Dustin Martin of Richmond looks to clear the ball during the AFL Round 01 match between the Richmond Tigers and the Carlton Blues at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images
Paranoia? Or position vindicated? In late 2009, the whole issue of Australia’s Football World Cup bid hit the headlines, like it hadn’t before.
It had simmered for a little while. However, reports surfaced in October suggesting that rival codes would have to shut down for up to eight weeks and vacate host cities.
There were some headlines about NRL club revolts and David Gallop regarding the propositions as “not workable”.
The AFL held firm with their line of “support in principle, need to see the detail”. But, by early December, the detail was becoming clear.
The FFA had been promoting Docklands (Etihad) stadium to the world, and the AFL had come across plans to rectangularise the MCG and put it out of action for at least 16 weeks.
And so the AFL made its public move.
Fair enough. After all, the FFA had been heralding its plans to the entire world.
That’s pretty public!
Alas, the media got it a bit wrong at the time, with unhelpful headlines like Win World Cup bid and lose AFL for season: Demetriou.
The reality was not a win World Cup bid and lose AFL proposition, per se. There was a particular issue of concern for the AFL, which related to the MCG.
The AFL was willing to give it up for up to 10 weeks. Ideally, we thought the FFA needed no more than eight weeks and claimed the 16 week reconfiguration wasn’t an option that the FFA was actively pursuing.
So apparently it was paranoia for Demetriou to go public with this concern.
We have since seen further argy-bargy over Docklands, and the Victorian Government put Geelong (Kardinia Park) on the table to placate the FFA, who were still adamant they wanted Docklands, despite the AFL’s position.
We thought the MCG was a closed case.
That was until this week, and reports such as MCG still not locked in to bid.
And we scratch our collective head. There are two main sticking points.
One, to gain a guarantee from FFA/FIFA that the AFL will not be deemed a “major sport’” regarding host cities. And the other, an assurance that the MCG will not be out of action for more than the ten weeks.
The first point may be tricky. That would mean the FFA getting a concession of sorts from FIFA. So what’s the point of the AFL dealing with the FFA in the first place?
This sheds light on the second point: why is this still a concern now?
We thought this element of the MCG was a closed case. It gives the impression that the AFL has found that the FFA is less in control of this than FIFA. Such that, the spoken word of Ben Buckley is hardly assurance enough.
allblackfan
Guest
As I said, Michael, the FFA's stand was reported in the media. I believe it's highly unlikely the FFA will actively punish Victoria over the AFl's stance. But if the SWC does come to town, I think the MCG will NOT even host the opening ceremony. Homebush's design incoprates sporting venues and outside entertainment precincts. It can cope with hordes of people outside. Could the MCG precinct cope with, say, 20,000 supporters, entertainers, vendors et al right outside the stadium? Homebush can. The other point is that the SWC is a MASSIVE event. not just in sporting terms but economically and media-wise. However big the AFL is in Victoria at the time, I don't think the Vic govt will want to be left behind if that particular bandwagon comes to town. Then consider the AFL picture in NSW and Qld. How quickly, or easily, will the Swans, Lions, Team GWS be buried by the SWC? In a way, we can get a sneak preview of what is likely to happen. NZ is hosting the RWC next year; a small country hosting a big event. We shall see how the other sports cope when the RWC juggernaut come to town next year. Australia is a much bigger country, of course, but the SWC is a much bigger event as well. Time will tell (provided we win the hosting rights).
Michael C
Roar Guru
gee Lazz mate,....there's foundations to go to 50,000 and no one is willing to fund it..........do you want to fund 100K venue?? ;-) Seriously though - were not the German and Japanese 2006 and 2002 WC finals played in oval stadia with running tracks around the soccer pitch?? May I suggest the FIFA WC final might be less about the 70,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 attendees - - - and rather more about the global TV audience. THis seems to be forgotten in this instance (which is odd, as, it's mentioned in most other topics!!). Perhaps, just perhaps, FIFA actually likes the extra space to ensure safety, to ensure full TV access, to allow for greater pomp and ceremony etc. It might just be that the in ground viewer experience is secondary to FIFA when selling their $2.8 billion or however many dollars or is the Euros TV rights.
Michael C
Roar Guru
allblackfan - that was actually one of the oddest things during the debate when the AFL stood their ground on DOcklands and the FFA (Buckley) suggested Victoria might miss out on games...... ....talk about grandstanding..... .....with the MCG, and the MRS (Swan St rectangular stadium with foundations to go to 50,000) and a premier of the state who had offered Geelong, and we got that dismal statement from Buckley!!! If the FFA want to go 'punishing' an entire state....then they aren't fit to run it,.....oh, hang on, the Fed Govt took it over anyway!!! But, if the MCG were only wanted for the 'opening' and pool matches then fine.....the AFL could happliy reclaim it AND Melbourne all the sooner.
Lazza
Guest
That's right, Sydney is going to get all the big games and the exposure that goes with it. Watching Rugby or Football on giant ovals is crap. The 'sporting capital of the universe' doesn't have a decent 100k rectangular stadium to play the biggest sport in the universe.
allblackfan
Guest
Getting back to the topic. As a rugby union fan, I will be happy if Test rugby never returns to the MCG. I went to watch the last Bledisloe Test at the MCG and I must say the experience sucked. Impressive stadium, great service, very poor spectator experience (apart from the result!). Why? Because it's an oval ground. As for the claim that the MCG is the centrepiece of the FFA WC bid, I sincerely doubt it. I think Homebush is right up there as well; it has the capacity to house 110,000 spectators (with temporary seating added on) as it did when it first opened and it was purpose built to house major global sporting events. There are already reports suggesting that FFA may want to punish the AFL by ensuring Melbourne doesn't get the WC grand final (if it wins the rights).
Michael C
Roar Guru
What's all this tripe got to do with the topic of this thread??? btw - what we saw in Vic over the weekend was the fact that the RL test was actually on LIVE.......we want the footy on LIVE in Melb. Mebbe ch.7 will do it one day......mebbe. It'd be interesting to see the 15 min by 15 min figures for WHEN the peak occurred and what happened to the audience after the Melb v Doggies game started. And then come Sunday in Vic and there's now FTA Sunday match which is just really shoddy but we've got the Monday night footy on ch.7 now instead.
Son of a Gun
Roar Rookie
Great ratings for the league no doubt, but for your info, the AFL loses plenty of TV viewers in the west as the game is nearly over by the time it starts in the west (8.30), many people do not bother watching. As has been mentioned if this game did not rate with the hullabaloo about the Storm and a new Stadium and a international test, and a rainy indoor night ... i dont know what would have. Good luck.
M1tch
Roar Guru
this is why bloggers need to read facts before posting lol
Ian
Guest
1.2 Million People watching Rugby League across Australia in the Metropolitan area alone, not including the regions (Large chunk of NSW / QLD which is Rugby League Dominated), Adelaide and Perth against a Metropolitan AFL total of 579 thousand for a near live feed on Friday night sends a clear message to those that hoard the rugby league outside of NSW / QLD that this game is very much alive and not going to go away. The only other games shown live into Melbourne last year (NRL’s tough year) showed that the game will be supported if shown at a reasonable time (Below are 2009 Metro figures for Melbourne OZTAMs rating); MEL – BRIS (Round 3) 203 000 SOO (Game 1 in Melbourne +50k @ Etihad) 328 000 SOO (2) 321 000 SOO (3) 279 000 Grand Final 682 000 And this Friday night, Channel Nine in Melbourne are planning to run an old “Top Gear” and chick flick “The Lake House"! I’d expect the local AFL code will see these TV ratings and should justifiably be concerned as to their Billion dollar ask although the clowns that run Channel Nine in Melbourne are planning to run an old “Top Gear” and chick flick “The Lake House" this Friday! Probably shows that Nine are still in co-hots with the AFL by hoarding the rugby league.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Mate I'll quote you: I guarentee FIFA will look at it and tell Australia to cut Ovals, and we will be contractually obliged to do so. You reckon that the government guarantee given in December last year is sufficient to create a contractual obligation to the extent that FIFA can demand that the Australian taxpayer build whatever it wants? I would say that's unlikely in the extreme. Just for starters, countries have already pulled out, so quite clearly, FIFA cannot hold a gun to anyone. How you come to the opposite conclusion I really don't know. And if by chance there is a semblance of truth in what you say - then clearly the AFL is doing all Australian taxpayers a massive favour by withholding the MCG (for the moment).
Emperor Penguin
Guest
Yes. FIFA have done it at every world cup. And the government guarentee from Dec 09 is to this effect. You are being a bit hysterical with the "100k stadium" remark. FIFA would accept the MCG because of historic and capacity reasons. They would turn a blind eye to its woeful size. Perth will be okay with retractable seating, but its a big stretch looking at Adelaide, Geelong and the Gold Coast. The next question is what would the contractual obligations of the government to AFL to provide the stadiums they have guarenteed? The bid book is just that: a plan as to how we would do it. If we win, the FFA and Federal Government enter into negotiations with FIFA as to how to make it happen. Just look at the South Africa stadiums and how much their stadiums changed from their bid list.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
So at the moment, something like 5 or 6 stadiums are oval, and you're saying that FIFA will demand that these be cut and that the Government simply build 5 or 6 rectangular stadiums - just like that? You reckon the Government would be obliged to build a 100,000 capacity rectangular stadium because FIFA told them to? Where does FIFA's authority come from to demand that Australian taxes get spent on anything? It's a curious view of the world, and perhaps one that deserves wider circulation.
Son of a Gun
Roar Rookie
It's a bit strange how one game changes everything, it was only a week ago that most leaguies and fans of other sports were saying that Melbourne is a bastion of Aussie rules and that is it. Victorians are like most Australians, and love most sports. I see the catchcry is that now the Storm are gunna be big in Melbourne, good grief man, if the Storm were gunna be big, they would have been big by now. For the record, it was not on th tele in the west, but had it been i would have watched it, new stadium, the controversy over the Storm etc. One swallow doth not make a summer. For mine, league is plenty of sizzle and not much sausage. (most of the time)
Emperor Penguin
Guest
The bid submitted will change though. I guarentee FIFA will look at it and tell Australia to cut Ovals, and we will be contractually obliged to do so.
Akazie
Roar Rookie
Yep I agree, the difference is though, the 257,000 average shows people seen the stadium and continued watching instead of wacthing the AFL. The peak was 335,237 in Melbourne, so that shows plenty of people stuck around to watch it.
Akazie
Roar Rookie
JamesP The Swans are not averaging more than the Broncos. 32,930 for the Broncos vs 29,740 for the Swans.
JamesP
Guest
ac - what does your post have to do with the topic of the thread? Are so so delighted that you could just not resist posting on any thread you could find? For the record I tuned in for a bit to see the new stadium...as I think did most people...
JamesP
Guest
30k average attendance so far this year.... Swans are averaging bigger crowds then the Bronco's in Brisbane...
Emperor Penguin
Guest
Yep. The game itself was very dull, mostly because of the rain. The roof wasn't finished. Aparently in bay 44 (I think it was this one) the water streamed down between the bubles. Bad weather in an almost finished stadium ruined the parade. Hopefully the weather is nicer tomorrow for the Storm game. Melbourne by 40 the way the Broncos are playing...
Emperor Penguin
Guest
We are still waiting for the AFL tsunami that was forcast by Victorians for Sydney 10 years ago... TV ratings are abismal as ever and attendences are low.