Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor

[McCrann]

Anyone know what these Regional MPs think of the kind of spending the World Cup promises to concentrate in places like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth?

http://www.australiabid.com.au/news-updates_detail.aspx?view=82
According to the IBISWorld research, a 2022 FIFA World Cup in Australia would result in $35.56 billion of spending across the Australian economy, dwarfing the estimated $9.1 billion (in real terms) of spending that the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games generated.

Bet they'd like to see some of that money flowing to the bush.

 

[Checker Hughes]

Being an Australian bid the benefits will flow across the whole country unlike the Sydney Olympics.As a basic starting point tourism during the WC and subsequently will no doubt help many regional areas.Of course training facilities will be spread far and wide unlike SA where a large proportion of matches were at altitude which saw a concentration of teams training at altitude.
Regional centres that do attract a team can expect many supporters of that nation
Foreign journalists and tv crews would be here in their thousands travelling across the whole country
Its a magnificent opportunity for the bush to capitalise on an event that has almost 9 times the global audience of its next competitor

 

[Watergate]

Unlike most other "major events" - sporting or otherwise - which are staged in only one city (Olympics, F1, Tennis Open, Commonwealth Games, etc.) the FIFA WC is staged around the host country and Australia will be no exception - notwithstanding Australia's huge surface area.

The FFA's bid book contains 10 host cities and, of these 10 host cities 50% would be classified as "regional areas":

1. Townsville
2. Gold Coast
3. Newcastle
4. Canberra
5. Geelong

And, of course, the towns surrounding these regions will experience economic activity during these 4 weeks that they would never have seen before and will be unlikely to see again until Australia hosts its 2nd FIFA WC.

Bring it on!

 

[AJ_2000]

I read in the New Delhi Times that they are all massive supporters of the bid

 

[McCrann]

I read in the New Delhi Times that they are all massive supporters of the bid

ok, have you seen Bob's ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_zYZBDmls

I think Bob's a big supporter of Bob Katter.

 

[Michael2010]

how the heck is this a thread? it's garbage. moderators should delete this trash and block idiots from publishing rubbish threads

 

[mojito]

Anyone know what these Regional MPs think of the kind of spending the World Cup promises to concentrate in places like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth?

http://www.australiabid.com.au/news-updates_detail.aspx?view=82
According to the IBISWorld research, a 2022 FIFA World Cup in Australia would result in $35.56 billion of spending across the Australian economy, dwarfing the estimated $9.1 billion (in real terms) of spending that the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games generated.

Bet they'd like to see some of that money flowing to the bush.

A token communal viewing space is all I can think of.

Maybe some regional training facilties to be built there also.

 

[Barkly St End]

For anyone to suggest spending billions of dollars in urban centres, and transferring billions of dollars of wealth to an overseas sporting body is somehow good for regional Australia is a bit far-fetched.

These three independents will be very interested in redirecting some of that waste back to regional Australia.

 

[Checker Hughes]

You're a numpty and a half.FIFA makes their money from TV rights and sponsorship-there is no outgoing transfer of wealth ,just an incoming one.
The WC in SA had over 40,000,000,000 viewers through out---and thats only on television,imagine the figures for net streaming as well.When you have that many watching actual matches imagine the amount that also see the thousands of stories about Australian life---------------INCUDING AUSSIE RULES---so don't be such a mug

The very best thing about a World Cup is that it pays for much needed infrastructure from health to transport,in the cities and in regional areas

 

[Barkly St End]

You're a numpty and a half.FIFA makes their money from TV rights and sponsorship-there is no outgoing transfer of wealth ,just an incoming one.
The WC in SA had over 40,000,000,000 viewers through out---and thats only on television,imagine the figures for net streaming as well.When you have that many watching actual matches imagine the amount that also see the thousands of stories about Australian life---------------INCUDING AUSSIE RULES---so don't be such a mug

The very best thing about a World Cup is that it pays for much needed infrastructure from health to transport,in the cities and in regional areas

My guess is that Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor would not be the least bit convinced of those arguments.

 

[Caesar]

This doesn't even matter. Even if Australia wins the bid for 2022 then nothing in terms of spending is going to happen until well after 2013, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if this parliament goes full term anyway.

 

[Barkly St End]

This doesn't even matter. Even if Australia wins the bid for 2022 then nothing in terms of spending is going to happen until well after 2013, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if this parliament goes full term anyway.

I agree - not a hope in hell that it will last the full three years - it will be doing well to last 12 months.

Nevertheless, we do know that in exchange for their support, all three independents want:

1. the national broadband network; and, on top of that
2. more resources directed to regional Australia (and if they follow Brian Harradine's example, they will be successful, even if it is for just one budget).

So it's reasonable to suggest that they may have more than a passing interest in the $26 billion that is likely to be directed towards urban centres to host the WC.

 

[Caesar]

You realise that the $26bn is well outside the scope of forward estimates, right? It hasn't even been allocated yet. There is nothing to redirect.

Spending for the World Cup bid won't be required to be approved until well after this parliament has finished sitting. The question is irrelevant.

 

[Watergate]

My guess is that Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor would not be the least bit convinced of those arguments.

Alas, you're too late. The Australian Government has already provided all the requisite guarantees to provide the financial backing for the 2022 WC.

The only people, who can now prevent Australia from hosting the 2022 WC are the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee and, as far as I know, Mssrs Kattar, Oakeshott & Windsor are not on this list!

 

[Caesar]

That's not true. The parliament still has to approve spending when forward estimates comes around. That will not happen until well after the next election, however.

 

[Barkly St End]

You realise that the $26bn is well outside the scope of forward estimates, right? It hasn't even been allocated yet. There is nothing to redirect.

Spending for the World Cup bid won't be required to be approved until well after this parliament has finished sitting. The question is irrelevant.

That's a fair enough point.

But that doesn't necessarily stop these independents from asking the question.

Also, there in fact are means by which the central agencies keep tabs on capital spending going out up to 15 years - even if only the next 3 to 4 years will appear in any public documentation (and obviously there are good reasons why that's necessary).

 

[Barkly St End]

Alas, you're too late. The Australian Government has already provided all the requisite guarantees to provide the financial backing for the 2022 WC.

The only people, who can now prevent Australia from hosting the 2022 WC are the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee...

Rubbish.

Countries have already pulled out, and/or changed their minds on the years they are bidding for (including Australia) - the Australian Govt can decide not to participate at any point up to the vote.

And even if the vote were to take place - I'm not sure what the legalities are if a country is chosen, but then decides to pull out - I doubt any of us know the answer to that - although I note that many on this board are of the firm view that FIFA has the capacity to put a gun to the head of the Government, even now (I find it odd that anyone would gleefully accept such a prospect).

 

[Caesar]

I presume there would be some sort of contract between the FFA and FIFA when the bid is accepted, and if the FFA pulled out then they could be sued for breach (I'm guessing either under Australian or Swiss law).

In practice though I doubt anything would happen. Colombia pulled out of hosting the 1986 World Cup on account of being broke, and there were no real ramifications from that. Mexico hosted at short notice because they still had all the infrastructure from 1970.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Doesnt matter. both parties support the bid, and the "power of 5" care more about banana's than World cups.

 

[Watergate]

That's not true. The parliament still has to approve spending when forward estimates comes around. That will not happen until well after the next election, however.

I'm not familiar with the process of Government finance so, I'm keen to know more. Do you have formal expertise in this area?

What value are the Australian Government's guarantees that were provided in the bid book if Parliament can still halt funding after the Government has provided "sovereign guarantees"?

Note: Without Government guarantees FIFA does not accept any bid.

For example:

Indonesia had to withdraw their bid to host the 2022 WC because they had failed to provide government guarantees.

On 19 March 2010, FIFA President Sepp Blatter stated:

"We have informed Indonesia that because they have failed to provide a number of documents and guarantees, Indonesia is not any more a candidate for 2022."
​

 

[Caesar]

I'm a lawyer, although not a constitutional one.

Government guarantees mean bugger all. Parliament is constitutionally required to approve all government expenditure, which hasn't occurred. FIFA is not a sovereign nation - we haven't signed and ratified a treaty with them that can be upheld in an international court.

It's just a piece of paper, which is why nobody is that bothered about it. Like I said, depending on their arrangements with each other FIFA might be able to sue the FFA - that would be about it.

 

[Watergate]

I'm a lawyer, although not a constitutional one.

Government guarantees mean bugger all. Parliament is constitutionally required to approve all government expenditure, which hasn't occurred. FIFA is not a sovereign nation - we haven't signed and ratified a treaty with them that can be upheld in an international court.

It's just a piece of paper, which is why nobody is that bothered about it. Like I said, depending on their arrangements with each other FIFA might be able to sue the FFA - that would be about it.

Ok. Appreciate your input and it's reassuring to be told that "Government guarantees mean bugger all"! I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Michael2010]

I've spoken to bob katter personally and he has said anything that's good for the nation is good by him shame that some idiots still can't work that out and can't do maths either, go back to school, you pathetic dropkicks, you couldn't do even basic maths let alone economics so stop embarrassing yourselves fools

 

[Munro_Mick]

What get's me is that should the FIFA WC bid be 'won', then, how much normal expenditure is directed towards it. All for the sake of 4 weeks activity.

Reality must be - if it's not justified the rest of the time, then, as per many of the Sydney 2000 venues - - how is it justified at such expense for just 4 weeks. You want an awful lot of 'retail spending' to make up for potentially white elephant or expensive temporary projects in regional areas for just 4 weeks.

What good after that is massively excess hotel accomodation or 20,000 empty stadium seats?

FIFA makes about 90% of it's 4 yearly budget from the FIFA WC. They take the 'easy' money. Look at South Africa for example - - the 'profit' margin in ticketing sits in the last 20%. And that's where they were cutting prices massively to move the tickets. FIFA takes the 'easy' money of broadcast rights, sponsorship etc and FIFA 'owns' the venues.

Australia would be left to gamble - - and that gamble would include hoping for good conditions in global economy, price of aviation travel, and minimal global 'security' fears.

Germany did great in 2006 - - it's smack in the middle of soccer made Europe. Japan and Korea got unders 1 year out from 9/11. And RSA, had a heap of no shows and empty seats left right and centre in the group phase. It's all a gamble. Australia is very, very vulnerable. That said - we're a great country to visit. But, Fed Govt perhaps should spend more time and effort on annual events like the F1 GP and Aust Open Tennis that currently seem to be left to the states (Victoria) rather than regarded as a national asset with global significance,...year on year.

 

[Munro_Mick]

shame that some idiots still can't work that out and can't do maths either, go back to school, you pathetic dropkicks, you couldn't do even basic maths let alone economics so stop embarrassing yourselves fools

Enough of the childish name calling.

Is it wrong to question??

The most common thing that happens with 'major events' is a great over inflation of the benefits before hand.

You'll rarely be given the range of projected outcomes based on worst case to best case. No. Just the best case.

And don't forget, part of the benefit is so often the intangible of 'national pride'.

For some of us - - there's plenty 'nuff national pride already. Australia is pretty ruddy unique in this world for a lot of 'physical' reasons. We don't need constant global reaffirmation.

Your a recent joiner of bigfooty but seem to have come in banging a particular drum very loudly. That's not the way to win friends and influence people. That behaviour only really encourages people to erect tall fences and install double glazing.