The ultimate World Cup stadium solution
Roar Pro
By NUFCMVFC, 11 Dec 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, football, MCG, Melbourne, stadiums, Swan Street stadium, world cup bid
121 Have your say
Everyone has seen the articles coming out at the moment regarding the use of the MCG, and more particularly, Docklands Stadium as World Cup venues and the impact it will have on the AFL season.
So there is no need for me to recount this tale in this article.
On the one hand, the claim of the MCG being out of action for 16 weeks from AFL circles was cynical creativity at its best. On the other, there is some merit in allowing the AFL the use of Docklands to enable their season to continue to help ensure minimal disruption and greater harmony.
This brings our attention to why Docklands has had to be mooted in the first place.
Originally the new Swan Street Stadium was mooted as the second venue, but despite being “future proofed” with foundations to allow for 40,000-plus, the unique construction of the roof meant a price tag in the region of an estimated $150 million was required to upgrade it. This is not far off the $130 million that was required for the temporary MCG adjustment into rectangular configuration.
Melbourne loves its sport, it is the sporting capital of the country. Therefore, the Victorian and Melburnian public would not stand for losing World Cup games interstate or to other venues during the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Especially when you consider Melbourne’s pulic transport system and centrality of the CBD is better suited to a World Cup tournament (cue the pictures of Australians celebrating during the 2006 world cup all being of fans at Federation Square).
The Melbourne public will want to host the final. This stoush by sections of the Melbourne establishment, including figures like Barrassi holding a deflated football on the front cover of a major newspaper, undermines that.
The solution therefore, is in the fact that Swan Street is a Government funded stadium (unlike privately owned Docklands who don’t want World Cup games due to lack of profitability).
The State Government should be pressured by the Victorian sporting fraternity (AFL and football/soccer fans and personalities alike) to foot the bill of Swan Street redevelopment.
This can be justified as firstly it was their lack of foresight in allowing an expensively prohibitive roof in the first place, more importantly it is very much in the public (more World Cup games) and state interest (local unity for an iconic hosting of the Final). Federal Government money can be used in part but also towards any modifications to the MCG (for about 8 weeks of course).
There is a strong case that the money is in the public interest. Both the AFL community and the football community win. The AFL community can continue to have their competition played out of Etihad and can continue to have the season play during any World Cup (Baseball was allowed to continue during USA 1994, apparently).
The football fraternity wins because its rectangular stadium gets modified to the point where it is no longer a boutique stadium, but big enough for A-League blockbusters and Socceroos games. Docklands will no longer need to be used which will make local football fans very happy given their intense dislike for the venue.
Also, to use Eddie McGuire’s term, “AFL won’t be giving a free kick to their biggest rival”.
Rugby league and rugby union would be smart in supporting this as well. For the disruption of one season, they get a generational-long adjustment to a major piece of infrastructure suitable to their sport.
This will allow both State of Origin and Union internationals to be played out of a large enough rectangular world-class stadium without having to go through a stadium set to be owned by the AFL (Docklands).
Not to mention the more World Cup games that it will allow to be played in Melbourne, meaning more hosting and training venues built.
This in turn means development of rectangular facilities which can be used by their teams (Wallabies, NSW and QLD) as well as visiting football teams (Socceroos and overseas opponents during World Cup Qualifiers and Asian Cup Qualifiers amongst others like women’s and youth teams).
This way, the infrastructure built won’t become either “white elephants” or only temporary.
Everyone gains from this solution in some way.
All forces, including the fan bases as well as the sporting organisations, should unite and pressure the Victorian Government to spend what would normally be an unjustifiable amount of money on upgrading Swan Street, while ensuring unity behind a bid for the biggest sporting event on the planet.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Gulf influence cripples the FFA again (40)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (53)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (6)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (7)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Redknapp tight-lipped over England job
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (53)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (6)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (7)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)
- Explore:
- AFL, Etihad Stadium, football, MCG, Melbourne, stadiums, Swan Street stadium, world cup bid
Kurt said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Yep, spot on, couldn’t agree more. Personally I’m not fussed one way or the other about how many WC games Melbourne may or may not have, who hosts the final etc. but this seems the only realistic solution to an increasingly nasty and poisoned debate.
I do have to chuckle about the whole can it / can’t it be extended issue with the new stadium. Some people may find this confusion staggering, but to me it mirrors the sort of thing that happens all the time in my industry (IT): Customer: “So this application is fully extendable and can be easily integrated with other solutions?”. Vendor: “Sure, sure it can, no problems”. One year later…Customer: “We’d like to integrate your application with another system now; Vendor: “No problems, that’ll cost ten gazillion dollars and take a team of 300 developers in 6 countries working around the clock for the next ten years”. Customer: “WTF! You said it could be easily integrated with other solutions!?” Vendor: “Yes, that’s right, it can be, but you didn’t define easy…”
Freud of Football said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:33am | Report comment
“Everyone has seen the articles coming out at the moment regarding the use of the MCG, and more particularly, Docklands Stadium as World Cup venues and the impact it will have on the AFL season.” – Why couldn’t you just stop there?
Why do Roarer’s feel the need to try and solve this issue? It’s not like any of us have any idea and yet the comments run into the thousands and every day there are new posts from the crowd and the journo’s on this issue, how to get it to work, what the benefits are blah blah blah.
You won’t be able to write any “Ultimate World Cup Stadium Solution”s in a Roar article, you’d need an army of people to consider the aspects of planning, finances, transport, infrastructure, planning etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
There are people doing this for a job, hopefully qualified people so why do we need to bother trying to come up with a solution when it’s impossible for you to do anything more than scratch the surface?
Kurt said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:38am | Report comment
So what you’re saying is people shouldn’t comment on anything online unless they are in expert in all aspects of the issue and in full possession of all the facts? Well, there goes the World Wide Web.
Freud of Football said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:42am | Report comment
No, by all means comment, I’m saying that it is totally pointless.
Your opinions on the Henry handball or the European betting scandal, that’s where internet Users can truly made themselves heard, tangible things but this is BIG business, like anyone here has any idea about the aspects that are involved.
It’s a total waste of time reading these articles and they multiply by the day.
Chris said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
I might not be an engineering expert, but I am an expert in common sense (which seems to be a good few steps beyond the “expert” who decided to build the “expandable” MRS sans “compatible roof”).
Until amateurish mistakes like this aren’t made by the so called “experts” I think anyone has the right to comment.
Freud of Football said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Thankyou Chris, for justifying my argument. It doesn’t matter if you’re an expert engineer, that is only ONE aspect out of hundreds to be considered, this is a multi-billon dollar event that needs to be planned right down to the last detail which means they need a few more experts than an engineer.
An expert in common sense probably won’t help a great deal either unlesss you know a lot about infrastructure, transport, building hotels, upgrading roads and have the ability to plan it all, I think there was an opening over at Cricket Australia though for someone with your skills.
Chris said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
They once tried a society where the “experts” controlled everything. It was called the Soviet Union. Went well too…
Freud of Football said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Thanks again Chris for lending weight to my argument by discrediting yourself.
Comparing the WC or organising a WC with socialism?
Last Minute Hero said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Then stop reading the articles. By all means, set an example by being the first to **** off.
Freud of Football said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Wow, that is a pretty big call there, hope you feel better now that you got that off your chest.
Have you actually followed these articles for the last week? I think not.
Alex said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:17am | Report comment
Not really a solution. More wishful thinking.
A-League blockbusters? That’s optimism I must say.
NUFCMVFC said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:00am | Report comment
Melbourne Victory have pledged to play “Blockbusters” at Etihad, even though the crowds don’t justify it at the moment, but this would hypothetically no longer need to be the case…
Alex said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
By that standard even the Super14 has Australian ‘blockbusters’.
mahony said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Have you been to s MVFC v. Sydney or Adelaide game Alex. Fantastic stuff. Gets the blood pumping form a week before. If it is not your ‘cup of tea’ that is fine too. When I think of Essendon / Carlton or Souths / Roosters – who am I kidding. I don’t even think of these games.
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
mahony,
I’ve been to a Melb v Sydney A League game and it has nothing on a Essendon v Carlton blockbuster beleive me.
Redb
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
That’s understandable from your point of view. You are an AFL fan
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
As are hundreds of thousands of Melbournians. Penny dropped yet?
captain nemo said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
actually red, no it hasn’t.
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
What that AFL is bigger than the A-League. WOW, I’m surprised it took so long for the penny to drop.
Not sure what your issue is Redb?
Sydney V Melbourne gets some pretty good blockbusters, 30-35K, nothing compared to AFL yes, but still for a league that averages 10K that is considered an blockbuster. Don’t need to compare with AFL, you are bigger, happy. You are the most popular.
Just from a A-League point ofview it’s a blockbuster.
I’ll repeat for your sake, A-league is not as big as AFL, not even close.
So what is your point?
Chris said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
It’s also understandable from the point of view that there were 60,000 more people at the AFL game.
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Yep, no issues there, AFL is far bigger than the A-League, can’t argue there.
I’ve been to afew AFL matches in Sydney & it doesn’t compare with what I experience at A-League match with SFC.
Why because I’m a football fan.
AndrewM said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Well I have been to an Australia vs uruguay and it had it over ANYTHING. Best atmosphere at an Australian sporting event ever.
Alex said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Sadly, I am from Sydney and I have been to a few FC matches with very little satisfaction. It really is a non event up here. nobody knows it’s on really. Has nothing on the atmosphere I experienced at the odd Chelsea game I got to in the UK or the shattering passion of the Welsh at Millenium. Australians generally do seem rather dull at sporting events unless it comes to a shoot out of course. All rhetoric, no substance.
God, why are Australian football supporters so dull? World game? Beautiful game? At least in Europe such statements are made a bit tongue in cheek.
AndrewM said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
You sound like the biggest t0sser mate.
Turner said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
How can you judge that? I imagine the RWC final against ENGLAND was probably more intense. Down to the wire and against a side most Australians can find on a map. I must agree with Alex though. The Welsh provide something that has no comparison in this country. A decent national anthem to begin with haha.
I’d love to have an interest in Australian football but the supporters here are too pretentious for my liking.
NUFCMVFC said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:59am | Report comment
Is in part “wishful” thinking, in truth we have only heard vague comments about the roof cost being prohibitive, in yesterdays Herald Sun there was a vague reference to Grocon saying the stadium is “easily expandable” – for $150 million. Hopefully through this debate the processes required will now be constructively scrutinised
One argument I forgot to directly mention, is that with the AFL season there is a lot of local (Victorian) economic activity associated, so the less disruption to AFL season as possible and the more this is able to continue the less the economic disruption to the Victorian economy
With an extra World Cup group games (perhaps an extra group or so, this will bring in extra tourists during the World Cup, and all the associated extra hotels and business generated will help to create more jobs etc (not just the Stadium, there is a lot of extra fans catered for by live sites). Imagine each game consists of 20k locals (on selling to tourists…?) and 20k tourists (roughly), They spend $1000 in Melbourne, 20,000 x $1000 = $20,000,000, times 3 games = perhaps $60 million right there perhaps. A bit more complicated than that due to Corporate seats but one can see how revenue can be generated to quite feasibly cover the high upgrade costs
Not in a position to do the sums, but there is a lot of extra revenue in there that I am confident would cover the $150 million by allowing AFL season to continue while ensuring capability for more games, with some of the profits of the World Cup being used to boost Hospitals,Schools etc to placate the naysayers. There is no argument that the upgrading of the new Swan Street stadium would be a White Elephant due to year round usage by MVFC, Heart, Storm and SUper 15 side, + filling to capacity for Socceroo ACQ and friendlies, A League finals as well as Wallabies games and Melbourne based State of Origin
So, in a lot of respects there is some argument that the State Government can’t afford not to have two stadiums being used, while it is also in the interest to ensure the “AFL economy” continues
Food for though, the issue certainly needs thorough and constructive debate
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
NUMFCMVFC excellent piece – I posted the same solution last night on another thread.
Melbourne 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.
But ofcourse the answer is still to difficult to see for the powers that be even when its staring them right in the face.
Lets hope sanity finally prevails.
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
err the ‘solution’ has been mentioned about 50 times over the past few days.
The Bear said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Perhaps if some dumbarse didn’t incite people with comments about scrapping the AFL season in a media conference, then we would not be wasting our time with such idle chatter.
Kurt said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Once again, agree completely, but I believe this outbreak of stinginess from various states may have a very sound economic basis. According to the AFR earlier this week:
“Hosting the world cup will cost Australians up to $2.9 billion in new & upgraded stadiums and some states could be left worse off for their involvement, according to confidential federal government analysis. A PWC business case prepared for the government and obtained by the AFR predicts the nation will get $354m in net benefits, in today’s dollars, from hosting the tournament in 2018 or 2022.”
The report goes on to attempt to quantify both costs & benefits and ‘scores’ the economic benefits for each state from hosting the WC, with 1.0 being a break even:
NSW 1.66
QLD 1.11
VIC 2.29
WA 0.76
ACT 0.5
So in other words spending another $150m on extending a stadium is likely to halve the net economic benefits – a massive hit on an already reasonably modest ROI.
Those with an AFR subscription can read the article here:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/cup_stadiums_to_cost_bn_gcHyLfjzfemn6dzWK78QBP
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Good points NUMFCMVFC & Art, I also think FIFA & FFA will also not ask the AFL to stop playing during the WC, so everyone will be happy.
The Bear said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
There are options open to all now, Etihad dome have “spoken up” and invite the World Cup games. Ooops, that makes AD look a little silly, now… Damn Fifa and their corrupt ways, forcing it’s way into our Victoria!! ; )
2006 World Cup said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Sure – as long as World Cup Games and AFL games can be played on different days in the same week – that’s no problem at all.
In fact – the AFL is happy to play on the weekend with World Cup games on the weeknights – why on Earth hasn’t this solution been played up before?
You’d have to suspect the FFA is itching for a fight by not even considering playing games concurrently at these venues, its the easiest solution and the AFL is only too happy to oblige.
What’s the problem? Who is ths stumbling block?
Chuq said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
You aren’t seriously asking what the problem is with playing other sports on a WC venue during the WC?
You ARE being facetious aren’t you?
Punter said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Chuq, this guy or girl has no idea. Blind faith in something can be very dangerous.
Turner said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Haha look who’s talking.
NUFCMVFC said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
The problem with Collins suggestion yesterday of using Etihad for WC games on weekends and AFL games weeknights (or vice versa) is that the WC stadiums have to be “clean” (meaning Etihad would have to be taken down if it was to be used) and can’t be used for other sports, that is what the issue with the MCG was, because to ‘rectaqnuglarise’ it and turn it back would take 16 weeks or so
Of course if Etihad can be set aside for AFL, they can host Melburnian based AFL games at Etihad when there are no Melburnian based WC games on at MCG or Swan Street to ease the load on public transport etc, they may even get a few tourists in as well
Jameswm said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I agree – but how suited will the MCG be to football? I understood Etihad was easier to change to a rectangular stadium?
One stays with AFL, the other goes to WC. Seems obvious. Which way round – does it matter than much?
The Bear said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
That’s a bit rough. Regardless if it’s true.
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
certainly not true,
certainly is rough,
and certainly not a welcome post on theRoar.
ren said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
isn’t this pretty much demetriou’s plan- the AFL continues to play out of docklands, whilst soccer can borrow the mcg and the governments rectangle ground. it seems the only people not considering this is ffa and soccer nuts who beliee they have this god given right because ‘it’s the world cup’ and ‘it’s more important than anything’. sorry for the artistic license but still not far from the mark.
another note- not much has been made of where the WA or SA teams will blay if soccer uses subiaco (or the replacement ground which is to be preimarily an oval for football) and if they use adelaide oval.
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I do reckon half the problem is that this bid requires multi-lateral agreement, is requiring major concessions and compromise on behalf of domestic competitors and it is not being arranged by the FFA.
Perhaps FIFA only deals with soccer/football associations,
however – this particular bid – - to be successful, really needs an independant multi-lateral organising committee.
Being an FFA run affair really makes it look doomed to failure.
Now – if we had a committee of govt, AFL, NRL and soccer bosses plus whomever……an ‘independant commission’ style arrangement……consensus and compromise might be more easily achieved in a non-secular setting and with far less …… how was it put ‘fear and loathing’.
AndyRoo said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
a comittee of Govt, AFL NRL…. that would lead to a piss poor event. Too many chefs, there will at some stage have to be tough decisions made and not everyone will be a winner. The key is to minimise that and I think the AFL stance “take the MCG for 10 weeks but leave Etihad” is fine, thats all you need to know from them.
Tell them what you need stadium wise and if they need to take a two week break or such. After that trying to schedule their comp for them is ridiculous, who knows what is best for the NRL in 2022.
In regards to the NRL I think the FFA could probably just walk in and book the stadiums for June/July 2018/2022 the funding for these stadiums wasn’t as convuluted as in Melbourne so their is no 30 year leases or NRL ownership. But it’s courtesy to involve them and let them plan accordingly.
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
A key element is that certain infrastructure – on current and foreseeable modelling – certain infrastructure that would be required is ONLY viable because of the non-soccer football codes.
A lot of the expense is only justifiable because of such,
and a lot of the facilities are only available because of such,
so….the govt has to be really careful how they go about this,
and the FFA & Govt would super naive to beleive that the AFL for example might need to go without all it’s major stadiums and play around the countryside even IF (and a huge if) FIFA gives AFL and/or NRL an exemption,
now – could you imagine if FIFA said, yes, but, we won’t exempt BOTH the AFL and NRL………that’d see the excrement hit the air circulator!!!
AndrewM said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Listen this is a once in a life time event.. To host the biggest sporting event in the world.
For the AFL and NRL to move to other grounds and face disruption for 2 months, for 1 year, once in a life time, is NOTHING. Especially if they will get compensation, which they will.
It is absolute discrace what the AFL is doing and just highlights the fact that the “empire” is evil.. No wonder the NRL hates them, they are a bunch of c**ts..
The infrastructure is government owned… It doesnt belong to the AFL. They new that they had to let the MCG go, but they knew that they could make it really hard and derail the bid by not giving up the docklands stadium..
I really really hope that we get th WC in 2022 and that AFL’s popularity slides majorly.. I have had it with them..
Everyone in sydney thinks they are a bunch of c**ts too. I was listening to talk back radio and it was unamious.. Bad move AFL.
Michael C said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
yeah – but, thus far, Kate Ellis has said nothing to indicate compensation and left everything at the level of the benefit of infrastructure upgrades…….at this point for the AFL, that doesn’t mean anything.
The AFL would get that anyway in Perth and Adelaide and big projects have only been held up over there due to uncertainty caused by possible WC bids.
re “The infrastructure is government owned… It doesnt belong to the AFL.”
Docklands is NOT govt owned, not one cent of GOvt cash went into it’s construction. It is privately owned/managed for 25 years with the AFL having a 25 year lease. THe AFL paid $30 million (that’d be $30 millon more than any govt or other sports body) and have the options after 25 years to assuem total ownership for a nominal fee of $30.
So – get over your hatred of the AFL over Docklands (Etihad) stadium – - this is a pretty unique situation in this country.
The AFL has indicated from the start that they intend to play on at Docklands – - it was a pretty inflammatory act for the FFA to nominate the venue as required.
re the MCG. WHilst it IS state owned. It is privately and exclusively managed by the MCC (contracted until 2042). THey have a water tight contract with the AFL presently stretched to 2037. The present configuration of the venue cost $576 million with only $77 mill of state funds and zero Fed funds (feds have put some into the National Sports Museum inside the stadium). The $499 million not funded by govt is from the MCC, and they generate their revenue from the AFL (2.8 million attendees annually, about double the business that Wembley stadium does with soccer/rugby). The AFL is actually liable to the MCC – - however, moot point – the AFL has said all along that they will vacate the MCG for as much as 10 weeks – but don’t see more than that as viable.
SO – - please, tell me where the AFL has gone wrong??? Or do you just hate them no matter what??
AndrewM said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
Michael,
The AFL is not stupid it knows very well they had no chance of stopping the football from playing at the MCG as its government owned.
What they realised was that of all the stadiums required to host the event they needed to use docklands.. AFL knows that they have the power to accept or refuse this right.. and refusing is what I deem to be sabotage.. We are talking about 2 months out of 100 years. This is childs play.
Pathetitic tatics from the AFL and I hope that it burns them!
Which other code has caused disruption to the bid???? how many? 1.. the AFL..
They are like the bully at school.. And you knwo what? the bully always grows up to be a loser in the end!
NUFCMVFC said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Plenty of Infrastructure, NRL has suburban grounds + it can use the SCG (set aside) at the same complex as SFS as can AFL in Sydney
In Brisbane they can use Gabba as FIFA WC would use Suncorp, perhaps Broncos can use Gabba as well for a little while, or Ballymore. GC has Carrarra
In Melbourne, AFL can use Etihad + some suburban grounds like Kardinia and Princess Park. FIFA WC can use MCG and Swan Street
One issue is Adelaide, this new Adeliade OVal redevelopment may require the $100 million to be upgraded to FIFA requirements, but perhaps the SANFL will maintain AAMI/Football Park which could be used. I don’t know what their plans are?
Perth will still have Subiaco, not sure what the plans are but I think there is a new stadium coming (rectangular or multi-purpose?)
If FIFA can exempt Baseball, which is economically bigger due to the US market, and has more international profile than the AFL or Rugby League (Japan, Cuba etc) and so is a bigger “competitor”, it can exempt the AFL and NRL which are smaller than Baseball despite them being more direct competitors as “rival” football codes. Not sure what the deal regarding Union would be though, not sure they would allow for a touring Test side during the world cup, but that can be gotten around
The rectangular stadiums and facilites can be used by the 3 rectangular codes so they wouldn’t be ‘White Elephants’. Some of the sports science type facilites can be used by everyone. Can see Geelong being a training base, the state of art equipment used would be picked up by the Cats afterwards presumably,
Chuq said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I’m pretty sure “soccer nuts” would much rather play the games at MCG and Swan St and leave Docklands. I don’t think anyone wants World Cup games played at Docklands, except for the Herald Sun because then the can manufacture turf wars and rile people up and sell more newspapers.
AFL fans want the WC out of Docklands
Football fans want investment in rectangular venues (Swan St).
Art Sapphire said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Even though the MCG is not perfect for football. It has hosted WC qualifiers in the past. It does not need to be reconfigured.
The way I see it working out Is that the MCG will host the opening game + ceremony and the final game will be played at the revamped Sydney Olympic Stadium. The 2 Olympic venues to open and then close the tournament. Perfect
I’m a Melburnian but I’m not blindly parochial.
Bill said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
MCG is great for cricket and Aussie rules but terrible for soccer & the rugby codes. Why waste money doing a temporary reconfiguration of the MCG? Leave the MCG to the AFL and play the WC out of Docklands.
Redb said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Capacity is the issue there. The MCG can host a WC semi final, final or open/close ceremony.