ACT Government shoots itself in the foot
Columnist
By Brett McKay, 4 Nov 2009 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- ACT Sports Minister, Andrew Barr, FIFA, football, World Cup football
161 Have your say
The Australian Socceroos' Mark Viduka kicks the ball in the Australia v Japan opening Group F match at the Soccer World Cup in Kaiserslautern, Germany, Monday, June 12, 2006. This is Australia's first World Cup finals appearance in 32 years. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Bear with me here, readers, for I’m about to break one of Sheek’s golden rules of citizen sports writing on The Roar: I’m broaching the topic of politics. And by “politics”, I mean “ridiculously stupid political decisions.”
Last week, ACT Sports Minister Andrew Barr declared that Canberra might withdraw its support for a united Australian World Cup football bid, and instead pitch itself as an alternate home for the displaced NRL and AFL competitions.
A bit of background here first: a standard condition of winning the rights to host the FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) World Cup is that the host venues become exclusive for the month leading into, and the month of, the tournament itself so as to ensure top-quality surfaces and clean stadiums for the pinnacle of the world game.
In addition to this, FIFA may also require that what it determines to be “major sporting events” not be played in any host cities for the duration of the tournament. Applied locally, if FIFA declare the AFL and NRL competitions to be “major sporting events”, these competitions would either have to be suspended while the World Cup is on, or be played in cities and centres other than host cities, thus ruling out all the state capitals and some major regional cities in Australia.
So this is where the ACT Government have decided to pitch their tent.
Fresh from being overlooked for the A-League’s 12th team in favour of a second Sydney team to kick off in 2011, and despite a third-string Socceroos drawing over 20,000 people to Canberra Stadium in March, the Government is now thinking that there might be more economical benefit in not being a World Cup host city, but rather in playing the caretaker role for the AFL and NRL, should they get temporarily evicted.
The Canberra Times quoted Andrew Barr as saying “[The AFL, NRL and Super15] are going to have to move away from Sydney and Melbourne and it might be strategically to our advantage not to have anything to do with the football World Cup and take extra AFL, rugby league and rugby union [matches] instead.
”If the other competitions aren’t going to go into obedience [with FIFA and suspend action] for that period, then it could be a bonanza for Canberra.
”So we’ll just be strategic in what we do in Canberra because we may be able to get the big tourism benefits that we want without having to outlay $200million on a new stadium.”
Huh, excuse me?!?
How can there possibly be more economic benefit in turning your back on international football followers, in favour of displaced footy fans in Sydney or Melbourne?
The number of Australians that travelled to Germany in 2006, and who will travel to South Africa in 2010, was and is staggering.
Late last week, the Sydney Morning Herald published comments from the head of Tourism and Transport Forum Australia, Christopher Brown, who estimated that something like a million international visitors could be expected for an Australian-hosted World Cup tournament, with a further 250,000 domestic travellers crossing the country following games as well.
Ticket sales could number 4.7 Million for the 64 matches.
Even if Canberra hosted only two games, the share of ticket sales alone could be upwards of $4 Million (based on 40,000 seats at $50 each – conservative to the extreme). And the international and interstate travellers still have to get there and stay somewhere. And eat, drink and be merry, as happens at World Cups.
The direct quote from Christopher Brown was, ”That would provide a massive boost to the economy, generating an estimated $3.9 billion in direct expenditure and creating the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs. It is expected to boost GDP by an incredible $5.3 billion. The entire nation should get behind this bid.”
So how is turning your back on a slice of international and domestic tourism pie this big possibly bettered by hoping to lure 5000 displaced day-trippers – at best – wanting to watch Penrith play Cronulla, or North Melbourne play the Western Bulldogs?
As it is, the $200 Million the ACT Government was “having to outlay” for stadium upgrades would almost certainly have to come from Commonwealth funding toward the World Cup anyway, and so could essentially be kissed goodbye with this “strategic” action.
I should mention too, this is the same government who in May this year announced a 25 year Master Plan for upgrades of Canberra’s major sporting venues. And what do you know, this very Master Plan includes a reason for preparation, among others, “to support a possible Australian Soccer World Cup bid.”
Unsurprisingly, there’s been very little public comment about this move from either Canberra Stadium, or the A-League bid leader, Ivan Slavich. Slavich, who in his day-job is also the boss of local utilities company ActewAGL, has over the weekend voiced his frustration about the lack of explanation of Canberra missing the 12th A-League licence, but he’s hardly Robinson Crusoe on that front.
Slavich probably shouldn’t be holding his breath for an explanation of “…because you’re governed by a group of noted deep-thinkers and intellectuals.”
In what is now becoming a bit of a mess for football in Canberra, there can only be one loser, and that, unfortunately, is the National Capital’s sporting public.
It’s hard to see the Football Federation of Australia (FFA) allowing Canberra to host any more Socceroos matches any time soon, and it’s probably just as hard to see an A-League team based in Canberra either, considering a large part of their financial base was government money.
And without any likelihood of hosting World Cup matches, the Canberra Stadium Master Plan is now just a glossy brochure with pretty pictures and no chance of being anything else but.
Adelaide United coach Aurelio Vidmar’s infamous “pissant town” comments could now easily be applied to Canberra too.
The worst of all this is that this isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last, dumb ACT Government decision like this.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Gulf influence cripples the FFA again (40)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (4)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (2)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (5)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess
- Redknapp tight-lipped over England job
- Departing Lavicka has players’ respect
- Victory gain Spanish recruit for Mariners
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (4)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (2)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (0)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (2)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)
- Capello ‘walks’ from England’s top job (13)
- Why Manchester United are never really beaten (15)
- Explore:
- ACT Sports Minister, Andrew Barr, FIFA, football, World Cup football
Armstrong said | November 4th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
Seems fair enough. If the FFA keeps overlooking Canberra, why should their taxpayers fork out $200m for a soccer facility? It seems quite unlikely that Australia will win either bid anyway from the media reports.
Tifosi said | November 4th 2009 @ 4:36am | Report comment
Andrew Barr’s comment that we will still be interested in hosting socceroos games was the funniest thing i have ever heard!!
If the ACT govt pulls the pin on support for the World Cup/A-league, the socceroos will never set forth in this city ever again.
Its a pity too. The masterplan was great. New rectangular stadium for the three codes, (which the raiders desperately need as watching league in Canberra stadium in winter is hell) and Canberra stadium converted into an AFL/Cricket one.
cab711 said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Canberra has a history of shooting itself in the foot. 1st they sabotage Griffin’s designs for the city and now they don’t sell fireworks. The porn will go next.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Tifosi, I too offered the big “AS IF!!” when I heard the pitch for “Socceroos Matches Only, thanks”, which as I said is a great pity considering the crowd to watch the third-stringers in March. That game was the first taste of international football for a mate and I, and in the light of this news, I’m very glad we did, ‘cos I agree we may not get the chance again.
I too liked the Master Plan, though I’m still struggling with the need for a new rectangular stadium, to be honest. Obviously, I read through a bit of it while finding info for this piece, and I thought it interesting that the toal cost for “Plan D” – which involved converting Canberra Stadium back to the original oval shape, and the construction of a mini-Suncorp – was listed as $300-350 Million. Which begs the question, where’s the other $150M coming from??
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
Brett
Clearly the ACT Govt can’t afford to spend $300 to $350 mill on such a project – especially if it can’t afford the lower $200 mill option.
Put it this way – the Vict Government is spending $330 mill on the Bubble Dome – but it will house two A-League teams, an NRL team and most probably a Super 15 team, and even then, it’s marginally economic.
The business case just wouldn’t be there for Canberra to spend the same amount of money (I’m talking long term).
But – this is all complicated by the fact that the ACT Govt is most probably hoping that the Feds will come in and fund it all, just as SA and WA are hoping as well.
None of the them want to be lumbered by this sort of expenditure – why? because most probably the one-off economic injection of the World Cup doesn’t justify the investment – and long term the stadium becomes a costly noose around the neck.
Governments are right to look beyond the 4 weeks of the World Cup and calculate whether the stadiums continue to pay for themselves over the next 20 years.
But back to the ACT – Bruce was changed from an oval configuration for the 2000 Olympics – that’s only 9 years ago!
So to have a plan out there whereby it’s turned back into an oval shape, with a new rectangular stadium built – well – to be honest – I can’t see how that much expenditure can be justified at any level.
Most likely, the ACT Govt sees the WC bid as an opportunity to grab a large slice of the capital investment that will be required, i.e. they will happily proceed with the plans if someone else is paying for it!! (and that’s fair enough)
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Pip, that’s absolutely spot on, there’s no way in the world these upgrades would come from ACT money, and I never for a minute believed they would.
But by turning their back on the bid, there’s now no chance of ANY upgrades, there’s little or no chance of the FFA agreeing to “just send the Socceroos”, and even the A-League bid would now be in jeopardy.
But even more bewildering to me, they’ve decided they don’t need to economic benefits of domestic and international tourism. I can recall the number of tourists in town when the B&I Lions played the Brumbies in 2005, and that was just one game. The RWC and Olympic football was bigger again. Who WOULDN”T want that sort of stimulus to the local economy??
This isn’t just about stadium upgrades, it’s far, far bigger and more importnat than that!!
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Brett
but surely they’ve only turned their back on it until someone comes knocking again with the cash?
Without Perth and Canberra, there’s no bid – so someone has to come knocking with the cash or it’s all over.
AndyRoo said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
That’s what I thought was happening.
They haven’t actually pulled out they are lobying for the 200m
Especially as I doubt that the NRL and AFL will be clasified as major sports. MLB wasn’t and it’s actually bad for PR to force these sports not to continue.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Andy, it’s very much lobbying, but it’s badly disguised as a pull-out:
Andrew Barr: “..it might be strategically to our advantage not to have anything to do with the football World Cup…”
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
correct Pip, I’d imagine between now and the required time, Frank and/or Kevin will have a quite word with Andrew Barr, and suddenly Canberra will be back in quicker than you can hit CTRL+Z…
Freud of Football said | November 4th 2009 @ 5:07am | Report comment
Well Brett I finally made it to the end.
Firstly a couple of points which are very important. I am pretty sure FIFA will classify the AFL and NRL as major tournaments, to not do so would be a huge slap in the face to both codes and would damage football’s image in the country even before the tournament has kicked off. Fifa may be run by a pack of self-serving egomaniacs but none of them are that stupid.
Secondly we need to stop worrying about the pre-requisites for hosting a WC. Qatar, a country of less than a million people is tabling a serious bid but their size – or lack there of – hasn’t scared them off. These guidelines were likely just installed by marketing geeks who put such things in place to “guarantee” a spectacle, it makes it easier to sell the sponsorship rights etc. if you can guarantee the numbers in advance so if a bid can’t meet them all I think FIFA, if they really want to hand the hosting rights to someone – and let’s face it, they could pick Iraq over Australia if it made them happy – then these minor details won’t matter.
“Unsurprisingly, there’s been very little public comment about this move” – Not much of a public to make a comment really is there?
Obviously mixing sports and politics gets real messy, real quick. Sport is for the people, wannabe intellectuals with token degrees and no life expierence should stick to making phony laws rather than mix it with the working and middle class who live by sport.
Either way, this is a timebomb waiting to happen. I suspect the AFL & NRL would continue if the WC was to be hosted in Aus but if Canberra pulls out I don’t see 6-8 games from either code being played there each week for 8 weeks as it simply wouldn’t be financially viable and would make a mockery of both codes. Politicians will keep their noses out of it if they know whats best for them.
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 5:26am | Report comment
“Politicians will keep their noses out of it if they know whats best for them.” Yeah, fine – as long as sporting organisations keep their snouts out of the public trough too. Like big corporations, sports (and I’m not just singling out soccer here) are big on ‘non-interference’ from government right up until the moment they want to get their hands on tax-payers dosh, and then it’s lots of talk about ‘national pride’, and ‘economic benefits’ blah blah blah.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Freud, congrats on your triumph of persistence!! If you thought this was long enough, there was just as much I left out!!
Agree that the AFL and NRL probably would be classifed as “major”, but not so much from the slap-in-the-face angle (because FIFA really wouldn’t care about that), but more from the angle that FIFA is arrogant and big enough to think there should be no other sport played at the same time. I would imagine they would want to dominate media coverage for the whole period locally, and not allow any local codes any chance of stealing a back (or front) page.
As for the public comment, that was obviously in the context of the Stadium or the A-League bid commenting publically about this decision. I’m sure privately both parties are seething, but publically they’ve stayed silent on the issue, and this is unsurprising given they both have an element of govt funding.
The other side of this is an angle brought up by a mate of mine after he read this. What might this move do for the overall WC bid?? We’re not exactly flush with 20-25K seat stadiums (or stadii, as I prefer) that could be easily upgraded, and in a quick count around the country, we had to include Canberra, Wollongong, and the Central Coast to get to 12. So if Canberra drops out, where are suddenly going to find another 20K+ seats?? Wagga?? Bendigo??
You’re quite right – real messy, real quick…
Freud of Football said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
A very good point. I can’t think of any stadium that could be upgraded, let alone one that would be financially viable. More than likely we would be talking demolition and a rebuild from the ground up so you can throw $300 – $350 Million out the window.
mitzter said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
it’s stadia – the plural of stadium
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
mitzter
according to the Macquarie, both stadia and stadiums are ok.
mitzter said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
ok i’ll accept stadiums but not stadii as mentioned above
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Mitzter, I did know it was stadia, but in my world stadii sounds much betterer…
mitzter said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
haha just being a grammar nazi is all
Gibbo said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
if there were two of you would you be grammar nazii?
Robbos said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Thanks for the article Brett, I agree with you. I just don’t think people understand just how big this event will be.
Forget what sport it is, this is the greatest sporting event in the world, this will create jobs, attract tourists, the worldwide media will be focus on Australia (not unlike the SYdney Olympics) & as you mentioned the finiancial benefits are huge to both the governments & the economy.
Why do you think so many countries are bidding for it’s rights.
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Blah blah regurgitated cliche unthinking parroting of FIFA propaganda etc.
cab711 said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Who cares about the jobs and economic benefits. It will be one big National party and 9months later there will be alot of phone calls and worried blokes.
Robbos said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Cab711, I was in Germany in 06, the party was massive, the best week of my life. I lived in bars & restaurants, meeting people from all around the world all just wanting 2 things, wanting to have the best times of their lives & wanting their country to win.
I’m enternally grateful for my wife allowing me to go while she visit family in England.
No FIFA propaganda here Kurt.
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
I’m not doubting you had a great time robbos or that it was a great party, nor do I underestimate the enormity of the good will demonstrated by your wife in this instance. But the economic benefits line is still a load of nonsense.
Freud of Football said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
No it’s not Kurt. It simply won’t be of benefit to Australia, for many other countries it would be. Germany for example only had to expand upon an already excellent infrastructure, they had all of the transport networks and most of the stadiums they needed, they were able to splash the cash on a huge party and it was fantastic whereas Australia will be broke if all this money is meant to be coming from the government.
There need to be more incentives from FIFA other than the “right”. They make a fortune off of the sponsorship and selling of TV rights but I doubt the hosts get their genuine fair share of that.
Thats the beauty of being an administrative body, you can put the risk on everyone else, tell them they’ll lose billions and you’ll still be getting gifts from the prospective bidders as they push their case forward.
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:46am | Report comment
“the greatest sporting event in the world”
I thought we already had that here in Australia .. twice .. but it was called something else … the … ummmmm argh ….. olympics … I think it was.
Mr cheese said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
There was an article in The Observer over here in England about 9 months after World Cup 2006. Their Germany correspondent said that there had been an increase in the birth rate. That only happened, though, because a dodgy German team got to the semi final of the competition.
If Australia gets to the semis or further, expect lots of new Kylies, Shanes and Clives ( after Clive James, the greatest Australian ).
Gibbo said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
by that logic there also may be some rolfe’s
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Thanks Robbos. You’re spot on about the size of the World Cup, it would/will be the biggest sports event in Australia since the Olympics, possibly bigger even, considering the spread of venues and the economic, infrastructure, and social benefits it will bring accross the country. I went to the opener and several other games during the 2003 Rugby World Cup, which was amazing, but will pale into insignificance compared to the football version
And I say that without any doubt, and I’m still very much a new and part-time follower of the round-ball game..
Kurt, I’m really not sure how you can say “the economic benefits line is still a load of nonsense”. You only have to look at what Germany gained from the 2006 event, and ditto South Africa next year to see that there is no nonsense attached here. The number of Australians wanting to follow the Socceroos forced the Fanatics to book out and set up a tent city in an unused Stadium (unused for the WC – and my apologies, I can’t recall in which city they’re setting up camp) to cater for the accomodation requirements. From there, they will fly and/or bus to the games, some of which are several hours away. And that’s just the Australian followers!! Getting a hotel room in South Africa during the event will be harder than finding a needle in a pile of needles.
But Canberra thinks there’s more benefit in hosting AFL or NRL somehow….
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Brett – I have a challenge for you: Please articulate a specific economic benefit you believe that Germany received from hosting the World Cup and I will endeavour to show to you, using specific examples and primary data, how this benefit is either non-existent or significantly exaggerated.
Luke W said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
For the 2014 WC in Brazil, 12 stadiums are either being built or upgraded costing $US 1.1 billion, a high speed train is being constructed between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero costing $US 11 billion and various airports are being upgraded costing $US 2.8 billion. That’s a huge investment for one sporting tournament, but will provide economic benefits for Brazil for decades to come.
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:50am | Report comment
Brazil is a 3rd world country 75% of the population below the poverty line.
There are better things that money could be spent on, like education and health, than new stadiums and airports so world cup tourists feel comfy.
rugbyfuture said | February 24th 2010 @ 2:58am | Report comment
its also for the rio olympics i would suspect
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Kurt, feel free to knock yourself out anyway, as you clearly have some stats or data you want to use.
All I’ll say is how many new or upgraded stadiums did Germany finish with?? How many tourists did they accomodate and host before, during and after the tournament?? My most vivid memory of 2006 (and remember, I’m a part-time football follower at best) is how Kaiserslautern was transformed into a mini-Australia while they hosted the Socceroos and the thousands of travelling supporters. So how much benefit did the hotels, hostels, pubs, restuarants, etc just in Kaiserslautern rake in??
If you can convince me that it was all “non-existent or significantly exaggerated”, I’ll happily stand corrected.
Freud of Football said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
It’s a different kettle of fish thought Brett. Australia is as they say here in Germany “at the arse of the world”. People were able to take a quick flight over, catch a game, get a hotel for the night and go home the next day. Might have cost a couple hundred euro whereas to watch a single game in Australia, the flights alone from anywhere in the world (most fans will be coming from Europe as that is where the money is) are going to be multiples of that, then the tickets which will cost god only knows what by then and knowing Australian hotels as I do, they will be unable to cope with the demand and I don’t think European travellers are going to want to “camp” for 2 weeks when they attend the WC.
True Tah said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Freud how are Europeans going to cope in South Africa next year, with infrastructure far worse than ours, and they will struggle to meet the demand as well. Hence Australians are camping in a stadium.
Rusty said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Maybe I’m taking this a bit personally but given that tourism numbers for South Africa dwarf Australia’s by 9.6million per annum to 5.6 million per annum I would say the country is far better equipped to handle larger volumes of visitors than our Antipodean cousin. The geographical split of the stadiums will also assist in soaking up the numbers. The one point of concern will be the local airlines capacity in transferring the supporters between locales but other than that it should be fine… providing there is electricity to run it all
True Tah said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Rusty
I just hope the public transport system is better than it was at the start of this year.
Rusty said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Doubtful – I imagine the hire car companies are rubbing their hands in glee
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Brett – why have you become so testy all of a sudden? I think this is an entirely reasonable topic to debate, and whenever I raise the issue people such as yourself and Robbos say things like “Yeah, but it was a bloody great party!” I’m not doubting that you had a good time in Kaiserslautern Brett, I just want you to think a little more deeply when you start talking about economic benefits. For example, take a look at the following interesting tidbit from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5151366.stm
In particular the following quote:
“Perhaps most surprisingly, Berlin hotels are suffering. Busier? No, not at all,” says Jorg Frassa, manager of the Comfort Hotel Auberge. In June he normally has 80% to 85% occupancy, thanks to business fairs, but this June occupancy was down to 65%. They have cancelled everything, they have said: ‘Don’t go to Germany, it’s the World Cup,’” says Mr Frassa.
And this is the WHOLE POINT about the dubiousness of the economic benefits argument – it completely ignores the displacement effect of such events. So whilst you and Robbos were partying hard in Kaiserslautern, a whole bunch of small towns around Germany that depend on domestic and international visitors were doing it EXTREMELY tough because their normal trade was way down.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Hang on a minute Kurt, all my observations about Germany and South Africa are made without leaving the country, just to clarify.
And I’m not getting testy, I just don’t have the time to dig up the appropriate economic figures for you to poke holes in. That’s why I said if you’ve got some figures there ready to go that proves otherwise, then please, feel free.
And yes, it may well have been the case that non-WC German tows suffered, but surely the numbers nationally would’ve been up? The article you’ve linked was written at the time, and it even says that it’s to early to tell what the economic benefit will be. The BBC article also says that while some businesses struggled others boomed. I’d expect that would be the case for any WC host. Luke W makes comments above about the infrastructure projects for Brazil in 2014. Obvious benefit to be had.
Anyway, is this all about what you say is dubiousness of the economic benefits, or the fact that a state or territory has taken a massive gamble (which is likely to fail, in my opinion) that could completely derail the plans and hopes of a nation??
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Overall inbound tourism numbers for Germany in 2006 did increase over 2005, roughly at the same rate as the growth in the global tourism market, and slightly less than the 2006-2007 increase. So no real evidence of a general uplift due to the WC at all.
And as for the infrastructure projects, who exactly pays for them? FIFA? No, it’s the Aussie taxpayer. If these investments are good ideas we should do them anyway, whereas if they’re primarily going to be used for four weeks to ferry soccer fans around then the money could be much better spent elsewhere – this is a classic case of opportunity cost such as where Brazil ends up with a shiny new fast train beloved by international businessmen but rubbish schools.
LK said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Brett, I can see where you are coming from but does Canberra really need a 43k rectangular stadium? How often would it get filled in a normal season? Brumbies average roughly 15k per game and Raiders 10k per game. I know the ACT govt has proposals to re-develop sporting facilities but proposals aren’t concrete plans by any means.
If we get the WC, cities should prove they can justify an upgrade of their existing stadia, by filling them week in, week out. I’m not sure that Canberra is that place. I’m a Canberran, by the way.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
LK, no I don’t, to be frank. You’ve obviously seen the plans too, and the proposed new stadium was going to have a permanent capacity of what Canberra Stadium has currently (~26K), with provision for temporary seating up to 40-43K. By the way, does that sound familiar??
(For the non-Canberrans, that was exactly the original plan for the CS refurb prior to the Olympics)
As I said to Tifosi above, I’m not convinced of the need for a new rectangular stadium at all, and I think the money would be better spent on what we already have.
Either way, stadium upgrades aside, I’m more annoyed about the not wanting to be involved in something as massive as a World Cup. If they go ahead with this plan, the only ACT benefits will the servo on the Federal Highway as everyone drives to Sydney, or the long-stay carpark at the airport…
Terry Kidd said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
This is a from left field, and maybe slightly off topic, but what if FIFA decided that the AFL and NRL were ‘significant sporting events’ but the S15 was not?
Some hypotheticals ….. FIFA is seriously considering the OZ bid but the AFL and NRL refuse to close down for two months and will only move their fixtures to other locations if they are compensated. The ARU and SANZAR are ‘up in arms’ because FIFA don’t regard them as ‘significant events’ and therefore there is no call to move their games and they can’t get compensation. On the other hand, the ARU and SANZAR see an opportunity to cash in on being the only oval ball code in town for 2 months.
You are right Brett, this is a minefield.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
To be honest – I would have thought that FIFA would take the opposite view – that the S15 is significant, and the others aren’t – because FIFA would know all about rugby, but would know very little, perhaps nothing, about AFL and NRL.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Terry either way, even we use your hypothetical there for a minute, if the S15 and TNs are fine to proceed, where will they play anyway??
(And that’s not a chance for someone to say ‘CANBERRA’…)
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:01am | Report comment
by way of comparison .. this year .. in South Africa .. the Springboks are set to host France .. in June I think (i have no idea when the football world cup is).. and everyone is up in arms as it isnt allowed to be played in South Africa due to the FIFA rules cited.
The problem is that rugby test schedules are decided on a 4 yearly basis .. South Africa have to host France in June.
As far as I know they are still looking for a compromise.
I do find it supremely arrogant of FIFA to ban any other major sporting events in stadia around the time of the world cup.
What right do they have to do so? I guess they make the host country sign an agreement to the effect ..
I really can´t ever see Australia being able to have a successful Soccer World Cup bid while this rule remains in place.
Soccer is 4th amongst the winter codes in Australia, a long way behind AFL and NRL in popularity, and if FIFA delegates came to visit, Im sure AFL and NRL fans would be protesting outside their hotels if their own code needs to be canned for a month for a sport they are not interested in.
Redb said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
maybe?
But what if the games were Carlton V Collingwood, Essendon v Richmond or RL State of Origin – played in Canberra during the time.
In any case our wee code of football in AFL is not bigger enough to worry those global types at FIFA as a ‘major’ sport, surely as we are so often told AFLfooty is insignificant in world terms and it is played at the terrible to watch futbol MCG.
As for Canberra nothing wrong with creating a point of difference.
Redb
Gweeds said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Massive dummy spit. I know that Canberra had a great bid and did all the right things etc. But if you had to choose between Canberra and Western Sydney logic would show that Western Sydney has a priority due to its size, and football culture.
Now we have the ridiculous spectacle of the FFA being ‘blamed’ because of Barr’s & Co. ‘I am not going to play anymore and I will take my bad home’ behaviour.
I know they are disappointed, and I know that Canberra feels that they were stringed along, but what the ACT government is doing is not exactly helping any future bids.
Robbos said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Gweeds, 100% correct, massive dummy spit by the ACT government.
Let the truth be known, neither Canberra nor Western Sydney met the criteria set out by the FFA. Let’s not have this image that Canberra had all the boxes ticked & was still overlooked. Western Sydney was picked due to the potential is far greater there than in Canberra, simple, lets get on with it.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Gweeds, I’m sorry but I’m not following you. Is the dummy being spat from me or the ACT Govt?? Your first and last paragraphs seem to take opposite arguments..
EDIT – I’m following again, Robbos’ comment helped me…
cosmos forever said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
I think that’s the point Robbo – Canberra is getting on with it
Look, this is part dummy spit, part lobbying, part pandering to a pre-election voting public with no money. The seed of it all is the lack of clear process by FFA and the complete hypocrisy of setting benchmarks for a competition that then allows a new team to cap crowd sizes.
Brett – in your analysis of the benefit of tourism do you build in the costs of upkeep for stadiums for the following 10-20 years? Reckon the guys at Homebush might have a view on the long term benefits of these huge sporting events!
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
cosmos
I am forever pushing this angle of the annual cost of upkeep of large stadiums – if anyone had any concrete figures, I’d love to see them.
Brett might know more about this than I, but I’m pretty sure Bruce costs the ACT Govt a bit of money in annual upkeep.
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Carrara Marn Grooky stadium Qld is going to cost $160m for 6 games of Marn Grooky per year – care to guess what the up keep is going to be on that unnecessary White Elephant…?
~~~~~~~
KB
bever fever said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Congratulations to the Bligh government for this great initiative of the rebuilding of carrara for our australian game.
Be great when they have the Commonwealth games at the GC and the great stadium they will have to have it in.
BTW they have at least 11 home games a year.
I am betting that GC 17 get more than 2700 fans at a game, i mean seriously they could play GC soccer games at a local park and happily cater for the crowd, the kiddies could play on the swings, throw a few snags on etc.
There is only one club wasting a stadium on the GC ATM and its not your marn grookers.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
KB
This is why it’s a great deal for Queenslanders – the AFL has assumed the full cost of upkeep – I repeat – the full cost of upkeep – it’s in the media release – even though the Qld Govt owns the facility and the AFL only use if for 7 months per annum.
By the way – there would be 11 games per season – why would you make up a ludicrous number like six?
aubgraham said | November 4th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Pip, can you point me to the media release that says that AFL will pay for maintenance. Can’t seem to find it.
Much appreciated
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
aub
this is one spot – but I’ve seen it a few times so I suspect it’s straight off a media release:
http://www.qld.alp.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=491
Quote:
Ms Bligh said the funding for the stadium is dependent upon a number of conditions to which the AFL has agreed:
• The AFL must secure the balance of funding from the Australian Government and the Gold Coast City Council or cover any shortfall themselves.
• The AFL must secure agreement that the completed stadium will be transferred to State Government ownership
• There will be no ongoing charges, rates or fees charged to the State Government and the AFL will cover all operating costs of the stadium.
aubgraham said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Thanks for that. To be fair though, I think that’s a pre-election agreement. The only thing I can find post-agreement is from March 31 –
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,25265493-10389,00.html?from=public_rss
or similar stories (which I also believe are from the same source) which states that
“Demetriou fronted the council with a proposal they hand ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the Carrara Stadium to the State Government – paving the way for the $130 million redevelopment to begin in July.”
Of course the journalist could be wrong too. I think it would be a first for a sporting body to fully maintain a ground they don’t own.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
aub
I thought I’d seen the same thing somewhere else – but then again – I wouldn’t be able to vouch as to the timing,
Rob said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
ACT are playing poker, we all know that.
I understand that there is pressure to fill column inches these days , but this is the biggest non story Ive read in ages…and this site has definitely set the standard for pointless articles of late.
Still, the comments, as always are interesting and enjoyable…keep it coming folks
Pippinu said | November 7th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Rob
SA and WA are probably doing the same – in fact expect pretty much every level of Government to be putting up their hand to get a a chunk of the $2 bill to $3 bill that the Commonwealth will need to spend to have even a remote chance – it’s like bees to a honey pot.
That’s just one of many layers of interest in this WC bid business.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Cosmos, Pip, I don’t know the figures, but there is definitely Govt money involved in the upkeep of Canberra Stadium. CS and Manuka Oval are all run out out of Territory Venues (or something like that), and has an annual budget attached..
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Brett,
The FFA and the Rudd Government commissioned Price Waterhouse accountants to do an independent detailed analysis on the economical and long term benefits in staging the 2018 FIFA world cup in Australia and the staggering amount will be $5 Billion generated for the Australian Businesses…
~~~~~
KB
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
I’ve got a great bridge I’d like to sell you KB, good price, barely used…
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Kurt,
I live in the GC and the Anna Bligh gov. bought a $160m Stadium idea from your mate Andrew Demitriou that won’t be used..
~~~~~~~~
KB
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
KB, that would seem to be in line with the figures Christopher Brown quoted in the SMH last week, and as I’ve included above.
Of course, we’ll never know what the actual benefit is until we host a WC.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
The total project is worth $126 million – the Qld Government only put in $60 million spread over 3 years and get to own it – in fact the Qld Government only have to spend $2 million in the first year to start the building of it.
The AFL cover the annual upkeep 100% and pay a decent amount back to Qld to use the facility for 7 months of the year.
It’s a pretty good deal for Queensland.
Michael C said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Pip – What’s the definition of wasted?
providing facts in a code wars argument.
see also definition of ‘futile’.
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Brett
Yes indeed that is true, however, the last EURO national championships netted something like $24 billion for Austria and Switzerland; and the Germany Football Association reported a simular figure for their last 2006 FIFA world cup…
~~~~~~~
KB
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Pippi,
Marn Grooky paying for the up keep I would like to see that…. They said they were going to build it themselves at the very beginning but that didn’t happen did it..
~~~~~~~
KB
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Generally speaking, the AFL is not in the business of stadium ownership, apart from the exceptions of Waverley, and one day the Dome.
What the AFL does do, is provide guaranteed returns to those who do own the stadiums – it’s not as if they play on them for free!!
Also, since aussie rules is played on grounds that can also be used for cricket during the summer, it makes a lot of sense that such ovals be community-based, the AFL injecting the money during Winter, and the oval being used for cricket and other purposes outside of AFL season.
That’s actually a far better model than community based sporting infrastructure that brings in zero revenue.
Rob said | November 7th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Hi Guys.
Re ground costs found this on the SCG trust website for 2008/9 ……
“During the past year, expenditure of $6.6 million on maintenance of grounds, buildings and plant was incurred”
This covers the whole Moore Park precinct…SFS, SCG, cricket centre and gyms etc. The full report makes for some interesting reading and is worth downloading.
http://www.scgt.nsw.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Annual%20Report%2008.pdf
Terry Kidd said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Lol Brett …. I predict early stadia bookings by rival codes and contractual disputes if the stadia try to renege on the deals …. compensation for moving venues by one means or another.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
TK
no need for early bookings – the AFL has the rights to the MCG during the Winter months right up to 2032, and in the case of the Dome, effectively takes full ownership in 2025.
Robbos said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Pip, but surely you would not deny your fellow Australians the right to see the great World game & seeing all the world games superstars?
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Robbos
unfortunately, I do not possess the power to personally make it happen one way or the other.
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Marn Grooky only had an option contract nothing more; since then Mirvac Group have bought channel 7 out so nothing will be owned by the Marn Grooky unless they do a deal with Mirvac and Docklands; don’t be so sure its all clear sailing from here…
~~~~~~~
KB
bever fever said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Dont be so sure its not, either way I dont think you will be worrying about by 2025, i’m not.
I reckon the AFL are pretty smart dont worry yourself to much.
Michael C said | November 4th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
ah KB,
now we established that the AFL has the ‘option’ at the nominal rate of $30 dollars was it, (straight dollars….NOT millions) to assume full ownership of the venue.
In the meantime, everyone is dealing in the management rights of the venue.
As the MCC illustrate with the MCG…..there’s money to be made from venue management in Melbourne…..if you’ve got the AFL.
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
MC,
not at all it was an Option Contract taker, being Marn Grooky (AFL) paying $30m with expiry date in 2025 (?) then exercised for a price some $30…
That was before Mirvac paid Channel 7 some $260m to take ownership of the Dome… Now we can assume that somewhere Mirvac have taken over the option contract to gain full freehold ownership.. Cos why would an astute Company like Mirvac pay that money if it new it was going to be handed over to Grooky later.. (and managment rights would not come into it)
Now obviously you have some connection with Marn Grooky to put up the old Option Contract details so now your task will be to summit the new agreement from Grooky Head Quarters of the sale of the Option Contract to Mirvac If you choose to except the assignment (I am guessing of course, but I smell there is more to it than meets the eye)..
~~~~~~~
KB
bever fever said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Relax Kb it will be sorted out by those in the know, those much wiser than you or I.
Thank you for showing so much concern though, i will pass it on to Andrew.
Robbos said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
KB, you are in serious trouble if you are getting advice from Bever
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
Geez – all the best business minds in Australia – and they forgot to read the fine print!@!
K B said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Robbos,
all of this grown up talk is beyond little Bever, the best thing he can handle is his little toy mallet… At any rate John Elliot was quoted as saying that Graeme Samuels had entered into the worst business deal in all of Grooky’s business history when he entered into this “Option Contract”, and he would have to live with his decision…
So what happened next; poor old Graeme left Grooky headquarters soon after as one of their ex Commissioners; never to be seen again (maybe he was sacked who knows)… However, I know that the Mirvac Group are very astute acquiring property for redevelopment, so don’t be surprised that the Dome will be pulled down in 2025 only to see a high rise redevelopment standing in its place… Take it from me someone who knows how option contracts work…
~~~~~~~
KB
BigAl said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
KB . . . would I be right in assuming that the sources for your indepth knowledge on the AFL(sorry Grooky) Stadium deal are the same ones that provided you with the scoop that Austria made 25 BILLION from the last European Cup ?
Michael C said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
James Fielding Fund Managers are the ‘owners’ (Mirvac has a stake)
from 2005
AUSTADIUMS.COM NEWS / Friday 23rd December 2005
Seven set to sell off Telstra Dome
Telstra Dome is up for grabs, with Channel 7 looking to sell its stake.
The Herald Sun has learned a deal to sell its management rights to the state-of-the-art stadium could be worth as much as $200 million.
All we are talking about is the management rights changing hands.
There’s pretty good value in a well attended AFL stadium.
Otherwise you wouldn’t see the MCC paying all but $77 mill of a $434 mill ground improvement.
Good money there for organisations other than the AFL. (although Michael Cockerill sees it differently I do believe,….but, I think he applies KB style ‘logic’ which is a biased flaw).
Note further
AUSTADIUMS.COM NEWS / Wednesday 15th March 2006
Mirvac hot for Telstra Dome
Giant property developer Mirvac is understood to be the preferred bidder for the management rights at Telstra Dome. The company, which bought Waverley Park from the AFL four years ago, is believed ready to finalise the purchase from the Seven network. It would hold the management rights for the 19 years until the AFL assumes ownership and total control of the Docklands stadium.
KB – I’m disappointed – - we’ve been over this all before, and you still, STILL don’t get it and still refuse to believe.
Robbos said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
KB, now you have the big guns of the AFL cohorts advising you. Mr Wikipedi C himself & the Big man.
Michael C said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Robbos -
on this one, wikipedia is nowhere in sight.
Back in February I did all the ruddy ground work research for KB, and illustrated that it is purely and simply the venue management rights that are being bought and sold…..and only the rights up to 2025.
The more recent discovery was of the nominal ‘exercise’ rate for the AFL to pay of $30 only come 2025.
Poor KB likes to hope that the whole deal has changed.
It hasn’t. The management rights prior to the AFL assuming ownership is a saleable commodity for whomever ‘owns’ those rights at the time.
$260 million just blows KB’s mind in the Australian context….but, Docklands stadium is a very highly used venue by international standards. (ground rationalisation and 10 Vic based teams in a highly attended domestic league means that we’re talking value propositions not all that common on a global level).
Terry Kidd said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
and I imagine that the NRL and ARU have similar deals for ANZ Homebush, SFS and Suncorp so where does that leave a Football world cup bid with FIFA’s criteria of stadia use?
Does that mean that a world cup bid is a pipe dream?
cosmos forever said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Uncle Frank will just take care of everything
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Well – this is precisely what the discussion has been about (when there has been a discussion) – depending on the severity of the ancillary requirements – someone will be needing to compensate all three codes.
AndyRoo said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
If Rugby Leage and ARU have agreements through to 2018 and 2022 I would be shocked.
Rugby League is run more along “she’ll be right mate” rather than long term strategic plans to take over the nation.
captain nemo said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I think homebush is still a bit of a dogs dinner. Not really sure if anyone would be in a rush to put pen to paper in that joint locking themselves in for more than a few years