Australians everywhere like to pride themselves on the idea that we are a very sporty country. This is an idea that we take and hold close to our heart. Australia, the nation that bred many a sporting champion.
I have one problem, however, with our sporting attitude.
Enough with the childish games, and insults thrown between different sports, and more embracing of each, the skills, talents and the legends of the respective games.
Now, of course, I am not saying the cross code rivalry needs to be eliminated. Most of these are actually beneficial for the sports.
They increase growth, and often create good tension on and off the field. Rugby League and AFL are both targeting large regions with new teams in order to combat the other code. This growth pattern is what is known as beneficial rivalry.
We need this, but it’s the next type that we don’t.
I must stress at this point, these views are a matter of opinion and are not a hatred attack.
I have much respect for the AFL’s organisation. However, this took a massive hit after the recent events regarding the FIFA World Cup bid for 2022.
It is a fair point that the AFL should be able to defend their rights to their competition, yet the way this was conducted just lets me down. The AFL (and in extension the VFL) have built up a strong and wonderful administration over a hundred years, and have taken the sport to huge heights.
Yet sometimes their views are completely tunnel vision.
Once again, the AFL has every right to challenge any threat to their competition. But there are limits.
This also, by extension, applies to the media who support the game. The attack on the FFA’s organisation by The Age newspaper (featuring alleged bribery claims) is a very low attack by the newspaper. This may or may not have been orchestrated by the AFL, but nevertheless, it reflects directly on the sport.
If the AFL hadn’t withdrawn Etihad Stadium’s availability there would have been no problems with the AFL’s claims that there would be no bonuses for the league after the competition. The discussions that the AFL held with the FFA should have been conducted similar to the NRL.
With some support, and even sympathy, as both codes would benefit.
The Australian Government were also willing to provide substantial compensation to the AFL to make up for lost funds due to the displacement of the league.
All these steps can provide a smoother transition of the problem from solution to benefit. When will sporting codes decide to unite?
The organisations can be a blessing if they all make amends and sort out differences. Is it too much a dream to ask for?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, FFA, FIFA World Cup
October 12th 2010 @ 3:09am
nordicrover said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:09am | Report comment
re the rivalry between sports being good ? My whole thing with the ‘cross code’ talk is it might be nice for aussie rules and at least one of the rugby codes, not so relevant for football imo.
We have so many other nations to compete with at club and international level. Not that fussed about competing with other sports. Maybe they are, but then that’s understandable as aussie rules and rugby league have little meaningful international competition. Its like the bully whose too scared to leave the school gate… can’t survive outside their small ponds.
October 12th 2010 @ 6:09am
JF said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:09am | Report comment
The A-League is played over the summer because…
October 12th 2010 @ 6:36am
nordicrover said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:36am | Report comment
is August summer? Playing it purely over the summer months will never happen as we need to have our top local players active for most of the year in order for the football to be of an improving standard. If we ever do go just to summer, that would be a big step backwards. FFA and the clubs know this deep down despite any recent push for an October start. It’d just mean we’d have to play through June eventually.
The reasoning for it came more from Fox and for ground sharing issues. Avoiding a clash with other sports is secondary which is why it’ll never go to a fully summer league. Be able to compete with other countries on football terms is the most important thing. Which is kinda my whole point..
October 12th 2010 @ 7:13am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:13am | Report comment
avoiding a clash with other sports is secondary
heh, heh, yeh, sure – that’s a good one!
October 12th 2010 @ 8:14am
nordicrover said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:14am | Report comment
well it is secondary otherwise we’d only be playing October to Feb now… the season will be getting longer not shorter. The need to improve the quality of our players demands it.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:47pm
jimbo said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
The A-League is played over the summer because…
primarily the FFA wants to align itself with the rest of the world in terms of competition dates and FIFA sanctioned weekends for international tournaments.
That way all players are equally prepared and available for national selection in the peak of their season.
October 12th 2010 @ 8:40am
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Well put nordicover, I could not have put it better.
October 14th 2010 @ 5:02pm
jeff said | October 14th 2010 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
When you say football, do you mean rugby, league, aussie rules or soccer?
October 12th 2010 @ 6:11am
Redb said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:11am | Report comment
An article that calls for sports to unite and then sets out a very subjective view of the WC bid, the FFA and the AFL does not quite resonate.
If you wish to raise the stadium issues again around the WC bid at least provide both sides of the argument. For example: The FFA who previously sounded out the MCC and the AFL over the use of the MCG, then later inexplicably decided to just annexe Etihad in the bid, thus depriving the AFL of its only stadiums in Melbourne without consultation.
October 12th 2010 @ 6:21am
Kurt said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:21am | Report comment
Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t the whole WC bid thing sorted out months ago? The AFL and NRL have agreed to relinquish their contractual rights to stadia should the bid be successful and have signed up to the government-endorsed compensation scheme – whatever that may be. Neither Andrew Demetriou nor David Gallop have said a word about the bid for ages.
So what exactly is the problem that prompted you to write this article?
October 12th 2010 @ 6:27am
Redb said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Kurt,
Perhaps the ‘fall guy’ plan is being initiated.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:39am
slickwilly said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
agree – blame will need to be apportioned should things go pear shaped in december – and i think we all know where the finger will point – irrespective of fact or reason
October 12th 2010 @ 6:30am
Michael Turner said | October 12th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
The AFL resolved the issue differently and on different terms. Etihad Stadium is still a no-go zone for the World Cup Bid Team.
The AFL demanded more than they were entitled to, and the FFA complied unfortunantely
October 12th 2010 @ 7:07am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
This is where the thinking of soccer people starts to look a little bit warped.
AFL demanded more than they were entitled to?
Actually, they demanded nothing – 100% of the demands were from the FFA – you got that? 100%.
The AFL runs a billion dollar per annum industry, and had long term contracts on both the MCG and Etihad (to 2037 and 2025 respectively).
So the equation is a simple one – and this applies throughout business – you want use of someone’s assets – you pay for it!!
The curious question is this: the AFL is played on cricket ovals, soccer is played on rectangular stadiums – so why was there even a need for the AFL to be involved in any discussion? Why couldn’t the FFA and the Government work it all out themselves?
Do you want to know the brutally honest answer to that question?
October 12th 2010 @ 7:42am
Luke W said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
“So the equation is a simple one – and this applies throughout business – you want use of someone’s assets – you pay for it!!”
The AFL doesn’t own either stadium.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:01am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:01am | Report comment
It’s a long-term lease, and what’s more, it’s what pays for the stadiums.
The scenario remains the same: if you want it, it will cost you big time.
October 12th 2010 @ 4:28pm
JohnB said | October 12th 2010 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
The rights under the leases to use the stadia are an asset. If someone wants to buy those rights (or some of them) from you, they are acquiring an asset.
October 12th 2010 @ 4:31pm
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
That’s spot on.
October 12th 2010 @ 10:21pm
jimbo said | October 12th 2010 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
All stadiums in Australia are rented by whoever pays the money and don’t belong to the AFL.
If the AFL sympathetic boards of these Melbourne stadiums cannot find one month in 12 years time to host a couple of WC football games then they are not really trying are they – seems as though their minds have already been made up for them.
October 12th 2010 @ 10:35pm
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
They are long term leases – it’s as good as a title over property (in the case of Etihad, it will be the property of the AFL outright in 2025).
October 13th 2010 @ 11:20am
Kermit is a frog said | October 13th 2010 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Just for anyone confused about the difference between RENTING and LEASING,
I looked it up
Lease
Meaning: It is a contract renting land, buildings, etc., to another; a contract or instrument conveying property to another for a specified period
Rent
Meaning: Renting is an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good or property owned by another person or company
Lease
Flexibility: Not flexible
Rent
Flexibility: It is flexible
Lease
Time: Long term
Rent
Time: short term
Lease
Agreement: Pre determined and cannot be broken without breaking the lease
Rent
Agreement: Pre determined and terms can be changed
Lease
Mode of agreement: Written
Rent
Mode of agreement: Oral/Written hide
Lease
Stability: Both landlord and tenant have stability
Rent
Stability: Not much stability
It seems pretty clear that places like the MCG, Etihad and Subiaco have major long term leases with the AFL. The AFL is far from just being a renter.
And in Adelaide, well, the SANFL owns AAMI stadium.
So, I guess the question is would the AFL and MCC not be able to negotiate the lease arrangements to both parties satisfaction. I seems the MCG is on the table and will be fine. And Etihad was never on the table. Not much anyone can do about other than break the lease and one might suggest that Etihad is the one place more than anywhere else that couldn’t afford to do that. That made it the AFL’s key battleground. But, gee, it still seems odd that the FFA went so hard for it. It wasn’t the only option. And soccer followers don’t rate it anyway.
October 14th 2010 @ 9:42pm
jimbo said | October 14th 2010 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
If you own, lease or whatever a stadium you can still rent it out.
The Etihad management didn’t tell Paul Dainty that Etihad would not be available for rock concerts in 12 years time, they didn’t tell the Melbourne council that it wouldn’t be available for new years eve parties in 12 years time.
The point is that they categorically told the FFA to keep their hands off Etihad for ever, whether anyone is using it or not in 12 years time.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:19am
Aka said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:19am | Report comment
What did the AFL demand and what did they get?
October 12th 2010 @ 5:35pm
Kermit is a frog said | October 12th 2010 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
I can’t wait to see what you reckon the AFL ‘demanded’?
And just what you think the AFL is and isn’t entitled to?
October 12th 2010 @ 7:17am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
I have much respect for the AFL’s organisation. However, this took a massive hit after the recent events regarding the FIFA World Cup bid for 2022.
How did the AFL’s organisation take a massive hit after recent events?
It had the cojones to look the biggest sporting organisation in the world in the eye and say: no thanks.
How could anyone construe that as a massive hit on its organisation?
Sounds like the workings of a very confident organisation to me – and Australians would not have it any other way.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:47am
Luke W said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:47am | Report comment
If it helps you sleep at night thinking that the little Aussie battler stood up to the big bad foreign villain, then you keep on believing that. In reality, FIFA didn’t deal with the AFL at all, and probably has little to no idea who or what the AFL actually is (like the other 99% of the planet).
The FFA dealt with the AFL, and the AFL wasn’t the smaller organisation in that one. You better believe they were flexing their muscles with great delight.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:02am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Yes Luke – but from the very beginning, many soccer pundits were praying that the AFL would bow down to the might of FIFA.
But it didn’t work out that way – thank goodness.
October 12th 2010 @ 1:01pm
Luke W said | October 12th 2010 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Like I said before, the AFL and FIFA have had no contact during the process. All negotiations have been between the AFL and the FFA. I don’t know where you are getting any of this “bow down” stuff from. The AFL is a much larger organisation than the FFA, it had all the power during the negotiations.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:34am
Midfielder said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:34am | Report comment
MF
In the eyes of AFL folk you did not take a hit … in the eyes of everyone else you did… I wrote an article sometime back where I said IMO the AFL has done itself harm by its conduct pertaining to the bid….
I understand you will see it differently … so be it… however that you [ and AFL folk in general] cannot see or refuse to see it IMO is a weakness moving forward for the AFL…
This is not an attack on the AFL because by and large I respect the management of the AFL. Simply my opinion on how the AFL is viewed by the broader non AFL community
October 12th 2010 @ 7:40am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
So people that already hated the AFL might hate them a bit more?
At this point there is nothing to suggest that the AFL will be the least bit disadvantaged in looking after its commercial interests, in fact the opposite is true.
If the Government had truly believed in the notion of hosting a world cup, it would have put up the money to build all the necessary grounds.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:48am
mds1970 said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:48am | Report comment
If the AFL did take a hit, is there any evidence the hit has hurt them? Attendances, ratings and sponsorships don’t seem to have been affected.
October 12th 2010 @ 12:35pm
Redb said | October 12th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
If anything there has been a noticeable switch off from the A League.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:46am
mds1970 said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
“If the AFL hadn’t withdrawn Etihad Stadium’s availability” – incorrect.
Etihad Stadium was never available for the World Cup bid. It was never withdrawn because it was never available in the first place. That was made clear from the moment the idea of the FFA bidding for the World Cup was first thought of – the original agreement was that the AFL would retain access to Docklands and would be locked out of the MCG for no more than 10 weeks.
Had the FFA not attempted to break that agreement, the entire bid would have gone through without controversy, and would barely have been mentioned. If was only when, within a couple of days, a proposal to alter the MCG which would have kept it out of action for longer was leaked, and the FFA showed FIFA delegates around Docklands and said it was a potential stadium for the bid book, that the AFL spoke out. It was the FFA who acted in bad faith, not the AFL.
But what happened after the protracted arguments that followed? The bottom line is that, within the confines of the original agreement, the FFA got access to every stadium they wanted for their World Cup bid. Is that not support enough?
October 12th 2010 @ 2:48pm
Black Diamonds said | October 12th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Exactly. The whole thing has been signed off on by the AFL? Why dredge up old news to paint the AFL in a bad light? I thought this article was supposed to be about peace, harmony and goodwill to all men etc.
Obviously forgotten in the process of writing the article!
October 12th 2010 @ 8:11am
beaver fever said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
I think the key point for me is, the amount of posts that people make on these boards about the AFL, ” i admire their Admin, even though i dont really like the game ”
Says to me that the the AFL did the right thing, Mister football got it right when he said, it was the FFA demanding everything, the AFL demanded nothing.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:03am
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Of course people admire the AFL admin, they have taken what is mainly seen as a Victorian sport (to those nth of the borders) to make it Australia’s no 1 sport. They have 2 teams each in the RL states, while RL has only 1 team in the 3 AFL states (more a token one as well). You have to admire them for that.
Maybe they got there by being bullish, but I don’t think so, however it’s their recent bullying tactics have made them no friends whatsoever.
Most football fans have no issue with RL over the WC bid, but plenty of issues with Demertiou.
Buying the best players from RL & paying them top $ but really not expecting them to perform on the field was also not seen in good light in those Nth of the border.
Yet when a couple of non AFL journalists shows the same bullish attitude in respect to their sport (Roy Masters & Craig Foster), the AFL gets all upset.
This is what I think midfield is alluring to. Some AFL cheerleaders use the word hate when talking about a sport, how can one hate a sport. You either have a passion for sport, or you like it or care little for it, how do you hate it? (shows your fear).
October 12th 2010 @ 9:06am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Many hold a deep, deep resentment and antipathy towards the AFL.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:18am
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:18am | Report comment
I wouldn’t know that, I don’t spend much time in AFL blogs to see these people who hold deep, deep resentment and antipathy towards AFL, so I have to take your word for it.
But I do see a lot AFL fans, far more than any other in football blogs, putting their negative spins on our sport.
These guys hold a deep deep fear towards football even with some who actually likes the sport
October 12th 2010 @ 9:35am
Richard said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
I can’t speak for other fans of the Australian Football code, but my negativity with soccer comes not from fear of it, but boredom with it. Is it so hard to believe that there are many in Australia who just don’t like soccer? Have your world cup if you must, just do it without interering with my enjoyment of football.
October 12th 2010 @ 12:09pm
Al said | October 12th 2010 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Yet it’s ok to tarnish and even question the loyalties of non-AFL supporting Australians who find Aussie Rules to be an ugly, disorganised, skilless, strategicless, tacticless and downright boring and irrelevant game? Perhaps we don’t want AFL to be shoved down our throats by the AFL administration and their media lackeys everytime we turn on a TV or radio, open a newspaper or try and read an Australian newservice online, but I guess the consistent interruption of our enjoyment of our respective football codes doesn’t matter and yours is the only enjoyment that does.
October 12th 2010 @ 2:28pm
Richard said | October 12th 2010 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Boy Al you sure are ignorant when it comes to Australian Football. The Great Game is none of the things you have listed there. You will need to overcome the deep emotion displayed in your outburst however, so that you can see the game with both eyes open. If you are able to develop a better understanding of Aussie Rules, it will truly enrich your life, I assure you.
October 12th 2010 @ 3:07pm
Black Diamonds said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Disorganised?
Haven’t heard of the 18 positions on the ground?
Skilless?
So I suppose you can thread goals from 50m on the boundary with ease? Or jump metres in the air to tap the ball to the advantage of your rovers at a centre contest. Or soar over a pack – ala Brendan Goddard – and claim the ball whilst nearly standing on someone’s back?
If you’ve got all these skills mate – presumably easy if you regard the sport as skilless – why don’t you saunter on down to one of these clubs and pick up $500,000 per year to do this easy thing!
Strategicless and Tacticless?
You really have no idea about anything to you – the flood, the wave, the diamond, the play-on at all costs, the tactical free-kick, zoning off – sure these kinds of things are employed in many sports – and they’re also in Australian Football – but with more participants which gives them greater variations on the theme.
How you can’t see this has me baffled.
October 12th 2010 @ 3:46pm
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Richard, please tell me why you can have an opinion of football, but others can not have an opinion of AFL.
I think you should allow people to choose whatever they like to enrich their lives, be it AFL or lacrosse, no matter how small the game is WW.
October 12th 2010 @ 5:03pm
Richard said | October 12th 2010 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Hey Punter. You’re right. It is ok to have an opinion. But its not ok to be ignorant. And that outburst about the nature of Australian Football is total inflamatory poppycock, as you know. By the way, in the spirit of enlightenment, AFL is the name of the organising body of the national game. VFL in Victoria. SANFL in SA etc. The name of the game itself is Australian Football. Just to clarify.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:46pm
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Thanks Richard for the education. Coming from Sydney, the game was either Aussie rules or VFL in my childhood.
I realise it was then changed to AFL (organising body).
It was never Australian football to me & never will be.
Like I said I come from Sydney going to the footy or the football as a child was going to the a Rugby League match. But now going to the football means Association football or soccer.
But then what’s in a name!!! You call it football I call it football, the fact that we are talking about different sports only shows that diversity works in this country.
What you call boring, I call exciting, what you call enlightening I care less for & may the world continue to spin.
Bring on the World cup!!!
October 12th 2010 @ 7:53pm
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
Thankfully the AFL is investing in grassroots around Australia, and before long the veil will be lifted.
We can all look forward to a period of enlightenment when all Australians can share the sacred joy of following their very own game, born of this soil, synomous with the very character of its people.
October 12th 2010 @ 7:56pm
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
But educated men with taste will always have the choice & this is the important part.
October 12th 2010 @ 8:00pm
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Choice is at the very heart of consumer sovreignty and a free society.
October 12th 2010 @ 8:06pm
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
Yes this is correct, so despite all the media with a national profile, that keeps the AFL at the front of all sports news programs, in Sydney the AFL gets outrated by the Iron Chef. Long may we be different & more importantly have the right to..
October 12th 2010 @ 9:37am
slickwilly said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:37am | Report comment
interestingly – i would say the reverse is true and that soccer fans (and league fans as well to be honest) are continually harping on about the obnoxious and hyper aggressive activities of the afl – guess its a case of only noticing that which feeds your own anxiety/prejudice
October 12th 2010 @ 10:44am
punter said | October 12th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
I wouldn’t know, I don’t visit many AFL blogs or threads. I like Richard above just sometimes find other sports (AFL) boring & don’t watch it, nor do I visit their blogs or threads to tell everyone my feelings towards it.
Occassionally like you I may come across one that may grab my attention & throw the odd comment. But unlike some AFL cheerleaders I don’t know enough about a sport that I’m not keen on to argue my point.
October 12th 2010 @ 11:06am
Al said | October 12th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
AFL is Australia’s number one sport? Hmm no, cricket holds that mantle quiet comfortably.
October 12th 2010 @ 3:10pm
Black Diamonds said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Really – more than 7 million went through the turnstiles last summer to watch the cricket did they? Can you show me some stats?
Oh, and if its not attendance, check out turnover – very sure that the turnover of the AFL and its clubs is well in excess of the the various cricket associations.
But if not crowds or turnover, how about viewership. How many cricket matches outrated the AFL Grand Final? Or indeed the cumulative AFL audiences during the year?
Cricket may be a major Summer sport around the nation – but Australia’s No. 1 sport it ain’t.
October 12th 2010 @ 3:31pm
Al said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Cricket is the only sport that is just as revered in Sydney, Newcastle and Brisbane as it is in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. It is the only sport that can claim the entire nation’s backing in equal measure regardless of state of origin. It is one of the only sports where people in Sydney and Melbourne in equal measure would wake up in the middle of the night to watch the Ashes or the World Cup. Aussie Rules might have great numbers of attendance in three states, but in most of NSW and Qld, not so.
October 12th 2010 @ 12:38pm
Redb said | October 12th 2010 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
C’mon Pinter, no-one takes Craig Fester too seriously.
October 18th 2010 @ 7:08pm
red bear said | October 18th 2010 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Aussie Rules just a Victorian Sport ?
Ha, try telling that to a Tasmanian like me, or a West Australian or South Australia. That’s as ignorant as us southerners thinking that Union and League are the same thing (which I did until I moved to the mainland !)
October 12th 2010 @ 8:42am
Brett McKay said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Michael, the heading promised so much, too….
I completely agree with your basic premise here, it would be great if everyone could just get along. But you’ve used them fightin’ words, so good luck with this today….
October 12th 2010 @ 8:48am
Richard said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I think its arrogant in the extreme to expect the AFL to give way on its regular season arrangements just because Australian soccer administrators want to have a world cup. Who gives soccer aficionados the right to presume that we should give up access to our preferred code of football, Aussie Rules, just because soccer wants to have a world cup? Personally I do not support the world cup bid or specifically the use of taxpayer’s dollars to support it. I do not like soccer. It’s nowhere near as good a game as Australian Football and as far as I can see the South African tournament was a great flop. I’d support another Olympics bid, but a soccer world cup? In Australia? No way. Doesn’t have sufficient following here and we don’t need the waste of taxpayer’s money.
October 12th 2010 @ 1:04pm
Luke W said | October 12th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Well I support a WC at the expense of the AFL, so I guess that cancels out both of our taxpayers dollars/votes!
October 12th 2010 @ 3:07pm
MVDave said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Yeah each to their own Richard…l find most AFL games yawnfests and thats coming from someone who played the game. Perhaps when we win the 2022 WC you could take an overseas holiday whilst the AFL moves aside. BTW interested in how you think the 2010 WC was a great flop? 3rd highest ave attendance ever, TV ratings records broken around the world, huge numbers of tourists, fantastic stadiums and a tournament that showed SA in a very good light. Perhaps you could elaborate or is it just your biased and blinkered observations of a sport that you dont like?
October 12th 2010 @ 5:18pm
Richard said | October 12th 2010 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
Yeah MVDave. You could be right. It seemed like a big bore to me but that could indeed be just because I don’t like the game. The SA WC just didn’t seem to have the same sense of relevance as the tournament four years earlier in Germany. I’m not opposed to a WC in Australia per se, but I would not support the AFL disrupting the Australian Football calendar to enable it. Also I doubt the value of the expenditure to the economy and would vote against taxpayers having to fund it. However, if it’s self funded, paid for by those who love the game (Frank Lowy’s pretty well off and seems to like the game), and doesn’t interefere with other sports calendars, then good luck to you and your code. No, I won’t be going. Might watch a bit oin TV so long as I don’t have to get Foxtel to do it. By the way, most AFL games might be yawn fests to some. But what about those that aren’t, eh? Too good!
October 12th 2010 @ 8:50am
Timmuh said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
“If the AFL hadn’t withdrawn Etihad Stadium’s availability ” … well, they never did. Docklands was never available, therefore its availability could not be withdrawn. The FFA startd promoting the stadium to FIFA officials without ever seeking any guidance as to whether the stadium would be available. It never could be. As you say yourself the AFL has a right to protect its competition, it could not have one without at least one of the MCG and Docklands for the whole year. It will struggle to have one losing the MCG alone, even moreso with the only grounds in Adelaide and Perth also unavailable for 6-8 weeks mid-season.
Blaming the AFL for the goings-on here is largely a construct of the Sydney media, as indeed is so much of the whole code wars rubbish.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:04am
Mister Football said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
I agree with all of that.
October 12th 2010 @ 9:44am
slickwilly said | October 12th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
largely???? – how about entirely
the above quibble aside, well said
October 12th 2010 @ 3:41pm
Cpaaa said | October 12th 2010 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
You ArFL folk are a funny bunch.
You talk about tax funded Football stadiums and forget to mention the upgrades the ArFl will receive in the process.
A World Cup competition (which Australia will host and win) in 2022 for one month is a serious threat to the lives of the ArFL, apparently?
Take the month off guys, enjoy the games, save the memories. ArFL will still be around for another 150 years, nothing to fear.
You lot seem to treat an Australian World Cup in 12 years time as Armageddon for Aussie Rules….
October 12th 2010 @ 5:29pm
beaver fever said | October 12th 2010 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
What is the ArFL ?.
October 12th 2010 @ 8:24pm
Kermit is a frog said | October 12th 2010 @ 8:24pm | Report comment
actually – this article is attacking the AFL despite that the AFL and AFL fans are happy enough that an agreement was reached and if the bid is won then all will be rosey enough.
Perhaps we ‘ArFL folk’ as you put it are content that we’ll be fine – but, for some reason there’s still people who seem to be blaming the AFL for something (and from this article, I’m not quite sure what??). The author still hasn’t returned to explain his points.
A few of us are lined up waiting to see just what the author reckons the AFL demanded that they weren’t entitled to and how he figures that Docklands/Etihad/Colonial was ‘withdrawn’. (surely it was never offered in the first place!).
Armageddon a bad feeling about this…….
October 12th 2010 @ 10:51pm
beaver fever said | October 12th 2010 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Armageddon it to !!. sort of a Italian accent, with the hands waving around.