By Ziggy the God -
December 10th 2009 @ 1:36am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
A solution to the AFL stadium issue
So the AFL is concerned that they will have to close their competition down if Australia wins the World Cup, which could lead to club failures.
As has been pointed out in articles this week, that sounds a stretch considering the code trumpets it is the number one in Australia, has the biggest crowds and believes it should get a billion dollars at their next TV contract.
Let’s not even touch on the money they are going to flood into GWS and the GC.
So how long will the stadiums be needed for in Melbourne? Four weeks, six weeks, ten weeks?
Andrew Demetriou says: “The World Cup starts … in June and there’s four or five weeks of securitising it, putting signage up. They would commence work in late March or early April and that would probably mean we’d just have to cancel the season because that would mean we wouldn’t have the MCG for 16 weeks.
“We could probably do without it for 10 weeks and we’d have to play at Etihad Stadium. But we couldn’t do it [for 16 weeks], we’d have to cancel the season,” he said.
Ben Buckley says: “We need to get access four weeks before the competition for preparation for pitches and preparation for stadia overlay that are required by FIFA and the duration of the tournament.
“In our estimation, that is six to eight week, depending upon where the finals are played and what venues are used”.
So let’s take what Ben Buckley says in terms of timing, which is the official FIFA requirement, of 4 weeks of clean stadiums before kick-off.
To make the MCG rectangular is clearly going to add too much time, and get Demetriou even more riled up.
As such, it is just another ground in Australia, no matter how much the public of Melbourne love it. It does not have any more right to be a World Cup venue than any other Stadium. And since there has been such a backlash, why bother?
We want the World Cup, and the AFL wants their grounds in Melbourne.
So how would it work without the MCG and Etihad?
Here is the basic schedule in South Africa, who are using ten stadiums:
Group Matches
Venues used: 10
Duration: 15 days
Round of 16
Venues used: 8
Duration: 4 days
2 day break
Quarter Finals
Venues used: 4
Duration: 2 days
2 day break
Semi Finals
Venues used: 2
Duration: 2 days
2 day break
Final + 3rd place playoff
Venues used: 2
Duration: 2 days
FIFA
World soccer’s governing body FIFA requires bidding nations stadiums to have a minimum capacity of 40,000.
Thus:
Main two Stadiums: ANZ and Suncorp
Semi Finals: SFS and Perth
Qtrs: ANZ, Suncorp, Adelaide and Perth
Rd 16: ANZ, SFS, Suncorp, SFS, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Newcastle
Group: ANZ, SFS, Suncorp, SFS, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Newcastle, Townsville, Melbourne (Bubbledome).
Melbourne would therefore only have two weeks of matches. Add that to the four weeks that they need a clean the stadium, and you have six weeks.
Upgrade ANZ and Suncorp to be the two jewels in the crown, followed by new stadiums in Perth and Adelaide. Upgrades to be completed on the rest, potentially with some temporary structures.
The Bubbledome needs to be upgraded by 10,000 to comply with FIFA, and should really be increased to 50,000 for its four Group games. Any arguments with Etihad over capacity issues for new stadia sizes can be sorted by the Victorian Government if they want to have some games played in their city.
Melbourne then can get on with their AFL competition, and the rest of the world can get on with the World Cup. Any complaints can be sent to AFL House.
Sorted.
Join The Roar's A-League tipping competition and own bragging rights at the office! Join now.
(100)
Kurt said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Interesting topic Ziggy, I wonder what other Roarers think of this whole AFL vs FFA/WC debate? I mean, it’s lucky you bring it up because otherwise we might not have the opportunity to discuss it.
footyfreak said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:29am | Report comment
we should take aussie rules os where people have been dying to see it live instead of getting up enmasse late at nite early morning lets start a bidding war forget the billion dollar tv deal think how much money politicians in new york LA denver new orleans chicago vancouver edmonton calgay mexico city rio buenos aires monte video paris madird moscow london edinborough glasgow dublin athens roma milan lisbon casablanca cairo new delhi islamabad tokyo taiwan beijing shanghei
manilla auckland nadi and many more bid mega dolllars in a desperate attempt to please citizens in these citys and improve their citys prestige lets cash in on being one of the best known brands and biggest sports in the world and deliver critical blow to the fifa world cup then come home and get rid of rugby and soccer forever and we would have damaged the nfl epl
nhl la liga serie a nba and may more competitions just by taking games to their countrys
SOME PEOPLE REALLY OVERESTAMATE THE POWER AND POPULARITY OF THEIR CODE I/M LOOKING AT U SOCCER IN ENGLAND RUGBY IN NZ AND THE NFL IN AMERICA
albe said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Bring on ‘New Football’ or whateva the ALF plan on calling it when they conquer the world. Novelty factor should keep it bubbling along for about five seconds at least.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment
and the question remains,
why has the FFA excluded the bubble dome expansion on ….apparently cost basis of $150 million
why exclude that and pick a fight with the AFL over Docklands??
btw – the 16 week scenario re the MCg is a worst case that sees the rectangularisation of the venue – - seemingly based on the MCG hosting the final – - but, with Lowy on board, this seems highly unlikely!!!! At any rate – it was this scenario that the AFL spoke of an unviable season should the MCG be out of action for 16 weeks or even more.
Freud of Football said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
The question doesn’t remain, about 500 questions remain unanswered and no-one is even scratching the surface here.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
btw –
the NRL has also spoken of the threat to cash strapped clubs, have rejected the FFA ‘NRL displacement strategy’ and have spoken of the situation as being ‘unworkable’ (as far back as October).
So, let’s not get too caught up here on the AFL. There’s an easy solution around the Docklands impasse.
todays Age though indicates the FFA is looking at the 3rd AFL stadium option (boutique 27K) with upgradeability to 44K for the WC config. Cost of around $220 mill or so.
Interestingly the cost is meant to be a potential issue….
and again, we’re left wondering, this bucket of cash that is supposedly available….just, how much is in it if both $150 mill upgrade of the Bubbledome and/or the $220 mill on this other venue are considered too much.
It makes it all look a tad underfunded.
I don’t buy that. The FFA are playing ducks and drakes here and itching for a ’showdown’,……astounding though, Lowy has bleated before about a lack of soccer legacy, and surely, he’d jump at the chance to expand ‘Bubbledome’ to 50K.
(oh, I see,….it’s not in Sydney!!!!)
Mr said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
That money would be far better spent in the Brisbane-Tweed corridor, or in Western Sydney (Campbelltown or Blacktown) on rectangle stadiums. If the VIC govt thinks spending VIC taxes on a new all purpose stadium is okidoki then fine. But Federal funds would go for where the population growth is, and where there is a need. And that aint’t another oval in Melbourne – there are enough suburban fields turning fallow already.
Chuq said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
Semi final venues need to be 60k capacity – SFS won’t be.
jimbo said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Its a FIFA recommendation – and they also recommend that the stadium for the opening ceremony and WC final has a capacity of over 80K.
We can stage the WC without MCG or Etihad – we just need another stadium with over 60K capacity.
Grobbelaar said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
No one else in the world plays, or even cares for, cricket, eggball and netball.
Do you understand that?
In Nigeria. In Honduras. In North Korea. We are all united by one game – it’s called football.
Timmypig said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Riiiiiiiigggghhht …. nobody in India, for argument’s sake, plays or cares for cricket? All those West Indians, Poms, Kiwis & Saffers don’t play or care for netball, or cricket too for that matter?
Chris said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
So thats why crickets IPL is bigger than the EPL, La Liga, Serie A and the Champions League then?
I’m glad football is bigger in the three extremely violent dictatorships you mentioned. Says a lot.
Chris said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
If you know anything about Australia it is that we couldn’t give a flying **** about what anyone else thinks. Something about having longer life expectancies and a lower unemployment rate that whatever country you hail from.
Chris said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
We
a) Live longer than where you live
b) Have a lower unemployment rate than where you live
c) Have a wider repertoire of sports than wherever you live.
d) Therefore aren’t much missing Soccer
It’s funny to know that it just drives people like you mad that there are places in this world where soccer doesn’t mean anything. I can’t believe it gets under your skin so much you have to find an Australian sporting website to complain about it.
Hint: We are laughing at the whole world for being better than them by virtually every measure.
Mushi said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
That’s funny I didn’t realise we were such a prominent nation that the world was obsessing over our bid?
Oh well rather that than getting mocked for being part of nation so infatuated with classist hierarchy they didn’t notice that they’d become pretty much inferior to the rest of the world in every meaningful industry.
The UK is such an international laughing stock that when its leader speaks the rest of the developed world basically tells him “sit back down moron”.
Enjoy the long road out of global irrelevance and welfare dependency, please don’t forget to send us a humourous post card.
Being laughed at by the English is like having Roseanne Barr say you need to lose a few kilos.
albe said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Grob some of us agree that many Aussies have NFI about the world beyond their ‘border security’ obsessions… its just another reason for FIFA to bring the cup here. Not only nation building, but nation transforming potentially.
football fans here also laugh along with the rest of the world at these small-minded folk…
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Mate – what you think is an insult is actually a compliment,
we are a sporting nation primarily – part of the climate and vast space of our nation (and a lack of military or class based repressive history)
note the comments from Britain’s new High Commissioner to Australia.
Baroness Valerie Amos was a high-ranking board member of the English bid before reducing her role when she arrived in Canberra in October.
She predicted England’s universal embrace of the world game would give it an edge.
she noted Australians were sports fans first and soccer fans thereafter. ”What I’ve found since I’ve been here is people are interested in a variety of sports,” she said. ”They are interested in cricket, they are interested in Aussie rules, which is what you call football, they are interested in tennis, in rugby and in soccer, too.”
and I look at that and think – - – thank god!!!!
Thankfully Australia isn’t just another boring soccer country with stuff all of anything else.
And people have the nerve to claim that we are insular, myopic and unworldly. The opposite is actually the case – - it just doesn’t suit the soccer heads who believe that we can’t be complete unless were just the same as everybody else (that they conveniently refer to whilst omitting the vast numbers of people who don’t fit the soccer only criteria). There’s few times I want to align with the American ideals, but, on sport – I do. They are happy in their own skin, and happy on the world stage too. A nice balance.
Junior said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
so you’re suggesting that americans aren’t insular, myopic and unworldly?
do you seriously believe this or have you started intertwining deliberate mistakes in your comments to tempt us to read what you have to say?
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
mate – if we had 50 states to keep tabs on the capital cities of, the senators etc of,…..how many Australian’s know the name of the premier of WA? let alone the name of the PM of England without a long bit of thought and probably offering ‘Tony Blair’ (re the movie ‘The Queen’) or ‘Hugh Grant’ (re the movie ‘Love Actually’).
- – but, AMericans have done pretty damn well in the world arena of the Olympics (summer and winter) for a nation of supposedly unworldly myopic folk.
Not a bad balance. They play basketball, baseball, ice hockey….all pretty well international. They’re doing okay in soccer too now I believe, and yet they still sustain a home ‘manufactured’ sport as probably their number one. Good on ‘em. Gotta respect that.
Ghost said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
In that case MC I look forward to the AFL finals being rebranded the ‘World Series’. Its (VERY sadly) not much of a step in behaviour from where they are now.
We absolutely are being insular myopic and unworldly. We continue to choose our own meaningless passtimes rather to engage with the world on equal terms and in activities that have mutual meaning and respect. I know you and Pip try as hard as you can to twist it the other way, and to proclaim the stubborn uniqueness of AFL as a kind of national self-confidence. But it just doesn’t wash with me and is an argument riddled with inferiority complex and lack of confidence in our taking our place in the world.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
you know very well the ‘World series’ is a silly hang over from a newspaper sponsorship.
and we have ‘World series cricket’ with 3 countries involved,
and we have a ‘National Rugby League’ with 2.25 states involved.
No passtime is meaningless if you enjoy it.
btw – we have a pretty good place in world sport – surely??
Here in MElb we host 1 of 4 Tennis grand slams, 1 of a dozen or so F1 GP’s…..we’re an international sports city, Australia has 2 Olympic cities,……we’ve done mighty well for ourselves. Who is pushing inferiority??
Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Michael C,
Perspective.
Italy 11th July in a packed pub.
French open final between 2 of the greatest players in tennis, 2 Europeans. 1 TV, not sure anyone was watching, I did glance over, but TV too small from where I was. All the other TVs, another 10-12 including large screens were on the WC 1st round match between Serbia v Holland, the whole pub was glued to it.
Ghost said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
MC – yes to tennis, yes to F1, yes to the 2 Olympics. This is the reason why Australia SHOULDN’T have an inferiority complex. But I note that your rebuttal does not include AFL or NRL when these 2 little codes are the real issue at the heart of this debate. I’d have no problems if Melbourne or anywhere else wanted to avoid disturbance to another event that actually had some global relevence and importance. The perversion which creeps in for me is that the biggest furore is being caused by the most pissy little sports.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Ghost – not everything we do locally should be held accountable based on perception on the other side of the world.
Where do you live?
The AFL and NRL are not ‘pissy little sports’ in Australia. They have every right to the business they do.
The AFL by comparison to the vast majority of national leagues in the world is a very,very bid league (let alone if you combine both AFL and NRL).
per capita the AFL is huge compared to other pissy soccer leagues around the world.
Heck, I look to the country of my parents, Denmark, and for a soccer nation to have a maximum capacity stadium being 38,000…..that’s small fry. Sweden 43,000, Norway’s biggest is 25K but they’ve got 3 bigger ski jump ’stadia’.
FInland too, a 60K ski jumper compared to 40K ancient Olympic stadium and the best soccer venue is sub 20K.
It doesn’t say much for the pissy game of soccer in apparent soccer nations. From 4 neighbouring soccer nations, a combined population of about 25 million,….and the best soccer can justify is around a 40K venue.
That, my friend is ‘pissy’.
I look at that and think that what we have with the AFL is actually something pretty damn special.
Don’t tell me McDonald’s is better IN Australia because of it’s global empire, I don’t give a damn that McDonalds might be in Berlin and Moscow. All I care is that the burgers are better at HJ’s and that the chicken is better at Red Rooster. Don’t over complicate things!!!!
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Some facts for you.
In Melbourne, there are 400,000 members/ticket holders of Aussie Rules clubs. There are 20,000 members of the one soccer club. That is a ratio of 20 to 1.
Your game is just not that popular here without parochial ‘Australia’ support. Lots of kids and adults play it but as a spectator sport it’s just above basketball.
Punter said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Hey Redb, your sport gets round the clock media attention, even when football gets a little attention Big Andy D calls in his favours & changes it all around back to AFL.
We live with it.
Brett McKay said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
what can you guys in Melbourne tell us about this e-Gate Stadium in North Melbourne that I’ve just read about. Suggested capacity of 27,000 in AFL mode, temporarily expanded and reconfigured to seat 44,000 in World Cup mode, and all for something in the vacinity of $250M (which from memory is $100M-150M more than what has already been described as ‘too much’ to upgrade Next-Door-To-Olympic-Park Stadium), and thus leaving Docklands for the AFL, should the bid deliver the goods for 9 or 13 years time..
Two questions, three actually.
1. Where’s the money coming from now, that it wasn’t before?
2. If it’s been mooted for a year or so, why has it only come up now? and
3. Is Melbourne still wanting to have its cake and eat it??
Brett McKay said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
“Meanwhile, a new boutique AFL stadium, modified to host World Cup games, has emerged as a possible solution to the venue crisis that threatens to derail Australia’s bid.
The mooted E-Gate stadium – built at the railyard that lies between North Melbourne train station and Footscray Road – would seat 27,000 spectators in Australian rules mode and has been talked about for more than a year. But the Herald has learned that plans also exist that would allow the stadium, which would cost between $220 million and $250 million, to be modified to house 44,000 people for World Cup games.
That would neatly solve the wrangling over access to Etihad Stadium, which the FFA and AFL both say is needed to run their competitions.”
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/england-should-win-hosting-rights-says-britains-high-commissioner-20091209-kk52.html
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
this stadium was first clearly mentioned earlier this year as the AFL was working through contract negotiations with Docklands management.
The notion of a 3rd venue in MElb is a good one, and esp as indicated, around the 25K – 30K mark.
Other options mentioned in passing have included upgrading Carlton oval (that effectively was a victim of a previous time when individual clubs were seeking to go their own way on broadcast rights and the like – and the AFL commission had to force an outcome – — NRL fans, take note!!), also the Showgrounds as an option…..that’s been mentioned for years.
The surprising thing is that this is pushed seemingly ahead of the FFA getting the Melb Bubbledome upgraded to 50,000 capacity and being a stand alone rectangular field legacy from the WC.
THis has of course been a recurring theme (incorrect in some cases) of Fairfax journo’s telling us that Mr.Lowy won’t let something like the WC NOT leave a tangible infrastructure legacy for soccer.
So – we sit here totally confused.
Is $150 mill too much for the Bubbledome?
is $220-$250 mill to much for E-Gate?
isn’t this event all about big money and big spending……is Victoria to be ignored such that $150 mill is too much and they (the FFA) just want to waltz into the MCG and Docklands without putting up anything first??
what price is there for the FFA to not be seeking to railroad the AFL??
That’s the roadblock here.
Perhaps, just perhaps – this is the deal that Buckley and Demetriou are trying to push in Victoria?? If it’s a cute little ‘alliance’ that has been playing out in the public and making fools of the rest of us – just to force govt’s into a decision??….somehow I doubt that. I still reckon we’re only here discussing this due to F.Lowy pushing hard for Docklands and over ruling Buckley.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
I don’t beleive it will get up.
There has been talk of a 3rd AFL stadium (boutique size 25-30K capacity) in Melbourne for maybe 12 months. Nothing to do with the World Cup.
I dont think it solves the issue anyway, 27K is too small for the big Melb v Melb games, Etihad at least can hold 55,000.
Let them build the rectangular stadium properly.
Redb
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
yeah, but Redb – somehow this E-Gate, as proposed by the FFA, can be expanded to 44,000,
the AFL can keep Docklands,
this astounds me,
why wouldn’t the FFA be pushing for the Bubbledome to go to 50K and be cheaper and be permanent??
Brett McKay said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
same artcile, expanded further in The Age…
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/new-stadium-can-end-cup-bid-row-20091209-kk0q.html
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
interesting this snippet about the Guardian story :
”More good news for England’s 2018 World Cup bid”, and reporting that Australian bid officials would have to approach FIFA to ”change the rules” so that rugby league and Australian rules football could continue during the World Cup ”to head off an escalating row with the bigger and better-funded codes”
Now – this is still the point – - all of this really comes down to whether Ben Buckley and Co can simply clarify whether AFL and NRL can get an exemption,
all the stadium solutions in the world might come to nothing.
because, seriously, we all know that the weak precedent in the USofA with Baseball is vastly different to AFL and NRL both running in a country the size of Australia.
If I were a betting person – I’d suggest that that ain’t gonna wash with FIFA, FIFA were willing to compromise to access the USofA.
and people will unfairly attack the AFL and NRL for stopping a bid, that in all fairness – should never have been made with that expectation so crucial to it.
Brett McKay said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
but to be honest MC, it’s not as if MLB was going to be massively affected by the ‘94 WC anyway, since they play in purpose-built stadiums. And anyway, wasn’t the ‘94 WC held in June or July, ie NFL off-season?? I doubt very much they had anything like the stadium “battle” currently being fought on our shores..
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
exactly –
it might’ve been a vastly different proposition – - baseball vs soccer/football – - – different crowds really.
ANd, across a country the size of the US, with 50 ruddy states, and states like California that could do a better job of hosting the WC than Australia……barely a ripple.
For Australia – you’re not talking cities like the US model anyway – the MLB and other main sports – in the main, are 1 team per city.
How would FIFA go giving an exemption to the AFL in Melbourne (9 teams plus Geelong) and the NRL in Sydney-NSW (9 teams plus Canberra).
Just won’t happen.
So, it’s probably all redundant anyway – if the AFL can’t touch Melbourne, and the NRL can’t touch Sydney – - it’s all just too hard for the people that shouldn’t have to be impacted in such ways.
(and as Demetriou said – - FFA can work out the solutions, it’s not the AFL’s job. The FFA has had a crack for the NRL with the ‘NRL displacement strategy’, but, apparently that’s missed the mark…..back to the drawing board).
Rob said | December 10th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Ziggy i like the mix of stadia..Id probably favour a temporary upgrade of Bluetongue to 40k than Townsville It would make a spectacular venue and be much better for travelling fans.
Jameswm said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
OK let’s take it back a step with a very basic question for my benefit.
I’m from Sydney.
Can you give me a list of the main stadia in Melbourne – shape, approx when built and capacity? I get confused with all these re-namings – Etihad, dome, bubbledome etc
In Sydney I’d say – with some verifying
SCG – 1880, circular, 46,000
SFS – 1988, rectangular, 45,000 (highest crowd Aust v Arg WC qualifier in 1994)
Telstra – 1999, sort of circular but can change, 80,000 but can upgrade to 100,000 (eg Olympics)
Bluetongue (Central Coast) – 2000, rectangular and 20,000
Parra Stadium – 1985, rectangular, 22,000
Have I left any significant ones out?
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Melbourne
1850s – MCG 100,000 capacity (upgraded over the years, last in 2005)
2000 – Docklands 55,000 (Etihad)
2010 – Swans St Bubble stadium 31,000
1941 Geelong Skilled Stadium – 23,000, upgrading to high 20s. (Kardinia Park)
Allen said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG)
Capacity approx 100,000
Southern Stand – 1991
Northern Stand – 2005
Oval
Docklands Stadium – aka colonial stadium, telstra dome, etihad stadium
capacity approx 56,000
Opened 2000
Oval shape, can be reconfigured to rectangle ($40,000 cost & 3,000 seats lost)
Melbourne Rectangular Stadium – aka ‘bubble’ stadium
Completion 2010
Capcity 31,000
Rectangle
Other significant discontinued venues for AFL/NRL/Soccer:
Princes Park – AKA optus oval, MC Labour Park
(Owned by Carlton FC)
Aprrox 25,000
Oval
Olympic Park
Approx 19,000
Rectangle (with running track)
Jameswm said | December 10th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Thanks Allen – just what I needed
Can anyone do the same for Brisbane?
Adelaide only really has the Cricket Ground, ditto Perth (WACA and Subiaco).
No wonder I was confused – I’d heard talk of Docklands, Teklstra Dome and Etihad – didn’t realise they were all one and the same.
Upgrading the new Bubble Stadium seems an obvious option – and I recall this being discussed, though the cost being high.
Seems to me the more obvious solution for the WC proposal though is to use Docklands/Etihad and leave the MCG alone. The MCG has a big capacity, but is the wrong shape and if they want 100,000 at the final, they can just upgrade Telstra back to what it was for the Olympics – ie put the extra tiers back at the ends of the ground.
So we have 1 in Melb, 2 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane. That’s 5 venues that should be the main venues used. MCG, SCG, GABBA all continue to be used for the AFL, problem solved. AFL should love the travelling show and encourage the visitors to come along for a look.
In the qualifying rounds, they have 24 games over 3-4 days. If you had 6 stadia, each could house 4 games . If the round was done over 3 days, each of the 6 stadia could have a 2pm game and a 7pm game on one of the three days, then one game each of the other 2 days. If the round is run over 4 days, then a game a day for 4 days.
It’s feasible, but maybe FIFA likes the games spread over different stadia. It’s not like football digs the ground up like rugby, with 1,600kg scrums.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
….heck no…..that’s too much like common sense,
and for now, we’ll have small minded Melb people whinging that Sydney get the final and somehow figuring it’s the AFL’s fault!!!!!
but, yes – as with any of the solutions…….it still comes down to FIFA and any possible exemptions.
I do just think some people liked the idea of a rectangularised MCG for the final with perhaps 115,000 in the gate.
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Well a rectangular MCG would help with International Rules fixtures…
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
touché
Geoff said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Re the rectangularisation (what a word!) of the MCG – I’ve just turned to page 212 of my 1988 edition of The Paddock That Grew where Keith Dunstan writes :
” The Crown Grant said that the land was especially granted inter alia ‘to be at all times maintained and used as and for a place for playing cricket … and when not required for cricket for such other purposes not inconsistent with the foregoing …’ ”
I suspect that that gives plenty of room for some slick lawyer to argue that “rectangularisation” is not “not inconsistent” with being a place for playing cricket.
The Observer said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
How’s this for a solution.
The AFL and NRL commences the season after the Soccer world cup.
Obviously the ROAR, Gold Coast, Fury, Sydney and Newcastle will have to find new homes for their season.
Given the size of their crowds a local park should suffice.
Oh hang on. We are talking 2022. I doubt if half of those teams I mentioned will still be around.
Actually begs the question I suppose. Without winning the rights to host the WC, will the A-League survive
Chris said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Even if Australia win the world cup rights most of the A-League clubs will be dead by then. The A-Leagues crowd average is below even 2005-06 (before the WC sugar high). They better hope Australia gets a good result in the World Cup (ie: Minimum Ro16) or the A-League is truly dead.
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Most stupid post. Ever.
Allen said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
1. Your article is ridiculous because a world cup bid without the country’s 2nd biggest city (& quite possibly biggest city by 2022 if Brumby gets his way) hosting finals games will never get the bid past FIFA. Anyway, us Victorians wouldn’t let it happen & Ben Buckley is a Vic at the end of the day!
2. Games must be played at the MCG no doubt about it, the place is a national treasure. Sure people whine about it being an oval but the really is it is fine for (assoc.) football. I went to Australia v Croatia in Stuttgart in 2006, the place had a running track around it and a ridiculously flat gradient to the stands – FIFA had no problems with it and the fans were happy to be there.
3. I think it is only a fair compromise is to leave the AFL with Etihad during the WC, for the FFA to request both the MCG and Etihad is excessive. Assuming the AFL is allowed to operate during the WC – Start the season two weeks early, play 2 split rounds during the world cup to minimise ground use whilst providing a product for the hundreds of thousands of tourists to sample, whilst giving AFL fans their footy fix. Living without the MCG for 8 weeks is not the end of the world for the AFL, and if anyone can doctor a schedule around it, it is the AFL!
4. Therefore it is basically up to the vic govt. whether to back a second stadium or lose an extra 5-6 games, the AFL would be rubbing their hands together with the prospect of the E-Gate stadium being built for them.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
A very good post encapsulating what most of us have been saying.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
1- Ben Buckley is a Tassie boy, I think he was recruited from Smithton if memory serves me right.
But, he did come up thru the U19s and I think was U19 captain at one stage and senior vice captain.
2- re running tracks – just gotta look at last 2 FIFA WC finals at Yokohama and Berlin, both with running tracks. It’s a furphey that the shape is an issue unless FIFA has really decided to crack down on the 190metre ‘maximal’ perimeter in their documentation.
3- re AFL season – the start the season 2 weeks early etc – - things we don’t know for sure are what AFL strategy is around an 18 team (if not more by 2022), and possible 24 week seasons and extra split rounds and NAB Cup replacements etc…..and the AFL can only move so much without then having to impact on cricket….
4- correct – the AFL aren’t the baddies here. The Vic Govt has the power…..effectively had the power re the Bubbledome. The VIc Govt has for 30 odd years been effectively at war with the AFL/VFL. It’s about time a Vic State Govt made a fair dinkum contribution of their own. I can only assume that a 50K soccer/rugby stadium is deemed a waste of money in Melbourne (even projecting to 2022!??!), and so, it might be easier to get $220-$250 mill for E-Gate than $150 mill for the Bubbledome. It all seems a bit dodgey really!!!
Ziggy the God said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I don’t believe that Melbourne should be left out, and they are not if they play at the Bubbledome.
Ideally, the MCG should be rectangular for the event, because as you know, Football is played on a rectangular pitch.
If this means that the AFL cannot handle the delay, the rest of Australia should not be penalised because one city has an issue. We move on, and give the more important games to a city that wants it.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
the rectangular argument shouldn’t be an issue – Berlin, Yokohama were WC final venues with running tracks and non-rectangular, even Stade-de-France is a multi purpose athletics track capable venue, and the 1994 final in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, have a look…it’s a great big oval stadium too.
Granted – most of those tend to be a little more compact than the MCG – however, the argument that the MCG must be rectangular is weak,
and, this is the sticking point should it come to this – the model FFA identified involves $130 million of major works that puts the MCG effectively out of use for the AFL for the entire season – remember, the AFL has it’s time there, cricket has it’s time there – the AFL can’t just waltz in and start their season on Jan 1 ——- even if that’s what the FFA is effectively trying to do to the AFL.
At any rate – Ben Buckley has in a very circular way, seemingly attempted to suggest that that option won’t be explored further or pushed for.
If we accept that the MCG as is, offered by the AFL for up to 10 weeks – goes to the FFA – - all good.
btw – note, the contract the AFL has with the MCC means that, if the AFL let the FFA have the MCG for up to 10 weeks – the AFL is actually liable for the loss of income incurred by the MCC. How’s that for an illustration of the situation we have here. That’s why, when people say ‘bugger em, there should be no compensation’,….the reality is, for individual business arrangements – there really MUST be compensation of sorts.
Ziggy the God said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
“Granted – most of those tend to be a little more compact than the MCG – however, the argument that the MCG must be rectangular is weak”
From wikipedia:
Berlin: 105m x 70m
Stade-de-France; 105 x 68m
Yokohama and the Rose Ball are fairly similar.
MCG: 174 x 149m
It is not even close, it is either rectangular for the event, or it is out.
Allen said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I think you will find that these are ‘field’ dimensions that don’t take into account the athletics tracks around the ground.
A regulation football pitch for international matches is 105m long and 68m wide.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Correct.
Ziggy the God said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Yes, I stand corrected on that, but you look at this picture of the Stade-de-France, it is nowhere near the size of the MCG (distance from the edge rectangle to the side stands:
http://fr.franceguide.com/images/atf/adherent/833_200706075629.jpg
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
correct re Stade de france which is why is described it rather clumsily somewhat differently to the other venues.
Main thing is – - it makes a ’soccer’ stadium look the exception rather than the rule.
Now – - that’s looking back.
Is FIFA specifically wanting “soccer” stadiums going forwards?? The problem with a rectangle is it’s a really odd shape to make a really good stadium out of…..it’s the corners what wreck it!!!!
Timmypig said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
There hasn’t yet been a World Cup hosted by a nation that has more large ovals than rectangular football stadia. There has been an air of affected indignation as a result of Baroness Aoms’ comments in today’s newpapers, but she makes a pretty good point – where are our suitable venues?
Frankly the MCG holds a lot of people but isn’t ideal for watching football. There are NO FIFA compliant football stadia in Australia apart from Lang Park & the SFS. If we assume that cricket/AFL grounds can be used we can add the SCG, MCG & Docklands (which may not be available for a whole host of reasons, right Pip?). That’s it. And frankly the SFS will be over 30 years old then – it’s starting to get a bit tatty now, it will need a massive makeover too.
We’re facing an enormous bill to rebuild existing venues or build new rectangular venues which will become white elephants. Even if post-World Cup seat reductions take place, will a 30k seat rectangular stadium in Adelaide or Townsville ever get filled again? In Perth maybe, twice a year for Rugby tests or if the Force win a S15 / S?? title, that’s it.
I don’t want to come across so negatively, I really want the World Cup to be hosted by Australia, but I really can’t see it happening. We would face a massive massive bill for stadium construction / reconstruction or take the cheaper option of bidding with cricket / AFL venues that just aren’t suitable, and which in any case need hundreds and hundreds of millions spent on them.
whiskeymac said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
i realise this doesnt mean gosford should have a 60K stadium on par with old trafford or munich but won’t we all need to be upgrading our stadia eventually anyway? with or without a world cup (or Asia Cup etc etc) or Rugby WC the stadiums need to be reconstructed and upgraded to avoid becoming a shambles and OH&S issue eventually.
Junior said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
good article ziggy.
people should also remember that by 2022 melbourne will be the third largest city in australia anyway so little incentive to host any final there. it would be like playing the world cup final in sheffield or portsmouth if england were hosting. or like playing the afl grand final at ted whitten oval.
Allen said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Sorry, to get off topic but which will be bigger?
Melbourne has the highest forecast rate of population growth of all of the capital cities except perth:
Quoting the ABS – http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2007-08~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument
“In 2007-08, Melbourne SD recorded the largest growth of all capital city SDs, increasing by 74,600 people, followed by Sydney SD (55,000), Brisbane SD and Perth SD (both up by 43,400). The population growth in Melbourne SD equated to an average increase of over 1,400 people per week, while the population of Sydney SD increased by over 1,000 people per week.”
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Get your facts right. Based on population models from a couple of years ago Qld may be the 2nd most populous state not Brisbane as a city. It a long way behind. More recent models and actual population growth has Victoria growing at a high rate and possibly Melbourne the biggest city in Australia by 2030.
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Couldn’t the SEQ/NNSW conurbation conceivably have a higher population than metro Melb?
I mean water, power and climate might all be issues for Bleakburg.
Mxjosh said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
My worry is the lack of funds that seem to be present. Most previous world Cup hosts have spent millions on renovating or building new stadiums, yet this doesnt seem likely if Australia win the rights to host the cup. Granted its early days yet but its still concerning
Springs said | December 10th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Solution = No World Cup
Don’t think that the NRL will be fine with FIFA using their stadiums while the AFL goes ahead unobstructed. We are in danger of losing Origin two years in a row and having two disrupted seasons due to Soccer tournaments and stadium upgrades.
AndyRoo said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Origin will not be lost at all. It will be played either earlier or later in the World cup year.
Probably later so that fans can attend the upgraded homebush. There is even talk about playing it after the Grand Final. If the Semi Finals and Grand Final is going to be played in October they could play Origin in August and it would be finished before September which would be one month of regular NRL action for the players to recover before finals football
Having SOO so soon right after the World cup seems the best way to get fans right back into Rugby league as soon as possible
The confederations cup that occurs the year before is just an 8 Team comp and doesn’t have the same requirements as the World Cup. It only needs 4 venues at most.
Springs said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
The FFA’s plan was to play Origin over three weeks, which would basically mean no club games for three weeks. Playing it in August (I assume you mean over three weeks) would not work.
And if fans do not attend the upgraded Homebush (a roof! Yay!) until after the World Cup I guess it is being upgraded in the months before the world cup? Which is further disruption.
AndyRoo said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Their has been a bit of scare mongering in regards to the training venue requirements which to his Credit Richard Hinds (an AFL fan) has allayed
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/soccer-carries-a-big-stick-but-must-maintain-caution-about-using-it-20091209-kk50.html
Whether the FFA’s position is being wilfully misrepresented by the AFL in order to stir up antipathy towards the World Cup bid, or the FFA is unwilling or unable to provide sufficient details, confusion and misinformation about what disruption the Cup would cause abounds.
For example, the AFL and NRL have both said that they might not even be able to play or train at suburban grounds because they would be annexed as training venues for World Cup teams. However, with a training ground requiring only a grandstand that can seat 200 observers, the FFA believes it would be better to install top grade pitches in schools or local clubs where they would leave a lasting legacy rather than being trampled upon by their local tenants the moment the World Cup ended.
Yet, as angry as it might be that its position on such details has been misrepresented, the FFA must avoid the temptation to call on its powerful friends to wield that big stick. Because that is exactly what the AFL, particularly, would like it to do.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
good to see – - this has certainly been a grey area – and that’s (I’ve actually suggested it) is probably the ideal legacy for this tournament (should it happen) to leave rather than 50,000 capacity white elephants.
and if these venues get the full drought proofing upgrades etc then it’s broader community benefit. For the time being, the AFL and NRL community equivalents benefit probably more so from being able to get code funding which helps unlock various level govt funding, soccer I gather struggles in this area.
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Wocka Hadfield who is generally well informed said on RN Breakfast today that the Fed Govt is going to knock a few heads together if this turf war is not sorted sharpish as the WC is regarded as an economic priority.
The Observer said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
What they going to do Pal. Confiscate private property. Get real.
Allen said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
No the AFL / NRL will be asked to waive contracts in good will based upon the fact that they will receive hundreds of millions in upgrades to their stadiums and surrounding infrastructure + some compensation.
Alternatively, the federal government has more than one way to ‘punish’ these sports for stepping out of line – cut grassroots funding, cut funds for ground improvements, alter anti-siphoning legislation etc.
It really is in the AFL/NRLs interest to step aside for a month or so, and for f’s sake we’re talking about 9/13 years from now!
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
mate – what if there is no grass roots funding to cut…..remember, John Howard had this problem when he took on the AFL over the Illicit drugs policy,
he threatened to cut funding,
only to find out that there was less than a million annually and it was helping on indigenous grass roots programs.
The AFL helped bring down Howard…….they can help bring down K.Rudd. Rudd is welcome to try it on for size.
But – it all still comes down to whether FIFA will grant exemptions or not…..it’s hypothetical about what stadiums may or may not be available if FIFA says ‘NO’…..and if ‘FIFA’ says ‘NO’,…
Ziggy the God said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
“The AFL helped bring down Howard”
Please elaborate…………
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
You didn’t notice?? fair enough.
In AFL circles, John Howard made a big song and dance about the AFL illicit drugs policy. Howard came on radio 3AW one morning with Neil Mitchell and was exposed as not realising that the AFL was WADA compliant and that the AFL illicit drugs policy was in addition to that.
Howard was made to look silly after he’d carried on about threatening to pull funding (that wasn’t there) and ‘zero tolerance’ sloganeering etc etc.
Was it the difference at the polls……..of course not – there’s many issues across the country…..but did it help…..sure as heck it didn’t help. Howard, Pyne and Brandis lost a bit of credibility along that journey.
As Redb mentioned – 600,000 club members across the country – - that’s a sizeable single interest lobby group.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
who?
The Observer said | December 10th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
It would be a brave Politician to tell the AFL what to do. 600,000 club members receiving a letter in the mail advising them that a vote for labour is a vote for a disrupted season. GOOD LUCK
Lazza said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Any patriotic, sports loving Australian would want us to host this once in a lifetime event and would be prepared to put up with a bit of disruption.
Are these the same people who crack open the champagne when our country fails to make the World’s biggest sporting event? Most of these dinosaurs should have died off by 2022 so it won’t be a problem.
Tifosi said | December 10th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Ok this from Todays Herald Sun Webpage
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/melbournes-standing-as-nations-sporting-capital-under-threat-by-plan-to-build-roof-over-sydneys-olympic-stadium/story-e6frf7jo-1225808812014
Not sure about the SYdney plan but the end of the article mentioned this
Quote
Melbourne’s new rectangular stadium emerged as a possible alternative.
Builder Grocon revealed the 31,000-seat venue could be easily increased to 40,000.
Do you guys in Melbourne have any clue whatsoever what this stadium can or cant do!!!
Who is running your city !! Sounds like a bunch of amateurs
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
mate – we guys in Melbourne have been going on and on that Demetriou is NOT the road block here,
it’s the FFA who came out back in October (when they were still assuming naively that both the NRL and AFL would just ’shut down’) and nominated Docklands (Etihad) and stated that the Rectangle STadium (Swan St/Bubbledome) was too expensive to expand,
and we all (Redb, Pip and myself were flabbergasted and told you guys so on here…..a few times I believe).
This is between the various levels of govt (as to who funds it) and the FFA,
and the FFA can end up with an expanded stadium of b/w 43,000 and 50,000 that stands as a lasting permanent legacy. Or, do they fear it’ll be too big and too expensive and no good for a HAL with both MVFC and Hearts, and too expensive and big for Storm and the RU Super 15 franchise??? – - I can only assume this is the case if they (the FFA) are willing to push the E-Gate option.
AGain though – - it’s an example of the FFA not being very well thought out and not consulting other codes. Because, from just about day 1, the AFL has indicated that so long as they had Docklands they could manage.
The FFA are the amateurs, but, they are based in Sydney….however, Archie Fraser and Ben Buckley don’t have any excuses!!!!
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
“Melbourne’s new rectangular stadium emerged as a possible alternative.
Builder Grocon revealed the 31,000-seat venue could be easily increased to 40,000.”
Oh FFS!
It is why a little conspiracy theory emerged when Etihad was mooted. The FFA have not been straight, they arent the little angels you think, especially if Frank “no tax’ Lowy is involved.
The property development industry is one of the most corrupt of all. “Godfather impersonation “We know how to get things done”
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
This is a first – “Builder Grocon revealed the 31,000-seat venue could be easily increased to 40,000′
How come no one knew how easy it was going to be until today
I don’t have an issue with the AFL running their comp during the WC but it looks as if the only solution the Vic Govt has to save face by having 2 venues for the WC is to modify the rectangle stadium.
Ofcourse, this should have been planned all along, but if you consider the ban the Etihad owners imposed on the construction of a similar size stadium near the CBD and the usual behind closed doors dealing with the Vic Govt by various stakeholders then maybe it is no surprise that the FFA could not get all answers it wanted from the Vic Govt by the time they put in their bid proposal.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Art -
hang on mate – - the FFA having Ben Buckley and ARch Fraser on board, and the MVFC being very heavily involved (remember, MVFC wanted and could have had a bigger stadium – - but Storm wanted smaller and the state govt compromised in the middle),
it’s amazing how you just don’t want to imagine criticising the FFA.
Look , the AFL do dumb things, have done and will continue to……’cos ain’t no one perfect.
WIll you just admit that the FFA have gone about this all wrong and created a monumental piece of bad publicity where none was required.
This is the FFA’s pet project and they can’t get these sorts of things right!?!?!? If it was only run by soccer heads from Sydney – there’d be an excuse…..but not with Fraser and Buckley at the top.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I should point out – - I say this from this perspective
IF it really is – according to the builder really quite easy to make it FIFA compliant -
then it exposes the FFA as having NOT asked,
so, on what basis do they make a comment that it’s too hard, too expensive.
The FFA have been exposed here. It’s called ‘due dilligence’, we hear it all the time, but, apparently it was never translated to Swiss and back to English and it’s not covered off in the FIFA documents!!!!
(rank amateur hour…..and these dills want to run the ‘biggest show on earth’…….for the soccer folk who tell us AFL folk we don’t realise how big it is…..the problem I think is it’s actually the Australian soccer folk who don’t realise how big it is….them and the Guitari’s.)
KB said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Wait a minute, wait a minute, it was the Melbunian Architects who informed the FFA that it was going to cost half as much to remove the specially designed roof then to increase the capacity to 40K …
How earth can you blame the FFA for not knowing how much the real cost would be… Is the Architect on the Board of the AFL trying to sabotage the WC bid…? Or looking for another high priced project to build… ?
Now suddenly because of the Sydney press releasing new plans to increase the ANZ stadium to 90k the Melburnian Architects suddenly bring out new revised low cost estimates on the Bubble stadium…
What’s going on down there…
Is the Mirvac Group involve…? Bloody sounds like it…
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
KB -
for a laugh – look at this reported in the H-S from back in May:
But Major Events Minister Tim Pallas said the stadium could be revamped to seat 50,000 if Melbourne played a part in future major events such as a soccer World Cup.
“If Melbourne were to play a part in hosting a World Cup we could go to 50,000,” he said.
Mr Pallas said the stadium would be to Melbourne sport what the Opera House was to Sydney culture.
“But hopefully we’re better at sport than they are at culture,” he said.
So, you can imagine everyones surprise (actually, it was rather muted, so, I was surprised) when Buckley/FFA came out saying it was off the agenda.
?????
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
When it comes to stadiums, Its off the agenda until the government says it on the agenda.
FFA’s hands are tied in this respect.
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Ofcourse the FFA are not perfect. I have many issues with them. Especially with the way they run and promote the A-League. And no doubt they could have done things better with their bid.
However, when they went to the Vics and asked we would like 2 venues for the WC as befits a city of our size and importance. What were they given?? Something unsatisfactory for everybody.
The blame game is the easiest game to play – I try and avoid it as much as possible.
But its advice that falls on deaf ears in regards to this issue.
Redb said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Do you think sanity will finally reign (rebuild rectangular stadium) and we get over this acrimony?
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
redb – hopefully yes
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Too sensible a suggestion for this thread.
Michael C said | December 10th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
how about we agree that Demetriou ain’t evil,
Buckley ain’t a dill,
nothing now is or should be necessarily a roadblock
now’s the time for them to sort things out,
and everyone should be happy come May when a workable ‘bid book’ is submitted.
And – it can all come to nought within the FIFA processes anyway no matter how good the ‘bid book’ is.
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
you will have trouble getting Pip to agree to that
Tifosi said | December 10th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
So the conspiracy theory is that the FFA knew it was OK to expand, but said hang on we will claim etihad so the pesky AFL must close down for a season as we will have the MCG as well !!
albatross said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
And don’t forget – the FFA is responsible for global warming. And FIFA did the fix on Princess Di,
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
You’ll have to take that up with the FFA. Don’t forget Frank Lowy’s determination re the round ball code and his goals.
Of course there was an identified cost with re-building the roof at the bubble stadium (drove past it yesterday it looks fantastic) and this was obviously higher than previously thought.
In the background no-one is disputing that Buckley and Demetriou had a gentlemans agreement that the MCG would be given up by the AFL for the World Cup and Etihad would be available to the AFL (I remember the press at the time confirming the intention).
Now if the cost of rebuilding the bubble stadium roof was $150M why would they investigate spending $130M on only ‘temporarily’ rectangularising the MCG? This is where the plot thickens.
Now lets just put the consipracy theory aside as it cant be proven either way and is just speculation. At best then Buckley and the FFA have shown scant regard for the AFL’s competition knowing that in Melbourne it uses and regularly fills the MCG and Etihad. They are the only AFL stadiums for Melbourne in the season, over 60% of all AFL games are played at just these two stadiums.
Demetriou may have hurt the AFL’s image by his actions but I think it was important to take a stand as the FFA were clearly not listening or sincerely trying to work out a compromise.
The re-build of the rectangular stadium is a no brainer. It is for the rectangular codes the foundations had even been built in anticipation for maybe one day hosting a World Cup game. Common sense has to prevail.
The bubble stadium to me looks like a soccer stadium, it has a round ball type design over the roof and would be a spectacular World Cup venue and hopefully will be.
Redb
AndyRoo said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
I think through the confusion is that the 150m figure might be to upgrade Swan Street for Fifa standard but it means the roof would have to be ditched (some other ugly scaffolding would be needed too)
But by 2022 the light show would be old hat so i don’t really see the problem and would much rather they use pretty much our 1 football stadium rather than hijack an AFL oval.
Gee if they do get it sorted we would be pretty devestated if it then goes to Quatar!
Tifosi said | December 10th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
I think i posted this a couple of months back in another post but this is the Inspection report for the brazil 2014 World Cup.
It gives you an idea what FIFA look for when deciding a host.
Its pretty long but will give people a better understanding.
Australia would do very well in some categories but not so well in some.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/mission/inspectionreport_e_24841.pdf
Art Sapphire said | December 10th 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Any rational, reasonable person know what the solution is in regards to the Melbourne venues for the WC.
The city to uses 2 venues. The MCG and an expanded Rectangle Stadium on Swan Street.
The AFL can have Etihad. Its privately owned which causes all sorts of problems and its going to become the AFL’s in 2025.
The rectangle codes should have nothing to do with Etihad. Especially after the AFL takes over and the rectangle codes need their own stadium to host finals and internationals.
Problem solved. So get your finger out Vic Govt and make the announcement.
Kurt said | December 10th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more. The AFL can still shut down for a month whilst the WC is on (something I wouldn’t personally be thrilled about, but if that’s the requirement to make things work then so be it) but the season as a whole can take place relatively undisrupted. Everybody’s happy, particularly those of us who think this whole debate has just got too nasty and unpleasant – and that’s coming from someone who loves a good code-war as much as the next guy.