Travis Varcoe of Geelong celebrates during the AFL 2nd Preliminary Final between the Geelong Cats and the Collingwood Magpies at the MCG.
Michael Cockerill has written a few articles recently in the SMH offering his full support to Lowy and the FFA in its bid to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022.
The most recent article focuses on the receipt of government funding, and the assertion that the AFL has somehow gained from the direct receipt of Government funds.
Cockerill says: “AFL has received about $453m from the three tiers of government.”
That is false. A quick search of the AFL’s annual reports going back to 2003 shows no such receipt of Government funds.
At best, Cockerill has used language extremely loosely (and don’t forget that he is a professional journalist), at worst, he has been misleading.
But now I come to the main point: no-one North of the Murray should ever pretend that they understand the history of Australian Football, ground usage and the Government’s role unless they really, really, honestly do understand it.
And that would mean having been part of the generations upon generations that have lived it and breathed it as part of their day-to-day lives.
The relationship between Australian football and cricket is a long one – a very long one – going right back to the inception of the game 151 years ago.
By a quirk of history, the game began to use cricket grounds, at first not consistently, but slowly and surely, the game was played on a cricket oval, and the shape of the ground would soon become an oval.
This quirk of history meant that almost from the very start, cricket was the senior partner in ground sharing – so virtually all the ovals that were ever used by senior football clubs were cricket grounds owned and controlled by cricket clubs.
However, by the mid 1860s, we had the anomalous situation where cricket owned and controlled the grounds – but Australian Football brought in the money to maintain them – a pattern repeated right across Southern Australia.
But I’ll limit my discussion to Victoria.
Every club in the VFA, then the VFL, played on a cricket ground – and virtually every VFA/VFL club existed alongside an eponymous cricket club, such that Footscray Football Club played at the Footscray Cricket Ground, shared with the Footscray Cricket Club, Melbourne played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Essendon played at the Essendon Cricket Ground.
And so it went on.
The cricket clubs owned and controlled the facilities, but Australian football paid for them, paid for the upkeep, paid for the improvements, and pretty much subsidised cricket for 145 years (give or take).
How?
Quite simply Australian Football has always had the large crowds and gate receipts at club level, and cricket never has – not even close.
Ever wondered why the MCG is five times the capacity of Lords? Thank Australian Football.
Now, in the mid 1960s (pretty much 100 years on from where we first started our story), the then VFL had had a gutful of effectively paying for a ground (the MCG) that it didn’t own or control – and thus started a long, ambitious journey to full independence that continues to the present day.
The VFL purchased some land (a sizeable chunk) in the outer south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, called Waverley. It was ambitious in the sense that it was the very largest football stadium ever built (perhaps on the face of the Earth in terms of dimensions), only ever got to a capacity of some 86,000 odd (can’t quite remember the exact figure), but the initial plan was to one day have a stadium that far surpassed the capacity of the MCG.
The idea was that the day would come when the VFL would play its own grand final on its own ground, and pocket millions upon millions of dollars that were otherwise leaving the game every year (and had been from day one).
Why didn’t the VFL proceed with this audacious plan?
Because the then Cain government stepped in, and one way or the other, was going to force the VFL to remain at the MCG against its will and against its commercial interests.
Yes, people, far from being an aide to the VFL, at that very moment the Government was being an obstacle to complete financial independence!
Eventually, after years of negotiations, threats of legal action, etc. a settlement was reached, and the MCG remained the home of the grand final, was further developed – and has continued being enhanced to the present day.
This little story also helps explain why when Australian Football makes a deal with the MCG.
It is a very long one!
While the relationship has been good to the AFL over the last 18 years (but still with its problems in terms of sharing revenue) – there’s little doubt that without Australian Football, the MCG would not be the stadium we have today – it has not been one way traffic.
In the meantime, the AFL eventually sold its interests in Waverley, and ultimately initiated the construction of the Dome at Docklands, another audacious project, which it will own outright in 2025.
This project was built with no funding from Government, that is, 100 percent private equity.
So when people North of the border start telling stories about Australian Football, grounds and Government, they better get their story straight or they will end up looking like a dill.
Michael C
Roar Guru
AndyRoo - $400 mill and counting......but, we don't know, do we?? Remember, the only figures that Cockerill actually quoted were very wrong to absolutely wrong.......including quoting a figure of $28 mill from Fed Govt that actually included $6.5 mill of the AFL and Geelong FC 's own money....... that's pretty rich!!! I'd still like to see what other funds/projects he's decided fit his very, very loose criteria.
M1tch
Roar Guru
80 sfs..dear god no way 65k max and keep the fishbowl for grand finals
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Michael I allready talked about those stadiums. If it fits within the time frame Swan street belongs in the football column.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Michael i allready said he should have included Swan Street in the Football column if it fits within his dates. At least 80% too Football.
Michael C
Guest
why are you persisting in using Cockerill's crap figures??? have you figured out yet how to calculate Cockerill's $453 million figure (over his undisclosed period of time). Tell us please. What venues that the AFL owns that have had massive govt cash injections. I'm still curious. Becuase, whatever you present - - will beg the question of why you haven't factored into Cockerill's numbers the dollar value (or at least a half share or thirds share) for the MRS, or Robina Stadium. You can't have one without t'other.
The man
Guest
"No-one North of the Murray should ever pretend that they understand the history of Australian Football" Does anyone north of the Murray ever understand Australian Football? I fully support a World Cup tilt - the benefits for stadium upgrades all over the place are the icing on the cake (just like the boost the Olympics made to sporting infrastructure in Sydney) Maybe they would upgrade the SFS to 80k+ and save me a treck out to Homebush.
Brett McKay
Guest
Pip, I'm a little dirty now I didn't get to this when you wrote it - great history you've provided here, and that's before you get through all the comments..
GeneralAshnak
Roar Pro
It doesn't, that is the problem. The AFL doesn't care about Football Park anyway, only the SANFL does. The Crows would be furious about any changes to the way the game is played as they have invested a lot of money into the site. The Power on the other hand cannot wait to leave the place as all it does is cost them money hand over fist. I am not sure what is going to happen, but the best solution - to everyone without a totally biased opinion - is to sell off AAMI and Hindmarsh for housing. Get rid of Adelaide Oval and redevelop the EWS site (this was proposed by Rucci, and though I was unhappy with the idea at first I can see merit in it now) to make it a multi purpose venue. The chances of this happening are remote though to say the least.
Gibbo
Guest
I found the history interesting. thanks pip. up urs frued.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
But where does AAMI fit into all this?
GeneralAshnak
Roar Pro
Not sure at the moment, but it looks like the SANFL are pissed about Adelaide Oval being annointed as our WC bid venue. The SANFL was definately looking at securing either a new stadium which they had control of or having Adelaide Oval signed over to them in response to injecting funding into the stadium. It looks like the AFL and state government are actually going to by pass SANFL to railroad home the upgrade to Adelaide Oval over everything else. Which, though it will help the SANFL, will hinder their funding model terribly. Of course we are all still speculating as nothing firm is emerging, I am a proponent of the cage fight to get it all sorted out - at least it would be entertaining!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
by the way - what's the inside story on SACA and SANFL - what the hell's going on there? Is it just another example of this cricket vs aussie rules thing I'm talking about - or is there something more to it?
Pippinu
Roar Guru
General on another thread - someone is complaining about the attention Palmer and GCU are getting!!!
GeneralAshnak
Roar Pro
I know all about how much AFL (you know what I mean) and cricket hate each other - the SACA and SANFL are a prime example! But seriously mate let's just let this one die, funding from government sources is always controversial - people always say it should be spent elsewhere. If Cockerill is inacturate, does it matter? All opinion pieces are because they are not journalism, it gets even worse when one opinion piece is defending/attacking another opinion piece - a vicious circle if you will. Let's get back to the serious stuff - GCU and Clive Palmer, and what he is doing to the HAL.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Pip There you go again suggesting our great Australian game isn’t fantastic at working with the government to deliver fantastic results (400m and counting in the last few years) for all Australians (i.e. AFL members). Perhaps you don’t realize the effort and skill that goes into lobbying, I suggest you get yourself down to parliament house (TV doesn’t do it justice) and prepare to be amazed. Some people think that just because a Frank Lowy has come in and done relatively well that anyone can do it, but that’s not the case. The odds are stacked against them and any success involves a lot of things going just right.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
General Cockerill has floated some incorrect facts and figures and has tried to imply something which is not true - that's why I gave a very a summarised history of the long, sometimes tumultuous relationship between cricket and aussie rules in this country. Now things have gone in all directions since I wrote the article - but that was the original intent of the article.
GeneralAshnak
Roar Pro
Pip mate, you have lost the plot! Why are you engaging in this stupid argument? It is as bad as the "only my sport is football" argument. Sports receive Government funding, both directly and indirectly. Who actually cares? The FFA has received funding to try and win the WC. Big deal. The AFL receives no direct funding from governments. Big deal. Cricket receives stadium funding. Big deal. Various state based organisations receive government funding. Big deal. BTW Pips, the SANFL does receive direct funding. I am sure that the WAFL does too, probably the VFL (or VFA or whatever it is called). The AFL probably doesn't because it really doesn't need it due to the massive income it receives. Doesn't it basically keep all the Vistorian teams afloat (at one time or another)? I thought the FFA copied some of the AFL's funding models for the HAL?
Pippinu
Roar Guru
AndyRoo Yes - except Cockerill's facts and figures are hopelessly wrong. And in what you quote from Hinds, it's true that in one article, Cockerill savaged the other codes for over-reacting to news about their leagues stopping. But as I wrote here on the Roar soon after - hardly anyone had said anything! So where was the uproar that Cockerill was referring to? It doesn't exist? It's never happened. There hasn't been a squeak out of the codes, except for two sentences from Gallop. Cockerill made it up. Why? I'll leave that for others to determine.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Perhaps because he was responding too http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/world-cup-evangelists-play-holier-than-thou/2009/10/27/1256405389238.html?page=2 I guess Hinds must be on the AFL payroll because he makes Fox News look balanced in comparison. Here is what he says about Football “How long before there is a call to lock up those imperilling the World Cup bid under special emergency laws formulated by a Prime Minister who, Cockerill argues, has a mandate for the bid because he won a majority at the last election (even if he did not throw his weight, and almost 50 million taxpayer dollars, behind it until he was available for photo opportunities in The Lodge)? Of course, in making their bid more iconic than Bart Cummings's eyebrows, the FFA's lobbying has been top shelf” 400 plus million and the FFA getting 47 million to try and bring the world cup to Australia gets this response? You didn’t hear peep from Football folk in the Media about any of the money spent on AFL before we had to defend ourselves. We accepted it with good grace but if we dare do the same then we cop both barrels. “the irony created by the FFA's successful courting of the Federal Government - that to question the World Cup bid has become downright un-Australian” If getting some money from the Government makes you unAustralian, then the AFL better look into a name change pronto. UAFL perhaps. But then what about the $900 we all got…if you filled out a tax return you are unAustralian according to Richard Hinds! “used its greatest competitive advantage with the AFL and NRL to gain a taxpayer funded leg-up” People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, that is all that Cockerills piece is about. Anything more and I think you have underlying issues with the great game Australian Rules Football that you are trying to vent. Well take your anti AFL bias somewhere else Pip because I won’t stand for it.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
AndyRoo As I said - that's me trying to surmise: why did he include so many factual errors in his article?