By Michael DiFabrizio
December 9th 2009 @ 4:47am
Related coverage
Demetriou was right to question World Cup impact
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou (R) addresses the media. Slattery Images
Andrew Demetriou’s comments on Monday, in which he said an AFL season could be under threat if Australia is successful in its World Cup bid, have caused quite a stir. Some out there are even starting to think Demetriou is plotting to bring down the bid.
Or that he’s merely an insular, narrow-minded fool.
Or that his comments were, as journalist Ray Gatt put it, “just the AFL boss’s idea of stirring up the rabid masses in the aerial ping pong game.”
But one thing has been missing from all the uproar – some context.
Demetriou was speaking in response to a newspaper report that the MCG could be unavailable for nearly an entire home-and-away season.
What’s the significance of that?
Well, it means his comments were not some baseless pre-planned media assault designed to coincide with the announcement of the draw for the 2010 World Cup, for starters.
More importantly, however, it means 40 to 50-odd games (around a quarter of all games) will need to find new homes should plans for the ground’s reconfiguration go ahead. And that’s just the outcome of the MCG’s unavailability.
Given the FFA are now relying on the occupation of Etihad Stadium for the World Cup – despite the stadium’s protests – another 20-odd games on top of that will need to find homes.
This isn’t about derailing another code’s bid for a massive global event to be held in Australia. This is about making sure that event isn’t detrimental to that code’s rivals.
If the MCG is wiped out for a season, and Etihad is a World Cup venue, then Demetriou’s claim that a season will not go ahead does not actually seem far-fetched.
With no MCG or Etihad, where are Collingwood and Essendon – who both average over 50,000 spectators to home games – going to play? Where are Hawthorn – who have over 50,000 members – going to play?
Right now, the only forthcoming answers are Geelong and Launceston.
When talk of the bid began, it was assumed that the MCG would be out of action for only four weeks, and that Melbourne’s second venue would be an expanded version of the new rectangular stadium. Etihad Stadium would be left to the AFL.
That arrangement seemed fine. It could’ve worked well.
Then came the talk of FIFA needing an extra four weeks at each venue to replace signage and bring the pitch quality up to standard.
Then came the talk of a “design bungle” at the rectangular stadium, meaning expansion would supposedly cost more than the venue’s initial construction.
Then came the talk that the AFL season would be classified as a “major event” by FIFA and would have to shut down for up to two months.
Then, on Monday, came the talk that the MCG might actually be out of action for a whole 16 weeks.
Is it any wonder Andrew Demetriou started talking to the press?
At some point the AFL had to draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough. The FFA have become increasingly reliant on the MCG and Etihad since the bid process began.
Now, there needs to be some sort of compromise.
For example, if the MCG is indeed going to be taken for 16 weeks, then Etihad should absolutely be left for the AFL. At the very least the FFA should ensure that the AFL season is not given major event status.
It shouldn’t be too hard, mind you. No matter what words I punch into Google, I cannot find a single article outlining any sort of conflict between Major League Baseball and those behind the United States’ World Cup bid.
Which provides a whole different kind of context, doesn’t it?
Maybe we’re all just jumping at shadows. In the States, there is no debate over major event status. It seems as though a repeat of 1994 – when the baseball season continued despite the World Cup – is expected.
Don’t get me wrong, a World Cup would be great for Australia.
And hey, even Andrew Demetriou agrees. He’s been supportive of the bid, much in the same way that the AFL was accommodating of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games.
It’s just that there is a tipping point. And if Etihad is taken for two months, and the MCG for 16 weeks, then that tipping point has been reached.
That’s why Demetriou had to speak out.
The FFA must rise to the challenge of forming a bid that isn’t detrimental to the other codes. To do that, they’ll have to compromise.
Even if it means negotiating with the aerial ping pong game.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(180)
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 3:11am | Report comment
Thank goodness for a ray of sanity in all this nonsense, excellent article Michael. Before this turns into another inevitable flame I’m going to try and outline the concerns of many AFL fans in as concise and non-emotional way as possible.
The MCG and Docklands (sorry, refuse to use ever changing corporate stadium names) have long term contracts with the AFL, and by extension the clubs. We are being told these will be overridden, by government legislation if necessary.
The WC is a huge global event that will (allegedly) deliver billions to the Australian economy, but we are told it can’t afford to build and use its own stadiums. Instead it has to take over the only two AFL stadiums in Melbourne for 2 months+.
We are told those of us uninterested in the WC are ‘xenophobes and racists’, but there is still the possibility that FIFA will insist that the AFL and NRL be banned during the WC because of the apparently existential threat these sports represent to the WC. This is apparently fair and reasonable and in no way represents an intolerant refusal to countenance competition for the limelight.
Can any of the soccer fans take just a few seconds to consider these points? Our local game that so many of you mock is to be denied its contractual rights to play at stadiums it is primarily responsible for funding AND might not even be able to play whilst the WC is on due to FIFA’s insistence that all possible competition. And you seriously wonder why we’re a bit peeved?
The facts are the FFA needs the AFL on board right now, and needs to show a spirit of compromise. For mine, I’d be happy if the AFL were able to keep exclusive use of Docklands throughout the WC but allow the WC to have the MCG for 8 weeks. The FFA can find the money to upgrade the Swan St stadium to cope with WC games. Surely that’s a reasonable outcome for all parties?
Anthony said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
That is the best comment yet on Demetriou. The soccer fans are attacking full-on….but it’s all dishonest attack. FFA is the one deceiving us all!
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:10am | Report comment
“Well, it means his comments were not some baseless pre-planned media assault designed to coincide with the announcement of the draw for the 2010 World Cup, for starters.”
Baseless No, Pre planned Yes. Everyone knows how the AFL works. They have been doing it to League for years
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/afl-brinksmanship-must-look-at-big-picture-20091207-kfam.html
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Michael Lynch misses the point much as you have Tifosi – it’s not about the MCG, it’s about Docklands. The AFL has essentially agreed to relinquish their contractual rights to use the MCG for up to 10 weeks to coincide with the WC, but are insisting on keeping Docklands. The FFA need to find $150m to upgrade / re-build the bubble stadium to meet FIFA’s requirements and this whole issue can be wrapped up by morning tea time on Thursday.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:27am | Report comment
Ian Royall argues the case for favouring Australia’s World Cup bid over the AFL
Ian Royall is a senior Herald Sun journalist and a dedicated fan of both codes
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/ian-royall-argues-the-case-for-favouring-australias-world-cup-bid-over-the-afl/story-e6frfhqf-1225807899477
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
“So that means home-and-away blockbuster games would have to be played at Etihad Stadium. Not ideal, but hardly the end of the world.”
I agree with him – as long as the AFL gets to keep Docklands and only loses the MCG for a couple of months it can probably work. But at the moment the FFA is giving tours of Docklands to visiting journalists, so I think it’s fair to say there’s a bit of a gap there still to be bridged.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
At the moment that the FFA declared in late October that they wanted BOTH the MCG and Docklands and that the new Swan St stadium was not to be considered,
from that moment on, war was declared,
as, that effectively said that there was zero AFL in Melbourne for a minimum of 8 weeks.
Not just that the AFL would need to schedule the MCG out of considerations for that time frame.
From that point on, Buckley set the wheels in motion – - the AFL was in their sights. Buckley can’t cry poor me now – Buckley knows better than anyone else on the soccer side.
Either Buckley intended to run a war with the AFL over Docklands,…or,….he intends to call upon the Govt to enforce a FIFA host city exclusion ban on both the AFL and NRL. They’re really the only options, because, without that FIFA rule being forced, the AFL intend to NOT stop their season. It’s that simple.
It comes back to —- it’s a flawed bid.
It come back to – - – why don’t they just demolish the pretty little Swan St stadium roof, expand the venue to 50K as per the foundations, put a new roof on and use that and not attempt to crap all over the AFL in Melbourne. Or is that too expensive?!?!??!?
Dean Pantio said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I can’t see the state government agreeing to that; they’d be kicked out of office and rightly so.
The other codes should tell FIFA and FFA to jam it up their backsides.
peter h. said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Everyway you look at this the FFA has kicked an own goal. They haven’t done their homework before putting in the bid. They are embarrassing the govt and the country.
Your article Michael is spot on.
What I wonder is was Ben Buckley forced by FFA heavy-weights to not do all the homework, as he has been able to come out supportive of the AFL’s right to exist/play on since his mate Demetriou’s comments? Maybe FFA officials like Frank Lowy were of a “nah don’t worry about details with those provincial codes, we’re the world game” up til then.
Just speculation – but the FFA have been so unprofessional in this. The soccer/rugby stadium in Melbourne not being configured for FIFA WC standards is another appalling error.
Rabbitz said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:14am | Report comment
I really have no dog in this fight, I am not an AFL follower, I am ambivalent to soccer, I am not in Melbourne. So from an outsiders view it seems to me that the AFL is a business. As such they are reacting to a threat from a competitor which is being promoted by government to deny them access to their place of business, their market and therefore their livelihood.
So if the CEO comes out and uses the media and other methods to protect his business, isn’t that his job? Wouldn’t the stakeholders of any business expect a CEO to do this?
Personally, I would like to see some soccer world cup games, but if FIFA and FFA need legislation, which will harm competitive businesses, need government funding, then the bid is not morally or financially viable.
agga78 said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Do the AFL own the MCG or the government? The government do, so Demetriwho can go @#$% off back to the suburbs of Melbourne with his game that has always tried to destroy football in this country. Give AFL nothing FFA because if the shoe was on the other foot the AFL would certainly tell Football where to go.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
agga
give the AFL nothing? It’s the FFA who is doing all the begging – not the other way round!!
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Hmm, let’s try and respond to this one sensibly. No, the AFL does not own the MCG, nor does it own Docklands. But it does have contracts with both venues giving it the right to play its matches there at the time the FFA wants them for the WC. So it ‘owns’ the right to play there.
And the issue is not really about the MCG, which the AFL has said it is happy to vacate for two months, but Docklands, which is a privately owned stadium whose owner has formally advised the FFA they do not wish to be involved in the WC bid.
So you see this is not really about ‘giving’ the AFL anything. It’s the AFL that has to ‘give’ something to the FFA – namely the right to play at these stadiums.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Kurt
I’ve been trying to educate non-AFL fans on the property rights issue for months now – but have got nowhere.
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Yeah, it’s a strange one isn’t it? I remember back to when we were discussing this a few months back and all the soccer fans said that the government will just tell the AFL to bugger off and get out of the stadiums! Yes in theory the federal government can legislate to confiscate property (which is essentially what they’d be doing here) but this is a very complex constitutional area fraught with the possibility of any incompatible legislation being struck down by the High Court – if it gets passed in the first place of course.
And it could all have been avoided by building the Swan St stadium with a slightly less fancy roof!
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
If they legislate they lose.
mahony said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
“just compensation” – go look at the case law. You will get a rude suprise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Australia
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
If this gets tied up in the courts it’s a definite that Australia won’t win the bid anyway. The FFA wouldn’t want the bad press and attention would be drawn to the fact that there isn’t unanimous support behind the bid.
Trevor said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Without the money flowing from the VFL/AFL for over one hundred years the MCG would not be the stadium it is today, so in a moral sense the AFL does own the MCG. Without the AFL Australia wouldn’t even have the sporting reputation is does today. What has soccer done to deserve access to a stadium built by money from fans of the Australian code? Why does soccer so arrogantly believe it should take priority over other sports?
The culture of soccer is imperialistic. If there is one common thread from all the soccer fans I’ve met and soccer coverage in the media, it’s that the fans are more interested in the tribal aspects than the actual sport itself, examine the dismissive nature of your own comments. Look at the comments of other soccer people, they’re all dripping with self importance. Nobody ever mentions anything redeeming about the game, which by any objective comparison is far slower and less eventful than our football.
Listen to the arrogance of the FFA, listen to what soccer fans say. It is clear that soccer cannot abide co-existence with other codes of football. The motivations of the FFA in bidding for the world cup have less to do with genuine interest in the event and more to do with displacing local codes.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:03am | Report comment
Michael d
terrific article and spot on analysis, and some good follow up comments.
Rabbitz is spot on – and he comes from a non-AFL perspective.
This theme has been mentioned many times by me as well:
1. Government is going to spend billions of taxpayer funds to effectively give a foreign and corrupt sporting body billions of dollars
2. The local sporting body is not only being inconvenienced, but is giving up their property rights and incurring massive financial losses to assist the foreign and corrupt sporting body to pocket billions of dollars.
Rabbitz is spot on – it’s not morally or financially viable.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Great article Michael.
There are those outside Melbourne who don’t understand and some in Melbourne due to their round ball myopia who choose to ignore the basic fundamentals of an AFL season and the crowd support it receives.
Redb
Kovalchuck said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Can you imagine the WC being played in Australia. Ten years of media coverage leading up to the event. Sponsors jumping ship to expose their product to billions and not millions. International tourism levels through the roof. Youngsters lining up to emulate their Socceroo heros. This has absolutly nothing to do with stadium availability for the 8 weeks before and during the WC. If I was Andrew I would be panicing as well. However there are interstate, suburban and regional grounds that would kill for a peice of the AFL action. TV coverage will still get all of the games. What is the major problem? As for the 25 year lease on Docklands does anyone knows when that runs out?
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Kovalchuck
I”m not sure if it’s Demetriou panicking or Buckley.
The privately owned Etihad told the FFA two days ago that it has zero interest in hosting World Cup games?
Why? Becaues it would incur a massive financial loss?
Why? Because FIFA comes in, uses the infrastructure free of charge, then pockets all the receipts.
So if you’re a private owner of a stadium – why on Earth woudl you be interested in turning aside the 1.5 million per annum patronage for the local game, and hosting World Cup games that delivers you not one single brass razoo?
Luke W said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
So the WC gets the MCG, the AFL gets Etihad for two months. Everyone wins.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
and so we hope it will be.
Luke W said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
I also can’t help but chuckle when people make it seem as if contracts mean anything in the current sporting world. Any contract will get thrown out the window if enough dollars are thrown at it.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
re contracts, the AFL, the MCC/MCG and Docklands,…you’d better believe those contracts are water tight.
And they are long term and big business – for either the MCC or Docklands to seek a major variance from an unhappy AFL will hurt, big time.
For the AFL to seek a variance from the venues has been super pain staking. Finally they got the MCG to agree to ‘finals banking’ to allow the scenario’s of 2 interstate Prelim finals for example. That took a couple of painful years.
These contracts have been tested over and over. ANd spaning to 2025 in Docklands case and spanning to 2037 in MCG case…….the AFL has some bargaining power, because, the World Cup is only 1 year (and the Confed cup is another of course), whilst the AFL is every year.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Guys -
for $150 million, there’s no problem.
That’s how much it’d seemingly costs to rip the roof off the dedicated rectangle stadium in Swan St, expand that to 50K capacity and the FFA don’t need Docklands.
That’s all it needs.
The AFL has said they can work around the MCG.
So, $150 million and ‘no worries’.
…….now, if $150 million is considered too expensive, then, god help the FFA bid.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Absolutely ridiculous suggestion though. They haven’t even completed the stadium as designed yet, and posters are suggesting that they rip it down to construct a new one at an additional cost of $150 million to Victorian taxpayers? Simply ludicrous, and that’s even before anybody asks whether the Storm, Heart or Super 15 franchise – all of whom will be ongoing tenants – want or can possibly fill a 40,000 seat venue. 30,000 will be perfect for their niche markets, and if any club exceeds that then Etihad becomes a viable venue.
One question not addressed is whether Melbourne actually NEEDS two venues for this event. Why not just play matches at the MCG and let that be a stand-alone venue, as in Perth, Adelaide and Brissy? Ben Buckley rabbits on that ”If Etihad is not included we would have to relocate a significant amount of games away from Victoria and that would be a real shame for the people of Victoria”. But really, Melbourne would still host the same number of matches as every city except Sydney – surely not a terrible loss for Melburnians, who still would have access to a number of matches at the MCG and could drive or fly to access other games interstate.
The whole thing boils down to the fact that, even if Etihad and the MCG are used, there are nowhere near enough 40,000 seat stadiums across Australia. Adelaide is planning a new stadium, nobody has heard from Perth, and outside of Brissy, Sydney and Melbourne there isn’t another population centre that could sustainably support a 40,000 seat venue over the long term. So with 5 of 12 venues up-to-scratch at the moment (including Etihad, and in only 3 cities of the 10 requested), does anybody seriously believe that our bid is a pinch on those of England and the USA? After all, we may have the most beautiful country in the world, with many varied sights and cities that World Cup tourists would like to explore, but we lack half the most basic infrastructure necessary to host the Cup. That should be a sobering thought for a lot of Cup proponents.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Gatto
but if the work to extend were to be undertaken in 2020, then the cost could be justified.
Also, re venues – this is the nub of the problem – we are struggling to come up with 12 decent venues!!
That’s why we need 4 or 5 cricket ovals!!
People keep ignroing the fact that this was a half-ar$ed bid to begin with.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Thanks for your comment Pip. I suppose, with my background in strategic planning, I’m more skeptical of our ability to justify expansions to stadiums ten years from now. Forecasting sporting attendances is fraught with problems. I’m sure if you asked the A-League even a year or two ago, they would have forecast much higher attendances than they’re currently getting. All sports are optimistic about growth, but the reality is that it’s not guaranteed, and where growth does occur, it’s not consistent across all markets. In short, I’d be very cautious about giving the go ahead to expanding a stadium ten years from now, when Melbourne’s rectangular stadium hasn’t yet hosted a single match of any sport and we’re yet to find out whether an expansion is justified.
The venue problem will become a quagmire for this bid. My argument concerning Melbourne’s rectangular stadium is one instance where we should be cautious, but the reality is we’ll need to upgrade facilities in a host of smaller cities to win the bid. If we can’t yet justify a 40,000 seat venue in Melbourne, how is a similar venue in (choose from Townsville/Canberra/Hobart/Darwin/Alice Springs/Launceston/Woolongong – all featured in the Cape Town bid book) going to be sustainable? Most of those cities struggle to fill their existing venues, so I can’t see how they could benefit from upgrading to venues that could house up to half of their civic populace.
Brian said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
The South Africans are using 10 stadiums. I would have thought the logics of our bid would be the same – 10 stadiums
Sydney Homebush 80,000
Sydney SFS 45,000
Melbourne MCG 100,000
Melbourne Dome 55,000
Brisbane Suncorp 60,000 (increase from current 52,000)
Adelaide Oval 50,000 as per last week announcement
Perth 60,000 (new stadium for WC converted to AFL WC following tournament)
Newcastle 40,000 (Newcastle Knights)
Canberra 40,000 (Brumbies & Raiders)
Gold Coast 40,000 (Titans)
Of the AFL states on Perth, Adelaide & Melbourne are viable however in Rugby territory Gold Coast, Canberra, Newcastle & possibly Townsville 40,000 should certainly be viable. I assume the above is the bid and is why stadioums such as Telstra Dome are required
Dean Pantio said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Where would they cram in another 8000 seats at Suncorp?
etat said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Demetriou’s comments represent serious brand damage to Melbourne. The city shouldn’t be allowed to have two stadiums in the mix for hosting. If there’s to be a new rectangular stadium for rugby league and a future rugby union team then if it’s built to world cup specifications we shouldn’t have a problem.
By 2018/2022 Brisbane and wider south east queensland will have the population to support 2 stadia in Brisbane and another stadium in the Gold Coast. Brisbane and wider Queensland will put on a show for the World Cup that Melbourne won’t be able to match due to infighting.
Ditch Melbourne, back Brisbane.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Brisbane already has two stadia (Suncorp and the Gabba) and another on the Gold Coast (Robina). Queensland already supports those venues, but once again if they were to enlarge Robina now it would be amazing considering it was just completed (presumably with all the long-term sustainability forecasts) and Carrara is receiving an upgrade.
And I hardly think Demetriou has hurt Melbourne’s brand. If anything, two of Australia’s peak sporting bodies are fighting over which will get the right to play games in the city potentially 13 years from now. If anything, it makes Melbourne appear desirable. And at the end of the day, Melbourne’s brand has never been tied to hosting World Cup games anyway. Melbourne’s far too cosmopolitan – not just in a sporting sense – to rely on a single event for branding.
oikee said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Etat, they might dismiss what you have said, but when you think about it, Brisbane is the only state that does not have a 80 thousand stadium, which could be filled easily by big events. Now, build this brand new stadium and the state could hold not only many more games, but also the World cup final. ? Why would you want the final in any other stadium except a brand new state of the art 80-120 thousand stadium in a city of the future. Vote Brisbane.:-.
Grimmace said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
I’m not a soccer or AFL fan. But I can relate to why AFL people are gtting cranky. Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but. Who are FIFA to go around telling a county that they can’t run anything at the same time as the soccer WC? They seem to me a mob of corrupt bafoons
I’m not sure how long the SWC would need to run for, but there is a significant gap in the Southerh Hemisphere sporting landscape from during October-November. I would have thought this would be a pretty good time to kick a ball round, the weather will be better and our teams won’t loose their training venues.
I believe that during this time they would attract a bigger audience who instead of making July babies in the gap between the footy and cricket seasons, would have another code to get into without the distractions of their prefered sports.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Good comment Grimmace. Add to the fact that the weather in Melbourne and a host of other cities (Hobart, anyone?) is pretty ordinary during June/July, and there’s another reason to hold the Cup at a later date.
But, ironically, FIFA would not be able to hold the event any later in the year because – and this is particularly rich in context of the Australian bid’s situation – the domestic European soccer leagues insist that the World Cup doesn’t interfere with their seasons. Amazing.
dasilva said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Who are FIFA to go around telling a county that they can’t run anything at the same time as the soccer WC?
I don’t think that is an issue.
FIFA not telling Australia anything.
The issue is that FFA wants to use stadium that are contracted for AFL used.
If we don’t want to used Etihad stadium then there is no problem
This has nothing to do with FIFA telling us anything.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Although, as Steve of SA points out, FIFA do place many demands that border on unreasonable.
Of course, many will say, well, they can choose another country.
That’s true, and the obvious response to that is: your loss, don’t let the door hit your fat ar$e on the way out.
Timmypig said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Grimmace the power in world football lies in the northern hemisphere. The June – July window is the northern hemisphere off season for football. Every world cup has been played (99% sure) in that window.
AGO74 said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
This is the biggest sporting event in the world we are talking about yet it seems all this hoopla seems to be coming out of the oh so modestly self-titled sporting capital of the world.
There’s a bit of posturing in the NRL but realistically they know they can get by with other solutions and Adelaide and Perth are rather mute on this. They don’t seem terribly concerned.
A lot of this is driven by fear which is unfortunately the way today’s world operates. Keep the people in fear. This year, we’ve had the “the greatest economic crisis since the depression” (end result – there has been some tough times but in a year or so people will laugh at the GFC), the dreaded Swine Flu (end result being roughly the same amount of people dying of flu that happens any other winter) and of course the dreaded boat people “jumping the queue” (never mind the 10’s of thousands who come in illegally through the front door at our airport). Now the ‘fear’ has even transcended into sport for God’s sake!!!! We’ve got the GWS from an NRL perspective and the AFL season being cancelled because of the World Cup (complete bollocks – if that happened the government would be probably get kicked out of office!!!). It’s the way of the world now. Keep the people in fear, keep them scared of the world ending. Blah blah blah.
Sorry I know some of you won’t like my comments but everyone really ought to just take a chill pill.
I’d be interested to know if any of this hoopla is finding its way back to the FIFA gravy-train in Zurich……?
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
AGO
it’s got nothing to do with fear.
I know Kurt has tried to explain this in a calm, logical manner many times, but I’ll try again.
It transpired that the AFL were going to be required to do without two stadiums they have exclusive rights to: MCG and Dome, for 10 weeks (and that sounds like the minimum now, contrary to earlier assurances).
That’s half the season.
The AFL is a $1 billion per annum industry, and about 60% of its revenue, directly or indirectly, is coming from those two stadiums.
So it has quite rightly said: have the MCG for 8 weeks (tops), but we need the Dome to conduct our footy season (for which there will still be a massive loss that will require some form of compensation).
Now, the Age says this morning:
“The FFA had initially believed it would not need the venue, instead using the MCG and the new rectangular stadium on Swan Street as World Cup venues.
That stadium was supposedly ”future-proofed” so that it could be enlarged to 40,000. But the FFA turned back to Etihad after it emerged that the distinctive bubble roof of the rectangular venue meant it would cost a prohibitive $150 million to enlarge it. ”
That is, originally the FFA didn’t want the Dome, and the AFL thought they were losing the MCG for only 4 weeks – but now it’s a completely different story.
It’s got nothing to do with fear – and everythng to do with commercial interests.
Luke W said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
How does switching from the MCG to the Dome incure “massive losses”? The Dome holds 50k odd people, more than the average crowd of the AFL. As long as the AFL strategically keeps their blockbuster matches before or after the WC at the MCG, it could probably be done with no loss.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Luke
I’ve said from day one – people on here clearly do not understand to the football industry if they need to ask silly questions like that.
The lack of serious understanding of the huge financial losses the AFL will incur has been at the very heart of this acrimonious debate.
People’s responses have been – bad luck!
But now the response back to the FFA is equally – bad luck!
AGO74 said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Pip,
If some of my comments appear flippant I apologise – I guess I was having a bit of a vent. I don’t disagree that the AFL should look after their own interests. It was just more the way it was done by Demetrious (exhibit 1 – close down season, exhibit 2 – close down clubs). Quite alarmist when it is bleedingly obvious that there was not going to have to be a closed down season.
I’m a bit of a realist, and my thought is that if all the governments of Australia really really want this (which they do based on most recent meeting), when push comes to shove somewhere across Australia that there will be at least one or two new stadiums built via a combination of federal/state/private money. Virtually every World Cup of the last 20 or 30 years has had at least 1 or 2 stadiums built. And we even have a massive precedent here in Australia with the Sydney Olympics. Therefore, given the Melbourne situation it would be 99% likely that one of these new stadiums that would need to be built (or have Swan Street reconfigured) in Melbourne.to allow the AFL to continue.
This won’t be finalised this week by a long shot but when the dust settles I’m pretty sure you’ll find a solution roughly mirroring what I’m suggesting.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
AGO
We had the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne – and now they don’t want to spent $150 mill to upgrade it to 45,000 – why not??
This is the question everyone should be asking – not whether the AFL should be allowed to stay at Etihad to run its season.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
AG074, I’m not sure that a convincing case could be built for constructing another stadium in Melbourne. Once the new rectangular stadium comes online, Melbourne will be well serviced and won’t been another stadium for some time. Particularly when Skilled Stadium in Geelong looks likely to be expanded to 35,000 within the next 5 years. Swan Street certainly can’t be reconfigured to accommodate footy either, it would have to be enlarged for the expressly for the World Cup. If the Federal Government is to direct funding anywhere, it will be to Adelaide and Perth foremost, as their stadiums are in the poorest conditions, and then to regional centres which require upgrades to get them ready for the bid. Of course, as I highlighted above, I don’t think we can justify funding 40,000 seat stadiums anywhere outside of the mainland capitals, as they won’t be sustainable over the long term.
As for Demetriou’s comments, all are justified in the world-case scenario which would see the MCG and Etihad off-limits to Australian football for 4-16 weeks (the shortest/longest periods announced publicly). Such an absence from Melbourne would severely cut AFL club revenues, deny a lot of supporters access to the footy, and may impact considerably upon corporate and sponsor support for footy. Several clubs rely on annual AFL distributions to compete in the equalised competition, and if the AFL was in a diminished position to pay, it may force clubs to the wall. That likelihood is particularly acute in a scenario where the World Cup sucks sponsorship funds out of the wider sporting market in the lead-up to the event.
So, while the cancellation of an entire season may seem unlikely, you could ask what kind of season it would be if the AFL’s 9 Melbourne clubs were forced out of the city for an extended period. As it stands, most would have to give up their training bases as well to accommodate visiting soccer teams. And the chance of the World Cup driving struggling clubs to the wall isn’t as far fetched as it seems. I imagine that NRL clubs (particularly North Queensland and Canberra) could find it equally hard to get by with their home venues taken away.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
re Demetriou’s comments, he made a few. He reiterated the AFL supports A bid, and has a history of flexibility re Olympics, C’wealth games etc,
he’s reitereated a willingness to work around a loss of the MCG for up to 10 weeks – so, he’s set a limit, and illustrated that more than that is unviable and why. People have focussed on this which is unhelpful to the debate.
For now though – it’s not about the MCG – - in all liklihood, there’s no issue there unless the FFA do something really stupid.
It’s Docklands vs Swan St.
re new stadiums – I like the Michael Lynch article from the weekend about 2 white elephants in South Africa.
And correct – this needs to be finalised by May. But, far better that Demetriou has instigated (deliberately or not) this debate now before Xmas than leaving it to Feb or later.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Mate –
the NRL have from back in October stated it looks unworkable, and the DT today carries references to club bosses fearing that it could kill a few of the cash strapped clubs. THere have been NRL club chiefs stating absolutely that it is not possible.
re the ‘fear’,
not so. Presently the big issue IS purely a business proposition.
AFL has a 25 yr lease on Docklands stadium.
Docklands stadium does not want the FIFA WC because, with FIFA’s strangling of the event – Docklands, as a private business – will lose out. They do better business with the AFL.
That’s the thing. THere will, like any such event – be winners and losers.
Look at it this way. Docklands and MCG each host around 2 games a round in the AFL. IF they are shut down for 6-8 weeks you are talking each venue losing b/w 12 and 16 matches, and being replaced with perhaps 4, 5 or at most 6 WC games.
That’s not fear – - that’s business and the numbers and that’s why Ian Collins (who may have an AFL background but has shown no fear or favour to anyone in his dealings AGAINST the AFL in his role as stadium manager – - he is as hard nosed as it comes……the ‘owners’ must love him), anyway, Ian Collins must look after his business – - and the FIFA WC is bad for it.
The people who work at these venues will lose out. Do they get compensated?
The venues have lucrative funding models based on the AFL. FIFA don’t operate that way. The MCC still has a $300 million plus debt to service. Dunno how they’ll be placed come the time. At any rate – - it IS all about business.
etat said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Gatto,
robina (skilled park) would get the upgrade and the titans and gold coast fc would benefit. Carrara won’t get a guernsey for the big WC show it’s the wrong shape for soccer.
Also, the gabba isn’t in the mix. Poor transport and again the wrong shape. Suncorp is a definite yes. The big upgrade would be to the Queen Elizabeth 2 sports complex. The old Commonwealth Games Stadium is right on the road junction linking the 5 cities of Brisbane, Sunshine, Gold, Ipswich and Toowoomba. By 2018/22 the 5 cities will have a lot of people and it might be worth an 80,000+ seat stadium that could then be adapted to a future olympic bid for Brisbane. You heard it here first.
Point taken re Melbourne. It’s one of the best cities in the world – just not quite as good as Sydney!
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
etat
I had heard that Robina can’t be upgraded – and that Carrara would be the choice for the WC.
As I have said repeatedly – we are going to put up 5 cricket ovals as part of our bid!!
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
the only question mark for Robina would be:
if FIFA doesn’t provide exemptions for the NRL and AFL, would Robina be considered part of the GOld Coast and thus, with WC matches at Carrara, would Robina be off limits?
and
it’d probably be gobbled up as a training base anyway,
so, no upgrade, but, unuseable.
AGO74 said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
I don’t understand why people seem to think that other stadiums like Robina will be gobbled up for training venues. In Germany, we used an athletics track in a village or 2 or 3 thousand people (Ohringen) and I’m 99% sure that our training venue for next year is at another athetics track in a school.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
AGO
from the little we know – all the training venues of our professional football clubs are being handed over.
AGO74 said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Says who? I don’t think Ohringen in Germany is a professional sports club and this high school in S.A. is certainly not a professional football club.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I’ve only heard this from a number of NRL clubs and from North Melbourne – but no noe knows the full details.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
yep – at this point, again, this appears one of those murkey areas seemingly falling under the ‘no worries’ banner,
and we’ve speculated that for the FFA, perhaps one of the best benefits they might want to aim at is getting a goodly number of local/regional soccer venues upgraded to cater as training bases – - and thus, not impose upon NRL/AFL or even RL and Aust Football at the 2nd tier levels. This would be super important for the FFA to improve the talent pathway and the primary role of the FFA In Australia really is talent development ready to send off to Europe and then conscript into the Socceroos…….(or is that just my understanding??)
AGO74 said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Pip – I’m a big NRL fan and I haven’t heard that from anyone?? Sounds like a bit more smoke and mirrors. As it is there are enough semi-professional soccer clubs in Australia at State League level who would be more than willing to offer their grounds as training bases for the 32 nations. Something tells me they won’t mind postponing their season for 8 weeks or so!!! Most of these would provide an equal or better standard to what has been provided for in Germany and Sth Africa if you use the Socceroos as a yardstick. Added to that, there are also local athletics stadiums and/or cricket ovals, not all of which would be in use over the winter time. In short, I think we should stick to the legitimate stadium issues and not get carried away with this training venue stuff.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
I think they need to put forward 64 training venue – and naturally, they will go for the very best.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Etat, I realise that Carrara won’t get a gig – I just mentioned it in the sense that $126 million is being invested into that stadium at the moment, which potentially drains the coffers that might fund an upgrade of recently-completed Robina.
As for upgrading of Robina, would it really be desirable or necessary? When they commissioned the current stadium, the government presumably forecast potential attendance numbers and arrived at the 27,000 capacity. Average attendance for the Titans has been a solid 21,000 over the past two years, which would suggest the size for them is about right. Gold Coast United is another case altogether, where you could argue that a 10,000 seat venue would suit them much better. How would they benefit from a 40,000 seat venue? If anything, it would just raise the maintenance costs, passed on in user fees, make it harder for them to break even (ditto for the Titans) and potentially ruin the viewing experience (by having them play in an empty stadium). Nothing I’ve read leads me to believe that Robina requires an upgrade.
As for an 80,000 seat venue in Brisbane, I think it’s highly unlikely. Suncorp and the Gabba are both excellent facilities for their respective tenants – if Brissy were to get another venue it would likely be a smaller rectangular one (20,000-30,000) to accommodate the Roar and any future NRL franchise. That’s quite unlikely in itself, and anything larger would be a white elephant or make the two current stadiums redundant.
As for Melbourne vs Sydney – who cares? I’m sure Miami, New York, Seattle, Denver and San Diego didn’t think less of themselves for not hosting World Cup matches in ‘94. Certainly they would all believe they have more to offer than Detroit or Jersey! Perhaps hosting fewer World Cup matches of a high quality at the MCG, while AFL blockbusters continue at Etihad is a more enticing prospect for Melburnians than providing a second World Cup ground with matches of questionable interest, anyway.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
whoooaaa, hang on,
careful there about presenting intelligent and reasoned commentary.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
There are no matches of questionable interest at a world cup. They all count.
oikee said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Etat, i like your thinking, but we are talking about international guests here. We build a brand new 150 thousand stadium right on the banks of the Brisbane river, near the port. We can then use a mono rail service to the stadium directly from the airport, The stadium will be partually built out into Moreton Bay and also have a ferry cat service running from the islands to the stadium with access to the new Cruise ship docks and also the islands in Moreton bay. I know this sounds like alot, but with government funding and the right people making these dicisions, its the right thing to do.
We dont want more of the same-ole same-ole. Sydney, Melbourne, lets give the World something new, exciting, and a trip and memery they will never forget, Brisbane is the only place we can make this happen. We have the facilities and the land to make this happen. Anything less, we are just another country, with the same-ole, same-ole on offer. Lets dazzle the world, Give them some razzamatazz they will never forget, and talk about it all their lives. Vote Brisbane.
B.C. said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
Lets build one under the ocean, that will get them talking.
B.C. said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Neither the Gabba nor Carrara will be suitable due to being the wrong shape. Using that logic say goodbye to the MCG, Etihad, Homebush, SCG, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, WC.
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
On a slightly less controversial topic, why exactly do we need 12 stadiums for the bid anyway? Aren’t there 8 groups in the WC finals, and therefore wouldn’t 8 grounds be enough? What’s the reasoning behind 12 – is it to minimise wear and tear on the playing surface? I would think if the completely relaid the MCG it could easily cope with a dozen or so games in four weeks.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Just one of the conditions.
My guess is so that it weeds out half ar$ed bids like ours, and makes the decision of England in 2018 and the US in 2022 straight forward.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
true – that was actually reported as such back in September – this is from a DT article dated Sept 18:
Despite reports yesterday claiming Australia must detail the 12 stadiums it would use to host a World Cup by mid-December, FIFA’s instructions to prospective bidders make clear they simply have to legally guarantee then that a bid will meet all FIFA’s requirements.
It’s a stage designed to weed out those nations not serious about a proper bid, and soccer chiefs already have an agreement signed by all the members of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] pledging to back the bid.
Next May all bidders must submit a “bid book” that is their blueprint for a World Cup, with a decision made on the hosts six months later for both 2018 and 2022.
Yesterday Buckley said there was plenty of time to agree the funding for stadiums, pointing to the FIFA timeline which stipulates the final choice of stadiums and infrastructure only has to be submitted in May.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
just looking at the 2006 WC, the Group A for example, 6 matches played at Munich, Gelsenkirchen, Dortmun, Hamburg, Berlin and last one at Hanover.
So, they spread them around, probably to minimise wear and tear and to maximise the number of venues to be given ‘FIFA WC’ naming rights!!!!!
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Kurt, America used 9 venues in ‘94, so as with Pip and MichaelC’s comments, it’s likely just a hurdle required to ensure that bidding nations have some flexibility in their bids. Ironically, it’s probably intended to ensure that a situation like the one cropping up in Melbourne at the moment, doesn’t derail the bid after the event has been awarded.
Richard said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Good article Michael and good on Andrew Demetriou. I find it hard to believe, actually, that that new bubble domed stadium is being built in Melbourne for the use of the soccer and rugby league clubs and is so designed that it cannot qualify as a world cup venue. Whoever authorised that project has some serious explaining to do. In the meantime, I do not want to see the AFL code disrupted for the benefit of staging a soccer world cup. The FFA needs to get some humility. World Game or no World Game.
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I believe the stadium was commissioned several years prior to any mention of Australia bidding for the World Cup. The foundations were laid to allow for an expansion, but that was probably envisioned for a lot longer into the future, after the Etihad anti-competition agreement ends and when Melbourne actually has a need for a rectangular stadium with a capacity over 30,000.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
2026 is a long time into the future
Michael DiFabrizio said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Cheers for all the comments, guys. Just thought I might throw up an idea for a compromise that’s hit me this morning.
The FFA would prefer the WC having 2 Victorian venues. The Vic government would also prefer this. The AFL would prefer having one Melbourne venue throughout the WC. The Vic government would also probably prefer this. FIFA prefer only one city has multiple venues (and that may end up being Sydney for us).
And whilst all this is happening … the Geelong Football Club will some time soon go to the State and Fed. governments looking to fund the next stage of Skilled Stadium’s redevelopment, and they just so happen to be one of the few (perhaps the only) regional-based club in this country that can even contemplate sustaining a 40,000 capacity post-WC.
I know Ben Buckley has told the club he’s not interested in Skilled Stadium, and yes it is another oval, but if Etihad were left to the AFL, and the MCG and Skilled to the WC, then things may work out for both parties.
And losing Skilled Stadium for two months isn’t that much of a loss for the AFL, it only hosts 8 or so games a year.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I think the viability of an AFL season is based on the combination of an upgraded Skilled Stadium at Geelong PLUS Etihad.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Yes – true – but this does provide a bit of an opening for a negotiated position (and Geelong ends up with a 40,000 capacity stadium – not too shabby).
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Not a bad idea. Geelong most likely should have got the 2nd Vic A League team.
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Michael – the English bid includes 3 venues from London and 2 from Manchester. Having 2 cities with multiple venues is not an issue.
I agree, the issue here is that the FFA wants to use 2 stadiums in Melboure, and Sydney.
They want both cities to stage around 8 games.
Why?? because as the 2 largest cities in the country they have the capacity to comfortably accommodate the fans.
It makes complete sense. The joke will be on Melbourne if we end up only hosting 3-4 games and the revenue business will miss out on as the games get relocated elsewhere.
In regards to Etihad Stadium, I need to remind all that when the stadium was built they forced the state govt to sign an agreement not to allow the construction of another stadium years for many, many years (I can’t remenber the exact figure) with a capacity of over 40-50k within a certain distance of the CBD regardless of its configuration.
Ofcourse, all this is conveniently omitted by the anti-WC propagandists on these threads.
Now, we have this ridiculous situation where either the govt stumps up the cash to rebuild the new rectangular stadium or they enact legislation to force Etihad to stage WC games.
I am sure the economic rationalists on this thread can work out what the cheaper option is.
The morale of the story is – you reap what you sow
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Art
tell us when the agreement runs out – if it runs out on or before 2020, then the bubble dome can be incresed to 45,000 at a cost of $150 mill – what’ the problem?
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
8 months ago Etihad Stadium was the AFL’s enemy – now its an ally in its fight against the WC.
This is a great example of the AFL’s leverage with the State Govt.
Melbourne’s third major AFL stadium planned for near Docklands
The Herald Sun
Stephen McMahon
April 30, 2009
A THIRD major footy stadium could be built close to the Docklands as AFL clubs struggle to make money at Etihad Stadium and the MCG.The State Government is preparing to sanction a $2 million feasibility study into the development of a 40,000-seat stadium at the old E-Gate site – just down the road from Etihad Stadium.
It follows reports some clubs will be forced to pay to play matches at Etihad Stadium this season after venue management withdrew commitments to provide fixed returns.
The AFL has already taken Etihad Stadium management to court and is in a major stand-off with the MCG Trust. The Herald Sun believes Premier John Brumby is actively investigating the third-stadium proposal ahead of next week’s state Budget. Mr Brumby is believed to favour a new stadium as part of a residential and commercial development at the 20ha site. The disused railway land is owned by government authority Vic Track, but will be surplus to needs from 2014. The government is believed to be considering a plan to give the stadium site to a developer who can guarantee to have a new AFL ground up and running by 2017. The Vic Track site is opposite the broken Southern Star Observation Wheel and close to North Melbourne train station, which is being upgraded. The prospect of a new stadium could prove a trump card for the AFL as it attempts to negotiate better deals for the clubs. Clubs such as the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne face a sharp drop in revenue as the home side at Etihad Stadium if their crowds fall below 40,000. The $2 million government grant to Major Projects Victoria in next week’s Budget will finance an investigation into the feasibility of a stadium and the development of up to 2000 residential units and 240,000sq m of office space.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
what it does show is a couple of things:
A. Etihad Stadium is an independant business showing no fear or favour to the AFL
B. Etihad Stadium is an independant business showing no fear or favour to the FFA
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Art, I think you’ll find that the E-Gate proposal was more to leverage better returns for the current venue tenants than anything. The AFL won’t be pushing for the construction of a fourth AFL-standard venue in Victoria, when Etihad and the MCG fulfill their needs for 99% of the time. The AFL were successful in gaining better deals for their clubs a couple of months back, so the E-Gate proposal has probably been put on the back-burner.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
oh, it might still be on the radar, as a 25-30K venue……but, in the longer term as the AFL assumes ownership of Docklands, then, such issues are less of a concern,
however, it makes sense to upgrade some venue to cater for a North Melbourne hosting Port, Freo, GWS or GCst.
How, who, where or when is another story altogether.
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
That was my exact point Black Cat – The AFL used the State Govt to get a better return for them. Everybody knew the project was always going to be dead in the water.
AndyRoo said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Separate issue I know but it actually makes more sense that in a national competition that by 2022 Nth Melb and The Bulldogs are no longer based in Melbourne
GWS Bulldogs are my tip for the 2024 AFL premiership.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
who are ‘they’ though?? the private investors,
it’s the same sort of equation with the private investors in CitiLink that ensures we don’t get an AIrport Rail link to compete with the ‘privatised’ Tulla Freeway.
Sucks don’t it!!!!
again, though – not the AFL’s fault.
btw – I thought the stadium moratorium was only about 10 years and around a 20,000 limit or something, but, I could very easily be wrong.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Art,
What you omit is that the clause will expire in plenty of time and in all likelihood could be negotiated. A non compete clause is normal in many construction scenarios to make them viable early days.
Etihad Stadium was never part of the initial deal mapped out between Demetriou and Buckley. In other words the new rectangular stadium was always intended to be the FFA’s 2nd WC venue in Melbourne.
Etihad was only built due to the patronage of the AFL. If you know the history you would know the Vic Govt wanted to build Docklands as a rectangular venue but could not make it work and went to the AFL and got them involved.
That is why Etihad has extendable seats to accomodate the rectangular codes. But Etihad would not have been built without the AFL’s patronage.
Essendon’s home ground was the MCG in the 1990s when Etihad was built the club moved to that venue. Several other clubs who used suburban grounds also moved to Etihad. Over time Etihad became one of only two stadiums used by the AFL. Suburban grounds became training venues only.
It is ironic that due to soccer (primarily) not being able to make a rectangular venue viable in the late 1990s that his resulted in the AFL’s involvement in Docklands. The AFL will eventually own Docklands.
Redb
oikee said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Michael, mate, i know you are trying to make peace with AFL, but i have already put up the best and most brilliant plan ever to hit the World cup soccer bid , and where to hold the final, and alot of games.
Brisbane is the right option, if they use their heads and sink all their efferts into making a world class stadium on the banks of the river, we not only dazzle FiFa, but we Dazzle the World, anything less is putty, just cave-man thinking. We need something new, we need something big, we need it to be handy and available to all, and we need to have people think, hey look at this, wow.
You present them with only Sydney and Melbourne, in which most of the world already knows about anyhow, your just presenting most with what they think about australia, and not saying hey look. Look at us and what we can do if we feel like doing it., Not , heres the Opera House again, and heres Melbourne, yes the MCG, look at this again. We need to think this is the time to really put on a once in our lifetime show, for us, not just the tourists. Anything less is putty.
Brisbane is a city fast developing and growing at a mega rate, if all you have to offer the world come 2022, or 2018, (Sydney, Melbourne) and Suncorp in Brisbane, what is that showing the world,. Look at Dubai, now anyone from around the world who sees what they have done, will not expect much from our country, we have a oppotunity to do something special, lets not waste it on upgrades to exsisting venues, lets build something special. We have the best Stadium builders in the world, right here, on our door-step, Why would you not build something very special.
Punter said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I kinda have changed my mind about why this Andy D guy questioned the impact of the World Cup, he was protecting his own turf & this was expected of him despite his personal views about wanting to have the World cup in Australia.
However, he did cause hysteria in Melbourne, when none was required.
It hardly made an impact in Sydney, the people in Sydney were more incensed with the new Western Sydney team
The bottom line is the Codes (Buckley, Gallop, O’Neill & Andy D) will work it out & the Australian bid will go ahead, there will be afew needs ironed out etc.
Then it will be up to FIFA to decide who gets allocated the WC in 2018 and 2022. The rantings & ravings of a few of us on the Roar means very little.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Good on you,
for A. being open to changing your mind,
and
B. for being willing to publicly admit it.
AndyRoo said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
The owners of Geelong have been approached and aren’t interested apparently.
My source is 442 so perhaps not 100% reliable as it was where Pip got the “AFL sabotaged the Swan Street upgrade plans”
Gatto Nero said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Aren’t interested in an upgrade? Or in the World Cup?
Skilled Stadium is owned and managed by the City of Greater Geelong, and the Cats are the principal tenants. The Cats have expressed (as recently as this week) a desire to undertake Stage 3 of the ground’s redevelopment, after the new stand is completed next March. Stage 3 would upgrade the capacity to 35,000 by renovating the northern terraces, would provide lighting at the venue and would, possibly, include the development of an alternate training venue for the Cats at Armstrong Creek to the south of Geelong.
Of all the regional centres in Australia, Geelong is possibly the best to upgrade a field to 40,000, seeing that there is a desire for a 35,000 capacity venue in place already. It would most likely be sustainable, as the ground already has allocated seating for all AFL matches (bar 3,000 walk-up standing terraces) and the Cats already relocate all of their blockbuster games to Melbourne venues due to a lack of capacity.
Michael DiFabrizio said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
I remember reading an article about Brian Cook (Geelong CEO) going to meet with Ben Buckley and being told Skilled will most likely just end up a training venue. Can’t track it down today, I’m afraid.
Anyway, Frank Costa (Geelong president) was talking about it yesterday: “With 18 clubs, we’ll probably have nine home games (in Geelong) and three in Melbourne, in possibly a 24-round competition, and Australia looks a big chance of hosting the 2022 World Cup … so Geelong is going to come into contention pretty strongly to host more games,” Costa said.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2009/12/08/129511_gfc.html
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
and this is a key point – people have talked about AFL moving season early and killing off the NAB cup. Well, we know the NAB cup as we know it will cease to exist after 2010.
18 teams and 24 round competition come 2018/2022, or more?? We don’t know.
And after all, we still don’t know if the AFL will get exemption in the host cities.
But – the training venue scenario. Could you imagine if the FFA tries to suggest that they aren’t telling the AFL or NRL to shut down, but, then put together a wish list of AFL training grounds.
I still reckon, the FFA should just stick with hosting an Asian Cup first, but, some old powerful people are too impatient.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I had a similar recollection.
Ziggy the God said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
1. Melbourne has now given up any chance to have the final. That is gone.
2. Sporting Capital of the World eh? Bwahahahahahahaha. As long as it is AFL.
3. The Federal Government should upgrade the Bubbledome, and all of the other grounds in Australia for the bid. Then they can add that there will be no other upgrades to major stadia for 25 years.
4. If the AFL want any kind of help from the Federal Government, or the NSW or Qld Governments in the future after hobbling the bid, I wish them all the best.
If there was confusion in the terms of vacating Stadia, it could of been done behind closed doors.
That Demetriou came out in the press, for two days in a row throwing punches, then guys like Barassi embarass themselves (again) by crushing a Soccerball on the front page of the paper, tells you that the AFL is paranoid and they are running scared.
They have damaged themselves in the eyes of everyone that doesn’t follow their sport, and this will not be forgotten.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Once again, this is the sort of BS AFL fans have been putting up with all year.
As I’ve said, I’m proud that the AFL has told FIFA to pi$$ off.
Next time, the FFA can try and put together a half credible bid that doesn’t rely on cricket ovals.
jimbo said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
AFL doesn’t have the slightest influence on FIFA Pip and this is the great delusion that the AFL Spin doctors keep regurgitating. The vasl majority of FIFA members wouldn’t even know what A F L stands for.
The FIFA world Cups of 2018 and 2022 will still be played with or without AFL parks.
You and the AFL flat earthers have only made it more unlikely that a football WC game will be played in Melbourne this century.
Norm said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
jimbo I think I can say with some confidence that pippy boy has left the stage & won’t be back.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
mate – if this is enough for Frank Lowy to spit the dummy, then it’s a pretty feeble bid.
If the FFA go from the AFL seeking to retain Docklands, if the FFA go from that, bypass upgrading their own dedicated rectangle stadium to 50k and leaving a tangible soccer legacy, and they go from that to fighting it out in the courts or simply thumbing their noses at Melbourne,
then stuff him, Mr Lowy can stay in his ivory tower in Sydney with a direct line to Zurich.
Melbourne isn’t damaged here……well……okay, the state govt and the bubble roof, but, Pip and I and Redb have been telling your guys this for ages anyway, ……anyhoo, the FFA is damaged here. They look positively childish and the bid looks positively shallow if a matter of $150 million is enough to derail it.
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
This coming from a guy who has waged a year long crusade against the building of the rectangular stadium in Melbourne in the first place. Now he wants the govt to spend an extra 150 million to upgrade a stadium he never wanted so AFL can keep being played at Etihad. As I have said all along some of the hypocrisy on these threads is astounding.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
But if we are going to spend $4 billion on the Cup – why can’t $150 million be spent upgrading the new stadium in 10 years time?
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
You don’t even want the WC to be staged in Melbourne. What’s it matter to you??
“we don’t need the eyes of the world on us – we just want to watch our footy” Pippinu 2009
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I don’t want the AFL season to be impeded – I would have thought that a fellow Melburnian would understand the distinction.
Maybe you are masquerading as an AFL fan?
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
mate – true Melbournians would love the WOrld Cup,
I’ve said before, how great a time in Melbourne it was when the RUWC came to town and we have a whole bunch of Irish visitors come to attend the trio of big events, the AFLvGAA IR match at the ‘G on the Friday, the RUWC Aust v Ireland match at the ‘dome on the Saturday, and then Melb Cup the following Tuesday at Flemington with Dermot Weld and a couple of horses.
Brilliant.
COuld you imagine all of us saying to our mates overseas, get tickets, come over, stay with us, and we’ll catch an AFL game too.
Brilliant.
WHo couldn’t want that??? Why do people assume it’s one or t’other??
Punter said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Pip I think you have made it pretty clear you are not a fan of the WC being staged in Australia, FULLSTOP.
You have also made it clear you are an AFL fan who like football (well even that is debatable) for most of your arguements are very pro AFL.
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Pip – The difference is I don’t mind the AFL closing down in Melbourne for 6 weeks if that is what is required to stage the greatest football event in the world. Does that make me and thousands of others masquerade AFL fans??
The jokes on you Pip as you have been carrying on like a banshee and put most reasonable football folk offside with your infantile diatribes.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
I achieved that single-handedly?
that’s some achievement
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
btw -
read the article in the SMH here.
This is so very important to set the scenes. Buckley and Demetriou are friends. For quite some time it must be imagined that it was understood that the AFL supported the bid and would have Docklands and Geelong.
SOmething has happened to alter this, and I severely doubt it is Ben Buckley’s doing. I’d suggest that Frank Lowy or some other Sydney based blinkered soccer person is pushing this and steam rolling Buckley.
So – the behind close doors bit – - one gains the impression that this WAS the case, until the FFA announced and started trumpeting that Docklands stadium would be one of their stadia. That seems to be a deal breaker as Dr.Phil would put it……and, again, I really severely doubt that Ben Buckley would have initiated this but he is wearing it at present.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
1. Frank Lowy would have ensured it went to Sydney anyway. The only chance I suspect Melbourne had was if the MCG could be turned into a 110,000 seat rectangular venue, but that would cost too much and has now been ruled out.
It was going to Sydney anyway.
2. These comments were made my muppetts before this issue came to light.
3. This is a valid point and is at the very heart of the matter. It has been said many times already that the inclusion of Etihad has set the cat amongst the pigeons, Buckley and Demetriou had already worked out that just the MCG was required and this was fine.
4. Whether you like it or not many AFL fans know how to use a ballot box. Your kidding yourself.
“They have damaged themselves in the eyes of everyone that doesn’t follow their sport”, no loss then.
Redb
Michael said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Who is Demetriou kidding when he says he didn’t realise how long they would need the ground. Every world cup in the last 20 years has required the use of the grounds for four weeks prior to the event and the duration of the event itself. FFA would have told the AFL this from day one as it is common knowledge.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Let us say that the FFA has been loose with the truth over the past 12 months and have dropped the ball on this one.
Punter said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The Bid will continue, despite all the ranting & ravings by you or your CEO, but whether we are successful is another matter.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Of course the bid will continue.
The Bid Book detailing stadiums is not until May.
The fact that Demetriou is raising Docklands now and illustrating tolerable limits around the MCG is a good thing.
Far, far better do it now than in 4 months time.
It’d just be nice if the FFA would show a bit of decorum in dealing with the stadia and the lease holders.
Ziggy the God said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Of course he knew.
This is a well timed move to try to hobble any chance Australia had to get the event.
Not having the MCG for 8 or so weeks equates to the AFL cancelling their season apparently.
What happens if the place burnt down tomorrow, would that mean the end of AFL?
It is laughable, if it wasn’t for the fact that it is a deliberate act of sabotage.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
You’re wrong.
The original discusions from the start was not having the MCG for 4 weeks, but continuing to use Etihad – now all that has been turned on its head in the space of a week – the AFL is entitled to its stance – especially when there has been a balls up with the new stadium.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
You haven’t followed this in enough detail clearly.
1. The FFA had floated major construction work on the MCG that would put it out of action for 16 weeks. They never bothered to tell the AFL this had been taken off the table.
2. The inclusion of Etihad is the sticking point not the MCG. The AFL had already agreed to the MCG being unavailable for 8 weeks.
3. It was potentially an act of sabotage by the FFA to include Etihad Stadium.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
mate – well timed?? hardly.
right now, the COAG meeting signing off of a commitment to fund is all that is required.
The Stadiums don’t need to be finalised until May.
Far, far better to get this crap sorted out now, than to leave it until when?? Demetriou was on paternity leave the last few weeks, he returns to work and if he doesn’t get this ball rolling now, then it’s Xmas and new year and suddenly Jan and Feb and May is looking ruddy well too close for comfort.
Let’s keep a little broader perspective here.
The AFL would love to run itself concurrent with a FIFA WC in town. It IS a great opportunity.
ren said | December 9th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
ruddy- so appropriate given the bid hares many features of our esteemed pm’s ets- a lack of any significant detail for all stakeholders (being the AFL, NRL, and most importantly the Australian public)
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
which ground??
DOcklands was never on the table, but, suddenly is.
re the MCG – the AFL has stated that they can work around even up to 10 weeks,
the AFL were dismayed when they discovered that there has been planning that includes a 14 week plus interruption to the MCG (i.e. the lowing of the field plus temp seating to make a rectangle). Whilst this option is not regarded as one to be pushed forward with, it has not been ruled out entirely.
The FFA only drives so much of this.
AFL co-operation and for that matter NRL co-operation is bound by certain limits of tolerance. Being told one thing, and then finding out there’s modelling that would effectively kill the MCG for the AFL for an entire season (even if it’s a very unlikely model) – - well, that’s quite another thing and it – apart from anything else – it severely tests ‘trust’.
And if ‘trust’ is being tested, and the whole premise so far is ‘no worries’, and let’s just get the bid in and trust that we can work out all the detail, well………that doesn’t quite cut it.
when there’s nothing signed and sealed, all the ‘players’ have is gentlemans agreements and trust and respect – - the FFA have blown that over the last few weeks.
Is it dirty laundry being aired now?? perhaps. PErhaps there’s no other way. Perhaps the less obvious dirty laundry was back in October when the FFA listed Docklands as one of their required venues without consulting the AFL or venue itself – a tad presumptuous wouldn’t you agree?
Brett McKay said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
MC, I was wondering the same thing, why Docklands was suddenly a WC venue – doesn’t the FIFA criteria still state that only one host city can have two stadiums (stadia/stadii)?? It will all come down to whether the FFA or FIFA want Melbourne (MCG, Docklands) or Sydney (ANZ, SFS) to have the second venue.
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
and for that reason, I just can’t understand why there’s noises apparently eminating from the FFA now about Melbourne having less games or that they ‘hope it doesn’t’ go so far as requiring acts of legislation.
Someone at the FFA has had a major change of heart – and if that means that they’ve burst the ‘trust’ balloon and will lose co-operation????
again though – - far better this get’s addressed now than in April with a bid book to be finalised by May.
AndyRoo said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
The hope it doesn’t go so far comment comes at the end of the interview and was used to dismiss that question and move on. It certainly didn’t look like someone waving the stick.
Art Sapphire said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Brett – the English bid includes 3 venues from London and 2 from Manchester. Having 2 cities with multiple venues is not an issue. Why would Qatar even bother to bid if you applied your assumed FIFA criteria?
Brett McKay said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Art, It’s not an assumption, and nor have I made it up, it was widely reported as such in recent months. Back around the end of football season, when all the ducks for the bid were being lined up, there was plenty of talk about which venues would be used, and throughout that period the discussion was being touched on as to whether Melbourne or Sydney would be the two-venue city.
Qatar had been mentioned as also failing this criteria dismally at this time too..
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Bozza gave a very reasonable view last night when he said that all the domestic football leagues are quite entitled to try and run their comps with minimal disruption.
Why do people have trouble understanding that?
Brett McKay said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Pip, there does seem to be a lot of chest beating going on from all sides about possible disruptions, and yet still no determination has been made whether ANY local code will be classed by FIFA as a “major competition”. It’s a hell of a lot of noise based on speculation and assumption…
For eg, Major League Baseball was still allowed to proceed while the US hosted the ‘94 WC, it was reported today…
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
I heard something indicating that this ruling is only made at such point as the winning bid is announced. Seems odd – surely the FFA can get a clarification and commitment out of FIFA given there is precendence.
At this stage – this is in the ‘trust us’ bucket…..but, that bucket has sprung a leak. (how many more colourful analogies can I find?)
Punter said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
You also forgot to mention that Bozza also said we will get the WC bid going & we will win it.
Junior said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
people in australia should be moving heaven and earth to try to secure the football world cup in 2022. this includes all governments, rival sporting bodies and anybody else with half a brain.
remember this is the football world cup, the real world cup. it’s not some limp-wristed token tournament for a niche sport which only two nations (nz and wales) really care about.
melbourne can hardly call itself a sporting capital if it isn’t willing to have afl inconvenienced for 8 weeks or 16 weeks or whatever it is to host the premier event in world sport. five billion people, plus or minus a billiion, look forward to this event and watch every ball kicked, every shoulder dropped and every stupendous goal. that compares with 10 million people tops in the afl states. by 2022 the two biggest states will be nsw and qld anyway so less and less people are going to care. chances are we’ll only need one stadium down there.
demetriou, gallop and anybody else who thinks it is unfair need to get some perspective. the stadium issue is a non-event in the scheme of things. if australia does get the 2022 world cup these people will be seen as little more than annoying little speedbumps along the road.
Timmypig said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Junior you’re doing yourself and other football fans no favours by attempting to insult fans of other sports.
And seriously, rugby “limp-wristed”? Heavens …. being insulted as limp-wristed by a football fan is like being mauled by a dead sheep (to quote Denis Healey).
Timmypig said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
OK OK football fans my dig wasn’t called for, apologies to you all.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Once again – another post which makes me very proud that the AFL told FIFA to pi$$ off.
Brian said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Pip yoiu may be glad to live at the arse-end of the world but some of us have higher aspirations. Some of us have no problems with Republics, Sunday shopping, St Kilda triangles and not having AFL for one short period in June/July. The WC could transform Australia internationally whilst we enjoy the show and your glad we would miss out so St Kilda can play Essendon in June instead of March for one year in 2022.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
I actually voted for the republic.
I don’t give a damn about either St Kilda or Essendon.
I don’t like foreign and corrupt sporting bodies bullying our little game.
Redb said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Brian,
It’s not just 1 month and you know it if Etihad is included.
“The WC could transform Australia internationally ”
Into what?
We have one of the best standards of living in the world?
We are one of the best countries to live in the world?
Have one of the brightest futures for a country in the world?
What’s wrong with Australia now?
If your not happy there is an airport about 22kms to the north-west of Melbourne.
Redb
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Brian –
and what’s wrong with you enjoying your World Cup (should it be won to be hosted here), and enjoy the benefits of such a big event that surely can see $150 million spared to expand Swan St.
Therefore, you won’t need Docklands,
therefore, the AFL can go ahead (pending FIFA ‘permission/exemption’ such that so too can the NRL can go ahead),
and we’ll be all happy,
and the world might get a little transformed as we get to show off what really makes our big cities tick, AFL and NRL and illustrate to the world just why so many of the WC venues don’t look like they were built for soccer,
….of course, we might need to arrange a drop in pitch at Docklands and a ODI or T20 to hammer home that last point!!!!
btw – some of us like where we live just fine thankyou very much and don’t refer to it, even in jest – as the ‘arse-end of the world’. Doing that is plain disrespectful and does you zero credit.
Zack said | December 9th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
It seems some people live in The Roar forum. Its the same people puting the comments one after the other.
Joe FC said | December 9th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Michael
It’s entirely reasonable that the other codes/sports look after their own interests. They have the right, indeed the duty, to raise whatever objections & concerns they hold. They even have the right to oppose Australia’s WC bid. However they do not have the right to portray themselves as victims. “Demetriou’s claim that a season will not go ahead does not actually seem far-fetched” is not just far-fetched it’s dishonest. Going by this and other same topic threads on this site, not a single AFL fan believes this will happen and nor should they. Pandering to fear & ignorance might make one a populist but not a leader.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
Buckley had included an option to rectangularise the MCG without discussing it with either the MCG or AFL. It would have put the MCG out of action for over two thirds of the season.
The government commissioned a report on the World Cup with that option included as a basic assumption.
Buckley only backtracked on that option when Demetriou blew the whistle on it (and he was right to do it).
Michael d is correct in writing that cancelling the season was a possibility under this option.
Over half of all AFL games are played at the MCG and Etihad combined – if one is out for 16+ weeks and the other for 10 weeks – that’s pretty much the season done and dusted.
Helpful suggestions from people that games can be played at Albury and Mildura are idiotic.
etat said | December 9th 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
in. eggs. basket. all.
The Football League seems quite reliant on a small pool of infrastructure.
Joe FC said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
Is that supposed to be a reply to me? Like much of your contribution to this debate it is irrational, speculative and misleading. You persistently misrepresent the opposing view; constantly cite statements out of context; make numerous unsubstantiated assertions and actively seek to belittle the reputations of men of whom you know absolutely nothing. You have a right to an opinion. With all rights go responsibility, accountability and consequences. When it comes to affirming these faculties you fail dismally.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Joe
absolutely all the irrational comments are coming from all those who feel that the AFL should hand their assets over to FIFA – just like that.
I know – it’s crazy!!
Ghost said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
Why is the proposition that the AFL go to the country idiotic Pippinu? I’ve seen this idea floated by a few other people and I think it is one really worth considering. I think there would be good long term benefits for the AFL too.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Joe FC
Lisa Simpson once said when her brother Bart was running for class president in the episode Lisa’s Substitue
“You’ll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator”
Thats what Demetriou did.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
For what its worth
Should the AFL allow Etihad Stadium to be used as a World Cup venue?
Yes – 83%
No – 17%
Total Votes: 3007
Gatto Nero said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:26am | Report comment
Worth very little. Polls of that nature aren’t representative of the demographic, they’re representative of the people who took time to find the polls and vote on them.
Don-star said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Some context? Australia is ‘bidding’ for the event, not organizing it. Demetriou says “we need to start planning”. And “they certainly have to improve their communication”. Communication, in a bidding context, can not be based on what is important to AFL, it’s what is important to the voter – FIFA. Since AFL doesn’t compete on the world stage, Demetriou doesn’t understand the world of sport. The FFA failed to educate, not communicate. Whilst AFL has their own interests at heart, if they really had Australia’s interests at heart, these issues could and should have been resolved ‘behind’ closed doors. There goes Australia’s bid message – the ‘No Worries’ Cup. If and when Australia loses 2022, now you can blame it on Demetriou – No Worries!
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
Why would it have anything to do with the AFL – who play all their games on ovals????
Why isn’t it the fault of an incompetent FFA?
Also, let’s not forget that Buckley is an ex-AFL player – where was his contingency planning??
Gatto Nero said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
Silly comment Don-star. Demetriou is probably the highest-paid and most-respected sports administrator in Australia, within that industry (obviously not on soccer forums at the moment). Arguably, he successfully manages the AFL in the most competitive sporting market worldwide, which I would assume puts him up there with the best in the world. He fully understands the context of the World Cup, both to Australia in a broad context and to the Australian sporting landscape. After all, he is a very successful businessman in his own right and, I believe, makes more money from his personal businesses and investments than he is paid by the AFL.
The whole debate this week is a perfect example of Demetriou’s excellent management of the media. He has whipped up a huge amount of discussion about primarily the AFL, at a time that the FFA would naturally expect soccer to dominate coverage. The AFL has been plastered on newspaper covers and media websites, and many journalists from league and soccer are penning articles about AFL. Demetriou has stirred up soccer partisans, but it’s not the first, nor last, time that supporters of other codes will speak ill of him. After all, any news is good news. And lastly, he has forced the FFA to publicly comment on the stadium issue and forced discussion of compensation, upgrades of alternate AFL venues and such. In short, Demetriou has played the FFA at one of their most vulnerable moments, and the noises emanating suggest that whatever the resolution, the AFL will be in a better position because of it.
I find it amusing that so many commentators quickly throw up answers to the stadium issue that are reactionary and aren’t thoroughly considered. Like denying Melbourne games during the tournament or building additional stadiums in Sydney so that they have four venues, or rectangularising ANZ stadium as a payback to AFL. Melbourne is integral to the bid, not only because Australia’s premier stadium lies there, but because it is one of a handful of civic centres with the infrastructure to host the bigger matches of the tournament. Not to mention how silly it would look if Melbourne wasn’t to host games while Campbelltown gets a gig. Worldwide commentators would be aghast. If Australia gets the nod, Melbourne will play a vital role in the tournament, and the AFL will certainly have been well compensated for the disruption. And all the while, Demetriou will be sitting back with a big grin thinking about how well the result played out.
Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Demetriou stirred up a frenzy with ’shoot from the hip’ comments like ‘AFL will need to close the season to accomodate the WC’, he stirred up a frenzy because football after the world cup draw & Australia’s bid was getting good review was on the front, back & middle pages of Australian papers.
Demetriou call in his favours with his mates in the media & stadiums managers for afew comments about the state of play by the FFA & FIFA. Yes, Demetriou has done his job to protect his turf & bring the media back to AFL. Very good management or bullying tactics.
He had his day in the sun.
But basically the Bid will go ahead, Buckely knows this, Demetriou knows this, Gallop knows this & to his credit (who kept quiet) O’Neill knows this. This will be like a runaway train until next December until the decision is made.
Ghost said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I think Gatto that you have to be careful not to extrapolate the effect of ADs comments to the whole country. Sure enough he has played the populist card in Melbourne, and for the rusted on AFL faithful has been seen to ‘do his job’ and put up some resistance even if it does just prove to be token. Up here in Sydney the whole thing is a bit of a non-issue and the notion that one of our little sports can’t move things around for a 3 month period, especially given 10-12 years notice, is seem as rather silly.
I also find some of the anti-FIFA bile on this and other threads wierd. FIFA own an event, the most coveted event on the planet. Countries bid for it and as part of that bid they are asked to comply with a set of conditions and requirements (and to be honest, whether or not these make total sense is FIFAs prerogative – it is their event after all). The reason for this current ’storm in a teacup’ is that Australia is thinking about stepping up and bidding for this coveted event. So the AFL’s real beef should be with the Federal Government and the FFA. FIFA are not demanding anything of Australia and would be quite happy I’m sure to accept any one of three or four other bids if we could not make ours work. Which I might add would be a national tragedy and disgrace for us but no particular skin off FIFAs nose.
Finally I don’t think Timmypig should have retracted his comment. There are only a few really globally important sports around – football, tennis, golf, formula one – and then maybe a few more which are less-than-global but still have large commonwealth/colonial audiences such as rugby union and cricket. If Melbourne can’t sort out its routine suburban passtimes to accomodate the pinnacle events in these kinds of sports then it is making a mockery of its title as a world ’sporting capital’. And again its not like some permanent change is being ddemanded. 3 months of one season which is 10 years in the future… for goodness sakes.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Ghost,
Your post was fine until the last paragraph.
“If Melbourne can’t sort out its routine suburban passtimes to accomodate the pinnacle events in these kinds of sports then it is making a mockery of its title as a world ’sporting capital’”
Insulting Melbournians love of their own code will not help the situation. I don’t think there is an equivalent situation any city could face with regard to a sport that is so much a part of the social fabric. 400,000 members/ticketholders of Aussie Rules clubs, crowds that can exceed 250,000 for a weekend of 5 AFL games in one city of 4 million.
In the Australian sporting context it is the biggest. Anything on a world scale will be bigger that is a no brainer.
So its not some small suburban comp, they usually dont get crowds of 50,000 on a regular basis.
The simple fact is the World Cup will be detrimental to several AFL AND NRL clubs who will be striving for sponsorship dollars in that year, discretinary spending stretched, media ,etc.
It is prudent to minimise the damage to the season.
The average punter will be drawn to the razzle dazzle of a World Cup in Australia that is natural, but if they look around in 2019 and find their club has gone under due to the revenue destruction of one year they might realise what was worth fighting for.
As for the world’s sporting capital moniker – that is a laugh to most of us. It seems to irk others more than we cherish the title. So it kind of misses the mark.
Redb
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
OK how about this for a solution.
People think FIFA dont want any other event on at the same time because it might impact on the World Cup games attendance.
This is not the reason. FIFA dont want other sporting events because there are only so many taxis buses hotels etc available at any given time in one city.
If the MCG had 100,000 people and Etihad had 50,000 people, the city would be in chaos i would imagine !!
These are two conditions AFL should meet and FIFA would allow them to play on i think.
- AFL play at Etihad, but they arent able to play on any day that a World Cup game is on in melbourne.
- Make sure no interstate teams play in Melbourne, hence no travelling fans looking for hotel rooms etc.
Also as much as Melburninas love AFL i still think the majority of them would favour experiencing the World Cup first, so if you went head to head im sure the WC would win out. Besides it would give overseas fans a taste of your football.
Second condition. From the Round of 16 to the end of the final the AFL takes a two week break. Giving the World Cup
the media spotlight in Melbourne which again i think it would have anyway.
Players would like a nice break during the season Im sure anyway.
I think it sounds fair.
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
tifosi
the AFL would not fixture games in direct competition to games at the MCG – won’t happen.
But at the moment – the AFL are in a fight just to have a stadium.
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
No i dont think they would either.
Yeah but its a non issue. If FIFA state only one city can have two stadia, that will be Sydney.
Although we know fifa change the rules as they please, but you and I know this bid aint happening anyway
What i find sly by the Etihad stadium though, was that they are saying they dont want anything to do with a world cup, but they were more than happy to take the money in reconfiguring it for that Victory game.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
The big thing is – the AFL can stretch 1 or 2 rounds over the time frame of the FIFA WC matches – - quite okay,
but, you can’t achieve that if BOTH the MCG and Docklands are out of action for the month leading in.
And that 4 week requirement is absolute bulltish,….FIFA and the FFA are being somewhat mischevious on that front. Not sure what 2nd rate organisations they’re used to dealing with – - but, 4 weeks for set up – - that just garbade and I think most people deep down understand that.
btw – Etihad is a business – - if the FFA finally decides to push the seats in and pay for it, Etihad won’t say ‘no’. Nothing sly about it. Don’t read anything into Etihad – - the great thing about Collo in there is that he is 100% loyal to his employers. You therefore know what you get. Zero graft/corruption/favouratism. If only more people could be like that!!!!
Gatto Nero said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:22am | Report comment
Each year there are weekends where the MCG has 100,000 people and Etihad is close to capacity on the same day. It doesn’t seem to bugger things up at all. I believe an NRL final was held on the same day as the Grand Final this year, and each year AFL matches clash with international rugby, soccer, other AFL matches or events like the Grand Prix.
Most AFL matches in Melbourne are between local teams anyway – it’s the nature of having more than half of the teams based in Victoria.
As for which would be more popular, outside of a few nations (England, Australia, Italy, Croatia etc), I think that most Melburnians would take greater interest in attending a blockbuster footy match than seeing a World Cup match featuring the Ukraine and Ghana. Especially if the price difference is substantial, as it’s likely to be.
Kurt said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
As my absolute last contribution on this topic I’d like to share with you a true story about Andrew Demetriou that might provide you with a bit of psychological background into what is currently going on. Back whilst he was still playing footy at North Melbourne, he was my year ten form teacher at a Melbourne private school. Now one day a few of us decided to get a few laughs at his expense – I won’t bore you with the details, suffice to say it was the sort of silly rubbish that 15 year old prattish private school boys excel at. Anyway, he didn’t really respond in the way we expected – barely said a word in fact. We’d completely forgotten about it until an end of year assembly in front of all the year tens when he called us up one by one and proceeded to comprehensively humiliate us – again, won’t go into the silly details but it was basically as childish as we had been. So in other words he remembered the slight and when he had his chance, paid it back in kind.
We deserved it mind you, but this is worth keeping in mind when you consider what transpired over the weekend. One minute AD thinks he has a ‘Gentlemen’s agreement’ that if Australia get the WC the AFL can keep Docklands, the WC matches will be at the MCG and they’ll only have to shut down for a month. The next he’s hearing how the FFA were giving tours of Docklands to visiting journalists, including its picture in bid brochures etc. even though the stadium management have explicitly told the FFA they want no part in a bid. And so the very next day he hits the media and stitches up Ben Buckley, even though the two are close friends. Doesn’t really surprise me one bit and the whole thing could have been avoided with some slightly better diplomacy from both sides.
Viscount Crouchback said | December 9th 2009 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Good heavens, the beaks don’t behave like that at Eton! This Demetriou sounds like rather a rum character.
Kurt said | December 10th 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
Would’ve got on quite well with Flashman I think!
Norm said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
So Demetriou harbours grudges, is vengeful and has no qualms about the public humiliation of 15 yr old boys. And you think that is a virtue.
Kurt said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Oh lighten up Norm, it wasn’t really a public humiliation – and like I said, we deserved it.
Ghost said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Fabulous – so to paraphrase this post we don’t only have a self-inflated nothing of a suburban game standing in the way of the world’s major passtime and what would be a uniquen national achievement, but whats more the CEO of that game is a vindictive psycho…
Deja Roo said | December 10th 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Demtriou is switched on trust me.
Sam Taulelei said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Can any South Africans or anyone generally advise as to whether SA have had any conflicts with other sports clashing with the timing of the 2010 world cup? And if so how it was resolved?
The timing of the next years tournament in June is when traditional inbound rugby tours by northern hemisphere countries are scheduled. I haven’t read or heard of any rescheduled or cancelled rugby tours to SA next year?
Didn’t FIFA also allow major league baseball to continue running during the 1994 world cup in the USA?
Richard said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
This topic sure has generated a lot of heat. Seems to me that, simply put, it would be arrogance in the extreme if the FFA expected the AFL to just step aside to allow them access to all our facilities. Speaking as a life long lover of the best football code in the world, I appreciate soccer as a sport and enjoy watching it every now and then when the Socceroos are in the World Cup. But there is a big difference about my curiosity re soccer and my passion for footy. And when push comes to shove I want Andrew Demetriou to do exactly what he has done, stand up for our sport. We passionate footy fans are quite willing to accommodate the European game, but we’re not willing to surrender to it. End of story.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Well said Richard.
20 to 1 is the ratio of support for Aussie Rules to soccer in Melbourne. 20 to 1. Forget the bogus polls, 400,000 AFL club members versus 20,000 soccer club members gives the true indication of support.
The impact needs to be minimalised, this means host the World Cup, AFL to give up the MCG and make other scheduling changes to accomodate but get steam rolled by the FFA – no way.
Redb
Phil E Buster said | December 12th 2009 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
Redb, are you trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with those figures? There is only one Victorian top flight football club (MV) versus (correct me if I’m wrong) 10 Victorian AFL clubs. By your reasoning that means only 2 to 1. No wonder we can smell the fear – soon with the new club it will be more like 1 to 1.
Redb said | December 12th 2009 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
your attempt at humour is lacking….
Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Well said, but I think the opposite, hence the world keeps spinning around & we keep having the same discussion..
Sam Taulelei said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Initially I thought Demetriou was just acting like a bullyboy in the press but after considering the position the AFL is being forced into and Demetriou’s role as CEO I applaud and support his actions.
Historically football in this country has been poorly run and as more information comes to light FFA looks like they have not been fully transparent with their disclosure and discussions with other codes that will be affected by Australia’s bid to host the world cup. All sporting codes recognise the significance of the FIFA world cup and would be supportive of Australia’s bid, pity FFA aren’t showing the same consideration.
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
I just can’t fathom the following :
the AFL and NRL should not be so crucial to the bid,
the FFA should not be in the position to be asking these things of the AFL and NRL,
govt had best avoid attempting to legislate,
the organising committe probably should be a multi-lateral one, but, FIFA might not permit that.
WE need to consider that perhaps we just aren’t a big enough nation, let alone a big enough ’soccer nation’ to do it, and that the event is about deriving 90% of FIFA’s revenue…..that’s what it is – it’s their biggest fund raiser.
AndyRoo said | December 12th 2009 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
Michael c ….that wouldn’t work because it’s at the bidding stage not the organising stage and it’s in the interests of the NRL and AFL that football gets as little benefit as possible
jimbo said | December 12th 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
FFA have been open and frank with everyone including the AFL about the bid from day one – they all agreed (including Demetriou) to support the bid months ago, otherwise the federal government wouldn’t have committed $46M to it.
What evidence is there that the FFA, Buckley or Lowy lied to anyone?
The one who is lying is Demetriou who says that the AFL will “be forced to cancel its season” if Australia wins the WC bid.
That is not the case.
The WC can be played in Australia without having any fooball WC games played in Melbourne.
If Australia fails to win a WC hosting spot, the blame will be squarely on the AFL and there will be a big backlash from Sydneysiders.
The AFL will have Ben Buckley’s chance of ever having a successful AFL team in Sydney.
Redb said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
The FFA have been anything but straight.
Both the AFL and NRL have rejected their ambitious plans for Australia’s two main winter competitions.
Their strategy is to kill off 2-3 AFL or NRL clubs through revenue destruction leading up to and including the World Cup. They want the disenfranchised to then folow their A League. They seriously want Australians to follow that crap.
AndyRoo said | December 13th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
sounds a bit like the AFL fans are being irrational. This supposed plan is for 2018 most likely 2022 (if at all)….. I don’t think clubs like North melbourne will be in their current situation only receving 77k from gate receipts come that time.
The crux of the issue is the Fifa Wcup bid needs 10 venues (the more in your book the better but the nitty gritty is you need 10) for 6 to 8 weeks in 2022. It seems 4 of them will be predominently AFL venues, 3 of which will be receiving significant upgrades with commonwealth funds. Possibly a 5th will go in the bid book (geelongs stadium)
The remaining venues required are 1 venue pretty much built up just for the World cup (Cambltown) and then 5 rugby league venues 3 of which are getting significant works because of the Wcup the other twp (Suncorp and SFS) aren’t getting anything.
it’s up to the codes themselves what they do with that and wether they accept that or not. For all the fuss AFL seems to have pretty much agreed to it, and their call of Docklands as off limits seems fair to me. That’s actually being pretty reasonable and what more can you ask for really.
I think people waiting for all the codes together to agree exactly how 2022 will go down will be dissapointed, this is only really about stadium usage and that’s the only scope of interaction really.
Michael C said | December 14th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
does anyone seriously believe, that, without the FIFA WC in perhaps 13 years time – that major stadium works wouldn’t happen anyway??
Major stadium works in Perth and Adelaide have been getting delayed because of this WC talk.
btw – ’stadium usage’ may seem simple – but, there’s also the scope of the ability to continue competitions within host cities as well.
Let’s see how the AFL behave should the FFA come back and say, “Guys, sorry, FIFA says ‘NO’, cheerio!”
pH said | December 17th 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
jimbo – FFA have been anything but fair and frank with the AFL – they verbally tell AFL they can have Etihad to get AFL in principle support to help get bid rolling, then turn around and say we’ll get the government to evict you (despite Etihad having AFL HQ offices and a 25 year exclusive lease with option to purchase the stadium outright – because of the $millions the AFL has sunk into the stadium). The AFL virtually hear this via the media. Demetriou was right to question this.
If this was the NFL, NBA, NHL in USA – they’d be far more vocal than the AFL has been. Of course that won’t happen because only MLB on diamond fields is played in June/July in USA and soccer wouldn’t use NBA or NHL stadia – but would FIFA want them to shut down – maybe, and if so they’d tell FIFA and MLSoccer in USA to get …..
So why should AFL and NRL be any different to similar counterparts in USA?