Should the MCG be dropped from the bid?

[Checker Hughes]

If we do by chance get hosting rights,should FIFA pull the rug on Victoria?
Would certainly simplify things.
If Brisbane gets an expansion of 10,000 seats then there is no reason why it can't happen.
At this point we would be restricting AFL access for up to 8 weeks for some group games ,a round of 16 and a quarter final-I don't think its worth it
This would allow the AFL to play unimpeded in Victoria,Essendon v Collingwood matches etc

 

[Munro_Mick]

If we do by chance get hosting rights,should FIFA pull the rug on Victoria?
Would certainly simplify things.
If Brisbane gets an expansion of 10,000 seats then there is no reason why it can't happen.
At this point we would be restricting AFL access for up to 8 weeks for some group games ,a round of 16 and a quarter final-I don't think its worth it
This would allow the AFL to play unimpeded in Victoria,Essendon v Collingwood matches etc

Serious??

From FFA and Lowy's perspective
"But if we had not been able to get this [the MCG] … we would not have been able to put the bid in, and I advised the federal government of that."

No MCG, no bid.

For FIFA to act - on anything - would more likely be the whole MOU guarantee of host city access to AFL, NRL and ARU.

That's a branch that FIFA normally only hands out AFTER the host nation is announced.

And that's bigger than Victoria or the MCG.

That's AFL access to Perth (WACA?) and Adelaide (reduced Football Park), Melb (Docklands), Bris (Gabba), Syd (SCG/RAS) and Canberra (Manuka or alternative),
and for the NRL to access Bris, Syd and Melb (Docklands).

 

[Zidane98]

Serious??

From FFA and Lowy's perspective
"But if we had not been able to get this [the MCG] … we would not have been able to put the bid in, and I advised the federal government of that."

No MCG, no bid.

For FIFA to act - on anything - would more likely be the whole MOU guarantee of host city access to AFL, NRL and ARU.

That's a branch that FIFA normally only hands out AFTER the host nation is announced.

And that's bigger than Victoria or the MCG.

That's AFL access to Perth (WACA?) and Adelaide (reduced Football Park), Melb (Docklands), Bris (Gabba), Syd (SCG/RAS) and Canberra (Manuka or alternative),
and for the NRL to access Bris, Syd and Melb (Docklands).

We could technically have submitted a bit without the MCG - increase Suncorp to 60,000 seats and we have met the minimum requirements of 2 stadiums for the semis with 60,000 seats + one stadium of 80,000 + seats for the final. Include Kardinia Park and spend the 150,000,000 on a 44,000 seat AAMI Park upgrade. Then, to get up to 12 venues, FFA could have included Wollongong.

Having said that, there's no way the victorian government would have agreed to host World Cup matches if the MCG wasn't utilised. Large capacity = more crowds, more visitors in Victoria and more money generated in the economy. Plus, the state government wouldn't need to fork out for an expensive upgrade at AAMI Park. In any case, a World Cup bid without the "G would have severely weakened our case for hosting the tournament. There was never any question over the MCG being used for the World Cup - the only issue that came up was the AFL's demands in regards to financial compensation which have been met and all parties are satisfied. MCG has always and will always be used for large events that are of significance to Victorians - there was never any doubt that the MCG would be part of the World Cup bid.

 

[usalion]

Lose the MCG and Australia's bid becomes almost as solid as Qatar, without the bribery.....

 

[Pessimistic]

Etiahd in, MCG out

They will find cash to make Homebush closer to 100,000 and the final will be there

 

[Checker Hughes]

We have submitted a bid with 12 stadia,which was required initially-of course 2 will be dropped.There is quite a lot of support for the idea of shutting Victoria out as there won't be any problems in complying with bid requirements and all stadia would be in rectangular mode
The MCG has of course been downgraded to 82,000 for the WC anyway as all other seating is either outside the maximum distance requirements or has had line of site
It is already expected that Geelong will be dropped because of the local communities lack of support

This is the sort of thing that starts to evolve when the sabotage level is so high

 

[Admiral Byng]

We have submitted a bid with 12 stadia,which was required initially-of course 2 will be dropped.There is quite a lot of support for the idea of shutting Victoria out as there won't be any problems in complying with bid requirements and all stadia would be in rectangular mode
The MCG has of course been downgraded to 82,000 for the WC anyway as all other seating is either outside the maximum distance requirements or has had line of site
It is already expected that Geelong will be dropped because of the local communities lack of support

This is the sort of thing that starts to evolve when the sabotage level is so high

Yeah right. I can see that sort of attitude from the FFA doing themselves long term harm in alienating themselves from Victoria. If they really want to be a force on the Australian sporting landscape they need a big populous state like Victoria on their side. I can't see it happening in a million years. No Victoria in the World Cup instantly transforms it from Australia's World Cup to NSW's World Cup and compounds the problem, turning a percieved lack of support into a real lack of support, turning the neutrals away.

(oh - and I'm WA so not pro-Victorian in any way)

 

[Checker Hughes]

Games would still be in NSW,QLD,SA,WA and the ACT

 

[Pessimistic]

If successful, I can see the whole thing would be very different by the time it happens.

States playing the mines better than yours card

Still dont believe it is so expensive or impossible to alter the MRS. the roof looks to have alot of flex in it for mine and has just a few anchor points.

Could be jacked up evenrly with readily available technology

tassie might even bid for a stadium to host its AFL team as well

 

[Checker Hughes]

There would of course still be a number of fan fests down here in Victoria,but best of all the Government wouldn't have to worry about expensive compensation and of course business,and the locals wouldn't be interrupted by hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the CBD etc

Has a lot going for it.The idea has been floated for some time
Better to give the games to the states that want it the most

 

[Checker Hughes]

And of course the weather is better elsewhere

 

[Munro_Mick]

If successful, I can see the whole thing would be very different by the time it happens.

States playing the mines better than yours card

Still dont believe it is so expensive or impossible to alter the MRS. the roof looks to have alot of flex in it for mine and has just a few anchor points.

Could be jacked up evenrly with readily available technology

tassie might even bid for a stadium to host its AFL team as well

This was one of those things that didn't smell right at the time.

The FFA variously claimed it'd cost to much ($150 million), and yet tried to suggest the E-Gate brand new stadium for the AFL....how much would that cost??

The FFA also claimed it'd be too hard - but, the builder was quoted (discretely at the bottom of one article - so, you had to look hard to find it) as saying it wasn't actually that hard. (I'll see if I can track it down again).

Some people speculated around a possible 25 year limit on new stadia of over 40,000 within X kms radius of Docklands stadium. We know there was something along the lines of a 10 year limit on new stadia over 20,000 (or was it 30,000) or something like that. However, for 2022, even if there was a 25 year limit - surely the State Govt and Docklands management and the FFA could have come to an arrangement that wouldn't have required any involvement from other competing football codes.

So, it all looked rather too easy to dismiss the venue,.....and dismiss the opportunity for a soccer legacy.

And what do people whinge about still - - the AFL 'intransigence' and the lack of a soccer legacy. It was all there for Lowy and co, and they seemingly found every reason under the sun to NOT go for it. That still bugs me. There's more to the story.

 

[stuart27]

If we do by chance get hosting rights,should FIFA pull the rug on Victoria?

You lost me about here, to be honest.

An Australian World Cup without the sporting capital of the world? I'd rather Qatar have it.

 

[Zidane98]

This was one of those things that didn't smell right at the time.

The FFA variously claimed it'd cost to much ($150 million), and yet tried to suggest the E-Gate brand new stadium for the AFL....how much would that cost??

The FFA also claimed it'd be too hard - but, the builder was quoted (discretely at the bottom of one article - so, you had to look hard to find it) as saying it wasn't actually that hard. (I'll see if I can track it down again).

Some people speculated around a possible 25 year limit on new stadia of over 40,000 within X kms radius of Docklands stadium. We know there was something along the lines of a 10 year limit on new stadia over 20,000 (or was it 30,000) or something like that. However, for 2022, even if there was a 25 year limit - surely the State Govt and Docklands management and the FFA could have come to an arrangement that wouldn't have required any involvement from other competing football codes.

So, it all looked rather too easy to dismiss the venue,.....and dismiss the opportunity for a soccer legacy.

And what do people whinge about still - - the AFL 'intransigence' and the lack of a soccer legacy. It was all there for Lowy and co, and they seemingly found every reason under the sun to NOT go for it. That still bugs me. There's more to the story.

God you talk some absolute rubbish - FFA were not involved in quoting the cost for upgrading AAMI Park to a 40,000 plus capacity for the World Cup. They actually submitted to the Victorian State Government that they would prefer to use AAMI park only for the government to reject it on the basis of cost. I've heard something from Grollo saying it could be done but at what cost nobody knows. Stop spinning ridiculous conspiracy theories, the buck stops with the Vic Govt who have the ultimate authority over what venues were built and they wanted to use the venues that would cost them the least $$$$$$. Absolutely zero to do with the FFA in any way, shape or form.

Having said all of that, the door isn't closed on AAMI Park should we win the bid - stadiums are not finalised until 2017 for 2022. If a cost effective way to upgrade AAMI Park can be found (and it would have to be far less then a Kardinia Park government) the Vic Govt may then decide to utilise AAMI Park/MCG and create one massive football fan centre for the World Cup.

 

[Munro_Mick]

God you talk some absolute rubbish - FFA were not involved in quoting the cost for upgrading AAMI Park to a 40,000 plus capacity for the World Cup. They actually submitted to the Victorian State Government that they would prefer to use AAMI park only for the government to reject it on the basis of cost. I've heard something from Grollo saying it could be done but at what cost nobody knows. Stop spinning ridiculous conspiracy theories, the buck stops with the Vic Govt who have the ultimate authority over what venues were built and they wanted to use the venues that would cost them the least $$$$$$. Absolutely zero to do with the FFA in any way, shape or form.

quote]

Stephen Reilly in the Australian Dec 10,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-sporting-venues/story-fn4l4sfy-1225808828663
A third option, dismissed at this point by the Victorian government and considered too costly by the FFA, would be to increase the capacity of Melbourne's 31,000-seat rectangular stadium which is expected to open in the Olympic Park precinct in March.
There would be agreements that protect Etihad from like-capacity competition to be overcome and a cost of $150 million to consider but, as expensive a solution as it would be, it is nonetheless an option.

Dan Silkstone, the Age, Dec 9, http://www.smh.com.au/national/afl-block-to-world-cup-bid-20091208-khmw.html
The FFA had initially believed it would not need the venue, instead using the MCG and the new rectangular stadium on Swan Street as World Cup venues.
That stadium was supposedly ''future-proofed'' so that it could be enlarged to 40,000. But the FFA turned back to Etihad after it emerged that the distinctive bubble roof of the rectangular venue meant it would cost a prohibitive $150 million to enlarge it.

I'm happy to blame both the FFA and the Vic Govt!!!

At either rate - from the AFL perspective, how silly did it look that in May 2009, Govt minister Tim Pallas was famously quoted in May 2009 as saying "if Melbourne were to play a part in hosting a World Cup we could go to 50,000"

I'm very happy to blame the Vic Govt.

At the time I pointed out to many that the AFL weren't at fault in all this - - it's not their bid to make work, and the AFL don't have to move out or shut down. It was contingent upon the FFA and Govts to sort it out. Imagine the folk at AFL house who back in May 2009 see the Tim Pallas quote and within 5 months that seems nothing but political waffle........okay, behind the scenes, probably more was known. Publicy though.

However, perhaps the Vic Govt always had the agenda of pushing for Geelong - John Brumby has given that impression. And perhaps that was the most intelligent option given that Sydney would always be the multi-venue city in which case niether Docklands or MRS (AAMI park) could be considered.

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

Yes. Victoria, or at least Melbourne, definitely should not be allowed to take part in the WC after intentionally sabotaging it.

Still dont believe it is so expensive or impossible to alter the MRS. the roof looks to have alot of flex in it for mine and has just a few anchor points.

The roof is one single self-supporting piece. In order to expand the stadium, the roof needs to be removed and replace by a new one.

 

[mighty tiges]

Yes. Victoria, or at least Melbourne, definitely should not be allowed to take part in the WC after intentionally sabotaging it.

Only in your imagination. FIFA are happy with our stadia.

The roof is one single self-supporting piece. In order to expand the stadium, the roof needs to be removed and replace by a new one.

Yep and takes 2 years to remove, increase the size of the stadium and then put the roof back on plus another 2 years to shrink the stadium back to its current size. So not only was the cost an issue but the 4 year timeframe with the stadium out of action.

 

[JD-Roo]

Yep and takes 2 years to remove, increase the size of the stadium and then put the roof back on plus another 2 years to shrink the stadium back to its current size. So not only was the cost an issue but the 4 year timeframe with the stadium out of action.

Why would anyone bother?

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

Yep and takes 2 years to remove, increase the size of the stadium and then put the roof back on plus another 2 years to shrink the stadium back to its current size. So not only was the cost an issue but the 4 year timeframe with the stadium out of action.

They certainly wouldn't be shrinking the stadium again. And if I were them, I'd just ditch the roof entirely and build something functional.

 

[Munro_Mick]

They certainly wouldn't be shrinking the stadium again. And if I were them, I'd just ditch the roof entirely and build something functional.

functional......

sheesh,

since when was that a pre-requisite???

(fancy non-functional roofs and annoying design,......Fed Sq, Southern Cross and AAMI park, and the non-functioning observation wheel......all we need is a burning stack of tyres......)

 

[AJ_2000]

Non functional? Aside from keeping out the rain, the aami park roof would be one of the most functional stadium roof on the planet

 

[Munro_Mick]

Non functional? Aside from keeping out the rain, the aami park roof would be one of the most functional stadium roof on the planet

What? the pretty colours of the light show.

Alas - when a supposed feature of the venue are the foundations to allow expansion to 50,000,

and then a roof (functional or otherwise in non-core ways) is built that effectively ensures that the venue will never be expanded.........does that really tick the box???

 

[The_Reaper]

Serious??

From FFA and Lowy's perspective
"But if we had not been able to get this [the MCG] … we would not have been able to put the bid in, and I advised the federal government of that."

No MCG, no bid.

For FIFA to act - on anything - would more likely be the whole MOU guarantee of host city access to AFL, NRL and ARU.

That's a branch that FIFA normally only hands out AFTER the host nation is announced.

And that's bigger than Victoria or the MCG.

That's AFL access to Perth (WACA?) and Adelaide (reduced Football Park), Melb (Docklands), Bris (Gabba), Syd (SCG/RAS) and Canberra (Manuka or alternative),
and for the NRL to access Bris, Syd and Melb (Docklands).

The WAFC would lose money from playing at the WACA

 

[Admiral Byng]

The WAFC would lose money from playing at the WACA

I don't think they'd use it, it is smaller than the SCG now, and they'd have to worry about centre wicket areas and appeasing all the WACA members. Be much simpler to use an existing WAFL ground (Leederville, Joondalup or Fremantle) and bung in some temporary seating. Might still be only 25-30,000 seats but it might do at a pinch for 6 weeks.

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

Non functional? Aside from keeping out the rain, the aami park roof would be one of the most functional stadium roof on the planet

I was thinking something along the lines of an actual retractable roof.