By Chuq -
December 20th 2009 @ 1:15am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Will Tasmania be part of the World Cup?
A couple of weeks ago, Hobart’s Mercury newspaper published an article about two young Tasmanians and their aim to see Hobart host the 2020 Olympics. Of course it isn’t realistic, and their bid is more an example of patriotism and humour, with venues such as “David Foster Stadium” and “Regina Arena” being proposed.
However, it served as a reminder that Tasmania appears to be missing out on a very real opportunity of something bigger – hosting one of the twelve venues required for Australia’s 2018/2022 World Cup bid. Although there were whispers earlier on about Tasmanian venues being used, there hasn’t been any noise as of late.
The effect on Tasmania would have been amazing. Like the rest of the nation, the state would have received a massive tourism boost and unprecedented international television coverage. More importantly, it also would have filled one of the gaps in our state’s sporting infrastructure.
For its size, Tasmania has a great range of international sporting venues. We have York Park and Bellerive Oval – two excellent oval venues for AFL and cricket, and now, both with lights. The Hobart Aquatic Centre, Tasmanian Hockey Centre and Domain Tennis Centre have all been recent recipients of funding for redevelopments and have hosted international events or matches.
We have some of the world’s best natural venues for sailing (Derwent Harbour), rowing (Lake Barrington) and canoeing/kayaking (Cataract Gorge). A rectangular football stadium – suitable for soccer, rugby union and rugby league – is the notable exception.
The cost of the venue is the obvious impediment – at the moment, such a venue wouldn’t have a permanent tenant. This only makes being part of a World Cup bid all that more important – if we miss out on this, we won’t get another chance for a long time. How much would it be worth to the state government to get tens of thousands of people into the state for a few weeks, and get the name ‘Tasmania’ in front of 4 billion people worldwide? Assuming 50% federal funding and 50% state funding, I think the economic benefits would more than compensate for the capital outlay.
In June this year, the FFA announced that they had commissioned plans for a series of 25,000 capacity venues which would be upgraded to 45,000 with temporary seating. This model would be ideal for Tasmania – in fact the “temporary seating” could be rebuilt into a smaller venue in Launceston after the World Cup, leaving both cities with a legacy. As well as a potential HQ of Football Federation Tasmania and Rugby Tasmania, they could be used by a Tasmanian A-League team (at all levels – mens, womens, youth, pre-season, regular season, finals and ACL matches), national teams such as Matildas and Olyroos – even the Melbourne Storm (NRL) or Rebels (Super 15) might be interested in “selling” a game a year to Tasmania in the same way that Hawthorn does.
An occasional Socceroos match? Well, a mid-winter match in Hobart would certainly provide us with an advantage over players from middle eastern climates!
Could Tasmania cope with such demand? The tourism industry has been booming, even throughout the global financial crisis – perhaps because more Australians are holidaying at home rather than overseas.
Accommodation throughout the entire state would be at capacity, even the remote tourist resorts at Strahan, Cradle Mountain and Freycinet – visitors would think nothing of travelling three hours from these locations to Hobart for World Cup matches. Extra accommodation could be provided by cruise ships, similar to the 2007 Cricket World Cup in the West Indies.
There have been suggestions that an upgraded York Park would be used; and although it would be the Tasmanian ground that would be most likely to use the extra capacity afterwards, it would be a wasted opportunity to provide a “legacy to football” – something that FIFA encourages – to the state.
Unfortunately, all of this appears to be a pipe dream at the moment, as Tasmania is not included on Football Federation Australia’s proposed list of venues. The Tasmanian government is the only state government not to have made a public comment about their participation in the World Cup bid, even though in June, FFA chairman Frank Lowy stated that “every state, including Tasmania, would be involved in hosting the World Cup if the Australian bid succeeded.”
The state government needs to ensure that Tasmanian venues – either new or existing – are available to act as a training camps to 2 or 3 nations (perhaps Netherlands or Denmark, given both our distant and recent history?) during the World Cup so that we are not excluded completely. The current leaders of our three political parties – Premier David Bartlett, Will Hodgman and Nick McKim – are all young, progressive and full of enthusiasm for the potential of our state – they need to work to make this happen before it is too late.
And who knows, maybe we’ll have a shot at the Commonwealth Games in the near future?
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(39)
Chris said | December 20th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Why would Australia include this state in a world cup bid?
a) No stadium (and there is no point building a stadium for three games, only for it to be dismantled afterwards).
b) No people (and what people there are are divided between North and South).
Chuq said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Your comment is a poor attempt at trolling, but I’ll bite anyway:
a) No stadium – I don’t know if you actually read it, but construction and “re-construction” of a venue in Tasmania to make it a useful asset afterwards is one of the main points of the article.
b) No people – oh of course, we only have 500,000 people – the same as Newcastle and the Gold Coast, and more than Canberra, all of which are proposed host cities. Even taking only Hobart’s popuation (240,000) into account, thats more than Townsville, and larger than World Cup host cities in Germany (Kaiserslautern) and South Africa (Nelspruit), and way more than Townsville.
But of course, it’s Tasmania isn’t it?
Timmuh said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Kaiserslauten is only 117 km from Frankfurt (population 670k in the city itself, around 2.25million in the “urban area”), an advantage that Hobart does not have.
Chris said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Newcastle, the Gold Coast and Canberra have their populations in the one area. That is the difference. All the other cities you mentioned actually have rectangular fields in the first place – and some ongoing demand for rectangular fields.
I’m sorry – I just don’t see the point in building a 40,000 seater rectangular stadium in Tasmania for three or four games. Especially when there is absolutely no ongoing demand for one.
Lastly, please tell me you didn’t just compare Hobart (with one small airport not even capable of handing 777s – let alone Jumbos) to Kaiserslauten (with 20 million people within a three hour drive)?
Chuq said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Can you tell me which Australian cities *do* have 20 million people a three hour drive away?
Hobart is, by the way, a one hour flight from 4 million and a two hour flight from 9 or 10.
Australia is in a unique situation where we have a few very large cities and many small ones.
Warren said | December 20th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Actually, HBA is rated for 747 ops (with some weight limits) and has been since the 80’s. SIA 777 charter flights have landed there in the past, as have other large aircraft on their way to the Antarctic.
If you can’t even get a small fact like that right, what else are you just making up to support your “argument”?
BTW, the one thing that does tend to bring Tassies together as one is an opportunity to stick it up you know-it-all north islanders who think we can’t do something.
Beast-A-Tron said | December 20th 2009 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
“Why would Australia include this perpetual embarrassment of a state in a world cup bid?”
Well what do you expect, this is the state that gave us the Greens!
Central North said | December 20th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Wow. Why the vitriol? What’s poor little Tassie ever done to you Chris!!
On topic, I think it’s a long shot. But it’s a nice place. And it’s a shame no-one thinks Tassie is worth a team – of whatever orientation – of its own.
Timmuh said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
“Could Tasmania cope with such demand?” No.
Tasmania can not cope with hosting World Cup games, from an accommodation or transport perspective, or from the point of view of doing anything with a suitable stadium. Tasmania may be a state, but it is entirely regional. Hobart is the same size as Geelong, Woolongong or the Sunshine Coast and the rest of the state can not be considered part of the same market. Geelong and Woolongogn have the advntage that they are close enough to Melbourne and Sydney for accommodation not to be such a problem, and are far better porpositions to host games than Hobart. Canberra has withdrawn because it can’t cope with the accommodation demands with its massive fly-in/fly-out workfirce and huge per capita hotel and service apartment ratio. If Canberra cam’t cope, Tasmania isn’t even at question.
Two things Tasmania can never afford to host: FIFA World Cup games, and a full time AFL club. Even an A-League club is a highly dubious proposition.
Chuq said | December 20th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
I would think the opposite would also apply if you consider it from the perspective of taking the game to the fans – Geelong and Wollongong are close to major centres and thus people from those areas will be able to travel to see games, whereas people in Tassie won’t.
This of course doesn’t take into account the fact that tickets would be extremely hard to get anyway …
Hobart, unlike Canberra, is a highly tourism focused economy – and as I said in the article, it is a constantly growing industry. There will be improvements that need to be made, but that applies nationwide.
Timmuh said | December 20th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Hobart is highly tourist focussed, but doesn’t come close to the accommodation demands of Canberra. Even by the standards of other cities Hobart doesn’t have huge accommodation availability on a per capita basis. Hobart’s tourism focus doesn’t come from being a major tourism hot-spot, but because Tasmania has has few other industries of any size. A relatively small, per capita, industry is over-stated ona percentage of economy basis because of the small per capita GDP. (Tasmania has done well through the GFC as aresult, the debt-fuelled boom largely by-passed Tas.)
It is their proximity to Sydney an Melbourne that means they may make the viable hosts, thought Geelong certainly has big problems regarding a suitable ground as well. It would have to be Kardinia Park drastically remodelled, and is probably not viable – but is far better positioned than Hobart.
For Geelong and Wollongong games, Melbourne and Sydney accommodation can used; good highways and trains run between the cities and their respective nearby big cities. It might not be as good for “taking the game to the fans”, but they may be able to host games
Ben of Phnom Penh said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
This could be a good move if the accommodation situation could be resolved. Certainly the cruise ship concept has merit though I’m unsure as to whether it would satisfy the surge in demand. A pan-state approach to accommodation would need to be adopted and this would raise the transport issue.
I’d like to see the numbers however I think the broad concept, particularly from a legacy perspective, is of merit.
As for populations and the A-League, I was initially skeptical of the Fury’s chances however on the face of it they seem to be going well indeed.
Chris said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Apart from losing $50,000 a week you mean?
Sally said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Tasmania should remain sports-free all year round, unless they want to get involved in the same immature sport squabbles between other states and codes. It’s not worth it Tassie. It’s childish. Stay away from sports fanaticism as much as possible, be the place people find respite and to get away from all the madness. Just have to read some of the commentators here who literally live, squabble, moan and whine here daily – there’s way way way more to life than being an armchair sports pundit 24/7.
Tom said | December 20th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Not the worst idea Sally. I love sport as much as the next person but Australia’s obsession does go too far. There are definately more important things. Not sure anyone could convince Taswegians that they should be an outpost retreat for non sport lovers though…
Viscount Crouchback said | December 20th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Steady on, old girl. Australia was built on the back of rugged, hairy, sporty types. It’s a bit too much to be banning them from Tasmania.
Forgetmenot said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
You have got to be joking that you could build a rectangular stadium in Tasmania.
It is most likely the most supportive state of football in the country.
Aurora stadium could be upgraded to host WC matches, but a brand new rectangular stadium, you are basically trying to milk this WC bid for all its worth.
Timmuh said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Even upgrading of York Park or Bellerive would be a massive cost, and then another massive cost reverting them to not much more than they are now. The costs involved for those three games (if a whole group was to be played in Tasmania) would quite possibly greater than the money spent so far on both grounds combined.
And both are large ovals that provide very poor viewing for games on rectangles (the A-League pre-season game at York Park can move to one wing to provide better viewing because it draws about 6000, this is not an option with a full house.)
If Tasmania was not a separate state it would not even be mentioned – can anyone imagine the Hunter Valley getting games if Newcastle didn’t exist? That is a broad approximation to Tasmania, except Tasmania’s sporting grounds are all for Australian Football (the analogy falls down in a few areas, but is a rough equivalent).
Chuq said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
“but a brand new rectangular stadium, you are basically trying to milk this WC bid for all its worth.” It could be argued that by upgrading York Park it is the AFL trying to milk this WC bid for all its worth!
K.B. said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Chuq,
precisely….! ! ! !
Thomas Neale said | December 26th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Aurora Stadium able to be upgraded to host World Cup games, that’s a laugh. It’s almost as funny as those who believe the MCG is a great football stadium. The former can’t and the latter isn’t. 150m wide ovals don’t cut the mustard.
K.B. said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Chuq,
yes indeed the Tasmania FC could become the Villarreal CF of Australian Football… Look to the future it has all of the hallmarks of that famous old Spanish Club… Come 2018 with Australia winning its first historic FIFA WC bid… Tasmania FC could have a HAL team with its own 25k all seated rectangle stadium and an entrant into the lucrative ACL tournament…
What a wonderful opportunity for Tasmania and its inhabitants with a population of 500k it would be; this can be achieved if the Tasmanian Government has the foresight to become one of the WC states… All the ingredients are there providing the Tasmanian Gov backs the WC bid….
A 25k all seated stadium would work not only for football but for the entire 3 rectangle codes you have mention in your article—no need to reiterate what you have proposed but to say it is achievable… If a tiny Spanish town with its tiny population can achieve such success with a Football club with its small population of only 48 thousand people, then Tasmania FC with 500k population is a walk in…. Good luck and keep up the campaign for Tasmania to enter the 21st century with a fulltime professional HAL Football club….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villarreal_CF
“Vila-real [1] is a Spanish city in the province of Castelló, in the Valencian Community. Located 7 km to the south of the province’s capital (Castelló de la Plana), at 42 m above sea level, it has 48,000 inhabitants (2005 data), most of them living in the urban area that covers about 10.72% of its county’s 55.4 km2 surface. Ranked by population, it is the second city in the province (following the capital), and tenth in the Valencian Community.”
~~~~~~
KB
Chuq said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
One other thing I didn’t mention in the article – a rectangular stadium in Tasmania (and Adelaide as well) would lessen the effect of the AFL/NRL compensation claims. They would not have any winter tenants, so if the other codes escalate their price too high, it may be cheaper to build rectangular stadiums in the above two cities!
It’s similar to the National Broadband Network – the original plans for a $20billion fibre-to-the-node network that would require access to Telstra’s network, was scrapped in favour of the $43billion fibre-to-the-home network – it was a lot more expensive but gave a better end result and negated the need for extended and costly legal wrangling with Telstra.
Mister Football said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Good point – increase the cost of the World cup to billions upon billions by building more white elephants that will never be used again.
jimbo said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
The Olympic Stadium and Olympic Complex in Sydney is one of the most used in the country and a treasure for all Sydneysiders. Its not just used for Swans games.
Additional facilities also increase competition, reduce hiring costs and therefore ticket costs for patrons.
The more sporting facilities in Sydney, Tasmania, Newcastle or wherever the better – if you don’t want a WC in your city.
K.B. said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
White Elephant…??? You didn’t read Chuq article properly did you…? He is suggesting a 25k rectangle stadium with temporarily seating up to 40k as I believe there is a document somewhere with the FFA that can construct such stadia … But it doesn’t need to be that, it still can be 25k stadium that would be fine for lead up WC practices matches if not for official WC games…
Now the idea is to have a legacy for rectangle codes to build on… NRL, Rugby, and definitely Tasmania FC (football) would move into and play there as a 14th (?) HAL franchise… AFL is not interested so what is your problem if the other codes support it..? Yes I know it’s a threat to the heart land of AFL…. What a disgrace….
Chuq said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
It’s hard to keep some people happy BSE.
If you use existing venues – “Stop using our AFL grounds!”
If you build new venues – “They’ll be white elephants!”
What DO you want? Us to not host the World Cup? (rhetorical question..)
jimbo said | December 21st 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Yes, exactly what they want in the AFL Capital of Australia.
Mister Football said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Chuq
I accept that you are one of the more sensible soccer contributors on Big Footy.
My view is simple:
1. The AFL should not be forced to cop a major financial loss just to line the pockets of a foreign entity.
2. True – if the FFA had the grounds – we woudn’t be having this discussion – it might just mean that this is all too premature – get to a stage where the A-League justifies a few grounds of a capacity of 60,000 plus, and then make a credible bid for it – with the full support of all Australians.
jimbo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
1. The AFL will suffer no financial loss from a World Cup in Australia. They could even gain from it.
The Melbourne teams could play their Away games for 8 weeks while the WC is on and then their Home games after the WC to catch up.
With an extra million visitors in Australia – a lot of them would even go to an AFL game for the novelty and boost attendances.
Failing that, there is no need for any WC games to be played in Melbourne – for the sort of money the AFL is asking for compensation, the federal government could build 3 or 4 new rectangular stadiums elsewhere – the NRL and ARU would love it.
2. The AFL don’t own any grounds either.
The AFL can’t stop a FIFA WC being played in Australia.
Timmuh said | December 22nd 2009 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
All nine Melbourne teams will play away games for 8 weeks on the remaining 3 main grounds (Subiaco, SCG, Gabba)? That’s going to work. Playing in regional areas does mean a massive financial hit for the AFL – not so much for the NRL because they play at suburban grounds in front of bugger all people in most games, if matches were to disappear the hit to TV revenues could hit $100m (depending a lot on how TV rights play out by then, which is really anyone’s guess)
The AFL don’t own any grounds, yet, but do have contractural priority at Docklands – and I can’t remember when they take ownership of that stadium.
All the FFA, and governments, have to do is find a way to expand the Bubble stadium and leave Docklands alone and everything will be fine in Melbourne. The FFA bid needs Melbourne, I’m yet to be convinced Australia has enough cities capable of holding matches and the FFA simply can not afford to drop one of the few that definitely can.
jimbo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
By 2018 there will be at least 8 teams outside Melbourne and 8 within Melbourne – 2 in Sydney, 2 in Qld, 2 in SA and 2 in WA. They will all have thier own home grounds and could rotate for 8 weeks.
You could even play 2 games at the same ground in that city over the weekend – so you only need 4 venues.
So if there was a will there would be a way.
The WC bid doesn’t need Melbourne, ANZ stadium is over 85K and Suncorp is close enough to 60K.
With the $billion compensation that the AFL is claiming, let them have the MCG and Etihad and the money would be better spent building a few demountable rectangular stadiums that the NRL and ARU would apreciate as well.
Michael C said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:21am | Report comment
Timmuh -
whoaaa….hang on, Jimbo doesn’t respond to logic.
btw – it won’t matter because can you imagine FIFA providing Host city exemptions to BOTH AFL and NRL. Won’t happen. Aust WC, …. therefore,…..won’t happen. Has the Govt’s money on the bid thus far been better spent than investment in either Lara Bingle (“Where the hell are you”) or investment in “Australia” the movie…..probably. Probably got more people talking about Australia……not sure how many will come here for a holiday.
jimbo said | December 24th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Thanks MC for being so logical and I’ve finally come round to your way of thinking.
We shouldn’t have a FIFA WC in Australia because it will disrupt the AFL season.
Cheers
MV Dave said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
“The AFL should not be forced to cop a major financial loss just to line the pockets of a foreign entity.”
Who is the AFL’s major sponsor…ahh that Japanese car manufacturer…err are they a foreign entity? Perhaps the AFL should restrict themselves to only dealing with dinky di Aussie entities? Dont want to do business with those foreigners ehh?
jimbo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
They are considered Australian kimbo san, if they line the pockets of the AFL . . .
jimbo said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Excellent idea Chuq,
with the AFL and NRL compensation claims climbing to over $1.5 Billion the govenment could build 5 football stadiums at $300M each.
A new stadium for Tasmania would be excellent for the economy and local jobs.
Tasmania is only about an hours flight or short boat ride for the hundreds of thousands of Victorians who would like to see the WC and won’t get to because of the AFL.
Top suggestion.
KB said | December 23rd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Jimbo,
Yes … problem solved … build 5 quality rectangle stadiums ($300m ea) across Australia…. Great suggestion Chuq…
Brian Munich said | December 23rd 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Misnomer – the WC bid DOESN’T rely on rectangular stadia. The shape of the stadia is not a mandatory requirement – go to the FIFA website and have a look – there may be about 50 pages full of other requirements, but rectangular ain’t one of them.
The Tassie question is simply about critical mass, and on that score it fails. Look at the trouble Adelaide has had coming up with a solution that might see them in the running. That has involved a proposal for a major and expensive revamp of Adelaide Oval (and ovals aren’t particularly rectangular) which will stretch resources as it is. Trying to come up with a viable, attractive option in the apple isle simply won’t fly. Nice alternative AFL venue for a few weeks in the middle of a World Cup though.