Demetriou was right to question World Cup impact
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 9 Dec 2009 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, World Cup football
180 Have your say
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.
Recommend this story.
Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, football, World Cup football
December 9th 2009 @ 8:31am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 8:39am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:51am
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.:-.
December 9th 2009 @ 8:36am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 8:43am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:10am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:16am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 8:54am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:01am
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……?
December 9th 2009 @ 9:09am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:16am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:18am
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!
December 9th 2009 @ 9:25am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:29am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:51am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 11:50am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:15am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:05am
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!
December 9th 2009 @ 9:11am
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!!
December 9th 2009 @ 9:17am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:31am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:39am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:07am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:10am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:16am
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??)
December 9th 2009 @ 10:33am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:36am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:23am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:44am
Michael C said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
whoooaaa, hang on,
careful there about presenting intelligent and reasoned commentary.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:03pm
Tifosi said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
There are no matches of questionable interest at a world cup. They all count.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:03am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:01pm
B.C. said | December 9th 2009 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
Lets build one under the ocean, that will get them talking.
December 9th 2009 @ 8:52pm
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:14am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:20am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:24am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:22am
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!!!!!
December 9th 2009 @ 9:29am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:38am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:11am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:12am
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
2026 is a long time into the future
December 9th 2009 @ 9:38am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:44am
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).
December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:46am
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
December 9th 2009 @ 9:50am
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?
December 9th 2009 @ 10:05am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:10am
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
December 9th 2009 @ 10:22am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:51am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:58am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:59am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:01am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:05am
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
December 9th 2009 @ 10:19am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:41am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:55am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 9:57am
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”
December 9th 2009 @ 10:18am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:19am
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
December 9th 2009 @ 10:25am
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.
December 9th 2009 @ 10:33am
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I had a similar recollection.