By Adrian Musolino
December 8th 2009 @ 3:44am
Fear and loathing is ruling Australian sports
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou addresses the media during an AFL Media Conference at AFL House, Melbourne. Slattery Images
“World Game? What a joke! World Cup? Leave it to the English, Italians and the rest of them,” claimed Albert of Melbourne on the Herald Sun website, one of the thousand plus hateful comments that littered sites across the web following the AFL’s claim that they will lose a season if there was an Australian World Cup.
“AFL vs. the World” declared the News Limited press; appearing to cheerlead the squabble between our national game and the world game.
The corresponding article here on The Roar had over 250 comments before the sun had set.
It was an impeccably timed response from AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou; just as the World Cup draw and Australia’s World Cup bid were in the national spotlight, not to mention at a time when the AFL is in its deep slumber.
The AFL has every right to protect its product, and the fact remains this question surrounding the fate of our national codes during the World Cup was one of the biggest question marks that surrounded an Australian World Cup – a question no one wanted to discuss.
It is an immensely complex issue, and without clear guidelines and expectations from FIFA, there can be no clear solution to the issue at present.
But if we are fighting amongst ourselves so fervently, what chance do we stand against the might of the USA and England?
The fact is if we are to stage the World Cup, it’ll require immense concessions from every other code, made more complex by our suitable stadium shortage, and we must, therefore, work in close cooperation to find suitable solutions, not allowing people to hijack the debate and deal in absolutes.
This is only the start. If such extremity continues, how are we going to find a workable solution so all codes can be accommodated?
With each such statement from Demetriou or the like, Australia’s World Cup bid – which was always going to be a challenge – appears even more doomed.
Yes, perhaps Demetriou has exaggerated for effect, but what concerns me most is the dogma attached to this debate. Perhaps this was part of Demetriou’s ploy.
Denigrate the very idea of the World Cup by striking fear into the hearts of his games’ followers.
It’s not only this dogmatic rhetoric of “AFL vs. the World” but also the hatred and ethnic division that’s being attached to these World Cup claims.
Jack, another contributor to the aforementioned Herald Sun article, wrote when putting his case as to why the AFL shouldn’t cave in to FIFA: “Yes it will upset a lot of immigrants, however if you chose to live in this country, its traditions and sport come with the package.”
How very sad there are people who still think like that.
If so many of us ‘sports fans’ are going to denigrate the World Cup – with feelings of bitterness, hatred and contempt – then are we truly deserving host’s of a tournament revered around the world?
Amongst the bitterness and hatred lies one query.
Where has the enthusiasm that greeted the build up to the Sydney Olympics gone?
Arguably, on television ratings and economic worth alone, the FIFA World Cup would be a greater benefactor to Australia – certainly in terms of showcasing Australia to a global audience once again.
Would AFL fans be unable to join in the celebrations of our World Cup? Do the Socceroos not belong to them, too?
For all the protestation and arguing, remember they are two great sports that can co-exist, and there are many who love them both.
The World Cup doesn’t represent an ‘invasion’ – and awful phrase that has been thrown up with its racial overtones – and AFL fans shouldn’t fear its game will be starved by football. And that flawed reasoning can be the only explanation for why the World Cup, compared with the Olympics, is creating such angst.
Commonsense needs to come to the fore here.
What strikes me most in this debate is how insular and one-dimensional Australian society has become – and sport is a microcosm of society.
Despite the huge strides made in our multicultural land, ethnicity and race are still used as fodder in many of the flawed arguments for why ‘soccer’ is not an Australian game. We seem to be unable to deal with such issues with logic, compromise and acceptance, rather so many resort to absolutes – black or white, yes or no.
Dogma and fear are tarnishing Australia’s chances of hosting the world’s biggest sporting event.
Sadly, we have become the new America: introverted and overly protective.
(708)
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
The thing I find amazing – even more so because it’s not being discussed in the media – is that soccer isn’t being asked to contribute anything to host the World Cup. Rival codes are being asked to suspend or cancel their seasons and the Federal and State governments are being asked to foot the very hefty infrastructure bill. The Federal government are even underwriting the bid process.
The profit from the World Cup goes to FIFA, so any financial benefit to Australia comes in the form of tourism and exposure, which is difficult to account for and nearly impossible for governments to leverage to finance infrastructure projects (ahead of time) or pay compensation to those affected by the tournament. Why don’t the FFA or FIFA have to contribute anything to an event that only they stand to benefit from?
andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
The PriceWaterhouseCoopers study found that the world cup would generate close to $5 billion for the Australia economy (I think that was the figure, I’ll see if I can find it for you so I can confirm the number)
And a similar question to yours, Why does the AFL not have to pay a single cent for a state of the art stadium at Adeliade oval? I guess the FFA aren’t the only people set to benefit from the WC
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:40am | Report comment
My argument wasn’t that the Cup won’t generate financial activity in Australia, simply that I am yet to read any announcement of soccer bodies willing to pick up the very hefty bill. Considering all the recriminations surrounding the Cup’s potential effects on the sporting landscape nationwide, I think that it’s a pretty fair question to ask why soccer isn’t contributing anything when they stand to benefit almost exclusively from Australia hosting the Cup.
As for stadium upgrades, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been on the cards for a long time, and will go ahead with or without the World Cup. The AFL has a long-standing track record of funding the redevelopment of fields around the country, either directly by paying for them upfront (Docklands, Blacktown, Kardinia Park, Carrara etc) or indirectly funding them through acting as a sole or principal tenant (MGC, SCG, the Gabba, Subiaco etc.). It’s almost laughable to argue that the AFL isn’t directly or indirectly the major facilitator of stadium construction in Australia – much more so than soccer. It’s for that reason that most new stadiums, and certainly the larger ones built in Australia, are built in an oval configuration to accommodate Australian football.
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
“As for stadium upgrades, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been on the cards for a long time, and will go ahead with or without the World Cup.”
Not bloody likely. At the first whiff of the Adelaide Oval not being FIFA compliant, you watch the funds dry up.
And it’s not just in Adelaide. All over the country, stadiums and public transport and other infrastructure will be upgraded for a 4 week football tournament, to then be used by AFL and Rugby for the future. Surely that’s got to be of some benefit.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
The upgrades to Adelaide Oval and other venues would occur during the natural course of things, and from the media’s reporting in South Australia the redevelopment appears to be driven by local politics more than due to any perceived need to host World Cup matches. The latter is purely incidental in the economics of a $450 million upgrade when none of the profits go back to the venue operators. The fact is that AAMI stadium needs an upgrade to maintain a decent amenity, and South Australians the government and opposition are questioning whether that money could be better invested in a suitable, inner-city venue for their two most popular sports – footy and cricket. A state-of-the-art inner city venue makes sense for Adelaide, thus the move to put it in place, and Australian football just happens to be the principal tenant and the sport most likely to underwrite the costs in the long term.
Infrastructure upgrades aren’t always necessary or desirable, however. FIFA requires 40,000 seat stadiums, and only the five mainland capitals can credibly argue the need for these over the medium-term. If Hobart, Darwin, Townsville or Canberra (all touted as host cities) build fields of that capacity, it will cost them quite a lot to maintain and they’ll never likely be filled. Arguably, they may even need to increase hotel capacities and other infrastructure to fill them for the Cup, which may not make economic sense if long-term demand is unsustainable.
If I were to prioritize $4-8 billion in government spending over the next 10 years, I have no doubt that I could put that money to better use than hosting a World Cup. All major cities need upgraded transport options (and ones that don’t just shuttle to stadia), water infrastructure is failing and we’re trying to move to a greener energy grid. At the risk of sounding anti-soccer, what’s the problem with questioning what the money could be better spent upon?
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
The stadium debate is all about politics, but it’s being driven by the need to have Adelaide as a World Cup venue. Under current conditions, we would not be a venue.
The Adelaide Oval redevelopment is forecast to be complete by 2015. If we win the 2018 WC hosting rights, that leaves 3 years grace. And knowing how politics work (especially SA politics) we’ll need every minute of those 3 years. The clock is ticking. AFL fans have been crying out loud for an Adelaide based stadium. Port Power internally have been pleading to play at Adelaide Oval, although publicly have been bound to tow the SANFL line of “AAMI Stadium is just fine …”.
Trust me, if Australia had no intention of bidding for a World Cup hosting right, this stadium debate wouldn’t be where it is now.
Corey said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Carrara stadium is being funded by Queesnlanders mate, not AFL- which ticks a lot of us off so don’t tell us the greatness of AFL paying for developing stadiums. No code in Australia has the money to afford a decent stadium. But I do agree that Soccer is getting a lot of help at the moment. To be honest, I can’t stand the game and don’t care if the WC comes here or not, but if it does than our winter codes shouldn’t stop, in fact they should continue and the rest of the world can see our games that we love so much. AFL would be seen by a lot of tourists who would learn a thing or two about it, Rugby League would show tourists that there is another form of Rugby which is loved by more people in our country and possibly some tourists might find it more attractive- or even attend some matches.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
$126 million for Carrara in total. The Federal Government, Gold Coast City Council and the AFL are all contributing, alongside the Queensland Government.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/rudd-tips-in-36m-for-cararra/story-e6frg7mf-1225710484086
No argument on your other points. I just wonder whether the total cost of holding it outweighs the benefits. There hasn’t been much discussion outside of its effect upon the football codes.
Mushi said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I’d like to see that report as I know for a fact many of those large numbers in previous reports for previous events
- are typically very bullish on the secondary spend
- essentially assume that the goods and services would not have been otherwise consumed, this normally isn’t the intent of the report’s producers but more the miss use by the spruikers
Tifosi said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:38am | Report comment
Black cat,
FIFA make profits from tv rights. 3 billion or so.
The tournament profit goes to the Local organising committee, in this case the FFA.
Germany 2006 made a staggering 156 million euro profit or 253 million dollars.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
Exactly. So both FIFA and FFA stand to profit handsomely from hosting the World Cup in Australia, yet neither have announced any financial support for the upgrading of infrastructure needed to host the event. They are quite happy to let Australian taxpayers foot the bill – even to the point where we are underwriting the bid process on FFA’s behalf. That is not fair, in my opinion.
Commentators preach the benefits that Australia stands to gain from hosting the event, yet gloss over the particulars. Townsville may get a 40,000 seat stadium, despite locals (including the NRL’s Cowboys) stating that it is unnecessary and that they fear being left footing the maintenance bill for the future. No doubt the same argument can be made regarding venues in Darwin, Hobart and Canberra, even if the fields were configured to be multi-sport, which is doubtful. Australia may see a boost in tourism, but we of all countries should be aware of the difficulty in maintaining market share in that sector, as we’ve witnessed wild fluctuations in international tourism over the past 30 years. The Olympics were great in exposing Sydney overseas, but did they lead to a sustained increase in visitors? And has exposing Sydney been a positive overall – I know many would argue that the quality of life there has diminished over the past ten years.
I’m not anti-soccer or anti-World Cup. I’m a realist who is, I believe sensibly, questioning the benefits of hosting the World Cup. Sure, it would placate our national insecurities about our place in the global community for a couple of years, but at enormous cost (considerably more than the Olympics) and potentially at the expense of sacrificing some of the things that make our country unique. These may be as minor as 8 weeks of the AFL or NRL seasons, or could be as vital as the quality of life in our cities should millions of people suddenly wish to emigrate to Australia. The answer to these issues is not for me to provide, but it should be part of a rigorous public debate to highlight the possible effects of hosting the Cup (which Demetriou has done), so that as a society we can then decide whether it is desirable to host. After that, get those who stand to benefit to foot the bill.
andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
“And has exposing Sydney been a positive overall – I know many would argue that the quality of life there has diminished over the past ten years.”
“be as vital as the quality of life in our cities should millions of people suddenly wish to emigrate to Australia”
A wise man once said: sometimes it isn’t necessary to rebutt, you just repeat their arguement to make them look silly
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Australia and Sydney aren’t the same entities Andrew, and in this case the tourist experience and the living experience can be very different, as attendees at the Olympics can probably attest. It’s well documented that things in Sydney haven’t been travelling well lately – the State Government there is in all sorts of trouble due to mismanagement, largely caused by a burgeoning population that they can’t provide infrastructure for. That’s not to say that other areas of NSW aren’t managed well by the same government, nor that tourists visiting Sydney for a week don’t think it’s a marvelous place. And moreover, the diminished quality of life in Sydney still leaves much of the world for dead.
Expanded, I simply argue that the World Cup would draw a lot of attention to Australia, and we aren’t well informed about the consequences other than a substantial medium-term cost to taxpayers and a short-term bump in tourism numbers. The event in of itself may be fun, but diverting tax dollars from other needy areas may lower our standard of living in the long term. I personally don’t believe increased immigration to be a good thing, thus I stand by my statement above. We are struggling to provide water for our current population and decrease detrimental harm to the Australian environment at current rates of growth, so I am cautious about how we would manage if that were to increase following a World Cup. Unfortunately, these issues aren’t being discussed in regards to the bid – what are the full costs, does Australia want the exposure and could the money be better spent elsewhere?
Wooded said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
thats not really alot of money… you spend 5 billion to make 250 mil??? i
Zack said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Here in Perth the WAFL only has to pay $1 for leasing Subiaco Oval. The WA tax payers have to foot the bill for West Coast and Freo.
AC said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
A small price to pay for the privilege of playing the Victorian/Melbourne game
bever fever said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Would be interested in seeing a link to this Zack.
Zack said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Subiaco-Oval
Look under Redevelopment.
The WAFC did not want a new stadium in Perth becasue they would lose out on this generous deal. WAFC is the reason we don’t have a new Stadium in Perth.
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
good pick up.
redcup said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Providing Australia does NOTHING – ( no tourism etc ), the TV rights alone will be more than the AFL could garner in years.
The thing I find amazing ( actually given all the negative stories that our parochial media spews forth, i am not surprised really ), is that AFL and NRL spectators actually think their games are even in the same league.
It’s just ike a fish in a puddle while the ocean is over the road yet you guys don’t even realise how big it is or where it is!
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Recup there is such a thing as whoring yourself to the widest and wildest number of clients, or is Prostitution illegal where you live
Just becuase the World Cares (usually because Soccer’s the only sport of the people in virtually all countries) doesn’t mean Australia which can legitimately claim to possess a unique sporting landscape without being xenophobic (or I prefer to call it loyal to our tried and true way of doing things!) should be fanatical about an event which has done more for Globalisation than even McDonald’s
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Hmm I’m not sure Australia’s like the US there Adrian. Yes Race and Sport are two rhetorics which have become increasingly intertwined but the sporting reality in the states is quite different from Australia (in the main) tho as AFL’s heartland really is in Melbourne (and as I reckon Melbourne is the closest thing Australian sports has to an American equivalent) maybe the AFL is more at fault here than anything. They are unwilling to be pluralistic about how and in what way ‘football’ is played in spite of the fact that in other parts of the country three codes at least tend to coalesce (but you wont read it in the papers
) And I wont even blame Demetriou here, another problem is as many Roarers have come to is that the AFL appeals to a very similar audience/niche as Soccer.
And even worse for any chance of reconciliation is the fact that the AFL views itself as a sport for everybody, every race, everything good about sport. Problem with that is that it doesn’t allow for a much-needed and much more varied sporting ecosystem than many AFL zealots will tolerate. Simply put the AFL doesn’t need to enage with Soccer and until it does there’s little hope of this melancholic rhetoric ending…
andrewMc said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:23am | Report comment
Fantastic article! Keep it up!
Tifosi said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Adrian,
I dont think its as bad as you portray. Growing up in an italian household I understood that racism did exist in this country and yes, some australians still look at soccer as wogball, but the majority i believe have moved on from those days.
The majority can see the benefit of the world cup.
Interestingly the poll from the herald sun website, not that it is entirely scientific would suggest Aussies are generally ok with it.
Would you accept scrapping the AFL season to ensure Australia hosts the soccer World Cup?
Yes
45.88% (496 votes)
No
54.12% (585 votes)
Total votes: 1081
The fact that its not 100% to 0% tells me something.
But as i mentioned before Australia shouldnt have attempted to host this world cup. We dont have the capacity to undertake this event. Yet.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment
Another thing, Adrian – you make your point well in the article, before letting yourself down greatly in your closing sentence. Why spend so many paragraphs imploring Aussies to be more supportive of the bid and to eliminate racial overtones in the World Cup debate, but then add a xenophobic and offensive comment about Americans being introverted and ignorant? It must be easy to lump all 350 million citizens of the world’s most multicultural society into the one basket.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:16am | Report comment
Adrian – ok, so you’ve quoted a few muppets from the Herald Sun website and drawn some broad conclusions about Australian society. Could we not equally quote those whose hatred for AFL and desire to damage & denigrate it at every turn and draw some conclusions about the profound cultural cringe that leads us to beg for scraps from the FIFA table in the desperate hope of receiving the approval of our betters?
The fact is there has been no serious debate about the benefits of hosting the WC, much as there was none surrounding the Olympics bid all those years ago. People just mindlessly quote the ‘independent analysis commissioned by the bid (without for once noting the profound irony of those words) and accuse anyone who questions these benefits of being “un-Australian”. The economic benefits arguments are so profoundly flawed and rely on such rubbery assumptions and creative accountancy that they are laughed at by any serious economists. And yet they are mouthed unthinkingly by those who rightly question other aspects of government policy such as the proposed ETS.
And as for compromise – I agree that this is required. But so far we have the FFA basically telling the AFL and NRL they will have to vacate their main stadiums for 2 months in the middle of their seasons! This represents compromise? As Gatto says above, given that the FFA and FIFA will be the primary beneficiaries of a WC, how about they dip into their pockets and build their own dedicated infrastructure rather than relying on what by their own admission are inappropriate ovals.
And as current resident of the US, I can only add my condemnation of your nasty little anti-American comment at the end. Ignorant, prejudiced and plain wrong.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:49am | Report comment
Great comment – where are you based, Kurt?
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Raleigh NC. As for being insular and ignorant, Raleigh has teams competing in regional or national competitions in soccer, rugby, ice hockey, lacrosse, baseball, softball, american football, basketball, cricket and, wait for it, aussie rules (no that’s not a joke!). Probably as much sporting diversity as anywhere on the planet.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I love Raleigh and the Carolinas generally – you’re lucky to live in a place with great access to the mountains, the coast and a couple of big centres in DC and Atlanta. I escaped the cold last northern winter by seeing the south-east and then driving south to the Keys. And I’m familiar with the Tigers in the footy there – they’re pretty keen to go up against the likes of Baltimore-Washington and New York. Good on ‘em!
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Go the Panthers KAY
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:17am | Report comment
“With each such statement from Demetriou or the like, Australia’s World Cup bid – which was always going to be a challenge – appears even more doomed.”
He has committed to helping the WC bid, just not at the expense of an AFL season. Stating the obvious reality does not make him intransigent.
You hit the nail on the head before – “a question no one wanted to discuss”. Perhaps afraid of the answer? Maybe this explains FFA’s lack of transparency leading into the bid submission, maybe they thought the devil in the detail could be submerged until after the bid was secured. It would be very naive of them if that was the case.
“Where has the enthusiasm that greeted the build up to the Sydney Olympics gone?”
The Olympics was not one sport, but several sports appealing to a broad range of consumers. Not only that, the Olympics is something Australia can actually win at, maybe not the overall tally, but specific events we clearly dominated (e.g. Cycling & Swimming). The IOC, unlike FIFA, does not entertain anti-competitive clauses in the hosting requirements. Further to this point, the Olympics are a collection of amateur sports, many reliant on government funding. Meanwhile Soccer here is a rich professional sport, FIFA is a rich, professional governing sports body and yet the latter sport seems concerned with shutting out competition. These factors combined may explain the difference in enthusiasm between the two events, or maybe I’m simply reading too much into it.
“Sadly, we have become the new America: introverted, overly protective and ignorant.”
Sadly I did not read this line first, seeing as it compromises your journalistic integrity. The USA is a flawed nation, but a great nation nonetheless. Such generalisations are reflective of the dreaded tall poppy syndrome: here comes another yank basher.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
So based on the fact that the WC football is only one sport & a sport you don’t like is justification for us not to hold the event.
You & many other anti- soccer people focus on this FIFA thing forgetting there are millions of Australians who would want to hold the event in Australian just because they like the game & that it’s the biggest sporting event in the world. Forget FIFA.
You are jumping up & down without facts, based on some silly comment from the AFL CEO who was upset that football was on the front pages of all major papers on Sunday.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
We know who are the ignorant ones.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:40am | Report comment
Typical comment from a pro-soccer type, lacking substantive rebuttals of the concerns raised or informed arguments on why we SHOULD host the World Cup. We’re not all anti-soccer partisans in this debate, some of us actually want to be convinced via rational argument that hosting the World Cup would be a good thing. It’s not as if the tournament, in of itself, is inherently a positive event.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
I’m blown over by your informed arguments on why we SHOULD NOT host the World Cup.
1. CEO upset that a football draw drew so much attention imagine what the actual WC will do, imagine what a WC in this country will do.
2. CEO know no facts & just shooting from the hip.
3. CEO upset that during the Sydney Telstra 500 (V8s) at Hombush, no-one recognised Kevin Sheedy at the AFL tent (need to buy another Karmichael Hunt).
4. CEO is fearful that while they have FFA covered & can bully them, those big boys from FIFA are a different matter.
5. CEO hoping comments will make a ripple, which it didn’t in Sydney, would people in Sydney worry that the Swans or the other side be not playing for a season, NO.
6. Pips favourite, FIFA is bad.
7. CEO upset that this is a worldwide event & Collingwood was not invited to play.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
You forgot:
Will cost vast amounts of money for questionable economic benefits
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Are we talking about the incompetent and devious Buckley here?
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Actually, I would argue that Australia will invest considerable taxpayer dollars for infrastructure that a) we can’t afford to build in the first place, and b) is unlikely to be used once the circus has left town.
Add to that the questionable figures being put forward regarding the economic boost from international travel to the event, and the economics behind the bid – arguably the reason we’re bidding at all – are yet to satisfy me. Estimated tourism revenues are based on the Germany World Cup, which aren’t applicable to Australia as we are so far away from a majority of the world’s population. Most of Asia has a passing interest in soccer at best (no interest for the majority of Indians and Chinese, I dare say), and most can’t afford to travel abroad. South Africa is more akin to our situation, and from all reports I’ve read of their experience, they will be in debt for a long time after the World Cup moves on.
Apologies if I disagree that the World Cup is a negative because it may leave a long-lasting legacy of debt and unnecessary infrastructure strewn across our sunburned country. I suppose higher taxes and a legacy of neglected schools and hospitals isn’t much to pay for a four week soccer tournament that eases our national cultural cringe.
Gary said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
CEO upset that Collingwood might have to travel interstate on a regular basis like the other teams.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Yip read my comments below Punter and #6 starts to take on some more logical sense. Why would FIFA actually care about other codes, few other codes ever care about other codes (just RL with regard to AFL’s expansion plans, or rather establishment of a soon-to-be rundown AFL front office in Blacktown)
I’m not anti-Soccer but Soccer is anti-Australian as far as I can see even tho it is a very large code in this country in terms of participation rates. FIFA doesn’t care and so FIFA really has to convince the other codes particularly that there’s room to share. I don’t think FIFA believes this, thus they’ll treat Australia’s cultural uniqueness with the contempt they did the US. The FFA have said it but they’re always under risk of getting death-threats from out somewhere in the bush when an old fashioned father finds his kid playing Soccer and wonders how long his man-juice will hold out…
Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Ok Jaredsbro, I take your word for it, ‘Soccer is anti-Australian’. I will speak to my wife & we shall both renouce it.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
“So based on the fact that the WC football is only one sport & a sport you don’t like is justification for us not to hold the event.”
Those are your words, not mine. My personal position is that Australia should host a WC, but not at the expense of our sporting paradigm. You probably won’t believe me, but I don’t dislike soccer, I do however take issue with its ‘might is right’ attitude; very imperialistic.
For me the best scenario possible would be all four professional codes hosting games simultaneously in several cities across Australia, how grand would that be? But FIFA takes issue with competing against ‘major sporting events’. Funny how the Olympics, being amateur and all, manages to get by without similar nonsense.
Sport is about competition and choice, something I feel FIFA does not embody.
“You are jumping up & down without facts, based on some silly comment from the AFL CEO who was upset that football was on the front pages of all major papers on Sunday.”
His comments are based off FIFA requirements for hosting a world cup.
That “biggest sporting event in the world” rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me. Over the years U2 and Coldplay have been lauded as ‘biggest band in the world’; doesn’t stop me from thinking they’re crap garbage bands. From “bigger” we can attempt to argue the economic merits but so far the FFA & FIFA haven’t provided much detail to allow such debate.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Only one person has mentioned that if will affect the whole season & he was not a football/soccer person. Why did he come out on Monday when everyone else was talking WC draw?
Why is this a bigger issue in Melbourne than Sydney?
There is no weapons of mass destructions, let’s wait & see what is required by FIFA before we proclaim war.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Why did he come out on Monday? Maybe because the bid deadline is approaching this Friday and still bugger all is known about it. This is not war, this is business. Decisions involving millions of dollars, made by people earning more than you or I, are not made flippantly nor without due consideration. The most difficult aspect to satisfy in bringing the WC to Australia is not ideological, it is financial. It would suit the FFA better though to masquerade under the ideological victim banner.
Commercial contracts for the MCG & AFL run past 2040 – this reflects the long term planning that goes into managing the MCG. Why can you not grasp the financial complexities at play here?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Beast
it’s useless talking economics, finance and commercial law here on the Roar – non-AFL people have trouble grasping it.
Robbos said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
How about opportunities to now expand the AFL to the countries that they are trying to expand to.
How cool while soccer is played in Australia we are playing AFL in Sth Africa, New Zealand, China & the US.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Actually Pip, I think it’s critical. Leave the Herald-Sun and Bigfooty for partisan comments, but we do need a place for critical debate of issues, and this post alone shows that there are a core group of articulate and intelligent posters on the Roar that are capable of promoting debate.
It’s just unfortunate that the same quality of debate isn’t occurring in the mainstream press, whose paid commentators have the time and resources to better inform the dialogue.
mahony said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
It is not my “sporting paradigm” mate I’ll give you the tip. Don’t speak for me or the many people like me. The Murdoch press and the people who consume their ‘product’ don’t speak for me either. They bring great shame on our society and call into question our humanity with every villifying, fear induced statement. In my sporting and cultural paradigm, real sporting heros take on the world’s best at the world’s code and rise like titans to put Australia where it belongs – at the centre of civil society and on top of the sporting ladder.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Actually Mahony, a realist would argue that the sporting paradigm in Australia is what it is. The most popular sports are those with the biggest market share, and there will always be dynamism in the system and minority viewpoints. But the reality is that lots of people enjoy footy and rugby league – I think that statement is as undeniable as any. It’s natural that those who take little interest in soccer may not be overly enthused about the prospect of hosting the Cup, and you do nothing to further the debate by calling them shameful, lacking in humanity or by implying cowardice on their part.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Not your sporting paradigm? Well that is a shame because freedom of choice and healthy competition are two aspects that make sport great, you’re missing out on a lot! But in all seriousness many Australians seem to agree with this sentiment, as is confirmed by the the sporting status quo: four professional codes of football. I struggle to list any other countries with such diversified sporting interests.
As Gatto suggests, the paradigm is as is. If you do not understand, look it up in the dictionary.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
The US has American Football, Basketball, Baseball & Ice Hockey as their major sports, plus football, plus they are quite good at many individual sports like Skiing, Athletics, Swimming, Golf Tennis.
Canada has all these sports as well.
In England they have the same sports as Australia bar AFL
In Ireland they have the same sports as Australia bar Rugby League (AFL- Gaelic football is not the same, but you get the gist).
That is the top of my head, I’m sure that I could cover many more countries with a diversity in their countries.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
You know another country supporting four professional codes of football?
But I do agree with you on the USA, they have so many sports there to choose from and look who ended up on top. Interestingly FIFA did not demand other US sports shut down (mixture of off-season and lack of financial clout in USA) and it all worked out in the end. This could be Australia.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Yeah it’s one thing to be sporting (Melbourne has this in spades) but when it comes to having a Brisbane (and Sydney and soon-to-be Melbourne) with four footy codes competing in the same market (not just two) and you might appreciate just how hard it is to find any coherence about how football should be played. Sports has always been a multiple thing (as there seems to always have been some kind of kicking game and some kind of bat/ball game in most cultures). Football still struggles to be seen in the same light, but maybe by forcing FIFA to come to terms with this, maybe they’ll do the rest of the work for us
As you can see I’m just a little bit concerned that FIFA is screwing the world by its protectionist imperialism’s all
MyGeneration said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
I hope questioning the details of the World Cup bid is not calling into question our humanity. I think Australia is already a pretty civil society, and I don’t think the World Cup bid matters one way or the other towards that.
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Beast-A-Thon:
I don’t think anyone will believe that you don’t dislike soccer when you imply that the world cup is crap garbage.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
No, U2 and Coldplay are crab garbage, and so is the reasoning that size should discount all rational analysis. Superior international market share is used as an argument that Australia should host the WC to detriment of its current sporting landscape, and I do not hold to such fallacious reasoning.
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Beast-A-Tron:
For someone who is so keen on rational analysis you seem to hold your own opinion very highly. To say – “That ‘biggest sporting event in the world’ rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me.” is kind of stupid when the point isn’t up for debate. It takes a lot of arrogance to say that fact isn’t good enough for you.
Re the U2 and coldplay implication, I suggest you learn how to use analogy if you aren’t going to stick by what you say.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
But the point remains that “biggest show on Earth” isn’t sufficient to over ride existing contractual agreements.
Ken said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
I agree with the beast that the Soccer WC being The ‘biggest show on earth’ isn’t really relevant to the argument. Popularity has a lot more to do with exposure than relative merits – how else do you define the career of Britney Spears?
However it’s not event an absolute fact that it’s the largest, I imagine that the boast is carried by international average TV audience – an impressive achievement but not the only possible, or even most obvious, measurement of a sports events size. The olympics have far more countries, sports, playing time, athletes – plenty of other justifications for biggest sports event on the planet
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Ken, I’m glad you put the effort in as always
But you must surely know by now that Soccer’s popularity worldwide is nothing more than FIFA banking on its virtual irresistibility. I actually don’t think the intrinsics of sport have crossed FIFA’s mind, they only function as a Capitalist business which means that as far as they’re concerned as long as they keep growing their accounts they’re on the right rack. The problem is Soccer’s always been number one and probably won’t ever have to fight another sport.
The Olympics on the otherhand. Their soul is still interested in the intrinsics but has unfortunately realised the need of entertainment to clothe their promotion of sporting excellence.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
“That ‘biggest sporting event in the world’ rhetoric doesn’t cut it with me.” is kind of stupid when the point isn’t up for debate.
Perhaps I have not articulated my point well. I’m not saying that point isn’t up for debate, but a purely ‘bigger is better’ argument, without further elaboration, is wrong. The issue is more complex than just ‘it is the biggest sporting event, it will bring us $$$’.
I hope that clarifies the matter.
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Fair enough, I’ve always understood your point. Just didn’t like the implication that the world cup is crap. Unintentional perhaps – refer previous comment re analogy.
Ken – just for you, can we say that the world cup is the biggest sporting event in the world in terms of interest? Not in terms of the number of countries competing, the number of athletes, sports or playing time. btw the masters games is way bigger than the olympics with some of your criteria. But the wc wins if the criteria is interest. It is the event more people watch and care about.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Yes…Yes…and thank the Lord Almight on High….YES! This has been my point all along, FIFA pretends to be a sport of the people but thru quite typical Capitalistic tendencies has reduced all competition not just before, during and after the WC but across virtually the whole world, for virtually an entire century (in the UK much longer I might add). The payment of players who are supposedly WC winning-class (can’t see Ronaldo actually getting to the knockout rounds this time round after the draw on the weekend) or perhaps more poignantly the countenance of paying players more money than they can clearly recoup during the player’s career at the club is indicative of the monomaniacal approach by FIFA: make the whole world your friend so those few who resist are made out to be laughing stocks…hang on a minute didn’t I see that in that program V last night
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Buckley and the FFA have lied every step of the way – why didn’t they have the balls to come out from the start and say what it would mean?
Adrian quotes bloggers on the HS, but I can quote respected journalists in a broadsheet this morning, Ray Gatt:
“Nah, this is just the AFL boss’s idea of stirring up the rabid masses in the aerial ping pong game. ”
Good on to Demetriou for telling it the way it is.
Get your act together FFA, stop expecting everyone else to do the job for you – or creep back to your hole.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
CEO of AFL is just upset & all of a sudden there is weapons of mass destructions at both FIFA & FFA. We must bring them down. hahaha, what a joke.
The Link said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
How is saying the season needs to be cancelled calling it how it is?
He’s trying to stir up the base. No denying the FFA may be playing games, but don’t claim AD isn’t in the gutter with them.
MyGeneration said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:34am | Report comment
This is a fear-and-loathing article about fear-and-loathing. The black-and-white put down of Americans comes two sentences after a plea for “logic, compromise and acceptance” and not to resort to black or white absolutes.
Unfortunately that contradiction sums up the articles faults, and a lot of the current rhetoric around the WC bid on both sides. Until there is more clarity around what hosting the WC will actually mean in terms of practical necessities (What are the real benefits? What are the other codes really expected to sacrifice, and for how long?), this will be the hysterical tone of the debate.
Expect a few hundred new and contradictory definitions of the term “UnAustralian”.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Another salient post. Now, if only one of more mainstream media commentators would begin asking these questions – what benefits come from hosting the World Cup, who do they benefit, what negatives are effected and what will be the consequences – then we can move on to an open public debate about whether it’s a worthwhile pursuit and which agencies should foot the bill. Unfortunately, those who presumably are in a position to answer those questions (FFA and FIFA) haven’t, yet, been forthcoming with much information. If they don’t know the answers, perhaps Australia shouldn’t be bidding. If they do and are holding back in the hope that the storm will blow over, then shame on them.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Gatto
Politicians want circuses for political grandstanding – it’s in their interests to hide all open debate on such a subject because there are no economic benefits.
The formula is straightforward enough:
1. the taxpayer forks out billions upon billions of dollars
2. FIFA pockets the economic rent
3. Politicians get photographed (but still look like the gits they really are)
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
A cynical view, but pretty accurate Pip. Still, it’s our duty to question the imposition of big events like the World Cup if nobody else is doing so. It’s a pretty big photo op, but it comes at an enormous cost.
crashy said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Soccer isn’t my preferred code but if all this infighting and self interest continues, we have Buckleys ( great pun) of getting in world football tournament.
The AFL is a wonderful product but I think it is really starting to show its insecurity over its place in the world pecking order of football codes.
Very interesting to watch but this will hardly go to our advantage.
The 2003 Rugby world cup generated about 50 mil for the ARU. Imagine what the FFA stands to make…I ca see why the AFL is scared.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
crashy
I’m not sure what will be left in the kitty for the FFA after the AFL is handsomely compensated (or is the taxpayer meant to pick up that bill as well?)
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Hardly scared. The interesting aspect to all of this is that three weeks ago I could have sworn it was footy and league going head-to-head, and the media will make every conflict of interest into another salvo in the ‘war’ that’s raging.
I would say Demetriou would be derelict in his responsibility if he didn’t declare to the media that the World Cup is a threat to AFL revenues. It is, insomuch that it would require an adjustment of the AFL’s business plan for whichever year it is held, and revenues would likely suffer because it would drain public spending on sport, offer sponsors an alternative and tie up many preferred venues. Too many muppets confuse this posturing as either a personal or organisational insecurity on Demetriou or the AFL’s part, as if they are scared of soccer, when in fact it’s just Demetriou’s job – one that he is paid handsomely to do – to defend the interests of the AFL. Ironically, up in Sydney the NRL are furiously trying to restructure to adopt an AFL-model commission to better govern their sport, and soccer has lured Demetriou’s former protege Ben Buckly to administer that code. The AFL has the best track record in Australia for sports management, and the fact that they’ve turned the World Cup draw into a week’s worth of discussion about an AFL season 9 or 13 years away is testament to that.
Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
They are adopting a model based on the NFL, not AFL. Rarely reported correctly.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Yes, but the NFL model was adopted by the AFL, so both commissions will be of the same provenance.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
GN the key here is that the AFL is a publicity machine. Nothing more. The NFL does it. So does the EPL (with the added benefit of claiming the world actually cares about its four-way competition (throw in Hotspur this year of course). All great leagues do it, but it doesn’t mean the AFL will actually gain anything from this bid (or even the WC itself if the bid is won). Tell me why can’t the AFL break/bend the rules and promote Soccer, before and during the WC (and by before I mean starting around about now)…and conversely why is the NRL not doing the same, even tho Soccer and RL have alot closer relationship?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
To quote Richard Hinds from this morning’s SMH:
“Information from the FFA has been, the AFL claims, confusing, contradictory or simply non-existent.
This has left the AFL wondering if a) The FFA’s planning is so poor it is still uncertain about key points such as where and when the AFL and NRL would be allowed to play games during the World Cup or b) The FFA is being deliberately obtuse in the belief the Federal Government will legislate to force other codes and ground operators to comply to any orders should the bid succeed. ”
I would suggest it’s a bit of both a and b.
This is what happens when government hands out money to organisations with zero accountability.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Another quote from Richard Hinds on the same article;
‘the AFL and NRL would be negligent if they did not consider the World Cup a Trojan Horse from which an aggressive enemy will spring’
Now where have I heard that before, oh yeah those overzealous Rugby League writers about the AFL coming into Western Sydney.
Funny how the AFL can dish it out but can’t take it.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Punter
It’s an idiotic analogy.
The AFL is being asked to forego its contracted rights to the MCG.
Etihad has already told the FFA and FIFA to jump because they would lose too much money (it would be the same for the MCG).
Buckley is already talking about legislated action to over ride commercial agreements, i.e. a bit like the governmetn taking over your house for 4 months and asking you to live somewhere else.
There is an issue here of property rights.
And this is why I keep referring to a foreign, unelected corrupt governing body.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Pip,
If you think about it, it’s not an idiotic analogy.
The Blacktown city council are closing down soccer/Rugby ovals for AFL ovals, why beacause the AFL are paying the Council.
Where are the kids coming from, oh yes the free membership & goodies bag they get.
Now you call that marketing & I tend to agree.
Now the WC is all about marketing.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Punter
get your facts straight – it’s a cricket ground.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Another unfounded, silly comment. Councils reallocate fields due to the dynamic nature of demand. You have more kids or adults wishing to play footy? They get in touch with councillors or city executives, who then reallocate underused fields. There’s no conspiracy involved, it’s just demand-based and happens all the time. It’s no different than South Melbourne’s old oval being reallocated to soccer once they moved north.
Contrast that with commercial venues with long-standing user agreements in place. Pip’s analogy of the government legislating to evict you from your house actually is accurate, and quite scary if you think about it from that viewpoint. It’s not about marketing, it’s about property and commercial law which, unfortunately for overzealous soccer partisans, presently protects the rights of the existing venue tenants.
Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Come off it. The Blacktown community haven’t demanded GWS come to town, nor that fields for Aussie rules be provided. It is the other way around. The AFL are using a build it and they will come approach. Which requires plenty of money, show bags, and lots of sweet talking of government officials.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Not much different than the rectangular stadium in Melbourne, except that the AFL invested funds into the Blacktown facility, alongside Cricket Australia. The Blacktown facility are besides the point in this case, in that it is being built on vacant land, and $5 million of the investment is earmarked for adjoining soccer facilities.
The local Australian football leagues in Toronto and Denmark recently had ovals constructed on former baseball and soccer fields. Warrnambool (a footy-obsessed cradle) recently built rugby and soccer fields on former Aussie rules grounds. It’s all part of changing sports dynamics and happens on a daily basis. It’s nothing for anyone to be threatened about.
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
plenty different to the rectangular field in Melb. For one, two well established and well supported teams will be based there, plus the new rugby team. For two, there is no equivalent facility in Melb. For three, it isn’t just a training ground…
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Team GWS are already based out of the Blacktown facility, macavity, and both the AFL and Cricket Australia have committed to holding matches and basing their programs out of the facility. It’s not really in an area covered by existing infrastructure, as it wouldn’t have been built if that were the case. In this regard Sydney is viewed as a network of neighbouring urban centres rather than as a single metropolis. As far as the partners see the investment, I doubt it is any different to Melbourne’s rectangular stadium.
bever fever said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Lies, lies and more lies, Blacktown have never closed down rugby, soccer grounds for the AFL.
Dogs Of War said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Yeah, but the money the council has put into the stadium has come at the expense of the local grounds that are run down in the area and are used heavily. Maybe you should drive around Blacktown some time.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
“Buckley is already talking about legislated action to over ride commercial agreements”
I’m not quite sure what Buckley expects the government to do other than compulsory acquisition of the land, which not be wise because:
1a. It would be a highly politicised decision for the government to resort to constitutional means in order to undermine commercial contracts of a national sport; leading to
1b. The Australian Government going in to bat for soccer at the High Court, which is where it will end up if this path is pursued (Section 51(xxxi) outlines the powers conferred and compensation required).
Somehow I don’t see ‘The Castle 2′ revolving around the FIFA WC.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
But this is exactly the scenario that is about to be played out – unless the compensation is big enough to satisfy the AFL to start with – Etihad have already said no to the FFA – they are a privately owned stadium – so compulsory acquisition is definitely on the agenda.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
FFA hasn’t got the balls to go to the High Court.
Barking Glider said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Any Federal government that legislates against sports being allowed to undertake their normal competitions is more than doomed. They never even banned sport during WW1 or WW2, despite the obvious argument that sport should stop. Taking away people’s sport is political suicide.
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Pip, where has this been mentioned from Buckley?
I want the world cup more than most so I can attend but fairs fair and legislating is over stepping the mark.
I guess Buckley does have a history fo poor comunication (the Canberra a league bid comes to mind).
Anyway the NRL have been handed a proposed schedule so I am sure that will be leaked to the newspapers in full soon enough
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
If they legislate they lose. Governments arent that stupid its a sporting event not conscription.
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
The way Richard Hinds is talking it sounds like he wants the Government to legislate rather than the AFL play on while the world cup is on.
I would consider it a massive failure on behalf of the FFA if it comes to that. I would still buy tickets of cours, but wouldn’t defend the bid at all.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Adrian, to tell the truth, i am all for the WC bid, i think the AFL is very fearful of the bid, and so they should be. Football in this country is only just starting out on a long journey. In 10-12 years time we might look back and say, WHY, WHY and how did we ever lose such a winable bid. Football by then might have become the number 1 code,.
The point about America , at least they did not stop the country from holding the game. What does that do to us if we are that insecure, we throw the bid away because other codes might be displaced. As i mentioned, the bid is for 2018, but 2022 sounds more realistic, and hopefully we can make the bid happen.
It could become the darkest day in Australia’s history if the bid falls over, maybe only then will this country truely understand what sport is doing to us, we are obsessed. And there is 1 code leading the charge, now i would not want to have that on my resume. Football juniors are sinking their teeth into all other codes, and its only going to become bigger in 10 years time.
To me, it should be up to the government to step in and call this nonsense off. Any code cant become dictators to the people, and it seems like this is what is happening,. We all want to make money, including the government, but to throw away maybe billions of dollars to allow any code to think they had a win for their code is ludicrist. Its not a win for their code, it will be the darkest day in the codes history.
Cheers.
And probably become more loathed than it already is, yes the codes have issues, but everything can be worked out through talks. Anyhow, just thought i would add my 2 cents. Football is huge around the world, and no city has fallen down yet, why anyone is scare-mongering is beyond me, yes i give other codes stick on this site, but its all good bantering, i would never want to stop the rugby Union world cup from being played in OZ. And i think you all know how league tragic i am.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Oikee
Gallop has already rejected the FFA’s first proposal to them.
agga78 said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
When war of the worlds was played on radio in 1938, people in America thought Aliens were invading Earth, fear grip the nation their way of life was over, they would be slaves or killed off by the Aliens, Fast foward to 2009 and the AFL and there spin doctors the Herald Sun are using fear and scare tactics to turn Victorians(the Americans) against a world cup(the Aliens) by saying they are going to cancel the AFL season.
Mike Sheahan Hearld Sun’s chief AFL Puppet says in a rallying call to AFL loving people in todays sun “Come on, Andrew, time to do what you do best: dig in, defend the cause, roll out that confident, some say belligerent, attitude that says to hell with the PR and the politics. We’re fighting for a cause, a way of life, here”
A way of life, is this a fight between communism and Democracy, a war on terror?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
But who is fearful?
If FFA have the balls – go and bid for the World Cup without the MCG – but do they have any balls?
Macs.football said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
But if the MCG didn’t host any world cup matches it couldn’t call itself the greatest stadium in the world anymore.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
AFL fans don’t care about such monikers – we just want to watch the footy.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I highly doubt that. Yankee Stadium didn’t host any World Cup matches, yet it doesn’t stop them. And it’s a moot point anyway – the MCG Trust and MCC care more about diminishing their outstanding debt by hosting AFL matches than they would care about hosting the World Cup for no return.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
FIFA stand to make 3-4 billion from the rights to the sport. The easiest way to avoid conflicts in this situation would be for them to offer to fund the development of soccer-dedicated fields to accommodate any Cup schedule they desire. But that would never happen, and when they demand that other sports shut down for the duration suddenly the other codes are at fault for complaining? Give me a break.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Yes – that sort of money would build a few 70,000 plus rectangular stadiums, ideal for the world cup – and the riches the cup generates would pay for it – everyone’s a winner!
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Nice work Adrian.
You’ve effectively painted AFL fans as the villians with your selective reader comments from the Herald Sun. Where are the soccer zealout comments putting down Australia and the Australian game? why arent you quoting these?
If your objective was to polarise further you’ve achieved your aim.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Pretty clear there was no other objective.
Mark Young said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Hi Redb and Pippinu
I’ve lurked on this site for quite a while and written the occassional comment, mainly about car racing and occasionally Rugby League.
While reading the comments, I can’t help but notice that the two of you are not just pro AFL, you are furiously anti every other sport except for AFL.
I’m pro Rugby League, but I’m not out and out opposed to AFL, Union or Soccer, I have enjoyed the previous two both in preson and on the box and am looking forward to seeing a big game of AFL the week before the Grand Prix next year (I think it’s Richmond and Carlton).
If we get the World Cup, and I very much doubt that we will but here’s hoping, it will be a huge one off. The sort of major event that will energise the entire country, not just the Olympics which was more focused on Sydney. Every major sport will benefit in the wake of it as people embrace the energy of being involved in major sporting events.
Do you honestly believe deep down that the AFL season will be called off?
Do you really believe it will even be put on hold?
Aren’t you kind of excited as a sporting fan about seeing a major event in your home town? I know I am, and I know that although it will inconvenience the NRL season a little bit, in the long term it won’t effect it at all. Surely they will just schedule split rounds and send some games out into Regional towns and cities during the tournament. And when it is over, move back into better stadiums with upgraded facilities and transport. Don’t you think that the AFL will do the same.
I hate to think that either of you are actually as depressed and sometimes bitterly angry as your posts are.
What are your thoughts? Do you really hate everything except for the AFL? How do you feel about a World Cup in Australia?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Mark
no one is talking about hate.
In fact, I refer you to my recent Roar article examining Group A of the 2010 world cup:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/06/examining-group-a-in-2010-world-cup/
But non-AFL people on the Roar clearly have trouble coming to grips with commerical property rights.
And there remains a very valid question: why should the AFL season be stopped at all?
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Beware the wolf in sheep clothing.
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Don’t worry Mark.
Reading Pip’s World Cup Group analysis is like reading wine reviews by a teetotaller
Mark Young said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Hi Pippinu
I sincerely hope that neither the AFL or NRL season is stopped.
And realistically, I very very much doubt if anyone other then the most pessimistic or paranoid really thinks that they will.
Were we to host the World Cup, both the AFL and NRL are way too important to be stopped, but not nearly important enough to not experience some amount of inconvenience.
My comment about hate is just my impression from having read a lot of really negative and angry comments over a long period of time. I’m glad you enjoy other sports and are not all bitter and twisted about life.
Kind regards
Marshall said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Thank you Mark!
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
G’day Mark,
If you read my comments I’m asking for a better deal for the AFL than the one being proffered and left hanging by the FFA. My main objection is the requirement of Etihad Stadium when there is a brand new rectangular stadium being built in Melbourne.
I make no apology for my passion for the game of Aussie Rules it does at times polarise my opinions when the game gets unfairly attacked.
Redb
Mark Young said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Gday thanks for taking my comments in the spirits they were intended.
I agree with you there. Surely the World Cup would not need to use the MCG, Docklands AND new rectangular stadium.
I reckon it would make more sense to have Docklands and the new stadium for the world cup so the AFL season can go on as per usual at the MCG.
At the end of the day, the AFL and NRL seasons are too big to stop and too many people care about for them to be too badly effected. But they are pretty small compared to the world cup so they will effected in some way.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Thank you Mark.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Tis unfortunate when banter turns to perpetuating old battlelines isn’t it? Now I love these kind of arguments but in the end of the day I’m not in here to waste my whole day (looking at 600 plus posts) unless I thought it was for a greater good. Of course the code wars rhetoric is yet another point of difference between Oz and…NZ
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
It’s remarkable that people on the Roar have failed to pick up that Etihad has rejected the FFA’s request to use the Dome outright on the basis that they would lose far too much money.
Lose money hosting the biggest show on Earth?
That tells you quite a lot about the economics of hosting the World Cup.
By the way, Etihad is 100% privately owned.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
I know, staggering isn’t it? This vast, stupendous event that a) can’t afford to build its own stadiums; and b) can’t even make money for existing stadiums! It just defies belief.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
The inclusion of Etihad I beleive is at the ehrt of the AFL’s dilemna and its highly disingenous of Ben Buckley to say he is sensitive to other football codes when he knows very well that the MCG and Etihad are the AFL’s main stadiums in Melbourne. The game could live without one or the other but not both.
The FFA are lying. They’re as corrupt as their FIFA counterpart.
I can just see the negotiations now, Ben Buckley: “oh look I’m sorry Andrew D and David G I’m trying for you but FIFA may not allow it”
Come n’ Play – Crime ‘ll Pay.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Redb
it’s true – it’s been one big lie now for ages.
Buckley keeps saying the MCG will only be needed for 6 to 8 weeks – but we already know that 6 weeks is a lie and that it is most likely it will be needed for more than 8 weeks.
All lies.
Just have the balls and come out with it!!
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I heard one radio interview with Ben Buckley last night where he said it might be 8-10 weeks and he confirmed they did look into ‘rectangularising’ the MCG which would it put out of action for 4 months but the cost and disruption to the AFL would be too much, Buckley now says (spinning his wheels). I wonder if he bothered to share that with Demetriou beforehand?
If the AFL is allowed to play by FIFA (I say this with massive sarcasm) then deprived of both the MCG and Etihad it will hurt the game enormously.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Yes – one minute it’s 4 weeks, then 6, then 8, now we’er talking about major earthworks – Buckley has been full of BS from day one.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Another quote from Richard Hinds:
‘ulterior motive for the FFA’s bid – accelerating the growth of its game at a rate that would be impossible without the massive exposure and government patronage a home World Cup would guarantee.’
Now are these the real reasons why the sky is falling down & that all of Melbourne thinks that FIFA has WMD.
Now is that what you guys are worried about?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Punter
I refer you to macavity’s post below.
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Gatto Nero has hit the nail on the head.
The FFA is seeking to impose massive externalities on the NRL and AFL (by legislation, no less!), and is claiming some sort of moral imperitive in doing so.
That claimed (and extremely dubious) moral imperitive is the only argument the soccer lovers have.
Try that argument (“you will bear the cost of my actions, because my actions will benefit me!”) in any other arena and see how far you get.
If it is such a good idea, it should be no issue at all to compensate the organisations to suffer massive the impost of hosting the thing.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
I have been quoting $1 billion in compensation (plus a few other sweeteners).
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
How about the argument “you will bear the cost of my actions, because my actions will benefit the country we live in!”.
We all know li’ Ruddy loves showing off to his overseas counterparts. Do you really think he’s going to let Andy D and Gallop ruin his chance of bringing the biggest show on Earth to Australia??
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
will those actions benefit the NRL and AFL?
and by the time you factor in the massive cost to taxpayers, how much benefit is the country really getting?
the WC will first and foremost, and almost exclusively, benefit soccer.
it will first and foremost cause massive externalities to be imposed on our two most important football comps.
compensation is the only way it will work – and that probably doesn’t make it economically viable.
so in effect what you are proposing is that the NRL and AFL incur massive costs to first and foremost benefit soccer, with some residual, undefined and unquantified benefits to “the country we live in”
doesnt add up.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
This is the biggest issue yet to be covered in the debate. The negative effects of hosting a World Cup upon the AFL and NRL may be insignificant compared with the negative effects upon wider Australian society. I read of the astounding costs of hosting such an event – anywhere from $4-8 billion, and yet nobody is discussing what that money could be better spent on. Yes, there will be some economic windfall from hosting the World Cup, but it will confined to a one-off tourism input in the year of the event. For the better part of a 5-10 years prior, our governments will be spending money on stadia when there are many other pressing areas that remain underfunded. Just look at the Planetizen urban planning site to read a host of articles on white elephant sporting infrastructure, funded by the public at great detriment to the local urban fabric. Sydney hosted (and funded) the Olympics, and a decade later people are moving away in huge numbers as inadequate infrastructure makes it a less appealing city to live in. The World Cup is a bigger investment again, and all for a four week party that will leave many unsustainable stadia littered across Australia. Better still, FIFA will pocket $3-4 billion for the privilege.
An investment of that magnitude in any other aspect of public policy would receive a lot more attention from a spectrum of commentators. We should be concerned about more than just the effect upon the other codes.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
That’s the equation:
1. Australian taxpayers fork out $4 billion (minimum)
2. The Government legislates to deny the AFL accesss to its property rights
3. FIFA pockets $3 billion
4. Taxpayers pick up the tab for maintaining white elephants
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Taxpayers pick up tab? Make no mistake, at least in the northern states it will be the Rugby League clubs picking up the tab.
The State Govt’s shameful treatment of the Newcastle Knights over the redevelopment of EAS is only the tip of the iceberg.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Agreed. The Soccer WC works as far as profitability is concerned only in a country that is fantatical (and zealous ’swell) about Soccer. Australia won’t ever be fanatical and not even a WC could shore up the support of everyone, particularly not if FIFA makes it clear that they are Monarch with Absolute powers. Govts that are monocultural in their appreciation for sport have already sold out to all these potential windfalls and this rec-cycles the fanaticism about being part of the in-group (ie we’ve hosted a tournament thus we love our football more…puke
)
Chris said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
and do you really think Kruddy Ruddy has a hope in hell of being PM in 2022. It’s about as unlikely as Soccer taking over America, Cronulla winning the NRL, Carlton winning the AFL and the Waratahs winning the Super 14.
Soccer in Australia is not actually growing – its dying a rapid death. The crowd figures and ratings prove it.
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Who cares if he’s PM? The hosts are decided in December 2010, and he will be PM then and will be a self-appointed national hero for bringing the World Cup to Australia. Regardless of who is PM in 2022, Mr Rudd will be front and centre.
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Demetriou needs to be careful. For every xenophobic AFL fan living in a coccoon, there are hundreds of AFL fans who embrace all sports and would love for a World Cup to be held in Australia. If he’s not careful, I can see a movement away from AFL out of spite.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
You simply dont understand the full ramifications particularly for Melbourne based AFL fans.
Mattay said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
You don’t think there’s a significant amount of Carlton fans of Italian descent who would not be a bit peeved about the AFL stance on this??
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Uh huh. But it’s made more of a problem by those who only like one football code. I know the govt’s supposed to protect/promote minoritarian view points but sheesh. It’s a disadvantage (I repeat) D.I.S.A.D.V.A.N.T.A.G.E. liking only one footy code. No one can tell you that you’re missing out on another footy code if you’re not willing to be a bit more pluralistic. Of course by all means hold them accountable or hold your MP accountable for not holding the bidders accountable, but you’re ultimately the one who really misses out if you are unilateral (like Republican) puts it
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
It’s not about xenophobia.
It’s about commercial property rights, being properly compensated for all commercial losses and future earnings, and not being dictated too by an unelected and corrupt body with zero executive power within Australia.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
>>not being dictated too unelected and corrupt body with zero executive power within Australia.
What like the Vatican?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Yeh – maybe even worse than the Vatican.
Robbos said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
With, as Art said yesterday, Weapons of Mass destructions. I would be worried.
Geez Pip, it’s a sport, it’s ok you don’t like it, but others do, give it a break, it’s the Foz article all over again for you.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Robbos
it’s not about liking or not liking the sport.
It’s about the AFL having a right to enforce its own commercial property rights, and the FFA working out a way all on its own to be good enough to put in a half-credible bid.
Macs.football said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Yeah Robbos this is about Andrew the mighty leader of the AFL standing at the gates of Melbourne, trying to stop the evil invaders getting in yelling This is Melbourne, This is AFL TOWN.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
No Pip. It is about the code wars, just like Foster’s article. You don’t like people telling you (as no one does) that the sport you watch/support is not as good as another. You bring up facts&figures, you bring up legal principles…but essentially you feel taken advantage of by a rather crass organisation namely the Secret Brotherhood entrausted with the will of Lord FIFA
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Good one Albatross,
Hey Pip, if Melbourne had embraced other sports 100 years ago, you would not have this problem, because their would be decent stadium in Melbourne for 3 other codes. Your lack of foresight in this city, and your complete doggedness of promotion of 1 code, has lead to Australia being a backward, 1st century country with rabid dogs leading our number 1 code.
Bloody nora, talk about 3rd century. Mate, blame yourself for this mess, even as far to say that etihad has a commercial deal in place that no stadium with over 40 thousand capasidy can be build before what.? 2030.
Mate, that is just plain stupid, do you think Suncorp has any conditions like that in Place, and it was built yesterday. Cheese, whizz.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment
I’d be surprised if Suncorp didn’t actually. Or, at least, that the Government has a tacit agreement not to allow any other large stadiums to be constructed in Brisbane. It’s the only way that makes these venues profitable.
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Mattay,
Yes indeed, it is already happening, 43.56% yes in favour cancelling the AFL season and 56.44% say no…. Says the Melb Herald Sun survey…
I have been around for a long time and if that same survey was floated 30yrs ago, the no vote would have won hands down by a “100% NO” vote…
It sure brings a smile to my face, to see how much our “Australian National Football Team’s popularity as grown in Australia” and even more so in Melbourne, the home of Marn Grooky, the most insular sporting capital of the world..
Yes the times in Melbourne are now quickly changing from state to national pride, instead of a state, cocooned in a myopic insular, self serving, introverted, die trap existence… The doors of Melbourne are finally opening to let in the light…
Welcome to the real world lads, you will enjoy what it has to offer on the biggest stage of all, the 2018 FIFA FOOTBALL WORLD CUP at the MCG…
~~~~~~~
KB
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
PS in a rectangle configuration at a mere nominal cost of $130m from the Vics state treasury … money well spent..
a gift to Football if you wish as an investment for the future if you will 
for those poor long time melb second class citizens…
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
A gift K.B ? i call a 480 million, make that 600 million Adelaide oval a gift (blow-out in costs included)
,. Mate, make your gifts more enjoyable, lets just rip down that rusty old MCG which is not even in the top 10 stadium in the world, and build us a future 120 thousand purpose built rectangle with the option? of going to oval for less important codes. 
Lets rock this country, and take it into the 21 century. 
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Agreed Oikee …. state-of-the-art rectangularism is the way of the future … for “all” world cups and the annual SoO a gift to Melbourne’s second class citizens for now… And they won’t be for long … No Worries, come ‘n’ play, no matter what your rectangular preference is…
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Adrain
Bravo … and Bravo the Roar … one of the things I like about the Roar is the media is still not owned by any code… keep your independence and you shall grow.
Robbos said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Well done Midfielder. Too true.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Even better we have a thread that will run and run until December 2010 at least – maybe until 2018 or 2022,,,
61 posts and Michael C isn’t even here yet. Is he sick or on holiday? Or haven’t the AFL media been able to send out today’s talking points email?
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
soccer fans just backing other soccer fans. Objective view nowhere to be seen.
Macs.football said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
We copied the tactic from the anti soccer and AFL fans.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Bravo for his blatant anti-Americanism? His last line completely buttf@cks the entire message of his article. You’re right Adrian isn’t owned by the mainstream media, because of his unconscionable writing.
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Beasty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aVHLL5egRY
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Hey I have a thickskin and I don’t care if he chooses to bag out Americans. I’m merely pointing out his journalistic integrity is in question.
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Adrain
The AFL fear the WC bid being won… or that is what I read from their comments..
It was like a rallying cry to the AFL faithful especially their media and the axis of evil (Ch 7, Herald Sun & 3AW)… the same mob who popped champagne corks when we did not make the WC are smelling of fear now we look like we may have some chance of pulling off the bid…
The AFL do not want football to win the WC bid … simple as.. they know it will forever change the face of the Australian sporting landscape .. add the 2015 Asia cup in Australia, and the women’s world cup that often comes with the WC… the world is changing …
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
The Asian Cup would be outside of the footy season wouldn’t it?
In any event – it only requires four venues – it’s a big difference.
Non-AFL people on the Roar really struggle with the concept of enforcing commercial property rights.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Hey Middy, notice their is no greif coming from rugby blogs, we are with you buddy on this one. Well as other league lovers point out, i am on my own, but weather you win the bid or lose the bid, soccer wins, because if any codes jepodises the bid, it will leave a almighty black mark against their name, and giving the support by nearly half the country? I wonder where the against is coming from, like i said, rugby league, or me, are all for the bid. cheers.
Rugby league has been fighting all its life, why stop now.
What does not kill you, makes you stronger.
Mushi said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
This article is simply a fear and loathing propaganda response. If you don’t support the world cup you are racist or isolationist.
Maybe you are fan of the other codes and not round ball fan and as such lose out?
Maybe you think the spend to host it is unnecessarily large.
Maybe you think we can’t support the thundering herd of white elephant stadiums that will need to be built.
There are credible arguments and positions on both sides, sadly this article is not one of them this is just a positioning piece which makes the author no better than those he wishes to denigrate.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Spot on.
Ben said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I dont know what the problem is. AFL and rugby league just start a month earlier, bin the crappy pre season cup (Richmond will never win it anyway) for the year. the WC runs for just over 4 weeks. if both AFL and RL promote themselves while all the toursits are here, and see packed stadiums of passionate supporters for a very local game (in AFL’s case) they have a better chance of promoting there sport to a new audience.
I can’t believe sports supporters that are on this site don’t want the WC. It is by fair the biggest sport event in the world. And we all should be proud of hosting it (if we get it at all)
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Ben
if the MCG is unavailable for 16 weeks – then it’s a problem – a very big one – for which the AFL will need to be compensated handsomely.
Etihad has already said no to the FFA – they are a separate privately owned organisation -nothing to do with the AFL – for them it’s a simple financial reason – they will lose stacks of money handing over the ground to FIFA.
Does anyone on the Roar understand commercial law???
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
>>Does anyone on the Roar understand commercial law???
Probably nobody does anywhere. That is why most commercial law lawyers are so filthy rich – it’s even more arcane than canon law and stuff like “mental reservation” is entirely acceptable behavior.
The big risks for the AFL are:
1) that it may be seen as a big bully by an Australian public most of whom never attend any sporting event of any kind but who have probably have heard of the football WC
2) the Federal government wants the football WC badly – may be so badly that it will legislate the football WC is some sort of security priority like a US preznit’s visit or World Roman Catholic Yoof Day (which was of even less relevance to Australians and the world. and for which NSW taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of a cool $100 mill.) and take control of the stadiums for the duration.
I am not suggesting this latter is a good thing btw.
Ken said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
I think what you are saying is pretty much commensense re: the NRL and AFL seasons starting a bit earlier, finishing a bit later and having a break during the 4 weeks of the WC tournament itself. I think this is the type of compromise that Gallop and Demetriou are looking for and would agree to. Currently though, the soccer bodies are being very unclear about what they are asking for but just telling them to suck it up and accept it (estimates ranging from 6 – 16 weeks, no confirmation about which stadiums) and not showing any wish to compromise on the anti-competitive clauses that they are trying to enact which would basically mean that the NRL/AFL would have to make themselves invisible during the tournament – so no trying to promote the local codes during the WC.
Pippinu’s point about the commercial positions of the stadiums is well made (although I don’t know why you keep insisting ‘Non-AFL’ people won’t understand…. these concepts do exist outside Victoria) but I feel that these are relatively small stumbling blocks. If the NRL and AFL are onside, then a mutually accepted contract suspension and possibly a small (in the scheme of things) financial compensation will fix any off those concerns.
tony yeboah said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
What i don’t get is that the AFL don’t realise what is to gain from having a World Cup here. I am not even going to comment on AD’s ridiculous scaremongering yesterday. Correct me if i am wrong, but don’t the AFL spend milliions and millions of dollars every year trying to build there code, not only in the northern states, but also overseas. Wouldn’t the fact that TV crews from nearly every country in the world will be coming to Australia for a month, 1 million visitors who surely will have some spare time on there hand will be here. OPPURTUNITY AFL!!!
Reports on the AFL beamed to every country in the world, all of these TV crews love doing pieces on local oddities, and lets face it, with kangaroos and budgie smugglers, what is more unique and foreign to the world than AFL. Host some midweek AFL games all over Australia and promote them to visiting fans from other countries. Sports fans love to visit other stadiums, sports in other countries.
All of this fighting and scaremongering is ridiculous, and that is from all sides of the argument. AD and the AFL needs to get over it’s insecurity complex and see what is to be gained from the World Cup. They could spend tens of millions of dollars and never get the exposure that the WC would bring them. The FFA need to wake up and realise that just hosting the WC is not going to convert everyone and all will fall down on there knees and thank them.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
You cannot get a better advertisement for Australian Rules football than a big game on the MCG.
The FFA wont even allow a 50,000 crowd at Etihad.
Your reasoning is flawed. The requirement of both the MCG and Etihad pushes the AFL competition into suburbia and country venues where it will remain an oddity for the world’s media, not the spectacle of an Essendon v Collingwood game with 80,000 fans at the mighty MCG.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Tony
it’s about enforcing commercial property rights.
The Government will either have to enact legislation to compulsory acquire them, or hand out an immense compensation package of around $1 billion.
Any other talk is just BS.
mahony said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Pip, “just compendsation” is the important term in the contitutional case law here – and you may be suprised to learn just how little that is likely to be is previous High Court rullings are anything to go by (indeed they are the only thing to go by in this case). The compensation issues are ’small fry’ in the broad context of this bid – it will be the least urgent matter from the government’s perspective I can assure you.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Fine – put the $1 billion on the table and everyone’s happy.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Hey Pip, i dont know where you get your 1 billion from, yesterday you told us the AFL was a 1 billion a year industry, ? So for 2 months, thats about 200 million, no more, Your code is going to be losing numbers by then anyhow, with the golliath that is soccer, maybe the MCG will just be a ghost town.
The sooner the Hearts and Victory start playing out of the MCG the better, 80 thousand screaming fans instead of 50 thousand Cricket supporters will bring that baby to life, keep the seagulls away anyhow. How can a exciting sport have seagulls on the feild? have you ever seen a bird on a soccer feild. ? Maybe a streaker.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
>>budgie smugglers
Oh god.. pictures of a somewhat old Tony Abbott PM on a beach somewhere adjacent to Warringah beamed around the world. Won’t somebody think of the children?
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
The Copenhagen Summit on global warming was stunned today after it was discovered that any effective carbon reductions made by Australia will be compromised by the hot carbon rich air coming out of AFL HQ in Melbourne.
The Australian delegation in a desperate plea to the international community asked that any discussion regarding a carbon reducing treaty be put on the backburner and for the world to urgently concentrate on how to solve the seemingly intractable issues regarding Australia’s World Cup bid.
The summit was told that in order to save the planet the AFL’s carbon producing PR Hyperbole Machine might have to neutralised.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Brillant, just brillant.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Buckley is about as credible as a climate scientist working out of East Anglia!!
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
The AFL is as credible as the Exxon PR Machine
In breaking news – the glaciers on Mt Kilamanjaro suddenly vanished yesterday. The Kenya delegation has asked for the UN Security council to convene an urgent meeting where an ultimatum will be sent to Australia.
For the sake of the planet’s security we order you to neutralise the carbon producing AFL Hyperbole Machine or face the military consequences.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Art, I assume your ditching Essendon after this outrageous display of nationalism against the foreign code?
Barassi squeezing a soccer ball on the front cover of the Herald Sun was a nice touch
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Why do we have to ditch our clubs just because we dont care if they beat the tigers in August or October as long as they win.
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
redb – I see no reason to stop supporting Essendon. I still intend to go to a few games next year and I hope we win another premiership in the next few years. Unlike some sad AFL heads, I don’t think my club or the competition is threatened by the World Cup.
The AFL’s current greatest enemy is itself.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Go Dons!
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Luckily the Bubble Football stadium has been built above the flood plan… The architects were told of this pending carbon emission from AFL HQ, as a result it will be on firm ground to hold 2018 WC fixtures … Well done lads
Eamonn said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/blogs.aspx?CIaBEID=1578
A bit of sense, and it’s come from a football journo, a sports fan with a bit of smarts; in the midst of the rants from a few small minded and parochial AFL fans.
Could there be any benefit for the AFL in a World Cup in Australia?…
Maybe time to think about how AFL can benefit from all these visitors to Australia and AFL heartland. All of them will be sports fans will no nothing of the fear of a few AFL fans to the round ball, and all of them will want to visit AFL stadia, museums, watch a game, buy a St Kilda shirt etc etc…
When would you ever get this opportunity to show your game, give em a ball, a kick on a field etc etc?
Bigger picture required for a few it seems. AFL starting to look a little like a mouse more than the elephant.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
As redb has already said – it’s all BS – unless the visitors can watch Collingwood vs Essendon in front of 90,000 at the MCG – it’s all BS.
Mr said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
It would be ideal for AFL to continue at the MCG and football take the smaller Etihad.
FIFA doesn’t require both. AFL is not a major sport outside of Australia.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
AFL is not a major sport in 2 of Australia’s most populas states.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Most populous Australian states:
1. NSW
2. Victoria
3. Queensland
4. Western Australia
You are wrong.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
In 2 of Australia’s most POPULOUS states, not the the 2 most POPULOUS states. I must learn to spell.
Thanks Redb. I was wrong in my spelling but not in my assumption.
Ken said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Not sure on your point Redb, AFL is not a major sport in NSW. In a state where 1/3 of the nations population live there is 1 professional team which has mediocre live support, low profile and rates poorly on TV. QLD is better but not significantly, so it’s not a major sport in #1 or #3 states which would seem to back up Punter’s point.
I’m not actually sure what Punter’s point was though because Soccer can’t boast much in any of these markets including Victoria/WA (which of course are nuts about AFL).
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
But it happens to be far and away the biggest drawcard in Melbourne, which is the issue here.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Etihad, a privately owned stadium, has already told the FFA to go jump.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
Ah but Pip if Adam Smith’s free market ideals actually worked then you’d be right. However those who promote Free Trade rhetoric tend to be really Protectionist (a la US) and thus Melbourne’s private Stadium should in theory want to support whatever makes money, those protectionist factions who dominate the business community in the Southern Capital however pressure the decision makers of the business to go with what will keep the greatest popularity=most long-term revenue and of course while Melbourne’s AFL mad that will never change.
Money is made by making the wisest decisions not the most popular! And IMO it is wise to support a global behemoth, not just because its a good way to make money but it’s a good way of making more money down the line with extra contacts.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
The AFL embraces the WC bid, Andrew just isn’t interested in dropping our trousers to satisfy Eurocentric demands. FIFA demanding exclusivity and near monopoly over Australian sport for a month or two is a disgrace. This is not fear mongering, these are FIFA requirements for hosting the WC, the FFA have even admitted they are currently attempting to get around this snag.
Ah yes the parochial insult (code for tall poppy syndrome) we’ve all heard before, a popular gem amongst the soccer fraternity in Australia & USA. Got anything new or are you still waiting for your latest thesaurus?
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
I think you, or the blog you referred to (sorry no time to read), may be overstating any benefits to the afl beyond infrastructure.
For a tourist, watching collingwood at the mcg has about the same relevance as watching kerry play at croke park – a great spectacle yes, but just a spectacle with no further relevance. Kinda like going to the circus. Just my opinion, as this is how I feel as a Queenslander (I cringe when people tell me its the australian game).
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Have you heard of cultural cringe?
Here’s the macqurie definition for you:
a feeling that one’s country’s culture is inferior to that of other countries
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
We are not sheep in this country Pip, just because AFL is the most popular sport in this country, doesn’t mean we all have to follow it.
We have a right to follow football if we choose & not think we are inferior to other countries.
This cultural cringe thing is as bad as someone using Un-Australian.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
That’s the definition of cultural cringe – I can do no more than quote our very own and respected dictionary.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
>>macqurie
Didn’t you look at the spine?
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
thanks for the lesson Pip, however you’re too quick to use the cringe angle whenever someones looks at AFL and shakes their head. the cringe comes into it because of the hyperbole/melodrama surrounding it and nothing else. To say that something is the australian game is projecting a bit too far when it’s not the game of NSW and Qld. But hey its only my opinion.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Soccer supporters wearing budgie smugglers? That would look nice.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Does anyone on the Roar (apart from the AFL fans) actually understand commercial law?
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Pip, my wife worked in Commercial law in brisbane courts, every one of them, What do you want to know.? She is now working with Union claims, not rugby union,
Union law. Come on, hit me with a question, i will give the the answer within the week. ?
Ben C said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
To my great misfortune, I do in fact understand commerical law.
I suspect we are still at the sabre-rattling stage where everyone is trying to stake out a public position before the real negotiations get underway. There is a certain amount of “politicking” and “posturing” from all sides. That said, FFA’s proposals seem a bit thin on details so far. Let’s wait and see what the actual negotiations produce before we get too carried away. It is taking some time but if FFA are dragging the chain, it will only rebound on their position as they are the ’supplicants’ in this scenario.
Although I rarely don’t care about AFL, I do agree that government intervention would be a very poorly thought out and divisive move and I would hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t like AFL but I would dislike the government stepping on any sporting code.
Jaredsbro said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Pip it doesn’t take an AFL fan to appreciate the fact that possession is nine tenths of the law and that the law in a bourgoisie Capitalist culture favours contracts. Contracts must be honoured (just ask Sonny Bill Williams). Also you’re thinking about this the wrong way, perhaps Melbourne shouldn’t get the FIFA WC at all. Sydney can share it with Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide if they’re good…:)
Brian said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
For all the claims that the FFA is being secritive, if stadiums were shut for 8 weeks how much revenue would the AFL really lose? Lets take a seasons that starts in the first week of March, does not have a split round and finishes on the 3rd week of October. 3AW & Herlad Sun always tell us Melburnians that Victorians love footy yet now apparently if the grand final is played in October the AFL will lose millions. The AFL draft in December is the biggest event of the month, yet play the GF in October and he wants 1 Billion?
Personally it will take me a very long time to follow Hawthorn again if the despotic AFL ruins our WC chances.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
As has been proven time and time again, what Andrew Demetriou says does not effect the passion fans have for their clubs.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Its not the fans of the club you need be worried about, its the youth of this nation, and believe me, you up-set them, the cultured youth, you know, the one’s that have seen the real world, not just Melbourne, and you are playing a very dangerous game my friend. Anyone who has travelled outside Melbourne realises one thing, AFL is a minority sport my good fella, played out in the minds of Victorians, with about what, ? 5 million following, 10 at a push, now look at soccer, followed by billions. Game, set and Match.
Alex said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Billions might be a stretch. Certainly hundreds of millions.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:26am | Report comment
There are plenty of footy lovers who are well traveled and still love their footy. Silly comment.
GlenM said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
If I were a FIFA delegate, I wouldn’t award Australia any footballing tournament at this stage. All the antagonism. loathing and hatred for the world game there doesn’t warrant it. It’s quite obvious from the current (and what seems ongoing) debate, how isolated in world football terms Australia really is. FIFA obviously take into account the major logistics involved in hosting such a massive event, but they also measure highly a nation’s expressed love and passion for the round ball code. The world’s perception of Australia as a sports loving nation are being challenged now, speaking with mates in UK & Europe we find the backlash against football quite remarkable, but something tells us your deep seeded fear (hatred/insecurities?) for football is nothing new there.
You don’t deserve the WC I’m afraid, many appear nowhere near the football lovers many proclaim to be, if reading the forums at this site and in your local newspapers are any indication. We could be very wrong about this, but it’s now a growing perception about Aus that if maintained won’t win your nation any WC bid in the future. It’s a shame really, millions from around the world would love to attend a WC there and take in the beauty of your country and you have quite a talented team in the Socceroos, whose efforts on the world stage you should be mighty proud of.
Jeb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Good post GlenM coming from an outsider. Australia is obviously in a unique position with four codes of football. And whilst supporting one code doesn’t mean disliking the others, this isn’t the impression someone would get by reading blog comments.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Great! Best news I’ve heard all day!!
Those autorcratic, corrupt officials can take their World Cup to a place where they are better understood – Qatar maybe?
katzilla said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
GlenM, not from the office at the English world cup bid are we?
whiskeymac said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
fair point, especially about the loathing aspect. but remeber this is a bunch of blokes (in the whole) who are fanatically supportive of their fave game. of course their responses might be over passionate.
but in the scheme of things surely there are other criteria in countries getting the WC. For example the USA in 94 – did they profess the purists love of the game you imply is necessary? Nah. I think you have an over romanticised “footballs coming home” sentiment. which is understandable but has hardly been a driving success for England in securing major tournaments in the past. One such con$ideration is obviously to grow the game. How to create the overeaching love you think is paramount – have the game played there. Australia in that respect, and as a well infrastructured and experienced organiser of sinilar events in “Asia” is a good choice for the tournament. If the WC games were held here the stadia would be full, the country wld get behind it and it wld be a success.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Question: do you sincerely believe the vitriol is one-sided?
whiskeymac said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
sorry, directed at me? I didnt think i said it was one sided but in any event, and taking into account the posts, if so, the short answer:- no, there is vitriol from both sides. the level of vitriol is not always equal mind you but overall evens out in the wash. that’s a testament to both sides
long answer:- I am of the opinion that this is a site that generally generates the most passionate and to some extent (in a supporters sense) extreme responses aired out in defence and promotion of ones sport, normally at (and in cross code cases like this often) the expense of another sport.
not saying that’s bad, but certainly not saying its always good either, just explaining how i see it and therefore can rationalise some of the irrational, excited responses that get generated all the time. if not WC bids, then NRL stories, Fozzie attacking, media bias or NRL v ARu yaddayadda.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
At GlenM.
whiskeymac said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
ah =)
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Hurrah for Glen! You’re right, we just don’t deserve this wondrous event, please spread the word!
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Good post. I think that for outsiders – Europeans particularly – it may be difficult to conceive of a sporting landscape where there isn’t an established pecking order, such as exists in Australia. Generalising, you have a couple of states where rugby league is the most popular, and others where Australian football rules. Then you have soccer as a second-most popular winter sport in much of the nation, let alone a fourth code which probably has the highest brand recognition of any of the national teams. It’s this diversity that makes Australia a sports-lover’s paradise, but which also complicates arranging nationwide sporting tournaments. I think, partly, sports such as rugby union and cricket have been successful in staging their World Cups here because they are aware of and acknowledge Australia’s sporting landscape, and they are willing to work with the other sports to generate the best returns for Australia. I feel, however, that FIFA is ignorant of the situation on the ground, either due to an absence of education on FFA’s behalf, or because they just don’t care to dig. Accordingly, the impression is out there that non-soccer stakeholders should acquiesce to all FIFA stipulations, and suck it up if they don’t like it.
Soccer needs to compromise or at least show a willingness to examine options when seeking to hold the World Cup in Australia. In that regard Australia differs from much of the rest of the world, because soccer doesn’t enjoy primacy in the sporting market and many Aussies would love the World Cup to come here, but it’s not a burning passion. It’s not often that FIFA experiences this, and I would hope that vigorous debate about whether Australians want the Cup isn’t a set back for the bid. Too many countries would be only too happy to stifle public debate and dissent to land the Cup, and it’s encouraging that Australia can enjoy an honest and open critique of the bid.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I’m loving the fact that Europeans might have a look here and be surprised that we don’t worship the ground that blatter walks on.
I reckon the Irish would give us full marks for that.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Same as USA ‘94 but the stadium thingy wasn’t such an issue.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Hahaha, nice try GlenM, but if Australia wants the bid it will win the bid. We have issues, but as you see from the socceroos support, leaving oz out in the cold could probably be a bad move for FiFa,. We would not only knock them, we would be calling them all sorts of weak, Bast$%#ds.
I cant see whats wrong with AFL coming out being concerned, the NRL is also concerned, but we wont stop the bid, ? Hopefully. If we lose both of these bids, then soccer wont be around hear for what? 20 years maybe. Mate, by then most of us will be moved on, over this whole mallarky. Sitting back, earning 20% on our suoperannuations. Its up to Fifa to make it happen, not us protesting the bid.
Alex said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
Oh no, it’s the Australians. Those horrible nasty Australians. Please, who seriously listens to Australians about anything. We are but a speck.
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Where has the enthusiasm that greeted the build up to the Sydney Olympics gone?
After the initial excitment of winning the bid I remember a lot of complaining about various issues until the games actually started.
bondi beach stands out.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Was lucky enough to attend a session of beach volleyball at Bondi – great fun.
If only the new rectangular stadium could be developed to handle 50,000 fans – now that would be a unqiue solution for soccer to use its own stadiium rather than Etihad wouldnt it?
hang on I hear the foundations are capable of supporting 50,000 fans.
Go figure.
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
I think it’s always been the case about the foundations but the roof is the problem.
I wonder if the roof problem is it is expesive to remove and upgrade or it’s expensive to keep the roof after upgrading.
If it’s the later surely by 2022 they can just chuck the roof in the Yarra as we will all be over the light show by then and get on with it.
Wish they had of just built the thing to 45 50k like MV wanted in the first place and all this fear about the unknown would be unnessesary.
Edit: oh thats right the bloody dockalnds clause that is preventing Melbourne getting a big rectangular ground.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
that clause expires in plenty of time.
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Then surely that has to be what happens. I think Warner is right, we should just go for 2022. Once that date is set it sort of becomes apparent that Etihad would be a pretty sub par venue for Football by then (13 years from now) and the idea of expanding on a stadium 12 years after it has been built sounds a lot less daft than 8 years after it is built.
Would just be another 4 years of hype and AndyRoo junior would be coming up for 14. Old enough to appretiate it but young enough that he can’t just go with his mates and has to go with his old man.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Do anyone read my posts? I have mentioned untold times that Etihad has a contract in place that no stdium in Melbourne CDB be built larger than 40 thousand capasidy, Dont you understand Commercial law, wheres Pip.
P.S maybe i spelt Stadium wrong, could there be a glitch in the contract.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Do non-AFL fans on the Roar understand the concept of commercial property rights?
Ben said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Pip, take a breath and relax mate. The world is not going to fall in if Australia hosts the World Cup in 2018 or 2022. I’m sure your AFL buddies will have many years to arrange (or re-arrange) appropriate commercial rights in preparation for the World Cup. Nobody has asked, or has told, the AFL (or NRL) to bugger off for one month over the June-July that a World Cup would be hosted. There might need to be some special arrangements made, but these must surely be done in closed door negotiations, rather than played out openly in the public square through the media. Negotiations must take place in good faith, without all the gossip, inuendo and speculation – it’s damaging the reputation of all parties, and destroying our chances of hosting the World Cup.
If the AFL is concerned about losing revenue by not being able to host blockbuster matches at the MCG during the World Cup, then surely there is a simple scheduling fix by playing those matches outside the World Cup window? I understand that you’re a die-hard AFL fan, but surely even you can see some benefits from hosting the greatest show on earth, and that a small trade-off might actually benefit your sport?
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
The deceit that Buckley and the FFA has been involved in to date tells me that the only way out is for Government to compulsory acquire the property rights for exclusive use of a foreign, unelected and corrupt sporting body.
Etihad have already rejected the FFA outright.
Ben said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Pip, your comments are becoming increasingly irrational. I think you’re losing the plot. Perhaps what you really want is to give FFA and FIFA the finger on behalf of the AFL, but your mindless parochialism is wearing so thin. You seem to be subscribing to some outlandish international conspiracy that FIFA want to take over the world or invade Australia. Seriously, get a grip.
I am certain that Buckely and FFA are negotiating with AFL, NRL, stadia management, governments and all other interested stakeholders on a good faith basis, providing each with substantial information. But this public speculation, as I said, is doing everybody damage. Plus your mindless rantings are only denting your own reputation. Give it a rest already.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Ben
that’s a very interesting definition of “good faith” you there – from where I am sitting it looks like anything but good faith.
I have no reputation to dent.
There is an important principle here: to what extent should a foreign and corrupt entity be given carte blanche over the property rights of an Australian entity?
Do you have trouble understanding that concept?
Let me explain it for you:
1. The AFL have the exclusive rights to the MCG and Etihad for about 7 months of the year.
2.. Those rights not only pay for those two stadiums but in turn drive directly or indirectly about 70% of the $1 billion in revenue the AFL as a whole earns.
3. The FFA is seeking Government help to hand over those property rights exclusively to FIFA for most of the footy season.
Do you follow that?
Now if the FFA could put up a bid that did not impinge on the AFL’s property rights – then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
But in what other industry would the government forcibly acquire the property rights of a domestic commercial organisation and hand them over to a foreign and corrupt entity?
Ben said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
What I don’t understand is how you are privy to the internal negotiations taking place between the relevant organisations? If you are not, then you have no capacity to comment on the content or machinations of those discussions.
Yes, everybody understands that there are commercial arrangements at stake, which I have briefly addressed. If all parties are committed to hosting the World Cup, as I believe they are, then I am sure they will come to a workable commercial arrangement for the duration of the event, whether that be financial compensation or different match scheduling. But no amount of stage-managed media speculation and grandstanding on your part will influence those discussions.
Your ridiculous caricature of FIFA as an organisation discredits your otherwise solid posting.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Hey Pip, i thought that me was a real diehard league fan with bad attitude, but your putting me to shame. Chill-pill. Mate, wake up, smell the football roses, and think about that great classic from the village people, ? You cant stop the fifa, nobody can stop the fifa, let the world rejoice let the people take hold, you cant stop them nobody can stop them, dadadadaada.
Victer said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
You are becoming arrogant pip
Ben C said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
“to what extent should a foreign and corrupt entity be given carte blanche over the property rights of an Australian entity?”
Pip, I am afraid I don’t understand your point. We have already had the Olympics.
keeper11 said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
so much for great ‘national’ game…one stadium and a whole comp is supposedly in danger.
what an utter joke….from AD and his homegrown sycophantic media cheersquad…
shows afl for what it is…an overhyped up one city-centric suburban comp..
WC 94 was held in USA….where we are constantly reminded …’they hate sockah’
am sure the domestic codes their just shrugged the shoulders with little fuss when the tournament was organised and stadia arrangements made…
and what was the outcome..?
a slight boost to the MLS and junior participation…thats about it…
the dominant american codes just went on with their business….
i mean ..as we’re constantly reminded sockah is soo boring anyway right ??
so whats the difference here and the stench of fear coming from..?
Oh…in the US you’re dealing with confident, open-minded, self-assured and truly national sports…..
contrast with our 2 little insecure provincial nervous nellies screaching ‘the sky is falling’….
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
AS I’ve said many times – the FFA can put its bid in without needing to involve the AFL – go hold it in NSW and Queensland.
Ben said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Gladly . . . wonder what the Vic govt would think of that idea though?
Sam el Perro said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t this call into question Melbourne’s otherwise well-deserved status as sports capital of Australia?
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Don’t remember the Yankees being kicked out of Yankee stadium for the 94 WC.
Bill said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Kurt, that’s because the ground is diamond shaped and not a rectangle!
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Well, Australian football is played on cricket ovals!!
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Yeah, hardly the same situation, as Kurt has pointed out. You practically have a hundred-odd stadia across America capable of fulfilling the FIFA requirements, none of which are used during the summer World Cup window. There are also hundreds of appropriate training venues and appropriate civic and tourist infrastructure across all major cities, commensurate with a nation that is the world’s economic powerhouse and boasts a population of 350 million. Ironic that keeper11 forwards America as an icon of what we should aspire to when Adrian’s initial article called Americans “introverted and overly protective”.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Yes good point, and i brought this up in a post up further. If the AFL supported other codes over 100 years ago, the city would not be so insular as it is now. ?
Lets be honest now, to only have thought of building a rectangular stadium, and being commissioned only next year, is what? Living under a rock of some kind.
Mate, we need to help Melbourne get out of this fixation they have with AFL, Their are 3 other codes, plus their code which lets be honest, has not even erroded NSW or QLD for over 150 years, while soccer has taken the world by storm, “but we” have to worry about good ole AD. Bugger him,
Lets show the world, we bend for a major sport in this world, to bring the biggest showcase to our shores, we did bend for the Olympics, we will bend for soccer, and we will bend it like beckham.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:17am | Report comment
“If AFL supported other codes over 100 years ago, the city would not be so insular as it is now. ?”
I really fail to see the logic here. Say the AFL doesn’t support other codes… why would they? It’s not in the AFL’s brief to support other sports, it’s up to those sports themselves. If, however, you’re referring to Melbourne as distinct from the AFL, I think you’d find it hard to argue that the city isn’t a leader in the support of all sports. Local teams compete in every national sporting league (and win a hefty share of those), Melbourne annually hosts a variety of highly rated sporting events, spectator attendance at sports per capita would have to be about the highest in the world, and a lot of attendance records have been set at events in Melbourne – among them for baseball and rugby league. You continually complain that there hasn’t been a rectangular stadium in Melbourne, yet Etihad and the MCG are multi-purpose venues that accommodate the widest variety of sports possible.
It’s time for you to stop concerning yourself with Melburnians’ passion for sports other than exclusively league and soccer, and learn to appreciate that they are content to enjoy the world’s most vibrant sporting culture.
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
All I dare say -
if the Australian World Cup bid fails because of the combination of:
A. the FFA has zero money to bring to the table, and thus far is not making a single compromise
B. the Fed Govt and State Govts are expected to cough up all the money
C. the AFL and NRL are expected to vacate venues for b/w 6-8 weeks (best case scenario)
D. the AFL and NRL MAY be expected to vacate host cities for the duration of the tournament (2-4 weeks depending)
If it failes – then, it’s because it’s a bad bid that requires too many ‘third party’ agreements.
That 2 of the third party’s involved are major competitors in domestic sports is an obvious flaw.
That the FFA started the process off back in October by stating they want the MCG AND Docklands in Melbourne is dangerous territory for the FFA.
That the FFA then started telling untruths about claiming the MCG benefitted from Govt funding for the 2000 Olympic soccer tournament set a tone for the way this might play out in the media.
That the FFA is STILL unable to give a definitive answer to the AFL and NRL about exclusion from host cities is indicative of very poor stakeholder management.
And now – we get more of the ‘no worries’ waffle that seems to be all that messers Buckley and Lowy can produce. Demetriou put this on the public agenda now – - but, granted – - several weeks ago he met the club presidents with the list of the array of possible scenarios.
It’s in the public domain now.
It’s got nothing to do with what’s an ‘Australian game’ or not – and everything to do with the simple premise – - there is no way that Myer and David Jones would shut down for 4-8 wks and allow exclusive business to a major foreign company seeking to consolidate in the Australian market.
No way whatsoever.
Why, why should the AFL and NRL.
Now – if the FIFA WC were to be held over summer…….when it is in the NH……then no worries – - it only disrupts the HAL. What’s wrong with that???
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Yes – it’s been a laughable bid from the word go.
US: can offer over 60 state of the art rectangular stadiums
Aust: can offer five cricket ovals!!
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
the soccer heads don’t seem to get it
no one is afraid soccer is going to take over. they have had plenty of time to do so and haven’t… i wonder if the constant stream of “soccer is a sleeping giant and will be the dominant game in 10 years” claims stretches back 100 years or what.
what is concerning, and an extremely unfair externality that you mob propose to impose, is that without revenue streams for a large part of the season, the AFL and NRL are going to take a massive financial hit which could threaten the existence of some of their clubs.
maybe it is soccer that is afraid and insecure? they moved their comp to summer so as to not compete, afterall…. and I am sure you soccer boys would kill for an overhyped suburban comp that averages 35k to games.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Yes we would kill for a average 35K crowd. Yes soccer won’t take over.
So for us minorities, why can’t we have the Football WC in our country. Some of us like choice.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:23am | Report comment
You can. Just be willing to work with the other established sports, to compromise and to be transparent in your negotiations and you’ll find it much easier to win their support.
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
macavity -
lovely to see you on an AFL thread supporting the mutual fight of the AFL and NRL. Welcome.
You and Pip have been doing some great work!!!
Funny how the soccer folk try to put it all back on us……when, it’s their own game that domestically is too immature to bid for a FIFA WC, and,…..somehow it’s the fault of the AFL and NRL?!?!??!
Astounding.
btw – amazed I’ve heard people pushing (on radio this morning) that WE MUST host the FIFA WC to join the world….and, here in Melbourne where we have 1 of 4 Tennis Grand Slams getting ready for early January, then we prep Albert Park for one of how many F1 GP’s, and then a few months on we have the Moto GP at Phillip Island, and we just had Tiger Woods his the ‘Heath,…….and I wonder why we need anything else to ‘join’ the world of sport. We’re full on in it.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
OK, time for a brief return to sanity. Let’s consider the political dimension for a moment and start with a quiz. Kevin Rudd is:
a) a gutsy politician not afraid to take a tough stance regardless of what opposition he faces; or
b) addicted to the idea of buying people off with public money
Those who answered a, back on your medication, the rest of you take a bow. So consider the situation from Kev’s perspective. He can choose to get in a nasty fight with the AFL and NRL in an attempt to force them out of their stadiums, face possible legal action, and hope that he doesn’t lose too many votes in the process (keeping in mind the conventional political wisdom that people are much more motivated to change their vote on the basis of something they don’t like rather than something they do – think GST in 93, Work choices in 07).
Or he can add a little bit to federal borrowings and buy them off with a billion or two, thus keeping everybody happy and putting off the cost onto a future generation of taxpayers. Now which do you really think he’s going to do? I think we all know the answer to that one, so can look forward to an announcement in the nearish future of how the AFL and NRL will be compensated.
Of course then we can have another argument about which code gets the most money etc. etc……
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I would agree with all of the above.
But there does remain the galling point that Government would be handing over the property rights of a domestic entity to a foreign and corrupt entity, allowing them to make billions while taxpayers cover the full costs of the operation.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Just like World Roman Catholic Youth Day, Pip. Only the depth of the money varies.
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
On the way to work today against my prior visits experiences I turned in to a Fossil AM station. Choose 2 UE stable mates of 3AW. Choose Steve Price arguably one of footballs biggest critics and a AFL man to his boot straps.
Hear I will listen to the red necks from Western Sydney put forth claims the world was about to end…. also while I was listening he spoke to a Ch 7 reporter and as I understand it via their conversation a very keen AFL person..
ARRRRrrrrr the scene is set the talk will go on… email reading are promised… but a few callers first… on he came a westie follows the West Tigers … then to my utter surprise what is that AD going on about, and so a couple of calls went… then the Ch 7 guy, he starts and says he is sorry all his previous tho’s had gone out the window.. He said over 20, 000 media people just for draw and it finally dawned on him how big this was and what a good job it will do for the country… then the emails… all supporting the Socceroos and the WC bid… and finally Steven himself calls on the AFL to stop playing politics … I almost drove off the road…
What this 20 minutes means I have no idea… but the feeling from this small sample of a generally non football audience is total support and arguably anti AFL feeling & RL. I have no idea what the talk back was like in Melbourne but in Sydney it was total support for the WC bid.
Punter said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
This man is making the most sense today.
Gatto Nero said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Perhaps not a truly representative sample. Anyone who calls in to a talk-back radio station in support of something inherently is partisan in their interest. It’s not surprising that you get people calling up to support a big event, or to knock it. You won’t get a lot of the latter doing that in Sydney when the main antagonist in this case is the AFL. And you definitely won’t hear from those who are apathetic in the community, as they can’t be bothered calling in.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Steve Price on 2UE an AFL man? What on earth are you on about? And Mike Sheehan from the Herald Sun is a huge Rugby League and Soccer supporter….
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
yeah great work, some callers in Sydney heard Demetriou and AFL, I think I know how this goes.
The very next day the NRL comes out and more or less says the same thing with the same concerns.
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Miffielder,
it does not surprise me that the Rugbies of New South Welshmen have more love for football than the AFL mob after all we all grew up in NSW loving all the rectangular codes…
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Middy, why would you think any different, Rugby league and soccer are friends, not foe. Timmy Cahill follows Rugby league, and his cousin Ben Roberts follows soccer, and vice versa, dont you watch the footy show, rugby league has always promoted soccer. Nothing new.
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
>>Steve Price arguably one of footballs biggest critics and a AFL man to his boot straps.
Did he actually ever play the game outside school house sport?
Realfootball said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
I suppose we have to go through all this argument, resentment and debate, but does anyone, seriously, think Australia will get the World Cup finals? I don’t. Not for a moment. The economics and demographics simply don’t stack up.
I think this is 80% about publicity. It has focussed massive amounts of cash and attention on the round ball code. Front page news all over the place, and the AFL and NRL have been made to look like parochial hicks in a global market, acting counter to the national interest. With every story, football looks more like the World Game. The AFL and NRL don’t like this perspective, quite understandably. They are inevitably diminished in scale.
No wonder Buckley is playing hard ball. Its a long term game with high stakes.
Kurt said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Yeah, it’s really sent A-League crowds and ratings through the roof hasn’t it?
albatross said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
That’s quite cruel and uncalled for Kurt. This is the Roar where commenters never let truth get in the away of having a dig…
Realfootball said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Nothing to do with this season’s crowds, Kurt. This is a long term game. The crowds this season are neither here nor there. I think the attendance issue is complex and a very real problem for the FFA. But the bigger game being played at the moment is about long term economic muscle.
Personally, I don’t think football will ever usurp AFL as the pre eminent football code, and I think the two codes can co exist perfectly well. But economic muscle means that it is viable for the FFA to create a serious national competition, not one which is perceived by the public – correctly – as a long way from top quality. The attendances this season stem to a very large degree from a negative qualitative perception. Until the FFA has the money to address that, the A League will struggle. That, in my view, is what this all about. Its not about anything absurd like “code domination”; its about creating a viable presence in the Australian market.
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Two sides to that perception depending on your sporting preference.
Too many soccer fans are getting a warped sense of the games importance in Australia. It is not the main spectator sport.
In Melbourne there are 9 AFL teams to 1 soccer team.
in Sydney there are 9 NRL teams to 1 soccer team.
Redb
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
The AFL might be hicksville – bu the FFA wants to get its hands on their property!!
The cornerstone of our bid – five cricket ovals!!
Even the Qatari bid looks better than that!!
Realfootball said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I wasn’t suggesting that the AFL isn’t hicksville at all, nor the NRL. The AFL in particular is a model for any ambitious, successful sports administration. Parochial, yes, but there is nothing wrong with parochial. I was talking purely about the PR game being played, not expressing my personal view. There is no doubt that the debate puts the AFL and the NRL into a global perspective in which they look like very small beer and that they don’t like it. But my hunch is that it will work for them, reinforcing their positions as Australian games – particularly in the AFL’s case.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
I would be surprised if the AFL or NRL executives viewed their organisations as global entities in any sense whatsoever. I don’t think we’ve ever heard either league crow about being influential overseas (with the possible exception of having influence in a few neighbouring nations where their sports are concerned). But for that matter, the FFA has next to no influence either. It’s not as if FIFA runs the local competitions, and the FFA must know that it’s league and development programs are pretty insignificant in the global scheme of things.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
RealFootball -
PR game started back in October when the FFA announced BOTH Docklands and the MCG as their preferred stadiums,
PR game continued when the FFA featured Etihad in their video to FIFA and invited visiting soccer journos to Etihad a couple of weeks back,
and Demetriou is saying “What the?”, and quite rightly so.
What’s the FFA actions say about the likelihood of AFL in Melbourne for the 6-8 weeks of stadium exclusivity? It’s the FFA saying – we think the AFL season must stop.
It’s suggesting the FFA does not intend seeking for the NRL and AFL to NOT be excluded from host cities.
Otherwise, they’d realise that the Docklands stadium is off the table and they’d best get the $150 mill or so and expanded the Swan St stadium to 40-50K………so, re PR…..it’s the FFA who kicked it off. It wasn’t completely obvious to some folk on theRoar, but, Pip, Redb and myself have been telling everyone for 6 weeks now.
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Hey, back=off man, not rugby league, we only care about origin, and must protect the series, nobody on rugby league has mentioned otherwise. Apart from that, have your world cup, we are not stopping you.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
mate, back in October Gallop was stating that on the information available it was not workable and a few NRL club chiefs spoke out as well,
so give it a rest – the NRL ain’t happy and not just about the SoO, but, the SoO is their flagship event.
Chuq said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
And Wimbledon is english tennis’ flagship event, and The Ashes is english cricket’s flagship event, but both of them are happen to shift a month in either direction, and rugby league has a lot more to gain from an Aussie WC bid than either of those have to gain from an English WC bid.
macavity said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
love that argument
AFL and NRL should lose millions, and have teams fold, “in the national interest”
Midfielder said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
lol at how the sky is falling … best quote I read was from a QLD league guy who has somehow worked out that RL has to close its season for two years … and maybe a third…
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Interestingly – the confeds cup hasn’t been mentioned here too much – so a two year closure might be on the cards.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:40am | Report comment
Hardly likely, with enough planning, but the spirit of the argument has merit. For the 2-3 AFL clubs that are dependent upon equalization payments from the AFL to remain competitive in the league, a World Cup may be problematic. If AFL and club sponsorship revenues are less than expected, or if games are shifted away from venues that guarantee a solid revenue stream to the league or clubs, then finances might be tight. A few times over the past decade we have had clubs in financial trouble that have been bailed out by AFL payments, and all it may take to see a club fold might be be to have them struggling in the World Cup year when the AFL isn’t in a position to assist.
mahony said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
I just came back from a Human Rights Day fuction put on in my office. The guest speaker was a very famous AFL player from one of the big two biggest clubs. He gave his speech and was asked about what sport did for him and his plans for his children . He answered that they would be playing football and added that this was becuase of the scope it provided for them now that it had finaly got its act together. This is the 2nd high profile AFL player to make that exact point about their hopes for their children in the space of three days. If AFL players understand what football has to offer going forward then the ALF are right to believe that they have a very big problem in the years ahead.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
mahony
sounds like wishful thinking.
An 18yo rookie can earn $100,000 in their first year – that’s as much as your average A-League player earns in his late 20s.
Realfootball said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Exactly, Pip. Which is why the FFA is looking for long term economic muscle. The A League has to be better funded to really make a dent in the local market.
Until the A League can match this kind of money and have at least a good selection of quality players here and raise the standards, it will struggle.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:46am | Report comment
And that’s unlikely to ever happen. In a global economy, soccer is always going to be financially weaker in Australia than elsewhere, particularly when it is starting behind a gamut of other football codes now. The better players will always play overseas, and subsequently a poorer local league will remain. Only the highest standard of soccer would draw the sponsorship and crowds in Australia to enable the A-league to match the cash on offer in overseas leagues. It’s a catch-22, and stands to hold soccer back in the long term.
KB said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
You must believe it Pippi… You have your son playing football not Marn Grooky … Can you see those big $$$ coming in from overseas
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
My son can play whatever the hell he likes – as long as I don’t ever have to coach a team again!!!
mahony said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
I am just stating a fact as presented by two AFL players and sugesting it is indicative of a significant cultural shift – admitedly one that will take time. The people suporting this position are AFL players, not hard core football fans like me. I just thought it was interesting.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Are you talking about Silvio Foschini???!!!
agga78 said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
smell the fear, For once AFL and NRL don’t have a say, and they don’t like it, for last 50 years VFL/AFL has shouted from hill tops how bad Football is and it will come and destroy Australian society, it’s a foreign game not like Cricket, Golf,Rugby or Tennis which are part of australian society. Suffer in your jocks AFL and NRL this time you lose.
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
They may not have a say – but they have contracts that will stand up in court.
Realfootball said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
I wouldn’t say smell the fear. Smell the resentment, yes. But fear is way overstating the case.
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I always thought The Age readers were card carrying Communists and a threat to our way of life
Would you be happy to sacrifice an AFL season in order for Australia to host the World Cup?
Yes – 73%
No – 27%
Total Votes: 294
Redb said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Of course that poll is being run in the soccer section. Forgot to mention that bit
Art Sapphire said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
redb – The Hun carried out the same inane poll yesterday.
Its confirmation that tree-hugging, soccer loving, climate change believing, globalised, communist hippies can live without the AFL for a year. Where is Andrew Bolt when the AFL needs him most
oikee said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
All i can see is a backlash against AFL, these are hard hitting numbers here, the movers shakers of our nation. (nerds)
Seriously, the pendiulm is turning. and lets just say, AFL started this, again.