By Brett McKay
November 4th 2009 @ 3:03am
Related coverage
ACT Government shoots itself in the foot
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.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(161)
Look, it was...
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 (4 weeks ago) | 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 (4 weeks ago) | 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 (4 weeks ago) | 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 (4 weeks ago) | 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
BigAl said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Brett . . I would be interested to know just what info. there is , both factual and anecdotal of the economic benefits of the 2000 Olympics to Sydney ? – not wanting to be sounding too smart, but the only one I ever hear about is the magnificent Olympic Stadium ???
Also, when comparing the World Cup in Germany with what could be expected in Australia, it may pay to keep in mind what is expected to happen with the Rugby World Cup in NZ compared with the last one in Europe !
There is no attempt there at disguising the fact that that the whole show is going to require huge ammounts of taxpayers funds ! – thats all ok for them, because the NZ public is 1000% sure they’re going to win the thing !
– not sure that applies here with the FIFA WC .
aubgraham said | November 4th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Here is one – http://www.monash.edu.au/policy/ftp/workpapr/g-168.pdf Bottom line – Olympics lost $2.1B.
Also, to support Kurt’s earlier statements they tried to estimate the effect of the Olympics on foreign tourism by looking previous big events and found no effect of the Olympics.
The conventional wisdom is that the World Cup will attract more foreign tourists. During the event itself this will be true, but countries also experience a decrease in foreign visits in the months before and after such events. Presumably, tourist change their timing slightly to incorporate some time at the World Cup. The effect on an annual basis is very small. Similarly, some domestic residents who aren’t interested in the World Cup choose this time to travel overseas (they also change their timing slightly to ensure they miss the World Cup). This reduces any positive impact observed from the increase in foreign visitors.
Of course, the above point could be applied at the city level as well (so individual cities tend to overestimate the positive effects of an increase in domestic tourism.
True Tah said | November 4th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Aubgraham
I guess for the casual traveller, going to a place during a world cup is going to be a lot more expensive. I have heard some of the prices people are paying for going to South Africa next year and just shake my head…having been to South Africa many times, it is a cheap holiday destination. Whilst Im sure FIFA world cup tickets are expensive, some of the accommodation prices are extraordinary.
BigAl said | November 4th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
aubgraham . . . excellent, thanks for the link.
btw – would you be aware of any similar analysis done on tthe Melbourne Grand Prix ?
aubgraham said | November 4th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Sorry, none that I know of, but the arguments for or against the Olympics would in the most part be the same as those for a Grand Prix.
Kurt said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Very interesting report, thanks for that. It really should be required reading for all those who talk of the vast economic benefits that will flow from a WC. Some of the claims made are so laughable and easily refuted that it is surprising anyone makes them with a straight face. Take for example KB’s comments above about Euro 2008 netting $24 billion for Austria and Switzerland. And yet GDP figures for these countries in the year in question show no such massive blip – merely an increase of approx. 2% in line with longer term growth trends.
How could the economic projections commissioned as part of the bidding process get it so wrong? Here are a few key errors they make:
1) Internalise all the benefits, externalise all the costs. This means that all substantial infrastructure costs get counted as general government investment whereas every conceivable bit of consumer expenditure related to the event gets counted as a net increase in economic activity.
2) Ignore displacement effects. THis effects tourism and other areas of consumer expenditure. For example if there is an increase in spending on event-related merchandise that gets counted as a net benefit – but the projections don’t take into account the fact that some other area of expenditure – possibly home renovations as an example – will suffer. The net gain to the economy is zero.
3) Ignore opportunity costs. Typically this looks at the expenditure related to the event, calculates what flow on impact that will have on investment, and then counts that as a net benefit. Fair enough you say? But remember the 10 billion you spend on the nice shiny fast train link to ferry visitors to and from the stadiums is $10billion you CAN’T spend somewhere else – say on improving public transport services in the outer suburbs. This distortion in spending priorities is often considered to be one of the most detrimental effects of Olympics and World Cups.
So in short the WC economic benefits argument is a joke and most serious economists know it.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Kurt
spoken like a true monetarist!
I can’t argue with any of that.
I will put one argument forward in favour of the big event syndrome – and that is the bringing together of brains, resources, urgency that would not occur otherwise.
So if absolutely everything is equal, and there is no net loss (and as you say, once you bring in the Government investment that has been externalised, it’s very rare that that’s the case) – one benefit is that you’re getting spanking new infrastructure in a short space of time that you wouldn’t otherwise have.
And anyway – we already know that the politicians are too hopeless to fix transport issues in outer suburbs!! (so no real opportunity cost)
Lastly, and this is very nebulous, but there is the PR aspect (putting Australia on the world map, etc) – a bit like the AFL signing up Hunt – but yeh, a bit hard to quantify.
For the most part – it’s really a bread and circus type of Government initiative – people see it as a big party, a big event, once in a lifetime, etc – and Governments are generally more than happy to go into hock to fund bread and circuses.
Kurt said | November 5th 2009 @ 1:09am | Report comment
Yeah, it is a monetarist / rationalist view point, but if you’re going to discuss economic benefits then that’s the approach you have to take. If people want to argue we should spend billions on a month-long booze-up cos it’ll be great fun then by all means make that argument – just leave the nonsensical claims about economic benefits out of it.
But you’re right about the bread and circuses – anything that allows the PM of the day to look like a top bloke whilst spending our money will tend to get the nod. Buses in the outer suburbs just aren’t sexy enough.
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
BigAl, apologies for not being able to reply earlier. I trust aubgraham’s info above helps..
Republican said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Canberra struggles to support two elite teams as is. Soccer, ie ALeague, is unlikely to return to Canberra in the short term as the support is just not there despite a healthy grassroots.
League will sustain a future in Canberra wheras the ARU will pull the Brumby’s out of Canberra in the nr future and send them to Melbourne or Adelaide, which will leave an opening for both Soccer and AFL here.
My $ is on the AFL since the GWS is going to struggle for many years to come and Canberra may look quite attractive as a relocation option rather than the investment of setting up a new franchise elsewhere, once the AFL realises this.
Go the mighty Saints for 2010!
cosmos forever said | November 4th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
And the AFL in Canberra have a track record of extremely well resourced junior programs (participation not just elite) that makes the code increasingly attractive to local parents. Another nail in football’s coffin. I don’t want to sound anti-football, I still want a team here and a world cup game – but FFA just asks for too much of a leap of faith with very little in return. I can understand Barr completely (just to get back to the topic Brett raised).
Brett McKay said | November 4th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Republican, I’ve seen you making these comments about the Brumbies being relocated since you’ve first appeared on The Roar, but haven’t been able to put this to you as yet. And despite this being completely off the topic at hand, I don’t mind steering my own column in a different direction.
So, can you provide any quantifiable or actual evidence that says “the ARU will pull the Brumby’s [sic] out of Canberra in the nr future and send them to Melbourne or Adelaide”?? I’ve heard the rumours for years too, and I’ve heard the endless streams of denials from both the Brumbies and ARU. Interestingly, since the announcement of a 15th Super rugby team, and the logic that it be in Melbourne, the rumour has died. Except from you.
You are now the only person I’ve heard pedling this, so now I’m asking for the evidence.
Joe said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
There is no evidence – he obviously doesn’t like rugby and/or the Brumbies so he just makes stuff up. The idea that the ARU would relocate them to Adelaide is farcical.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Joe, fortunately, I can be very patient with these things…
Are you out there Republican??
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
It makes zero sense to me that the Brumbies would be going anywhere, especially now (assuming Melbourne gets the nod).
But it has to be said – survival for both the Raiders and Brumbies is an ongoing financial battle – it’s just the nature of Canberra.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Pip, I obviously have a vested interest in this particular argument, but it never made sense to me before Melbourne became a likely base!! Why would anyone consider taking a well-performed, strongly-followed team from its successful base, and move it to a new market??
(Don’t use South Melbourne in your reply, that wouldn’t be fair!!)
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Brett
It would never would occur to me to use South Melbourne as an example (who were broke, unsuccessful and hadn’t won a premiership since1933 – even in the VFL/AFL – that sort of thing catches up with you – which is why I’m constantly fretting about the bullies).
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
fair point, I just thought of South as I finished the first para…
Tifosi said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
I was saving this for a roar article im researching but ill post it here first.
On page 23 of this document you will read how much money the 2006 world cup made,.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/51/52/65/2006_fifa_ar_en_1766.pdf
The profit was 156 million euros or 256 million Australian dollars
Of that the The Local organising committee received 111 million euro or 181 million australian dollars.
FIFA kept 45 Million euro’s or 73 million. (These figures do not include the TV rights which FIFA count seperately and totals into the billions)
Interestingly FIFA contributed 177 million euros to the Local organising committee.
In 2018/2022 these numbers will be larger still.
Now you see why the FFA are desperate for a world cup here?
Now you see why the FFA couldnt care less about who gets stadium upgrades. They wont be paying for them.
It would set them up for life.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Tifosi
thanks for the link – I look forward to going through it.
K B said | November 5th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Tifosi,
Amazing figures and yes that’s why Rudd wants to land the 2018 FIFA world cup and we are definitely in the running… We have the power houses of Italy, now Brazil, publicly supporting our bid; Oceania will and as for the Asian vote it is increasingly heading our way… Momentum certainly has grown in the last few months… USA still may be a concern, but Les Murray has made some interesting comments recently on TWG site that hold a great deal of weight concerning TV deals – check it out…
~~~~~~~
KB
Tifosi said | November 4th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
I should also add you see why FIFA will be giving it to the USA. The numbers will simply dwarf what Australia can give
AndyRoo said | November 4th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
I think the US have a problem in that while Obama is cheering for them he is not in a position to give their bid any money.
Just like the olympic bid it may fall flat on its face.
Timmuh said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
There was also a report a couple of months back that Canberra simply can not handle a World Cup hosting role. There isn’t the necessary accommodation in town. Four new five star hotels required. And that in Canberra, where there are more hotels and serviced apartments, etc, than anywhere else per capita due to the fly in-fly out nature of so much of the workforce and the huge number of lobbyists and other scum types requiring high-end everything for their bribes to work.
Canberra pulled out because it simply CAN NOT host. Where are the other host cities going to come from, outside the big five and maybe Newcastle and he Gold Coast. Sadly, its time to drop this bid and put the finances onto things we can do; Asian Cup, building a stronger national team, etc.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Timmuh
When it gets down to tic-tacs – it’s hard to argue with that.
However – Freud keeps reminding us that Qatar doesn’t seem fazed by having a country the size and population of the outer parts of Brisbane.
He’s got a point.
On the other hand – if Qatar is our source of inspiration to remain encouraged, well….
True Tah said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Pip
I dont think FIFA will award a world cup to Qatar, well maybe if it joined with the UAE/Kuwait/Bahrain to stage a Persian Gulf bid.
The other thing to consider is that these countries do not have a stellar record in human rights, FIFA may not care about that though.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Timmuh, I’ve only just seen your comment today, so my apologies firstly.
Secondly, I wonder how many other cities and centres might also face the same issue. If Canberra is four 5-star hotels short, then where would Newcastle or even Adelaide rate on this benchmark too?? How many 5 star hotels are there in Townsville? These are genuine questions by the way, I suspect there may be several potential host cities that might struggle.
And this reinforces an earlier question I posed – if Canberra goes ahead and pulls out, where does the bid sit in terms of viability?
Terry Kidd said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Hey Brett, in your widest dreams did you expect 107 responses for this article? It has surprised me.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Terry, the fledgling columnist in me says I expected 150!! I was confident I had a good argument to put forward, and the fact that it just flowed for me when writing helped that confidence. I was pretty sure I had a winner, but yeah, it’s gone better than expected…
Redb said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Brett,
You’ll need to subtract all of your own comments/replies – it is the Pippinu Rule.
Redb
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
112-20 (113-21 now) Redb, I’m still in front
I’m well aware of the Pippinu rule – and I’m firmly against self-cheering too!!
Redb said | November 5th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Then of course there is the ‘Oikee Rule’ for pointless/code war/troll like comments – both the original comments and replies must be subtracted. It’s tough in the blogosphere
Redb
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
yes – I can confirm that such a rule has evolved, in much the same way that our common law has evolved.
The rule received widespread acclaim when one of my threads reached 891, but Art, having just had his former record broken, and in a fit of spite, warned everyone that about 672 of the posts were mine.
He in fact exaggerated by two or three – but who’s counting?
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Pip, my PB remains my Fifth Ashes Test blog which cracked 200, but surely in that instance I’m SUPPOSED to reply?!?
Art Sapphire said | November 5th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
My, then. record breaking post was the first thing I submitted on the Roar. It was like scoring a century on debut at the MCG. I have been resting on my lazy laurels ever since.
One day I will feel inspired to post something that will hit those heights again.
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
good point – that alone has ensured your name in the annuls of Roar history!!
I think they call that the JD Salinger syndrome.
Or if we want a more populist analogy – how about one hit wonders: The Buggles.
Trivia question: what ws the Buggles’ one big hit?
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
It’s either “Video Killed the Radio Star” or “What Will We be Singing in the 80s”
??
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
The first one is correct!
Is there such a thing as the second one??
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Good from me!!
not only is there such a song as What Will We be Singing in the 80s, but the video featured a pair of very young Blakeney twins. Look it up, I cannot make this up!!!
And of all the tangents I’ve seen articles and columns take on The Roar, this is now one of the weirdest….
Michael C said | November 5th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
was the Monitors “Nobody told me” I think it was,
was that a follow up to “Singing in the 80s”???
Republican said | November 5th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Brett.
Speculation has indeed gone on for years. O’ Neil was an advocate for this re location on his first watch. Luckily he went to Soccer otherwise he would have brought this to fruition. O’Neil has been in Canberra mending bridges since his second coming, ambiguosly stating that rugby ‘needs’ Canberra whatever that is supposed to mean?
I am suggesting that if Melborne does NOT manage to glean this latest Super expansion gig, that the re location of the Brumby’s will most likely resurface as the next best option, since the ARU would prefer a side playing out of Melbourne than Canberra, especially now that Vics grassroots are superior to the ACT’s.
Canberras biggest bargaining tool has historically been it’s strong Union grass roots but alas, they are no more. The Brumby academy has been recriuiting young talent from Melbourne for some years now, while next years Brumby squad will boast about eight Vics and zero ACT players. The Aust Schools team touring the UK and Eire soon has NO ACT representation which is simply unprecedented. The ACT’s grass roots have been left to wither on the vine despite the elite presence of this organisation over more than a decade now.
Brumby Rugby have been way more focused on looking to Vic for it’s future in this respect.
Interpret this any way you wish Brett but rest assured, the VRU will have it’s day no matter what and this can only be at the ACT’s expedient re invention to the corporate mecca that is Melbourne if this latest Super expansion does indeed go pear shaped. Adelaide is something that won’t happen for some years although it is the ARU’s next demographic of choice after Melbourne, to expanding the code.
This is not something that is discussed openly these days as it has caused much consternation and damage to the code in this region however, I firmly believe that the ACTRU will always be at the bottom of the pecking order in this respect, especially now that Union is struggling more than ever throughout the country and especially it’s grassroots, in this demograhic anyway.
Cheers
Cheers
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Republican, I thank you very much for your lengthy response, but with respect, all I’m reading is suggestion based on theory. You don’t seem to have any actual evidence at all.
The grass roots still exist in the club and schools competitions. While the club comp has shrunk somewhat from years ago, it’s been at it’s current level for several years now (how long ago did Unis and Norths merge?). Even below the grade comp, the sub-districts has several divisons. Whatever we think of schoolboy rugby, it’s still around, and Marist and St.Edmunds (and to a lesser extent, Grammar) still battle it out. Is the lack of ACT Aust schoolboy reps ONLY because of declining quality, or could it be that other states – such as Vic and WA – are getting stronger? Is it also possible that this year’s batch of players is a little behind past year’s, and that the next ACT superstar is still only 15?
The Brumbies have made no secret of building corporate relationships in Melbourne, just as they have been doing in Sydney for years. The relationship with Randwick has grown to the point where not only are players shared, but Computer Associates (CA) is now also a Randwick sponsor. Former Brumbies administrators hold key positions inside the ARU. The ACTRU has expanded its boundaries to the point it nearly covers the bottom third of NSW (with little or no objection from NSW, and with whole country Unions only too happy to join, such was their dissatisfaction with NSWRU), and the region is now known as Brumbies Rugby (because not even ACT & Southern Inland applies any more). If anything, the grassroots are growing.
Looking forward, they couldn’t have recruited much better than they have for 2010, and even had the now-Australian captain land in their laps. Membership levels are expected to be increase well above 2009, and indeed push the 10,000 cap they’ve imposed on themselves (why the cap I do not know).
If I recall correctly, you’ve identified yourself as being ACT-based? So I guess where I’m going is that you say yourself that this has “caused much consternation and damage to the code in this region”, so why do you continue to trot this out, if there is no firm evidence to support your argument? Are you indeed anti-Brumbies as was suggested above, or anti-rugby? And if you’re neither, then again, what benefit do you gain by continuing to sprout this old rumour??
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:34am (4 weeks ago) | Report comment
Agree completely with you Brett. There is absolutely no evidence of the ARU wanting to relocate the brumbies anywhere.
I dont know why Republican hates the Brumbies so much, but with the new Melbourne franchise there is no possibillity of relocation ..
In terms of player numbers .. no idea where republican gets his ideas from.
WHERE RUGBY UNION PLAYERS ARE IN AUSTRALIA
• NSW 44.25%
• Queensland 30.83%
• ACT 7.97%
• Western Australia 7.39%
• Victoria 4.4%
• South Australia 2.79%
• Northern Territory 1.42%
• Tasmania 0.96%
Victoria has a huge population advantage over ACT .. but ACT has double the player numbers.
In terms of corporate and spectator support, this makes ACT a good option for a Super team.
In terms of stats on where the Brumbies are from, republican is also simply making things up.
In terms of birthplaces the Brumbies were born in the following places:
NSW 15
Qld 1
NZ 3
Tonga 2
ACT 2
Vic 2
Saudi Arabia 1
Indonesia 1
Significantly, neither of the Victorian born players played their junior rugby in Victoria. In contrast the ACT born players cam throgh the ACT development path.
Traditionally ACT has been a place where the NSW or Qld “rejects” are signed. i.e. players who havnt made it consistantly into the NSW team .. an advantage it has for NSW players is the proximity to Sydney .. it is only a few hours drive and this makes it more attractive than WA or Melbourne to players.
I dont see any chance of the Brumbies relocating .. they are successful on and off the field …
Bobless said | November 5th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
I’m just surprised by the estimate of 4.7 million tickets for the 64 games. That means on average that there would need to be 73,500 tickets for each game. Given that only the MCG holds more than that in all of Australia I think it unlikely that we would end up with anywhere near that many tickets.
Even if we were to build the stadiums they would never be filled again. Besides a couple of games of AFL a season that get over 50,000 (in Melbourne where we already have a stadium) we very rarely fill any of our stadiums for any sporting events
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Bobless, ANZ in Sydney has a current capacity of 84,000 I believe..
Bobless said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
True, I did forget that but the point still stands.. How often does ANZ get filled?
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
true, twice this year that I can think of (SOO and NRL GF). It’d be more often if the Wallabies were winning!! Socceroos games there are traditaionally well-attended…
Michael C said | November 5th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
don’t forget on the capacity perspective, for the FIFA WC, a venue with 40,000 tickets will be a 43,000 capacity to allow for the FIFA VIP’s/gravy train component.
I wonder if that 4.7 million includes the near enough to 200,000 VIPs etc across the 64 games??
Republican said | November 5th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Brett.
Your rhetoric is familiar. Do you work for corporate Brumby’s Rugby perhaps?
With respect, what is your evidence Brett, that what I have previously stated has not taken place or indeed had no effect on the declining patronage of Union in the ACT over the past five or more years.
The grassroots of Qld and NSW have managed to sustain the inclusion of WA and soon Vic but not the ACT. The ACT have traditionally been a force in Aust Union so this fall from grace is dramatic which ever way you look at it. That Unions ie Vic and WA have improved is absolutely no excuse for this regression surely.
No other Union has been as proactive in fostering a non union demographic as has the ACTRU in collaboration with Brumby Rugby. The game here is still confined to predominately two pvt Colleges in the ACT, St Eddies and Marist which suggests that any grass roots growth is an illusion.
The dropping of the ‘ACT’ from The Brumby’s logo and brand did have an effect on membership which is still felt today. This was done in an attempt to survive a growing groundswell of support to re locate the Brumby’s to Melbourne so in that respect it was a necessary evil.
The extension of the Brumby catchment to include Southern NSW is a tokenistic one since that region is sparsley populated so any potential talent is fairly insignificant to the Brumby’s developmental gains and this is why they have been so focused on Vic in that respect. I believe had NSW not decided to pay attention to the Illawarra at the same time the Brumby’s were looking at subsuming them, this region would have faired much better however, NSW were scared of any Brumby advances on what was a neglected Warratah region up until then.
I am not anti Union necessarily but definately pro AFL and live in hope for this region in that respect, having grown up following both codes and attending a Union school. I am anti Unions lack of effective governance, it’s unrelentingly perfidious and expedient treatment of the ACT heartland and a culture of backstabbing that pervades the Sydney club scene and which has systematically set out to sabotage any attempts of sustained growth for the game at any level in the Territory that have been attempted.
As far as the ARU board goes Brett, the only reason the ACT finally derived some equity in this respect was due to WA joining the Super Rugby circus. If the ARU were to give WA a voice at the table they would have to succumb to the ACT’s long and relentless campaign to be recognised as a major provence, since they had been in the Super circus for a decade at that juncture. Had they not allowed the ACT to do so this would have exposed their blatant bias once and for all, which they could ill afford.
This is all ancient history Brett however the status quo has not shifted much and the game is certainly not what it was or should be a decade or more on since the Brumby’s inception, whichever way you like to pitch your take on events leading to it’s current demise.
Finally, I do not believe Brumby membership will improve one iota Brett, that has been forcast for some years and it just ain’t happening and if anything, is in steady decline along with grassroots participation from what i have been told by parents who’s lads play the game in the ACT but hey, they may be off the mark in that respect.
Cheers
Sharminator said | February 24th 2010 @ 3:41am (4 weeks ago) | Report comment
hahahaha.
Republican, you really are a funny guy!
“With respect, what is your evidence Brett, that what I have previously stated has not taken place or indeed had no effect on the declining patronage of Union in the ACT over the past five or more years.”
Normally when you state something negative .. i.e. that you believe that rugby in the ACT is in some terminal decline, you have to actually prove it. But saying that Brett needs to prove that rugby is not in decline .. what a joke. Have a look at my figures above.
I guess you are still bitter about the fact that Canberra was lost to AFL 30 years ago … first to the raiders … and now the Brumbies as well.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Republican, you’ll have to excuse me if this comes through twice – I’d just typed out a big reply only to have IE fall over as I tried to post.
—-
Certainly not Brumbies rhetoric, I can assure you. I have no assocoation with the Brumbies other than being a long term member. I’ve just expressed what I’ve seen, which I expect is what you’ve done too. If we stand a coin on it’s edge, we’ll both see a different view of the same thing. That’s fine, that happens.
On the whole, I don’t disagree with too much of what you’re saying. Your point about Rugby’s lack of effective governance is one I completely agree with.
We can certainly discuss the reasons for the declining crowds, participation rates, etc, and probably not have too dissimilar views. I will just add though that on-field performance has a lot to do with this too. Don’t forget, the ARU pins its whole budget on on-field performance..
We’ll have to agree to disagree about membership forecasts for 2010 though. I think Giteau returning and the addition of Elsom makes the team significantly stronger than the last few years, and therefore expectations are high. As you well know, Canberra loves a winner.
But I have no eveidence whatsoever that these supposed relocation moves have not taken place. That’s part of my reason for asking if you do have evidence to support your view. If I have no evidence that it’s definitely NOT happening, does that mean it definitely is??
Honestly, I have no interest at all in having a go at you Republican, or descending into the types of petty exchanges that often eventuate in these forums. My only beef here is that your constant referrals to the Brumbies relocating have largely gone unchallenged, and I would just like to know if you’re basing this on opinion or fact. Simple as that.
If it’s your opinion, then I’ll happily let it lie, because different people have different opinions (which fortunately we can share on The Roar). If it’s based on factual evidence though, then I’d love to see it (as would plenty of others, I’d imagine), because then the necessary fights can be fought (with the Brumbies and the ARU, not you). That’s only why I ask…
Republican said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
Thankyou for that Brett.
I don’t have ‘evidence’ that relocation is forthcoming only that based on the Brumby relocation history, which I would have thought you were privvy to, this will resurface as an option, depending on which way the cards fall in respect of the mooted Melbourne franchise. If Melbourne gets the nod then we can breath a sigh of relief until Adelaide comes along as the ARU’s next frontier for expansion.
Brett, my main concern as a Canberran, putting code allegieancies aside for a tick, is that in a world where corporate criteria determines any elite teams base, Canberra is always going to struggle. In respect of Union, this town always punched well above it’s weight however this is no longer the case and I believe that Brumby Rugby should take responsibility for this extreme decline in pedigree, since the Brumby’s were gleaned on the back of this grassroots criteria in the first place.
Now that Vic is well ahead of the ACT and i might add they are also well in advance of WA who happen to have a generic Super Franchise also, the ACT are extremely vulnerable to this end, since they cannot compete corporately and now have no subsequent GR to speak of either.
I fully appreciate that non traditional demographics are going to improve over time however the continued relliance on two colleges for their reps and a steady decline in their performance at Schools level particularly, now finishing at the bottom of the Aust Schools Championships ladder, winless on a regular basis, is a real concern for the code in the ACT I would have thought.
The ACT AFL and Soccer grassroots are way more impressive than Unions or Leagues which both have elite teams based here but I am not holding my breath for the AFL’s recognition of this fact, since Aust footy’s criteria is sadly way out of this towns league – for now anyway.
The Brumby’s once boasted the most passionate supporters anywhere in world and this was due in the main, to it’s sometimes excessively parochial tribalism. The Brumby’s local content was consistently high but now that has all been compromised from the grassroots up.
What is quite ironic is that Vic who are yet to glean elite Super status are producing stars of the future already. Is it just coincidence that Brumby Rugby have been promoting and fostering the games development in Vic for years because it would seem that the ACT’s future talent pool has all but dried up.
bever fever said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I dont follow rugby but i have heard in the last couple of years about the Brumbies possible relocation to Melbourne.
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
One thing for sure – both NSW and Qld have treated the ACT with an absolute disrespect for decades, and that only got worse when the Brumbies were turned into a formidable unit (against the odds).
At one point, in the early years of the Brumbies who were already making their mark, and with no ACT representation on the ARU board, and opening occurred, and guess what – the spot went to some bloke in the NT!!!!
I mean – you could turn this into a story and no one would believe it.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Republican, I appreciate your honesty, and now I fully understand where you stand on this. As I’ve said, I’ve certainly heard all the rumours, and they did gain a lot of ground for a good while. I don’t doubt they’ll resurface again, if as you say Adelaide becomes a new frontier. I do think though that this won’t happen for a while yet, and assuming the mediators come through with the goods for Melbourne, then the Brumbies won’t be going anywhere in a hurry.
All your points about grassroots development in the ACT among sports, I completely agree with. If anything, I’d even suggest that Rugby is in front of League in our area, but I base that only on the number of clubs, and also the fact that a lot of the kids in my neighbourhood play rugby. Some play soccer, and some play Auskick, but I don’t know any young League players.
Again, thanks for all your responses to this, it’s been an interesting discussion from different perspectives. In the end, we have the same hopes and goals…
bever fever said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
RE: Etihad stadium ownership.
I could be wrong but from memory Chris langford (AFL commissioner) has something to with Mirvac Fini, was it Mirvac Fini that bought AFL park for housing (redevelop) and Hawthorn got such a great deal out of it.
Michael C said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Mirvac bought the Waverley land
“It paid $110 million for the Waverley Park precinct in December 2001″ (source : AUSTADIUMS.COM NEWS / Wednesday 15th March 2006)
btw – KB often forgets Mirvac did not build Docklands, that was Balderstone and Hornibrook.
re Chris Langford – this is his bio off the Babcock and Brown board of directors page :
“Chris Langford
Director
Independent
Chris has over 20 years experience in a range of roles within the property industry and brings significant knowledge to his role as an Independent Director. Having worked with Lend Lease and Mirvac on a variety of projects and property classes, Chris has a thorough understanding of the complex issues involved in the delivery of large scale projects. More recently, Chris was CEO of Mirvac Retail Projects until mid 2005, before forming Spyglass Property to focus on retail property development.
Chris is also a commissioner of the Australian Football League and a director of NSW Cultural Management, the manager of Sydney Theatre.
Chris holds a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Melbourne”
bever fever said | November 5th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
It all seems to be about management rights rather than ownership of the stadium.
I basically would take anyones word about who has /will become freehold owners of docklands stadium in 2025 than KB whose agenda is to attack australian football at any oppurtunity
I could quote a 1000 articles/wikipedia sites saying that the AFL will asume ownership then but i couldn’t be bothered.
Maybe its the fact he is the last man at fortress blieberg that is clouding his reasoning, manning the gates by himself night after night.
Poor old KB …. the only man in Australia who thinks Mr palmer has done a wonderful job.
As i stated earlier with the crowds that the GC soccer club get they could close the stadium down entirely and play in KB’s backyard, use his loungeroom for the corporates, he could explain how he knows more than some of the best business brains in australia about options.
Republican said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Pippinu
Yes indeed mate, It would make for a veritable soapy.
There are numerous examples of absolute bloody minded discrimination on the part of the ARU, NSWRU and in particular the Sydney media who’s journos had links with big business no doubt. John Singleton was always good for a pot shot at the ACT’s status as an elite base for Union or anything else for that matter as he had a long held agenda to see the Brumby’s moved to the Central Coast.
One NSWRU decision that has single handedly put the mockers on any ACT grassroots foundation to development ,was that Unions Schools board expulsion of St Edmund’s and Marist Colleges participation in the Waratah Shield, which both had competed in for decades. This decision was justified on the strength of a particular colleges dominance over a number of years, yet when the ACT Colleges asked to be included in the elite Sydney pvt Schools comp which was more to their standard and which included the likes of Kings College and St Joeys for eg, their request was basically ignored.
These famous ACT nursery’s have now regressed to the point that one was easily accounted for by a Western Sydney high school this year and the Combined ACT High Schools accounted for the Combined Colleges in that ACT derby for the first time in yonks. Sadly this cannot be attributed to the formers improvement but more the respective Colleges slump in standard over recent years. I believe St Kevins in Melbourne and most Perth Colleges would defeat either of these traditional Union nursery’s today such is their fall from grace.
Cheers
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Republican
I honestly wasn’t aware of the demise of St Eddies – I guess I didn’t really know the full story about them being excluded form various Sydney schoolboy comps.
I know you’ve been telling me about the improvement in Victorian juniors fore a while – ok – I’m starting to believe you!!
But as you say, it’s looking like it’s more about the quality of the ACT traditional nurseries as anything else.
It could be that St Eddie’s decided to move away from its focus on sport to improve their scholastic gradings?
The other interesting thing is that Queanbeyan made the grand final this year – now I haven’t really been keeping up with things for a while, but I can’t recall Queanbeyan being amongst the elite clubs before (and yes, I know it’s Campo’s original club) – not sure if that’s pointing to anything either.
bever fever said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
I was not aware of the demise at rugby but i did know that Marist and Eddies had been thrown out of the waratah shield … basically because they won it every year, so in effect instead of seeking to improve the standard the NSW teams have chosen to dumb down.
If anything i thought that aussie rules was on a downer in the ACT at junior level, although quite strong with plenty of teams in the old monaro division at senior level, but on the other hand weak overall bar a few teams at ACTAFL level.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Pip, someone will correct me here for sure, but I think Queanbeyan and Tuggeranong have played the last couple of GFs, with the honours being pretty even…
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Brett
fair enough – I hadn’t kept up with it for a while.
Republican said | November 6th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Pippinu
St Eddies certainly have moved away from their historic Union culture. This has slowly taken place through community pressure as well as parents of students who attend that College. I believe that Australian Footy will now flourish as a result which in my opinion is an extremely healthy shift.
I also note that St Eddies are achieving in the culinary feild having students win national cook offs and go onto represent their country O/S. They have also included dance in the ciric so the culture of this institution is definately no longer the ra ra one of old.
Bever Fever
Australian Footy is and has traditionally been very strong in this small demographic. sadly we are too small to be taken seriously by the AFL however let me just say that they would be on a winner if they took a punt on this region to be sure.
The ACT defeated country Vic this year in the Aust Country Champs and were runners up v them the previous year!!
Cheers
Republican said | November 6th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
In respect of Qbyn, St Eddies catchment takes in that town so the College has a high % of Qybn lads attending. They play both rugby codes at a high standard and many of the lads attending SEC have come with League backrounds ie Giteau, Henjack and Stuart. They were all recruited into the SEC first XV, Ricky Stuart representing Aust in Schools Union before returning to a career in League.
Queanbeyan are also very strong in Australian Footy I might add and feature in the ACTAFL finals regularly. Qbyn or struggle town as it is affectionately referred to by Canberran’s is really just another suburb of the ACT, akin to the Albury Wadonga relationship really.
Cheers