadiums at minimum 40,000 plus VIPs (43,000) for the group matches,
Y – number of stadiums at minimum 60,000 plus VIPs (65,000) for opening match, semi-finals and finals,
Buckley is keen on the potential (and AFL approved, I gather) 55,000 redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval. A project like that one, if done right, that is probably going to happen anyway, then. So obviously, you can get it done sooner, with the AFL, SACA, SANFL??, and all levels of Government contributing………???
….and then FIFA and FFA pay a hefty rental to gain out of season exclusive access.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:11am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The SA government isn’t too keen to contribute money though.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:49am
ren said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
good luck getting the sanfl to do anything smart. they’ll try and ride the footy park cash cow until it can’t go any further, then they’ll just try and push it further
October 28th 2009 @ 4:10pm
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
The Adelaide Oval isn’t about to be redeveloped into a 55,000 seat stadium, it is one of the premier cricket grounds in the world, no-one would show up to a Test in Adelaide if they got rid of the hills in favour of seating. I hope you mean Footy park and just have mixed up your locations.
Either way, they are both oval.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:04am
keeper11 said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Re..Hinds article
Geez ….another clueless agenda driven AFL/NRL media muppet offending ‘football’ followers…. who would have thought…
..and his reference to Football in Aust as being ‘quasi’ national …
well ..you can’t get more ‘quasi’ than the ‘National ‘ Rugby league or the ..ahem ‘ ‘International’ Rules…
but ofcourse…don’t ever expect to hear that from the good ol’ boys club that is the joke commercial media here….
October 28th 2009 @ 4:11pm
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Yes “National Rugby League” – Played more-or-less in Sydney with how many teams elsewhere and how much interest across the country?
October 28th 2009 @ 9:08am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Put it this way – the World Cup will generate $6 billion of economic activity.
So the FFA should be able to organise loans for $3 billion to build whatever it wants – knowing that it would be able to pay the whole lot back with interest on completion of the WC, and with money to spare!!
But with WA, SA and the ACT not wanting a bar of it – something tells me that the sums don’t quite add up.
October 28th 2009 @ 1:00pm
AndyS said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Yeah, I don’t think FFA is quite expecting a $3b windfall. The total activity might amount to $6b across the entire economy, but how does that get pulled together in one place to pay off a loan?
October 28th 2009 @ 4:12pm
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Pip,
please see what I wrote above. For $3 Billion you can’t build what Australia requires to get up to WC standard. At $3B you are still a LONG way off.
October 28th 2009 @ 4:15pm
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Freud
$3 billion is a decent start!! (and will be hard enough to bring together when we have a decade of budget deficits looming)
October 28th 2009 @ 9:11am
Nick said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
But where will the Wallabies play in the hiatus? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
October 28th 2009 @ 9:12am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Why is that so amusing?
October 28th 2009 @ 9:20am
Nick said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Until they start winning again its the only thing I can do to stop from crying…
I do have a question about the rescheduling of the Ashes for the English WC… it is a very short summer in England do they start the tour in August or something because October/November seems a very cold time to be still playing cricket… And why do they need to stop at all when England would have more than enough enough Soccer/Football, purpose stadiums. Surely simply a little competition with media coverage is a bit hysterical?
October 28th 2009 @ 1:25pm
Ashes said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Ashes in England are not held in World Cup years – no problem there.
Ashes Series coming up in England
2013, 2017, 2021 etc.
Ashes Series coming up in Australia
2010/11, 2014/15, 2018/19, 2022/23 etc.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:25am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Nick
Re the ashes – I would have thought that it’s simply a matter of using ovals that are not necessarily in cities where world cup games are scheduled?
With the England bid – FIFA won’t need cricket ovals – there are a 100 soccer pitches that could be used tomorrow – I wouldn’t have thought there is an issue for cricket.
The Australian bid problem is that we have bugger all stadiums, and as a result we are likely to include at least three ovals in our bid – and it’s hard to imagine anyone in FIFA being excited about that.
October 28th 2009 @ 9:36am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
after this years Ashes kicked off in Cardiff,
well, why not the Ashes spread around Cardiff and cricket venues in Scotland and Ireland too.
For now, the Poms happily steal players from Ireland.
October 28th 2009 @ 4:13pm
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
yes and the irish don’t happily play for england?
October 28th 2009 @ 12:15pm
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
For some reason many Australians assume that we have to have the venues ready to go from the day the bid is submitted (or voted upon). Not true. Korea/Japan, Germany and South Africa all constructed many new venues and upgraded existing venues as a result of winning the rights to host the World Cup.
I don’t think having a few ovals in our bid is a problem. Having newly constructed ovals where there is an opportunity for a rectangular stadium instead is a problem!
October 28th 2009 @ 9:28am
Firestarter Bob said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
This FIFA WC bid nonsense must end now. What a waste of money. Not hard to see why the Olympics is not getting funding IT deserves.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:06am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Why is it nonsense? Please, I am intrigued to hear your no doubt well thought out and articulate opinion.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:09am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Luke
Our bid is certianly starting to look rather flimsy.
With Canberra and maybe Perth out of the picture – which are our 8 big cities that will host groups?
And that’s just for starters.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:29am
Luke W said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
We were never going to win either the 2018/2022 World Cup. If we do, it will be an amazing outcome. Still, we should be bidding. We need to get experience in the bidding process, and how these things work at FIFA.
For example, Brazil bid for 94 and 06 before getting 14.
South Africa bid for 06 before gettig 10.
USA bid for 86 before getting 94.
Argentina bid for 70 before getting 78.
Germany bid for 66 before getting 74.
Admittedly there are other factors at play (such as rotation policy) but rarely does a country host a WC on their first bid since 1970.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:37am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Luke
good point.
The rotation policy is now dead..
But 2030 or 2038 does sound a lot more realistic.
October 28th 2009 @ 12:06pm
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
by then, they’ll be wanting 40 teams and 18 match venues and 40 training bases and 36 simple training venues and…….it’ll cost $100 million just to make the first stage bid.
And by 2042, the FIFA WC will be no longer because it will have priced itself out of existance!!!
October 28th 2009 @ 12:17pm
Chuq said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Don’t forget, we are bidding for two at once, so if we get 2022 we effectively ARE getting it on our second bid!
October 28th 2009 @ 10:08am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
yep, it’s ironic timing for John Coates to be putting a push for an extra $100 million in funding…..
….and at some point you wonder just how much the Federal Govt should be getting involved in all of this distortion of the business of sports.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:14am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
The Olympic movement must know (and indeed all sports through out Australia) – that in this period of budget deficits, if the Federal Government ties up $3 to $4 billion in stadium redevelopments – they inevitably will see less money for the next 15 years – guaranteed.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:23am
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
and all the uncertainty around the Crawford report and all.
October 28th 2009 @ 10:24am
Tom said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
The problem for the Olympic sports is that money spent on them doesn’t produce the same economic returns that money spent on a world cup could (potentially).
But yes, if the government throws its financial weight behind the world cup the Olympic sports will definitely suffer.
As for Canberra and Perth, I agree that there’s not really a bid without them. Lowy will have to sail the yacht across from the Mediterranean and do some more wining and dining, I think.
By the way, is there a reason Canberra Stadium can’t be upgraded to 40 000?
October 28th 2009 @ 10:35am
Pippinu said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Tom
Canberra stadium can definitely be upgraded to 43,000 (that’s the magical number), but the ACT government has indicated that the cost of doing that, along with various other financial guarnatees demanded by FIFA, that the cost is about $200 million, which is far too prohibitive for them.
Bear in mind that this could be just a ploy to get the Feds to pay for the whole lot – the trouble is that very single state government will try the same ploy – no state government wants to spend that sort of money.
As redb said, the Vic govt is spending $330 mill on the beautiful bubble dome – but now it can’t eve be used for the WC!!!!
You can bet that the Vic govt will now not spend a single cent!!
October 28th 2009 @ 11:06am
Brett McKay said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Tom, when it was upgraded prior to the Olympics, the plan was for permanent seating up to about 25000, with the ability to bring in temporary setaing for up to 40,000. But then the Chief Minister at the time (in her wisdom) decided trucking turf from Cairns – TWICE, becuase the first lot died – made more sense than using local turf, and cost cutting had to happen, and then….
The net result is the capacity is a tick over 25,000, but there would still be plenty of room to expand…
October 28th 2009 @ 12:03pm
Michael C said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
and it’s been pointed out that the AFL ‘industry’ is worth about $1 billion to the Australian economy annually. I’m not sure what the NRL ‘industry’ is worth, but, I’d recko you could combine the 2 for about $1.6-$2 billion annually.
We have to be careful then to focus too much on all this concern for something that might happen in 13 years time and be worth a couple of billion to the economy as distinct to the intervening 13 seasons of AFL/NRL which collectively dwarfs the FIFA WC.
Point being, a lot of this ‘infrastructure’, if such a good idea, has to be built/justified around the year in year out requirements, rather than having too great a focus on 4 weeks in winter 2022…should it happen. However, build it with FIFA WC’s in mind.
That’s why Homebush stadium wasn’t built as a rigid athletics track stadium.
Reality though, the state of California is probably better placed to host the FIFA WC all alone than is Australia.