Ten years ago, November and December 2009, was an interesting time in Australian sport.
Last year I reviewed 2008, when the FFA had announced its intention to bid to host the FIFA World Cup.
It very marked the start of a phoney war, with the various belligerents threatening but keeping their powder dry. So a decade on let’s revisit how 2009 played out.
A brief summary so far. February 2008 and the FFA unveiled their preliminary World Cup bid, but signs of what was to come were visible.
Australia is an intricate sporting market for a relatively small population. AFL journalist Caroline Wilson forecast that the FFA bid would hasten AFL’s move on Sydney, and time shows that perhaps she was correct. In Sydney, Jacquelin Magnay in the Sydney Morning Herald reported the FFA would meet with rival codes, which foreshadowed what we all knew: that the FFA would need to step on some toes to get it done or work hand in hand with other codes.
Another SMH journo, the late Michael Cockerill, celebrated that the FFA had “[found] a powerful friend, and rivals are quaking in their boots”.
There were more factors at play. The global financial crisis struck in 2008 and suddenly the economics of sport and new stadia projects was questioned. $45 million from the federal government became a significant sum.
However, 2008 was closed out with Cockerill reporting in an article headed “Can Australia really host the 2018 World Cup?” in which he suggested after initial discussions with other codes “the feedback we’ve got so far has been nothing but positive”.
And so onto 2009 and some of the key dates for the FFA.
March 2009: An official lodgement of intention to bid.
June 2009: FFA official launch of the bid.
December 2009: Binding bid agreement to be delivered to FIFA by 11 December.
May 2010: Lodgement of official ‘bid book’
December 2010: The final vote
As with 2008, the year the global financial crisis hit, much discussion in 2009 was around the finances and who would carry the burden. The states didn’t want to do the heavy lifting.
(Dean Mouhtaropoulos/Getty Images)
On the surface Australia would have to provide a bid, including a minimum of 12 stadia with at least two holding 80,000 fans and ten other holding a minimum of 45,000. Then there were also the training facilities for 32 teams and five-star accommodation in each host city for a minimum of four teams plus FIFA and match officials. The timeline was tight with a tick under 11 months to pull together the bid book.
The irony of what played out late in 2009 was that it was perhaps little more than a whole lot of chest-beating. It brought out the rats, that’s for sure. People bobbed up with two cents or more to contribute their opinions and, alas, much of the ‘factual’ basis was lost, glossed over or completely misrepresented.
So the year rolled on. Frank Lowy and Ben Buckley delivered their bid to Zurich in March and launched it locally at Parliament House in June. It wasn’t until October that the general public gained some insight to the possible realities of hosting the event.
23 October: Michael Lynch reports “Rival codes face two-month Cup shutdown”.
26 October: Michael Cockerill, “The $2b football bandwagon is big enough to even give dinosaurs a lift”.
These opening salvos introduced the general public to the level of control FIFA might exert. It must be remembered that this wasn’t fearmongering by AFL or NRL officials or journalists; these were two of the more respected football journalists in the country.
Sadly, Cockerill in particular had already made some factual blunders. A common narrative was a complaint of greater funding for other sports and a desire for football to benefit via tangible legacy not shared with others. The reason I detail this one example is to illustrate some of the Sydney-centric ignorance of the actual lay of the land in Melbourne.
Cockerill complained the AFL had received $77 million from the federal government towards the MCG rebuild, which was wrong on two fronts. Firstly, that money was from the Victorian state government and was less than 15 per cent of the total $576 million for the entire rebuild of the MCG over a 15-year time frame.
His second error was to move onto cricket and their benefit from works on the then SACA-controlled Adelaide Oval and the SCG. Ironically he failed to acknowledge the MCG is run by the Melbourne Cricket Club, not the AFL. There were other misrepresentations and ill-informed assertion. A rocky start.
Still, though, it was mostly quiet. Another couple of weeks passed by.
14 November: Jacquelin Magnay reported that some NRL clubs would be put at risk by the World Cup bid, opening with “Rugby league officials fear the federal government will introduce legislation to ban the State of Origin and other big matches for two months, threatening the future of several clubs”.
NRL chief operations manager at the time, Graham Annesley, was reported to have told a conference of Leagues Clubs Australia that the future of several clubs was in danger if even a few matches were suspended or moved from their supporter heartlands.
This article also made mention of former Qantas chief Geoff Dixon to head a steering committee to try to bring the ‘warring’ state governments together. The post-GFC era made economics a sticking point.
It seems somewhat strange looking back that this article didn’t stir the pot more than it did. Was it perhaps planting the seeds of what was to come?
19 November: Jon Ralph’s Herald Sun article “World Cup loses its cheer” was the first we heard from the AFL.
It’s important to note that, at this time, AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou was absent after the birth of his son. It was left to AFL Commission chief Mike Fitzpatrick and then COO Gillon McLachlan to brief AFL club officials, who were shocked by the possible extent of interference to the AFL calendar. It was suggested the MCG could be out of action for not just the eight weeks of the tournament but a possible for a month-long preparation process. A loss of 12 weeks was clearly untenable.
At that time, the club officials were told the AFL would respond publicly the following week. Ralph reported that the “AFL believes its best tactic is to support the World Cup in principle, but clearly it would be a logistical nightmare.”
“In contrast, NRL chief executive David Gallop has described a mid-season shutdown as ‘unworkable’.”
(Matthew Lewis/Getty Images)
20 November: Caroline Wilson, in an article headed “AFL seeks compensation for World Cup disruption”, introduced the notion of compensation and also indicated that AFL officials had only recently received details.
24 November: The AFL forwarded a letter with nine key questions to the FFA. This is important. Up to this point the AFL had yet to go public. The NRL had made some comments, and both codes were briefing internal stakeholders.
2 December: The FFA unveiled a glossy 16-page ‘credentials book’ along with a five-minute promotional film presented and narrated by Nicole Kidman for the ‘no worries’ World Cup. This included Melbourne’s Docklands Stadium as part of the package. This too is important.
7 December: This proved to be a day to live in infamy.
First, the ABC published a story headed “NRL rejects FFA World Cup proposal”. Well, no, not quite. That wasn’t the story that went ballistic.
Michael Warner wrote in the Herald Sun that the AFL was fuming over the FFA’s World Cup demands. Andrew Demetriou was back at work and ironically this was all now headline-grabbing news. He did come out swinging regarding a potential option of a $130 million reconfiguring of the MCG that might put the venue out of AFL considerations for up to four months.
(Gene Sweeney Jr/Getty Images)
Docklands had already been put up by the FFA, including in the December second video and booklet, and the venue hosted visiting journalists, all of which went against the understanding the AFL believed to have been established 12 months prior. Warner reported a growing frustration with the lack of transparency of the FFA processes and a seeming lack of respect. That was it: the battle lines had been set and the war had begun in earnest.
Docklands at the time was made to be the stumbling block. Why? Apparently because of a prohibitive cost of around $150 million to upgrade the supposedly ‘futureproofed’ Swan Street rectangular stadium to World Cup capacity.
And the elephant in the room, as mentioned by Magnay back in November, was the threat of government legislation. This came up again and again during the week. However, in Victoria the state government had no control over the privately run Docklands Stadium. They did over the MCG.
The AFL had a 25-year binding contract with Docklands Stadium that would culminate with the league assuming ownership – lock, stock and barrel come 2025. The reality is – and this has since panned out – the AFL were always planning to take ownership earlier. The AFL knew by 2022 the venue would be theirs and perhaps by 2018. Remember that the AFL offices are based at the stadium.
The general AFL uncertainty is illustrated by these two of the nine questions put to the FFA on 24 November and not subsequently answered satisfactorily, as published by the ABC:
- Is FIFA/FFA planning to take over the AFL offices for the duration of the World Cup and if so, for how many weeks?
- Is FIFA/FFA planning to take over the offices and training facilities of AFL clubs so that they can be used by countries participating in the World Cup?
(Matthias Hangst/Getty Images)
The FFA made noises about seeking clarity from FIFA, but it was clear FIFA would not be moved until after a host was announced. The AFL and NRL could get no guaranteed assurances from anyone.
The media landscape during this and the following week included commentary from the likes of former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett, footballer Frank Farina and actor Anthony LaPaglia among others. Everyone had their two cents to share.
Irrespective of all this, the Council of Australia Governments meeting on Monday, 7 December, saw the governments sign off and by 11 December the binding agreement had been dispatched.
That’s the great irony – the chest-beating that went on was of little importance. Perhaps state governments were just signing onto an unlikely idea. Perhaps the federal government realised the FFA were somewhat out of their depth, as just after Christmas the federal Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, discretely announced the formation of a new task force within her department to work alongside the Geoff Dixon committee to drive the bid. Was it a takeover?
Looking back, it’s interesting the AFL and Andrew Demetriou were seen as the villains given the NRL were the first to come out with somewhat grave concerns. However, the media didn’t seem willing to build a big story around David Gallop. The NRL also had very little real ammunition. The AFL did, with the MCG and Docklands both bound by 25 to 40-year agreements.
The fact that the snippets from the AFL reported 19 and 20 November didn’t cause much of a ripple. When Demetriou returned to work and went public the story blew up. As it was, many a football conspiracy theorist asserted that the time was a deliberate ploy to disrupt the process. Given Demetriou had been on paternity leave, I’d suggest the ‘deliberate ploy’ argument falls somewhat flat. The message was clear enough two and three weeks earlier. It seems that perhaps there was a deliberate ploy of the media to wait for a predetermined villain to appear.
It seems more that the AFL and NRL needed to get certain concerns clearly on the public record even if it was clear nothing could be done at that time. The FFA knew that FIFA were a law unto themselves and couldn’t therefore promise anything. However, it does seem in retrospect that Frank Lowy was just itching to get the government to bulldoze the AFL from their home turf at Docklands Stadium.
I say this because well into 2010 the FFA was still pushing the Victorian government to make it happen even when Premier John Brumby was offering Geelong’s Kardinia Park as the potential second Victorian venue.
That to me seemed to be the conspiracy at play, which reflected the sentiment of Michael Cockerill from 10 December when he reported “Rival codes powerless to halt Cup juggernaut”. He was sure that the AFL and NRL “whinging and moaning and throwing tantrums” wouldn’t get them anywhere. That with Lowy’s ‘tour de force’ and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd laying down the law to the state governments that the disruptions hardly mattered.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Punter That'd be for the AFLX-WC.......gawd help us!!! Actually next year is the 7th instalment of the AFL International Cup. But - as proof of how little focus there is (I think running the AFLW is stretching the thinking power at HQ) - they still haven't confirmed the dates/venue. Generally it's late August on 'suburban' fields in the N-E area of the Royal Park precinct.....works fine.....not sure what the AFL have in mind but we've heard rumblings about putting a limit of 16 (2 divs) to the mens.....question then is who would miss out. And teams really need to be arranging their travel and accommodation now otherwise it all gets very expensive. I saw a great commentary from a fellow very exposed to footy in India and the value for game growth of those who have travelled to Australia to represent their country. The AFL is at a cross roads - they need to decide whether it just costs too much to put it on (but it's not like the AFL are paying travel/accom) or whether it's a worthwhile exercise.......I wonder if the AFL are actually afraid that the game might boom somewhere like India and they loose control......might be an AFL tab article in that. You'd be welcome to "Tell 'em their dreamin'").
Punter
Roar Rookie
I just hope when the AFL WC comes to Australia that the FFA are far more obliging then the AFL & as a football fan I too would have no worries putting my support to the AFL national team as it's representing my country even if just for a few weeks, I don't have my A-League.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Punter Firstly - my 'sole' focus was across the board. I presented the opening plays via the media of the FFA, the NRL and the AFL. They were the big 3. As it eventuated - no one much took notice of the NRL. I did. You see - the AFL was NOT my sole focus but it (the AFL) was the sole focus of many it seemed both back then and still. Why is that? The NRL rejected, the NRL spoke of losing clubs, the NRL spoke of compensation, the NRL didn't want to be forced to play the SoO's before May and the NRL was nervous about losing venues to matches/training bases. Did you not hear the NRL war talk too? The 'war talk' though was arguably initiated via the late Michael Cockerill (Oct 26th) and Michael Lynch (Oct 23rd) via their October 2009 articles forecasting that the AFL and NRL would have to shut down for 2 months and vacate host cities. That's a pretty nice opening gambit wouldn't you say?? That was the FFA's "media arm". Were they (the FFA) the only ones allowed to play the game?? Apparently - you're suggesting a 'national interest' to be served. Then throw in the threat of legislation being used by Govt on behalf of the bid - 14 Nov 2009. But - seriously - you know the jobs of those in charge of the AFL, NRL (and the other signatory for compensation - the ARU) - the jobs of those people on the executives was to protect their interests. Do note though - it was the job of the FFA to make the prospect of hosting seem doable. The comparison is that I come to the local Fish and Chip shop and let them know that I'd really like them to move out for 3 months - I need a month to remove all signs of them, and then for 2 months I'm going to operate an international branded eatery. Where are the F&C shop proprietors going to go?? No idea......haven't really thought about that......compensation!!....the nerve of them.....can't they see this is for the best for the community!!! Oh....but we're only staying 2 months but the community will feel great reflected glory when they think back.....and if they don't move out voluntarily then we'll get the council to force them out. That's the way to do business and curry favour!!!! btw - 'sabotage' wasn't my word. 'Sabotage' is what the soccer folk were asserting was being done by anyone not happy with proposed elements of the bid.....that to me was a bid characterised by too many bad bits.....by the end.....it was a far, far better bid than it looked heading to Christmas of 2009. Although you might argue that the guarantees given by Govt in the MOU - going against the FIFA prescription - made it a bad bid. So - perhaps on that front alone we could never reach agreement.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Your sole focus is on AFL not mine. You talk ammunition, you talk sabotage, you talk bargaining power, you talk territory, you talk impact, you talk compensation. This is all war talk, this was the AFL stance, not the stance of trying to get tha biggest most wonderful sporting event into our great sporting country. Lots of Melbournians talk of Melbourne being the biggest sporting city in the world, the Aust Open, the Australian grand prix, the Olympics, the AFL GF, the Melbourne cup, this sporting event would have blown all those events to bits as far as world publicity for Melbourne, but as I mentioned above all we heard was war talk from the AFL & it's media arm.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
The USA was the main example but - the key point there being that I think it was Major League Baseball isn't so much a direct competitor and there was no issue around shared stadiums. And a whole lot greater scope for fixturing with many, many more non-host cities to choose from. It was a precedent of sorts but one that couldn't be relied upon in the Australian context. Basically - the FFA seemed to expect the AFL/NRL/ARU to just 'trust' them.....the "no worries" bid.
The Joy Of X
Roar Rookie
@ Munro Mike You have provided very comprehensive information, from the various relevant parties, on the whole WC Bid saga. You haven't explored the corruption involved in FIFA and many/most of its officials in the bid, the employment by the FFA of persons with criminal records/unsavoury pasts etc to promote the Australian bid, nor the waste of about $48 million (some of which went "missing") of taxpayers' money. These subjects weren't in your scope. Perhaps a future article awaits! Your above, immediate post reflects that the FFA/FIFA were not forthcoming with the full details on how a WC here might affect Australian Football, and other codes. The AFL, of course, required all these details, and would need to be fully compensated for the severe financial losses it would have incurred. The AFL has over 720 players, and the AFL and its 18 Clubs employ, directly and indirectly, thousands of people. The AFL and its Clubs had a legal and fiduciary duty to ensure that revenues and profits were fully protected (including guarantees on detailed and appropriate compensation from the FFA/FIFA). Similarly, the banks that had lent moneys to the AFL and its Clubs would require that the AFL and Clubs would protect their revenue bases; and could all meet their repayment obligations. Finally, of course, the AFL is fully responsible (both legally and morally) for protecting and enhancing the current and future health of Australian Football- which encompasses not just the AFL and its 18 Clubs. The members of the Clubs would not accept, and would vote out Club Boards (and, ultimately AFL Commission members would also have to depart the Commission), if the current and future interests of the Clubs and Australian Football were damaged.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#RbbAnon I'd argue we aren't as backward and insular as some suggest - in a derogatory way. Backward might be to have an under developed sports industry. We sure as heck don't have that. Per head of population we've probably got the worlds broadest and most competitive sports industry. We have infrastructure of such magnitude and diversity for a population of 25 million that is probably unparalleled around the world. I know if I bundle Scandanavia together they don't come anywhere near Australia. The issue always was that it was a bad bid - at the time - and within those constraints of FIFA. And as Blatter pointed out - Australia was just never going to win the right to host. Nothing to do with domestic sporting competitions. But we've done pretty well hosting the Olympics twice, hosting annual events like a tennis grand slam, F1 GP, motoGP, etc. We know what we're doing. Hosting a FIFA WC I reckon we could've done really, really well........in Oct/Nov. But I agree now with 48 teams.......nah.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Punter I'll break it down for you..... Your sole focus is the AFL. That's wrong. The NRL in particular were seeking compensation and assurances of playing on during the tournament (incl SoO). The issue of compensation was not sorted until April/May of 2010. It is WRONG to focus solely upon the AFL. You talk about being united and grouped "Both the Federal & the State Government". That's somewhat wrong. From the outset the Federal and State Govts were 'warring' as was described in the reporting. I've reflected this in the article - the impact of the GFC had made a few state gun-shy. And - even to the end - the Feds (K.Rudd and the Canberra cohorts) were unable to coerce the Vic Govt to force the AFL out of Etihad. The Herald Sun was interesting - wasn't it. Demetriou was on paternity leave. They needed to run with something so they put Ron Barassi on the front page. As you state - once that poll came out - the H-S changed their tune a smidge. The media coverage was inconsistent with dealing purely with the facts - I showed that was the case from the outset. Your talk of the wonders of the bid and that is fabulous and as a soccer fan you clearly have an emotive attachment to have it happen. Seemingly at all costs. Can we agree that: -The FFA was ill-equipped to run the bid by themselves (this was apparent to the Govt who stepped in as of late Dec 2009). -The FFA was unable to run the event without impact and potentially major impacts upon other codes. -The 'other codes' - in particular the AFL - had water tight long term agreements in place at the MCG and Etihad. -The 'other codes' had every right to protect their interests and seek compensation. -The AFL had the greatest bargaining power (re the MCG and Etihad in particular). -Even in 2009 it was obvious the AFL would be aiming to buy out Etihad well before 2025 and most likely before 2022 if not before 2018. -We know the FFA COULD NOT provide the assurances the other codes were after - that was FIFA territory. -You can't blame the other codes for NOT putting their trust in FIFA. and the final issue is just why oh why the FFA were so desperate to get their hands on Etihad? That was seemingly what gave the AFL their greatest ammunition. That's what I don't get. I really don't. It’s 7 years since he typed these words so long enough has passed – Michael Lynch admitted he saw the bid as an “old man’s vanity project which was never likely to get up. Few compelling reasons to put WC on in Australia”.
deucer
Roar Rookie
Interesting article. A pity, as usual, that some who don't agree with your views try and put down the article instead of discussing the points. You can't really blame the NRL or AFL for trying to stand their ground - their seasons would have been disrupted. Unfortunately most countries that bid have Football as their main bid, not too many have 2 rival codes that aren't the global game. If there was to be another bid, this all needs to be sorted out before the other processes begin.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Where did you go wrong MM, well where do I start? Both the Federal & the State Government wanted the greatest sporting event by a fair distance on this shore. The only officials, fans or media that opposed it was the AFL, the only sport that made it a code war was the AFL. You are bidding for the greatest sporting event, unfortunately the people running this greatest sporting event were not the most trustworthy people. But Australia even to even have the remotest of chances, we needed to unite as one as a country. Imagine the whole world eyes on Australia the tourists flocking here by the hundreds of thousands, imagine if some of these tourists had visited some of the smaller provincial towns & saw an even smaller indigenous provincial sport & went home & raved about it, a win win for all sports in Australia. But no the AFL had to put that Barissi bloke on the front page of the Herald sun busting a football. Bar humbug to the AFL. You should have seen the AFL fans back in those days that frequented the Football tab like you guys now, they were going ballistic, when a Herald Sun poll blew up in their faces, when the vote was strong for the AFL to give up the whole season for holding the WC on our shores for the first time.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Do you promise that's the end?
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Joy of X ....and the final point...... I quizzed Michael Lynch in late 2012. He confirmed he had a 'highly credible FFA' source plus a subsequent corroboration that the AFL had played 'hardball' over stadium allocations to the point the FFA was prepared to schedule no games in Victoria at all. TO me that seems astounding. He suggested AFL insiders admitted off record they were happy when the bid failed. (I'd suggest NRL insiders were too). Lynch indicated too that he and Cockerill were left mainly to focus on the South Africa WC and that's where Dan Silkstone was given the job to follow the 'politics' of the WC bid. It's 7 years since he typed these words so long enough has passed - Lynch admitted he saw the bid as an "old man's vanity project which was never likely to get up. Few compelling reasons to put WC on in Australia".
Redondo
Roar Rookie
I can't wait for the movie to come out
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Joy of X by the way - these are the 9 questions that AFL letter of Nov 24 2009 that illustrated their concerns (reported by Gerard Whately ABC News Dec 14 '09): 1. Is it a requirement of the World Cup that no AFL matches can be played in cities hosting World Cup matches for the duration of the World Cup in those cities? 2. Is the AFL competition going to be asked to shut down for 10 weeks to accommodate the World Cup? Given the location of our clubs in the five mainland capital cities, Geelong and from 2011 the Gold Coast, can you please advise what FIFA/FFA is demanding to stage the World Cup and what the precise impact will be on AFL venues in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Geelong, Canberra and the Gold Coast? 3. Has the FFA proposed, or planning to propose that the MCG be redeveloped at a cost of $130 million for the World Cup and be unavailable for AFL matches for 16 weeks in the year of the World Cup? 4. Is FIFA/FFA planning to take over the AFL offices for the duration of the World Cup and if so, for how many weeks? 5. Is FIFA/FFA planning to take over the offices and training facilities of AFL clubs so that they can be used by countries participating in the World Cup? 6. We have read media reports indicating that the FFA estimates that the economic impact of the World Cup in Australia would be some $5.4 billion. In your financial modelling of the World Cup in Australia, have you factored in the impact in the $3.4 billion Australian football contributes to the Australian economy each year if the AFL competition is forced to shut down for 10 weeks and is banned from using the MCG for 16 weeks? 7. Specifically, has the FFA/FIFA budgeted or are you planning to budget to compensate the AFL and its clubs for any loss of revenue for accommodating the World Cup? 8. Is it the intention of FIFA and or the FFA to ask the Federal Government to legislate so that FIFA/FFA can take over venues for the World Cup, the AFL offices and the training and administration bases of AFL clubs so that they can be used by teams competing in the World Cup and to prevent other major sporting competitions playing matches during the period of the World Cup? 9. Will the Confederations Cup be played in Australia the year before the World Cup if Australia's bid is successful and if so, what will the impact on the AFL competition including what current AFL venues would FIFA/FFA take over for the duration of the Confederations Cup? Whateley reported that a letter in response was far from acceptable re detail/clarification. And that was the thing that needed to be factored. All the talk about financial benefit - is fine if there's NOT a displacement. So - in a soccer country like Germany - running the FIFA WC in the off -season might impact......I dunno....downhill skiing?? In Australia the talk of the financial benefits had to be factored against the negative impact on the very functional economic contributions of the NRL and AFL. The other aspect of the 32 training venues - - quite likely that would've been what really hurt the NRL.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
As far as I can tell - in summary. The AFL, NRL and ARU signed off on a compensation methodology in the last month leading into the submission of the bid book - - by way of an MOU brokered by the Fed Govt - in some respects almost a blank cheque which would've annoyed everyone (I suspect Frank would've been annoyed that potentially all the financial windfall would be p!55ed against a wall so to speak....paid in compensation to the 'other' codes). The method to be used was reported as based on their average revenues for the 2 years prior to the WC (2020 and 2021 for example). The MOU stipulated that the other codes wouldn't be impacted by the Confed cup the year before. And stipulated that they could play on their seasons - - I don't know if that limited the other codes to 'domestic' matches. The SoO I'd assume to be fine (there was talk early days that they'd have to be all done by March/April as giving up stadia with a 4 week lead in for a June/July event would provide pretty well no May access. I can only assume that the release of grounds was on the basis of required time plus the FIFA prescribed 4 weeks lead in......although I don't know whether that was the case (the 4 week lead in). The AFL had been reported as able to 'cop' a loss of the MCG for 10 weeks but if it were required for 8 weeks of tournament plus 4 weeks lead in plus potentially a week or so afterwards.....that's why there was concern about the 'rectangularisation' option. The 'unpack' then would eat further into availability. It seems ridiculous to me that FIFA would need 4 weeks of 'clean' access prior to the event......really??? We so often see next day turn arounds across weekends - with say AFL on Fri and soccer on Sat and AFL again on Sun. It all definitely got ugly when the media went wild with the story - I reckon the media inflamed it. So.....who in the media was doing the bidding of their masters?? I think we can safely assume that Lynch/Cockerill were doing their best for the FFA/Bid. Whether just enthusiastic or 'urged'. On the AFL side the coverage was patchy largely because of general ignorance. I don't think people took in the story nearly as well as they should've. I've said before I'm curious more about what some of the reports left out compared to the headline grabbing frenzy that was published. I really lament that the whole 'legislation' angle wasn't looked into properly. I'm annoyed too that the FFA weren't called out on their infrastructure legacy assertions. And when the AFL dug in over Etihad - the coverage or lack of around the AAMI Park non-option was underwhelming and also the childish attitude of the FFA to for so long reject Kardinia Park and threaten to take games away from Melbourne. I heard on SEN at the time Francis Leach having a crack at the AFL because he might miss out on WC matches in Melbourne.......he was having a crack at the wrong people!!! That was my greatest disappointment.....appalling coverage by reporters masquerading as journalists without an inquisitive bone in their body...... :unhappy:
The Joy Of X
Roar Rookie
@ Munro Mike Can you answer the questions I put to you in my 2nd, 4th and 5th dot points, from my 12,43 pm comments above?
Amazon
Roar Rookie
OMG ..............a football fan with common sense................. I dips my lid to you RBB! :happy:
deucer
Roar Rookie
That's an interesting point, Chris. Although RL rosters are heavy on the PI demographic, at least it has stopped a collapse in the player numbers like England and France, and has meant Aust. and N.Z. are widening the gap between those two countries, which may not be such a great thing. Although, on the other side of the coin, American Football doesn't have a huge grassroots following, but still is very strong re viewing, so maybe RL will just be like that.
RbbAnonymous
Roar Rookie
I am a massive football fan but I am so glad we didnt host the world cup. We are just a bit backward and insular to host a tournament of this magnitude, we simply aren’t prepared for it. We also lack the infrastructure to do it. To make matters worse FIFA has made the tournament beyond the reach of most countries now with the insistence of having 48 teams at the world cup. This would be an enormous financial strain on the bidding nation and leave us with a herd of large white elephants. All forgetten now. Thanks but no thanks.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Caltex Is this your faded recollection or do you have proof of this? From what I've got copies of - apparently the MCG was still in doubt with a couple of weeks to go - however - I'm uncertain if that was not to be released unless Etihad was off the table. Or - I don't know if that (the release of the MCG) was subject to a suitable compensation algorithm. It was reported (24 March 2010, SMH World Cup compo hard to calculate: NRL ) that the NRL still couldn't provide a number re compensation - it seems that was the method - the FFA/Fed Govt were pushing for a number to be plucked. Graham Annesley stated "Everyone's looking for the magical figure - is it $100 million, is it $50 million, and that magical figure is not going to come out of this process." further.... Annesley said progress had been made but no outcomes achieved at the meeting, which followed a get-together of all codes in Canberra last week. "They're coming back to us with what they can and can't guarantee but I'm confident, based on the talks that we've had, that they are going to be able to address the issues that we have," he said. That was March 24. The NRL......and by extension the AFL and ARU - - were still to be satisfied. Between then and the start of May - - it all came together - to use the method based on average revenues of the codes in the 2 years prior to the World Cup. The next reporting was May 10, the ABC - Rival codes finally shake hands on deal to play through World Cup. Nowhere in all of that was the NRL all cosied up nice and early and the AFL out by themselves.