• A-League
• A-League Draw
• We Are Football
• Socceroos
• World Football
• Tipping
• Football RSS
• Football pics

The Crowd Says (85) | Page 1 of Comments

• moo cow said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment

  Will there really be people to there to watch the games?

  Reply

  • JamesP said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment

    Which games?

    World Cup games – certainly…for the european and south american giants.
    NRL – Should be for state of origin
    AFL – You betcha – given a country venue probably holds only 10 thousand or so

    Reply

• Black Diamonds said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment

  Providing FIFA ok this? What right do they have to tell another sporting organisation what they can and can’t do?

  That is a ridiculous sentiment.

  This article is unfortunately short on reality! Playing State of Origin in Qatar!! Would anyone even know what it is?

  Discounted season-tickets for the World Cup year? Where does that leave the clubs that lose millions and millions of dollars as a result???

  Fanciful my friend, fanciful.

  Reply

• Forgetmenot said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment

  Compensation is much much more than simply ticket sales.

  It is the loss of corporate support in the lead up, during and after any Soccer World Cup. It is the HUGE free kick given to soccer in many areas but most of all at the grassroots 0-15 years age level.

  Reply

• True Tah said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment

  Alez, I’ll give you one thing, you think outside the box. But I think you’re dead wrong on this.

  But the fact of the matter is, the NRL/AFL are going to have to shut down their competitions over the World Cup competition, and will probably need to be compensated. Taking games overseas will go nowhere near compensating the clubs.

  Asking FIFA for permission for the AFL to operate at all? The AFL is answerable to its fans and its clubs, not to a foreign body populated by dodgey characters.

  If Australia wins the bid, the Federal Government will probably pass a law banning any sport which involves an oval ball to be played during the duration of the world cup. The Melbourne Cricket Ground will be renamed the Melbourne Futbol Ground.

  Reply
• 

  Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:49am | Report comment

  Mate – you lost me as soon as you talked about sending games overseas (NRL) and to the country/outback (AFL)……

  Let’s instead finally establish a few ground rules:

  A. will FIFA seek to exclude AFL and NRL from host cities during the tournament??

  until we know that, let’s not even talk about trying to make Collingwood play for 4 points in Ballarat or Mt.Gambier.

  As far as the AFL is concerned – they are playing on, and Docklands will be used, and they have their own arrangements and broadcasters – - and if in some markets people opt to watch Collingwood vs Fremantle or Manly vs Penrith instead of Sierra Leone vs Czech Republic than so be it……….

  There is as yet zero compelling reason for the businesses of the AFL and NRL to bend over to the wishes of FIFA.

  Even on ‘compensation’ – Kate Ellis has only ever spoken about stadium improvements – - and yet, stadium improvements in Perth and Adelaide have been delayed and complicated by uncertainty around a FIFA WC bid. Reality – these projects would go ahead anyway – - – it’d be dodgey to suggest that the AFL stands to ‘gain’ in these cases because of a FIFA WC bid – - the AFL will get these venues anyway – - the issue here is how much they get compromised to facilitate 2-4 weeks of matches potentially some 8-12 years down the track.

  Too much of this uncertainty and compromise could be a bit like delaying major airport and roads upgrades because of such uncertainty – - – and then give everything the green light when the certainty is clear up and suggesting all the works are a direct benefit of a FIFA WC bid……..which’d be false.

  So, the AFL and NRL have a fair plank to start from to demand something pretty damn special – ESPECIALLY if they were to be expected to give into every pedantic and overdemanding FIFA ‘condition’. (I can’t see this happening…but, you just never know when it comes to politicians trying to big note themselves in election years!!).

  Reply
  • 

    Dogz R Barkn said | March 18th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment

    MC

    Interesting post, very hard to argue with any of that.

    True Tah said a similar thing, both the NRL and the AFL are answerable to their own stakeholders not a foreign sporting association.

    I read the other day that FIFA has requested that the Super 14 teams in SA not paint any advertising on the grass – a full three months out from the WC comp!!

    That gives us a tiny hint of what to expect if FIFA were invited in.

    Reply

    • Towser said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment

      Fifa has ironclad rules for any country holding a World Cup.
      Even now the FFA has to change the stadium name if their is a clash with any of FIFA or the AFC’s sponsors when playing WC or AC qualifiers. Hence Suncorp where I watch Socceroo matches becomes Brisbane Stadium.
      The FFA on behalf of its stakeholders if it wishes to hold a World Cup is bound by FIFA’s regulations.
      LIke it or not FIFA will not change this.
      As this country is unique in that many sports play at the same stadium & those stadiums would normally be in use at the time of staging a World Cup,the FFA is in negotiations with other sports & the Federal government to nut out solutions.
      The purpose being to meet FIFA rules for holding a World Cup,to be finalised by May this year I believe.
      These solutions will not be straight from the pen of Lewis Carroll & Alice in Wonderland but similar to the meeting the other day:-

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/soccer-world-cup-bid-kept-off-etihad-stadium/story-e6frg7mf-1225841584285

      Reply
      • 

        Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment

        The question is just how much the FFA can ‘move’ if at all??

        Has the FFA actually sought advice from FIFA?? is there a fall back position??

        or is FIFA going to stand firm??

        Reply

        • Towser said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment

          One FFA cant move. Two FIFA gives advice doesnt take it. Three see two.

          Reply
          • 

            Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment

            (I) Tend to agree.

    • True Tah said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment

      Dogs

      I understand there are going to be some issues regarding the Super 14 finals, if the Bulls or Stormers get home games (and both teams are 1 and 2 on the log now), then they will not be allowed to play at their home grounds. This is despite the fact that the home grounds of both teams are owned by their provincial unions, and one of them (Newlands) is not even being used for the FIFA WC!!

      I understand that Loftus received some government funding for some upgrades and that could be a reasonable excuse for kicking the Bulls out after the final date. However I do have sympathy for Blue Bulls supporters, because if it wasnt for them, then Loftus would not be the stadium it is today, a bit like the MCG and AFL.

      I guess what will happen is that the games will be moved to the smaller stadiums, i.e. GWK Park in Kimberley, Olen Park in Potchefstroom, Outeniqua Park in George, ABSA Stadium in East London.

      Reply

• Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment

  The only problem with the whole AFL/NRL compensation argument is that it is increasingly obvious that the WC itself will be an economic and financial disaster. Even the soccer morning herald is starting to acknowledge reality:

  http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/world-cup-not-such-a-golden-goal-20100316-qcm1.html

  Reply
  • 

    Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment

    that along with the IMF report that Mr.Football linked to the other day

    Is It Worth It?.

    A very, very good read – - more of an Olympics focus – - but, certainly some FIFA WC consideration.

    Reply
    • 

      Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:33am | Report comment

      my thoughts:

      London expected its 2012 Games to cost less than $4 billion, but they are now projected to cost $19 billion (Sports Business Daily, 2009).

      and

      It is little wonder that London Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell said, “Had we known what we know now, would we have bid for the Olympics? Almost certainly not” (Sports Business Daily, 2008, citing the London Telegraph).

      and re the reporting :

      There is relatively little objective evidence on the economic impact of the Olympic Games and other mega sporting events. Much of the existing evidence has been developed by the host cities or regions—which have a vested interest in justifying the large expenditures on such events—and suffers from a number of flaws.

      And this is what’s been obvious to ’sceptics’ – is that there’s some pretty rubbery figures out there – – and often boosted by putting a massive dollar value on the unquantifiable intangibles.

      and back to a FIFA WC,.

      The economic impact of hosting the World Cup appears, if anything, to be even smaller (Hagn and Maennig, 2008 and 2009).

      Of course, we wonder why anyone in Australia would present the German experience as any sort of guide to Australia??

      the delicious irony :

      A careful examination of past experience suggests two important ways to do so: first, host cities or regions need to make careful land use decisions and, second, they should maximize postevent use of new and renovated facilities and infrastructure.

      which suggests that for Australian to make a success of a FIFA WC – it’s actually contingent upon the NRL and AFL to justify the spend. Which we’ve known all along.

      The minimisation of spend and the justification of spend is on present and past and foreseeable timeframes pretty well sitting NOT in the soccer ‘court’, so to speak – and firmly in the AFL and lesser extent NRL ‘courts’.

      This along with the England bid document from 2007 that DCFC linked to the other day which spoke of the need to model it without Govt spend, maximise private spend and to have a broad based organisation committee and you look at Australia and it’s 100% the opposite.

      You’ve just really got to wonder how thought out all this is/was…….and how much pull Frank Lowy really does have??

      

      Reply

    • JamesP said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment

      Some good points in those articles.

      But how do you quanitify the cost of staging a World Cup.

      If Perth and Adelaide, for example, are goign to get new stadiums as you suggested, (indeed the SA government has comitted to this much to the delight of the AFL) then do you then include those costs as part of the World Cup Cost/Benefit analysis?

      Thats a billion dollars (for the two) right there….

      Reply

• AndrewMc said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment

  Seriously, do any of you people read the papers??

  There was a meeting the other day between all the codes and now everyone is happy and fully supports the World cup bid (even the AFL). This is mainly due to the Geelong solution and an agreement that compensation will occur (although no one has specified any amounts or on what basis)

  Oh, and the competitions will be allowed to occur during the world cup. (Maybe not on game day in a particular city, but don’t quote me on that) . FIFA has set the precedent by allowing the Springboks to play in SA the day after the opening WC game.

  Everyone is happy, so get behind your country and support its world cup bid as we take on the rest of the world

  Reply
  • 

    Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment

    AndrewMc -

    ideally everyone was ‘happy’ all along with the repeated line of “Inprinciple support, pending the details”.

    I’d suggest the details are what are being sorted out – - and whether that’s the easy bit or the hard bit – - who knows??

    The FFA and Ben Buckley had tried to suggest that AFL and NRL should be satisfied that they MIGHT be given the okay to continue in some regard based on the US ’94 precendence of the MLB being ‘permitted’ to play on ……. although the US had no direct stadium conflicts, NFL was out of season, and MLB have their own venues.

    Until it’s on public record – the AFL and NRL would be negligent to sign off a ‘blank cheque’,…..it’s not up to them. Thus far the Fed Govt is the one signing the blank cheques…….which get’s us back to the details.

    Reply
  • 

    Dogz R Barkn said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment

    The Australian ran this article on that meeting:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/soccer-world-cup-bid-kept-off-etihad-stadium/story-e6frg7mf-1225841584285

    The article says that plenty of progress was made, and now all parties appear to agree that Etihad is definitely off the agenda, but they you are still geting these sorts of quotes:

    “I guess the point I want to stress is that we do not in any way want to stand in the way of Australia hosting the World Cup. But at the same time we have a duty to protect the interests of our sport and the interests of its stakeholders,” the NRL’s chief operating officer said.

    …and that’s basically the same language both the NRL and the AFL have been using for the last six months or so.

    So I’m not really sure where things stand.

    Reply
    • 

      Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment

      the devil is in the detail.

      Reply

      • Gibbo said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment

        so there is no devil?

        or at least, not much devil… yet

        Reply

    • Towser said | March 18th 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment

      Dogz R Barkn

      Seems we have quoted the same article. No matter it will be sorted before May.
      If not its black & white anyway. Australias bid will be deficient.
      If thats the case, as were up against countries that have no stadium clashing issues, it will go to one of those bids.

      Reply
    • 

      AndyRoo said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment

      I heard Gallop has come out on radio and asked for just 4.5m…or zero if their allowed to use Etihad for SOO.

      Reply
      • 

        Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment

        you’d imagine the NRL position – - and they probably have a couple of positions depending upon circumstances – - is most able to leverage costs vs reward on the basis of improved ‘rectangular venue’ facilities.

        And that’s a bit of a given.

        $4.5m would seem pretty low is SoO got severely impacted…….although, I guess – SoO normally runs around that time and that severely impacts the regular H&A season which get’s chopped (fixtures wise, multiple byes etc) up and under attended etc.

        Reply
      • 

        Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment

        AndyRoo -

        see this article State of Origin could be relocated to suburban grounds if World Cup held here

        it talks about a $4.5 mill figure in the following context:

        If Origin was played at a small ground in NSW such as WIN or Parramatta Stadium, the attendance would be 50,000 fewer fans than ANZ Stadium. With the average price of an Origin ticket around $90 this year, it would cost the game $4.5 million in lost revenue based on today’s figures.

        So, I’d suggest that $4.5 mill figure is not the sum total of requested compensation …… but is more an example of what such compensation might include,

        let alone that Suncorp would be U/A, although a SoO in Melb at Docklands would be presumably no issue. Let alone regular season impacts. Would the $4.5 mill be the biggest single cost hit?? dunno!!

        Reply
        • 

          Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment

          actually, notice this line from the article :

          sWhile nothing has been decided as yet, yesterday’s meeting in the nation’s capital was a chance for the rival codes to air their concerns. The FFA will come back to them with solutions and an idea about compensation.

          Hmmm,……how generous will they be????

          Their first efforts last year at solutions got thrown back in their face by the NRL and they didn’t even get to the AFL before the Fed Govt stepped in.

          Me thinx there’s still a bit of ‘detail’ water to go under the bridge.

          Reply
          • 

            AndyRoo said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment

            Michael C

            I didn’t hear the radio interview but the guy that heard it belived that’s the sum of their compo claim.
            I guess at the back of their mind is avoiding taking a PR hit for being greedy when it’s more than likely that Australia doesn’t get the world cup. Once people in Perth, Geelong and Adelaide get told about the proposed stadium developments I think their’s every chance the pressure will mount on the governments to carry through and build them even though we lost the world cup bid.

            Despite all the talk now I doubt that both codes will play on during the event anywhere near 100% of their fixtures, they will likely finish in October. And perhaps one round worth of games (spread out) plus a few special events while the world cup is on.
            Sponsers, TV Companies and such will still want their X amount of games in full view not to be impacted by World Cup matches*

            The tricky bit is during the prep time of the world cup venues where a full schedule should be played. By then the AFL will have at least a 10 – 8 split between Interstate and Melbourne teams and every chance of it being 50 – 50. It wouldn’t be so hard (in comparison to now) to have the majority of the draw during this period as Melb team vs Interstate team which are normally the matches that would comfortbaly fit in Etihad. Some guy on 442 did it himself with just excell.

            * Not trying to start a code war but it’s obvious that while the World cup is on their will be less Newspaper and TV space for AFL/NRL stories than they would normally get.
          • 

            Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:27am | Report comment

            and in reality – the AFL have hardly been saying it can’t be done….

            UNLESS -

            either or both of the following occurred :

            They didn’t AT LEAST retain Docklands (and the FFA were the one’s itching to get it, and promoting it as a required venue 12 months after the AFL letting them know they wanted to keep it)

            and

            the AFL not losing the MCG for more than 10 weeks – - – and again, it was the FFA that hatched a secret rectangularisation plan for the MCG.

            So – - correct – - it might not be too difficult, if it were solely for the AFL to arrange it,

            however, given the FFA seeking to make it hard and the unknown quantity still being FIFA and their host city requirements or not coming into play – - – - it’s still impossible to sign off on anything other than to perhaps say :

            “Should we NOT be excluded from host cities other than on match days – - we might be able to make the following work, ….. pending the ‘host city’ schedules.”

            and that would be pending for example – more for the NRL – if Sydney has 2 venues – then, that doubles the number of FIFA ‘match days’, and you’d wonder whether FIFA would be satisfied with the AFL playing at 56K Docklands whilst Sierra Leone plays Bahrain down at Geelong……;-)

            If I was a neutral tourist, …..I know what I’d be very tempted to go see.
          • 

            AndyRoo said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment

            If Sierra Leonne and Bahrain both make the world cup and get pooled together (the pool of life) it will still be a sell out. I hope Australia get that group!

            Would be the first appearance at the world cup finals for both nations.

            Fifa would be dissapointed only because that likely means China missed out on qualifying again

            Edit: Your not the first poster to have a crack at Geelong either …. might I just say those fans from Sierra Leonne will likely to be very impressed by Geelong.
          • 

            Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment

            so much so, they’ll all ‘vanish’ into the bush like half the Olympic team back in 2000!! (was that Sierra Leone???)
• 

  Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment

  re the double linked story from the Australian -

  important to note firstly –

  the acceptance that ‘compensation’ is warranted for the AFL and NRL,

  and secondly :

  But if it’s push for Skilled Stadium to become the second World Cup stadium in Victoria succeeds, the AFL rather than soccer would be left with the lasting legacy of an upgraded venue. The A-League is not represented in the state’s second biggest city.

  The irony here is that if the FFA desperately want’s soccer legacy then they surely could upgrade Swan St STadium???? It’s only because they dismissed that venue and wanted to nab Etihad (Docklands) that Geelong is being talked about at all.

  Reply

• Towser said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment

  Agree. Swan street stadium a major cock up in the sense of leaving a legacy for football & other rectangular sports.
  Cannot for the life of me understand such shortsightedness. Would have advoided much angst if it was constructed so it was capable of being upgraded to meet the minimum 40,000 seating FIFA requirement.
  As for leaving a legacy, a one off special event bears no weight in my book in earning the right to that legacy.

  Reply
  • 

    Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment

    agreed (re the once off special event and the right to leave a legacy).

    This relates in part to the flip side of the “They don’t understand how big it is” line that get’s trotted out.

    ON a global scale – the huge size of a FIFA WC is fine, lovely, in the ‘off season’ of the soccer world wide anyway etc etc.

    In many respects though, the soccer frenzy in this country that has been at pains to illustrate ‘how big the FIFA WC’ is (as a once off event), don’t seem themselves to understand how big are the annual 100% internalised AFL and 95% internalised NRL seasons – - – especially when combined.

    That’s why it’s a pretty ordinary distraction – - all this focus on a potential 4 week window in 8-12 years time when the annual here and now reality is more important (in an ongoing sustainable manner).

    (and that’s without mentioning the ARU……or cricket who’d get stuffed around by the AFL seeking to start early and no doubt cram matches at the MCG before handing it over.

    Reply

  • Trussy said | March 18th 2010 @ 2:38pm | Report comment

    The thing to remember about the swan street stadium is that it was conceived by the bracks goverment as a rugby union stadium, it was part of Victoria’s original S14 bid, which ended up in Perth.
    To avoid yet another bracks white elephant the goverment chased around and found the storm were keen to be tenants, Melbourne Victory declined as the originally propose 20,000 seater was deemed too small, makes sense when you have 20,000 members, the goverment then said they would request a second FFA licence for the second Melbourne team, which would play out of the stadium.
    Later a compromise of sorts was worked out with the revised capacity increased to 31500 approx.
    When the design was changed from 20,000 to 31,500 someone must have forgotten to tell the structural engineer to allow the upgrade the foundations to suit a 40,000 plus expansion, but then again it may not have been thought of as at the time there was no world cup bid and the general feeling was, why does Melbourne need a 40,000 rectanglar stadium, they will never fill it afterall everything important is played on ovals in Victoria!

    Reply
    • 

      Michael C said | March 18th 2010 @ 3:08pm | Report comment

      and to top it off it’s still speculated that there’s some covenant for Docklands to avoid a greater than 40,000 new venue within X kilometers within presumably the 25 yr privately held lease period.

      Dunno if it’s true – - we’d heard enough about the 10 year moratorium on anything new over 20,000 was it within 10 kms.

      Reply

• Shodan said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment

  Nows here’s a simple solution. Just host the World cup Overseas and we won’t have any of these problems.

  Reply

  • Ken said | March 18th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment

    I was thinking along a similar track – if the NRL and AFL get too annoyed of being asked to agree to something without any details of how it will affect them they could start playing the same game back. What if they create their own arbritary rules like ‘We will not allow other sports to play during our competition or for 8 weeks beforehand’ and similar just like FIFA. The trick of course will be to not tell the soccer guys whether it applies to them until after planning is underway (hey there’s 12 years to work out the details people remember!). Then they can move the world cup games to Tennant Creek memorial oval and Broken Hill Football stadium, it’ll be fine though because the country people will really appreciate it, getting back to grassroots and all that.

    Reply

    • Lazza said | March 18th 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment

      Bring it on. I’d just love to see the huge backlash when the AFL and NRL derail our World Cup bid.

      Just go to Europe and host an AFL and NRL World Cup over there at the same time. That will show ‘em.

      Reply

      • Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 18th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment

        But you don’t see any risk of a similar backlash against soccer in Australia when FIFA issues decrees to the AFL and NRL? These things tend to run both ways.

        Reply
        • 

          AndyRoo said | March 19th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment

          I agree if for egample FIFA tried to tell the NRL they couldn’t paint on the grass it would be bad PR but it’s much less likely to happen (we would actually have to win the bid) than the AFL asking for $100m plus.

          I also think the level of meddling in South Africa is much more than what you would expect for a US or Austrlaia bid as It seems FIFA have very little faith in South Africa to do the job without assistance.
          They would probably trust Aussies to be able to remove a little bit of paint before the World Cup etc etc

          Reply

      • Ken said | March 19th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment

        The AFL and NRL aren’t derailing anything, the soccer guys are doing that by backing them into a corner. And as much as it much grate the followers of the ‘world game’, here in Australia they dwarf soccer and if you don’t have them on side you will lose.

        Obviously my post was sarcastic and it would be completely unfair to do what I proposed but that’s exactly what is happening in the other direction. And a backlash is starting to occur which is why otherwise fair-minded people like myself (well I like to think so) have gone from mild support for the World Cup (as a non-soccer fan who just thought it would be cool) to opposing it.

        Reply