Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and FFA Chairman Frank Lowy center left, at Parliament House in Canberra. AP Photo/Rob Griffith
World Football Insider has released its updated 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup bid power index ratings. Australia is described as the biggest loser and has slid from 2nd in February to 7th now, five points behind Asian rival Qatar.
Bids are scored across ten criteria: bid operation/leadership; wow factor and USPs; relation with FIFA members; cost/funding resources; government/public support; international PR; venue plans; security; transport/accommodation; and legacy.
Now, the easy path here is to criticse the other codes, and undoubtedly many soccer faithful would rightly or wrongly square up to the AFL in particular. However, that’s half the problem. Petty squabling.
However, this ignores the question of how it came to that? My subjective feeling is that federal government’s negligence is to blame and showed a severe lack of understanding of what was required. The move by the federal government to entrust the bid organisation solely to the FFA (itself a young and immature sporting peak body, demonstrably reliant upon non-soccer administrators), given the obvious requirement for buy in from across a varied and competitive domestic sporting fraternities, showed great negligence.
The decision was a poor one, and based on what was known (or should have been known) it is clear that the bidding committee ought to have had a broader base from the outset. Even a soccer nation like England recognised this back in 2007.
However, that’s water under the bridge now. There’s still 200 days to go and anything can happen. Given security is one of the scoring points in this table, and given that South Africa is about to kick off their hosting duties despite its high murder rate, anything can happen.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Roger - re D - - did YOU actually read the first 4 paragraphs : you would have seen : The stadium has been controversial since its first construction and there has been a significant amount of criticism directed toward the facility, particularly from its major tenant, the AFL. The AFL have increasingly regarded the stadium owner as a hostile landlord, engaging numerous litigations against the current owners[3] and threatened to build a rival stadium as close as a kilometre away in the short-term.[4] is that your idea of proof of being in it together?? re A --- yes with strings attached....however, from the AFL perspective, it's yes but not at too great an expense of the AFL.......and from that early point was a push to ensure that no single code pays too heavy a price, which is where the right to seek compensation has been signed off and the right to not be evicted from host cities has been retained. It applies across the board (the 'rival' codes) and ensures that the event, if won, is hosted more fairly than the initial gambit of the FFA which was maximum cost on the other codes and maximum benefit to soccer!!!!......'spreading the love' really!!! re most the others it appears we at least have an understanding - - the FFA had a position of wanting absolute adherance and the AFL and NRL felt that was not possible (i.e. the potential shut down for 4 weeks plus effective shut down for an additional 4 weeks with most the main facilities unavailable). And so a compromise has been reached. Is that so bad?? AFter all - - it's the FIFA window....it's not the AFL or NRL window. If the 'no vacancy' sign is already up and you come barging in,......well,.......you quite frankly get what you can get and probably have to pay overs for it. Rightly or wrongly - that's the way of the world (without resorting to armed force!!!,.....which probably is more the way of the world come to think of it.......) sorry - - I DID bait you in the end, but, no hard feelings - I was just curious where we'd got to on some of the finer details. After all - - we have our beliefs, our perspective and our arguments - - but, it's not a fair test of them if we don't follow through on a few. Thanx for your time. :-)
Roger
Guest
"But, I can see why you’re running away, you’ve run out of objections and are unable to substantiate the ones you cling desperately to." Ok fine. You asked for this. Be careful what you wish for MC. "after the discussions we’ve had – - where you’ve raised objection after objection and I’d've thought I’ve countered a good number of them (helping to raise your fog of ignorance – - – and that’s not a put down,…..you know what you know)……I’d've thought that if you’ve been following the responses then you’d have got to a point somewhere as above." Firstly, you have countered nothing, and have only presented your narrow minded AFL views. Also, what have you told me that I didn't already know? Oh that's right, you corrected me when I referred to it as AAMI Stadium, as opposed to AAMI Park. That was a crucial point, and I’m glad that you sorted it out. While we’re on the subject of crucial points, “facecious” is spelled “facetious”. Of course, I knew what you meant, but I wanted to point it out anyway… sound familiar? Ok, answers to your questions: A – Yes, but not at the (near) expense of a WC Bid B – Yes, but so what? When entering a negotiation, any party can state unreasonable demands from the outset - that doesn’t make them appropriate. C – What most Victorians believe does not directly correlate to the reality of the situation, which as we know, can be traced back to the unholy Docklands/AFL alliance. Or is it a hostage situation as opposed to an alliance? Refer to D below, I’ll let you decide. D – Oh, but it is. Do you honestly believe that AFL had nothing to do with the position of Docklands? Don’t fool yourself. If you do believe that they are completely independent, then you clearly have no understanding of how things work in the world. Read the first four paragraphs this article on Docklands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium I think that pretty much undermines the majority of your arguments. Note the threats from AFL to Docklands, and the fact that AFL assumes ownership in 2025. E – As above. F – Pot calling the kettle black? G – Refer to D. H – Not even sure whether that’s a question or a statement. Regardless, I believe this point is also adequately covered in previous answers. I – It doesn’t help if it’s not sufficient for a WC bid. J – Again, it doesn’t help if you need more than just the FIFA WC dates. It’s like offering a starving man a peanut, and saying that they should be thankful. K – Again, it doesn’t help if more is needed L – As above M – True. But was there a point here? Clearly Etihad would be more desirable than ground in Skilled Park, as it is more central, and holds more people. Let's be honest, any WC game in Melbourne will be sold out. N – As above. O – We have been over this numerous times. “tell me what of the above are long bowstrings to pull??” Given my answers above, I’ll let you work that one out for yourself. Well, that about wraps it up.
Axel V
Guest
Harvey, the problem with Liverpool is, theres too many scousers!
Michael C
Roar Guru
sorry Roger, wasn't intended to bait. More a thought around the reference in the Michael Lynch article about Demetriou being a formidable negotiator,.........the extention of which is that the FFA met their match...... The thing that irks me around how some people view Demetriou is the misrepresentation. He never said a FIFA WC full stop was undoable- - - only the worst case scenario of now Docklands in conjunction with no MCG, especially if the MCG were out of action for more than 10 weeks. That somehow got represented as a blanket objection rather than a specific set of boundaries. Demetriou also got accused of deliberately timing his going public......however, that ignores that whilst he made his comments in early December, that earlier on November 20 the media HAD reported AFL Commissioner Mike Fitzpatrick and Chief operating officer Gillon McLachlan had been briefing the clubs about scenarios which included an article "World Cup loses its cheer" : THE AFL has painted the dramatic scenario of a season laid to waste by a soccer World Cup in Australia, with the MCG unavailable for up to 12 weeks. When Demetriou returned from paternity leave and commented (in answer to media questions) - as far as he knew - it had already been reported on. ANd of course we know the FFA had set the agenda first by going public with their intent to use BOTH the MCG and Docklands - prior to the AFL making any public statements. So, the tone for the game of pocker was more often set by the FFA. But, I can see why you're running away, you've run out of objections and are unable to substantiate the ones you cling desperately to. There are some reasonable people around such as AndyRoo.......who can engage in a discussion. I'm more than happy Roger for you to engage further, what points do you still dispute and what evidence have you got to support your position??
Harvey the Scouser
Roar Guru
I'm biased because I really, really want England to host in 2018, I reckong they have earned that right but I cant see how Australia has earned the right to host a World Cup, I just cant see it where are the grounds, where is the support for the game, I cant see it
Roger
Guest
Nice baiting, truly well done. Your comments make me want to write a wall of text in response, sinking to your level... but I won’t be drawn back in. I’m not wasting any more time with you and your skewed AFL view of the world. The end.
Michael C
Roar Guru
AxelV - at least I've included the source and acknowledged it's the only place I've seen it - - - however, on the issue of the MRS, there's been a lot said by the FFA about Docklands but, they really haven't gone into detail about their efforts to make the MRS a workable solution or alternative (plan B to Docklands not being available.....given they had clear indications from the AFL from 2008 that Docklands would not be available). This is one of these 'leadership' questions that soccer fans ought to ask. If it was due diligence to do the homework on a possible reconfig of the MCG, then, it was due diligence to do the homework on the MRS, at what point is it affordable or preferable to run with an MRS upgrade and let's see the actual numbers and estimates from Grocon?? 'cos, this little teaser at the bottom of this article implies there's more to the story that hasn't been put out there. That's all. The FFA have varioiusly stated it as being too costly or too hard. If Grocon reckon it's not that hard, then cost is the issue, but, given the FFA tried to put life into the E-Gate option near the Bolte Bridge - - that is a major cost, 100% AFL legacy and would seem to fly in the face of the presumably more desirable soccer legacy that could've been achieved at the MRS. That seemed a tad inconsistant. It really took on the appearance of the FFA seeking a fight for turf with the AFL on Docklands and hoping that the Govt (Fed or State) would back them to the hilt........and so, Michael Lynch's article yesterday from Jo'berg with unnamed sources close to the bid included a bit of a swipe at the Vic State Govt. Was that because a State Govt bulldozer was not supplied to break into the AFL fortress??
Axel V
Guest
Michael C, your source is the Herald Sun? I love how at the end of the article it randomly has " Melbourne's new rectangular stadium emerged as a possible alternative. Builder Grocon revealed the 31,000-seat venue could be easily increased to 40,000." It goes into absolutely no detail on how, why isn't this mentioned anywhere else?
Michael C
Roar Guru
I'd love to see what you disagree with, as, I've dealt with most of your objections along the way. Are you saying you are still not convinced?? Or, just don't want to be?? or, are you one of those who believes the AFL, NRL and ARU should support even a bad WC bid unconditionally??
Michael C
Guest
after the discussions we've had - - where you've raised objection after objection and I'd've thought I've countered a good number of them (helping to raise your fog of ignorance - - - and that's not a put down,.....you know what you know)......I'd've thought that if you've been following the responses then you'd have got to a point somewhere as above. However - - I recognise that there's a certain mind set on this from the pro soccer perspective that feels the following : support should be unconditional ...well, actually, that's it.........if any reasonable person accepts that support ought be reasonable and fair then it's gotta be viewed differently.
Roger
Guest
I sorely want to respond to your survey, and have commenced answering it a couple of times before thinking better of it, as we aren't getting anywhere. Reading my posts - and the posts of others - would probably shed some light on most of the questions you have asked. Let's leave it at that, as we are not going to agree.
Michael C
Roar Guru
One thing that amazes me - and this pertains to the rankings and criticism of leadership. Given that as late as late April we saw comments like this from the MCC : "The MCC supports Australia's bid for the World Cup, but we are awaiting confirmation that all of the obligations the MCC has have been agreed to by the AFL and FFA." indicating the MCG hadn't even been locked in, and prior to that we'd seen Lowy come out with gems like : "We'll succeed without them. "I'm confident of where we are.'' The 10,000-page bid book will be sent for printing, binding and checking next week before its submission to FIFA in May, Lowy said. Lowy said: "I have no hesitation in telling you that we are practically there, bar a few minor details. "There are still some mechanics to be done, but I think we're there. Perhaps Lowy shoulda just keep his trap shut and got on with some real negotiation. The AFL and FFA were playing high stakes poker and the AFL look to have held their nerve better........ANdrew Demetriou....you legend!!!
Michael C
Roar Guru
yeah - - but why did the stakeholders in the venue.....the VIc Govt and the FFA, ARU and ARL/NRL - - allow such a limiting facade to be created??? Again......that wasn't the AFL's decision and the AFL can't relocate matches there.......so.......for the AFL they can easily say workout how you want to spend your $300million......give it to us as compensation.....or, upgrade your own stadium. It's not the AFL's fault in any way!!!! And there was still a single news article that carried the comment from Grocon that it wasn't actually that hard to upgrade!!!!! "Builder Grocon revealed the 31,000-seat venue could be easily increased to 40,000.".
Michael C
Roar Guru
Roger - as with HtheS. surely we can agree on this: A. AFL has a right and obligation to look after it's interests. Y/N B. AFL clearly stated it's intentions around Docklands and playing on as of Oct/Nov 2008 and the FFA was congisant of this. Y/N C. most Victorians assumed the new rectangular stadium would be upgrade if required......that was part of it's premise after all. Y/N D. re C, it's not for the AFL to work out. Y/N E. if the FFA had issues with the Govt not sorting out C, it's not the AFL's fault. Y/N F. Frank Lowy or 'unnamed sources' going on about it now is hardly helpful to anyone and just looks unprofessional. Y/N G. that Docklands management is fully independant of the AFL. Y/N H. that the AFL had nothing to do with the new stadium construction moratorium. Y/N I. that the AFL does have a track record of rescheduling within reason. Y/N J. that the AFL has exhibited it's intent to reschedule within reason for the FIFA WC. Y/N K. that J includes stated options such as not going head to head with matches in the same city and potentially shutting down during the WC finals. Y/N L. that to sustain K, that to be without BOTH the MCG and Docklands for 8 weeks (the months of June and July) is no possible with 10 Vic clubs.. Y/N M. that we have never seen any suggestion of more than 2 venues for Victoria anyway. Y/N N. that the FFA presently has 2 Vic Venues - the MCG and Skilled Stadium. Y/N O. that if soccer legacy truely concerns the FFA as much as we seem to hear at the end of each article........then why has the Swan St (AAMI park) MRS been ignored?????? tell me what of the above are long bowstrings to pull??
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
It costs about 300m or so to upgrade it and it would look like a dogs breakfast are pretty good reasont he upgrade plan wasn't carried through. As it stands now it's going to be a good asset for sports tourism and looks good on TV.... I can see why the Vic Government wasn't keen to spend $ to ruin the venue asthetically.
Harvey the Scouser
Roar Guru
why yer finding it hard to follow the logic its straightforward enough one minute the new stadium was going to be used for the WC bid, the next it wasnt why? how did that happen?
Roger
Guest
Not sure that I follow your logic there MC. Methinks you are drawing a bit of a long bow on many of your points and conclusions. Also - like me - you have no idea what happened in those negotiations behind closed doors, and neither do the media. Oh sure, we can hazard a guess, but that's all it is - a guess. To think otherwise would be a bit naive. All we know is that FFA and the AFL had a hard time agreeing, and that AFL were refusing to budge on Docklands.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Mate - the last time Aust Footy administrators gave someone a 'free kick' was in Sydney in the early 1900s and that turned to disaster.......so, don't expect code vs code largesse!!!! reality though - - especially now, it's a business - - the FFA went hard, the AFL went hard. No one would or should expect - or respect - otherwise. And heck - Australian soccer has learned not to trust Sepp Blatter.....why the heck should the AFL or NRL trust FIFA to be fair??
Michael C
Roar Guru
Roger - certainly - if I were to suggest the AFL as being canny it would be that they identified key criteria that FIFA have the final say on - - and the AFL went after the FFA to effectively rule a line through them. HOwever - - it was quite fair enough to seek clarification one might suggest on host city exclusion for a country the size of AUstralian when you're talking 2 national leagues of what might be anything from 32 to 36 combined teams...16-18 matches a week to be rescheduled and compacted and the associated cost impacts and revenue impacts. So - -canny.....but, entirely appropriate. Ben Buckley stated back in December that they had had discussions or would have with FIFA to clarify it........and yet.....the FFA were never able to sign off on it until forced by the Govt MOU. This I reckon embodies the problem, the AFL and to a lesser extent the NRL...probably threw their collective arms in the air and exclaimed "Why are we even talking to the FFA"........because, it's all about FIFA's regulations. The question must be asked ........ was the FFA and Frank Lowy embarrassed to adequately canvas the issues with FIFA?? Did Frank gamble on Govt intervention?? They knew from a long way out......this was written in Nov 2008 article titled "Rival codes get behind 2018 Cup bid with stadiums deal" : But a meeting this week between the AFL and Football Federation Australia is understood to have agreed on several possible compromises. The most likely outcome in Melbourne is that the AFL will allow World Cup matches to be staged at the MCG and keep Telstra Dome for its home-and-away fixtures. At that point.......obviously, the MRS (AAMI park) was assumed to be the 2nd venue. Curiously this was reported of Ben Buckley : FFA chief executive Ben Buckley was tight-lipped on the specifics of the bid and any meetings with other codes, but he said the FFA was very happy with how the bid was progressing and had been working hard to have as much in place as possible by the time FIFA unveiled the bidding process next month. "We've put a fairly substantial submission forward to the Federal Government," Buckley said this week. "There's work going on behind the scenes in terms of organisational planning, tactical planning, technical planning, so we've very happy with where we're at." Gives half an idea that the FFA where nodding to the AFL on plan A and B but going to the Fed Govt with plans C and D...... the FFA still had a choice regarding Swan St.....it's only ever been discounted on the basis of expense......and yet, they would prefer to run the risk of massive compensation to rival codes rather than upgrade the venue??......I dunno......they woulda/coulda/shoulda handled it better than they did.......and it just smells of Frank Lowy. btw - this was the now naive assumption re Swan St The new 32,000-seat rectangular soccer and rugby league stadium being built in Melbourne by 2010 would be beefed up to the 40,000 level it needs to meet World Cup regulations. Why did it all go so pear shaped.........back in Nov 2008 it all looked relatively straight forward........can you understand the AFL's shock when the FFA suddenly was heralding that it would take over Docklands and ignore Swan St??.......can you understand why the AFL got defensive when they found out about the FFA's 'homework' of costing a plan to rectangularise the MCG?? Can you understand why the AFL wanted assurances in writing??
Redb
Roar Guru
Collingwood winning one GF in 50 years?