Soccer tying to bludge off the Australian Taxpayer again!

[Gigantor]

Coincidentally, Munro Mick just put up this post on the Roar talking about a similar topic:

"The irony back in Melbourne – – the 100% Govt funded stadium………is AAMI Park…..for soccer and the rugby codes. More Govt money spent building that than went into the rebuilt MCG. "

This is the incredibly thing, more government money spent on a pissant rectangular stadium than was spent on the biggest stadium in Australia.

 

[The_Wookie]

Why should the AFL be the only sport that provides significant funding for stadia development?

Its a choice.

Or do you think the AFL should be "punished" (by applying double standards on funding/ more govt. money for other codes) because the Australian game is such a popular sport?

its a choice.

AF requires huge funding for many more suburban ovals in Sydney, because of the shortage of GR AF ovals there (& many underused RL & RU grounds).

they can start by getting people to trust their participation figures. No one in sydney believes them.

Or do you think it would be ok for the AFL to be financially profligate, then demand govt. funding for its "needs"? Don't draw the AFL down to the lowest common denominator of the other sports.

Getting a hundred year leg up from councils and the governments in WA (peppercorn rent at Subiaco) and Victoria, and numerous councils hasnt hurt either,

Other sports should "cut their cloth" to suit their needs & priorities- & be efficient with how they spend their own limited moneys.

sure they should.

. the NRL should not be expecting the NSW govt. to spend hundreds of millions of $ on poorly patronised Sydney NRL suburban grounds.
If they want such major upgrades to numerous Sydney NRL suburban grounds, the NRL should fund it themselves by:-

a. cutting their funding of NRL clubs- & diverting this funding to Sydney suburban stadia development.

b. stipulating that these suburban NRL clubs that have affiliated pokie clubs, then these pokie clubs' funding of the NRL club should be diverted: to local stadium development ie not to the NRL clubs' activities.

. A League clubs should not be seeking govt. funding for rectangular stadia, for the exclusive use of soccer.

. all A League, NRL & RA clubs should respect the taxpayers' precious funds, & not demand large, rectangular stadia.

They dont have to. The AFL makes a choice to do this and its unique in Australian sport. It is not how any other sport in the goddamn country works.

AF is making great progress in GR Club & school comp. nos. in all of Greater Sydney (excluding the Penrith District RL comp.); & the Gold Coast- Greater Brisbane-Sunshine Coast corridors. Male club contact RL & RU has collapsed in those areas.

so?

As it is very likely this AF progress will continue for many decades, AF & the AFL will become much more popular. Only large oval stadia, therefore, should, generally, be built from 2021- since large oval stadia can accomodate AF, cricket, RL, RU, & soccer large pro matches.

Get real. Theres no justification or reason to expect the Giants will need a larger stadium, and no reasonable person would expect another team in Sydney this side of the return of Christ.

Sydney already has rectangular Bankwest (30k capacity) & SFS (45k capacity)- with ANZ(82k) big enough for the bigger matches in RL, RU, soccer, cricket, & AF.

And maybe the NSW Government is happy with more. What works for Victoria, doesnt necessarily work for everyone else.

Brisbane has rectangular Suncorp (capacity 52K).

Cool.

The former Olympic oval stadia in Rome, Munich, London (Wembley) all host pro tier 1 soccer team- possibly other Olympic stadia in other countries also.
If these oval stadia are good enough for these countries to play their very popular tier 1 soccer games etc., they are adequate, also, for soccer, RL, & RU in Australia.

Generally inside athletics tracks, and not australian ovals which at low levels can be hard to see the other side of the field due to the slope for drainage. Or with grass cut for cricket so a football bounces around like its a friggin billiard table.

Theres no harm in asking though is there. Get off your high horse.

 

[The_Wookie]

Coincidentally, Munro Mick just put up this post on the Roar talking about a similar topic:

"The irony back in Melbourne – – the 100% Govt funded stadium………is AAMI Park…..for soccer and the rugby codes. More Govt money spent building that than went into the rebuilt MCG. "

This is the incredibly thing, more government money spent on a pissant rectangular stadium than was spent on the biggest stadium in Australia.

Yawn. Let me go back and find the rent details for the MCC that the Government literally gives them back to assist with development payments.

Spent at least 160m since 2003 - 77m for the Northern Stand after the feds bailed, 70m in upgrades to the Southern Stand, 25m in general upgrades and at least $100m more as its contribution to debt repayments since the Southern Stand was built. So its an easy 250+m in government money spent at the MCG - and this doesn include the millions of dollars in land and grants for Yarra Park after the parkland was taken from the Melbourne City Council and gifted to the MCG.

(In 2020, The MCC paid 5.165m in rent....and recieved 4.9m back specifically for repayment of Re-Development debt. But yeah the Government doesnt pay anything.)

 

[BobbyMorri]

If the AFL puts in a small amount, it is them protecting their interests and making sure they have a larger say in the running of the stadium. Optus and Adelaide Oval is not being used for the womens world cup, for example. IF they don't put funding in it, or don't have a team, the AFL misses out. See Blundstone Arena(Cricket Tas) for example, who "banned" the TSL from the ground last year. The SCG and the Gabba refuses the AFL request for drop-in pitches. money=more Political power.

I am not from NSW, so my knowledge in that area is weak. pass

and you thinking of West Hams home ground(London Stadium), not Wembley. they are different. And West Ham fans are not totally overjoyed by the stadium. They have kicked up a lot of fuss. But the paycheque is too good to resist for the club, which is why they moved. The rent they are paying there is next to nothing, they can get a lot of fans inside the venue and it is costing the owners of the stadium a lot of money. this would be similar reasons to the other "oval" clubs one would think. Some huge clubs(Juventus, B.Munich) have moved out of an oval to build their own specialised stadium

 

[BringBackTorps]

Its a choice.



its a choice.



they can start by getting people to trust their participation figures. No one in sydney believes them.



Getting a hundred year leg up from councils and the governments in WA (peppercorn rent at Subiaco) and Victoria, and numerous councils hasnt hurt either,



sure they should.




They dont have to. The AFL makes a choice to do this and its unique in Australian sport. It is not how any other sport in the goddamn country works.



so?



Get real. Theres no justification or reason to expect the Giants will need a larger stadium, and no reasonable person would expect another team in Sydney this side of the return of Christ.



And maybe the NSW Government is happy with more. What works for Victoria, doesnt necessarily work for everyone else.



Cool.



Generally inside athletics tracks, and not australian ovals which at low levels can be hard to see the other side of the field due to the slope for drainage. Or with grass cut for cricket so a football bounces around like its a friggin billiard table.

Theres no harm in asking though is there. Get off your high horse.

You haven't answered my 2 questions in my first paragraph.

I don't know what the rents are in WA generally- but I do know all sports pay high rents for Optus.
Were Subiaco & other top tier grounds in Perth (inc. other sports) on peppercorn rents?

What was the 100 year leg-up?
I did not know that top tier VFL/VFA etc grounds were on peppercorn rents. Which grounds, & for how long?
As for suburban local GR AF comps. in Melb., AFAIK, they all pay rent to the councils.
Were soccer grounds on peppercorn rents?

You agreed with my proposition that, financially, "other sports should cut their cloth- to suit their needs & priorities, & be efficient with how they spend their own limited moneys". This is a fundamental principle.

I disagree with all your other comments.

If the AFL puts in a small amount, it is them protecting their interests and making sure they have a larger say in the running of the stadium.

You did not answer my 2 questions in my first paragraph, about why other sports are not contributing.

It has been widely noted in the MSM the NRL wants govt. funding for major upgrades of at least 3 Sydney suburban NRL stadia- even though NRL crowds are modest; & the NSW govt. is spending c. $1b on the new Bankwest & the SFS, demolition, & other costs.

and you thinking of West Hams home ground(London Stadium), not Wembley. they are different. And West Ham fans are not totally overjoyed by the stadium.

The Olympic London Stadium is fine for top soccer (much higher standard, & much bigger crowds, than the A League etc.) in England.

Soccer fans in Australia should be happy, for their big matches, with oval stadia in Australia.
The taxpayer has already blown c. $45m on the WC bids for 2018 & 20022. Many soccer experts have written of the massive corruption that exists in FIFA etc., & that Aust. had virtually no chance of winning the WC- the bribes we paid were not big enough.

AFAIK, Wembley Stadium, an oval, was used for c. 60 + years for top British soccer matches eg FA Cup matches.

Olympic stadium ovals are fine for top tier soccer, RL, & RU matches. We should not be wasting the taxpayers' money on unnecessary stadia, given that Homebush, Bankwest, SFS, & Suncorp are excellent for RL, RU, & soccer top tier matches (& these sports rarely draw very big crowds).

 

[The_Wookie]

You haven't answered my 2 questions in my first paragraph.

Mostly because i dont really care what your questions are. Its not sale of the friggin century.

I don't know what the rents are in WA generally- but I do know all sports pay high rents for Optus.
Were Subiaco & other top tier grounds in Perth (inc. other sports) on peppercorn rents?

No. Just subiaco, and on a 99 year lease.

What was the 100 year leg-up?

Opportunity that was afforded to VFL, SANFL and WAFL clubs that wasnt afforded to other codes. This includes the fencing off of grounds in the late 19th century, facility funding vastly favouring VFL/AFL/Cricket facilities, as well as things like the country Football/Netball funding program that was VFL/Netball orientated and government funded.

I did not know that top tier VFL/VFA etc grounds were on peppercorn rents. Which grounds, & for how long?

I didnt say they were.

As for suburban local GR AF comps. in Melb., AFAIK, they all pay rent to the councils.
Were soccer grounds on peppercorn rents?

You agreed with my proposition that, financially, "other sports should cut their cloth- to suit their needs & priorities, & be efficient with how they spend their own limited moneys". This is a fundamental principle.

Everyone should spend prudently. Howver, that has never applied to first tier stadiums in Australia where the Government owns the infrastructure in almost every case.

I disagree with all your other comments.

I dont really care.

You did not answer my 2 questions in my first paragraph, about why other sports are not contributing.

Ive said ad nauseum - because they dont have to. The Government has not and does not require it. The AFL makes a choice to do so. It doesnt mean everyone else has to.

It has been widely noted in the MSM the NRL wants govt. funding for major upgrades of at least 3 Sydney suburban NRL stadia- even though NRL crowds are modest; & the NSW govt. is spending c. $1b on the new Bankwest & the SFS, demolition, & other costs.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand? In NSW those rectangular stadiums will benefit 3 professional codes, plus their seconds and community leagues. Just because the Victorian Government opted for centralised stadiums, doesnt mean everyone else will.

The Olympic London Stadium is fine for top soccer (much higher standard, & much bigger crowds, than the A League etc.) in England.

Good for them.

Soccer fans in Australia should be happy, for their big matches, with oval stadia in Australia.

Well they arent...and who the hell are we to tell them how to feel.

The taxpayer has already blown c. $45m on the WC bids for 2018 & 20022. Many soccer experts have written of the massive corruption that exists in FIFA etc., & that Aust. had virtually no chance of winning the WC- the bribes we paid were not big enough.

The taxpayer also frittered money away on well lets see, every AFL stadium that isnt owned by the AFL. And countless training facilities, AFLW venues etc.

AFAIK, Wembley Stadium, an oval, was used for c. 60 + years for top British soccer matches eg FA Cup matches.

And?

Olympic stadium ovals are fine for top tier soccer, RL, & RU matches.

They arent, and no one who follows those sports in Australia thinks they are. I dont care about overseas examples since we arent discussing overseas policy decisions or leagues.

We should not be wasting the taxpayers' money on unnecessary stadia, given that Homebush, Bankwest, SFS, & Suncorp are excellent for RL, RU, & soccer top tier matches (& these sports rarely draw very big crowds).

Thats what elections are for. Move to NSW and vote if you believe in it that much.

 

[Gigantor]

View attachment 1091572

Wookie please, you are being far too clever by half.
Firstly, to take merely the cash flows from operating activities while ignoring the cash flows from investing activities casts some doubt on whatever it is you're trying to prove.
Secondly, what reporting entity are we looking at in whatever it is you've copied across? Once again, doubt is cast on whatever it is you're trying to prove.
So you think you are providing definitive financial reporting evidence of something, not really sure what that something is.
Let us give you the benefit of doubt that you weren't deliberately peddling tiny bits of the financial picture to be misleading.
Even more interesting would be to see the full cost of the build of Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, the annual revenues and costs, in particular, the financing costs and the annual maintenance bill, and to note that even with the so-called "rents" from multiple teams, that it goes nowhere near paying off the stadium over its life.

 

[The_Wookie]

Wookie please, you are being far too clever by half.

Sure. I am.

Firstly, to take merely the cash flows from operating activities while ignoring the cash flows from investing activities casts some doubt on whatever it is you're trying to prove.
Secondly, what reporting entity are we looking at in whatever it is you've copied across? Once again, doubt is cast on whatever it is you're trying to prove.
So you think you are providing definitive financial reporting evidence of something, not really sure what that something is.

Its from the last MCG Trust Annual Report. I thought that was blindly obvious given the contexct.

Let us give you the benefit of doubt that you weren't deliberately peddling tiny bits of the financial picture to be misleading.

I dont really care what you give. and in your case, you dont even have any of the financial picture at Aami park to make any statements.

Even more interesting would be to see the full cost of the build of Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, the annual revenues and costs, in particular, the financing costs and the annual maintenance bill, and to note that even with the so-called "rents" from multiple teams, that it goes nowhere near paying off the stadium over its life.

Thats going to be a little hard to find out, given that the facility is run by the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Trust which is responsible for

• Rod Laver Arena
• Melbourne Arena
• Margaret Court Arena
• Gosches Paddock
• Aami Park

And only gives general overall figures for the entire complex.

 

[Gigantor]

And thus why my query about the point of your extract is so pertinent.
Is that going to show us the full extent of the cash flow surrounding the operating and investing activities in relation to the MCG?
Of course it doesn't!
In other words, you have successfully made a non-point.

 

[BobbyMorri]

You did not answer my 2 questions in my first paragraph, about why other sports are not contributing.

It has been widely noted in the MSM the NRL wants govt. funding for major upgrades of at least 3 Sydney suburban NRL stadia- even though NRL crowds are modest; & the NSW govt. is spending c. $1b on the new Bankwest & the SFS, demolition, & other costs.


The Olympic London Stadium is fine for top soccer (much higher standard, & much bigger crowds, than the A League etc.) in England.

Soccer fans in Australia should be happy, for their big matches, with oval stadia in Australia.
The taxpayer has already blown c. $45m on the WC bids for 2018 & 20022. Many soccer experts have written of the massive corruption that exists in FIFA etc., & that Aust. had virtually no chance of winning the WC- the bribes we paid were not big enough.

AFAIK, Wembley Stadium, an oval, was used for c. 60 + years for top British soccer matches eg FA Cup matches.

Olympic stadium ovals are fine for top tier soccer, RL, & RU matches. We should not be wasting the taxpayers' money on unnecessary stadia, given that Homebush, Bankwest, SFS, & Suncorp are excellent for RL, RU, & soccer top tier matches (& these sports rarely draw very big crowds).

I did. In simple terms, a code invests in a stadium because 1. they want to and it will benefit them 2. They can afford to. Simple.

And Wembley is not an "oval". It would never have hosted a cricket match for example. It is not an oval in the Aussie sense.

 

[The_Wookie]

And thus why my query about the point of your extract is so pertinent.
Is that going to show us the full extent of the cash flow surrounding the operating and investing activities in relation to the MCG?
Of course it doesn't!
In other words, you have successfully made a non-point.

You dont even have a point beyond, other sports bad, afl good. Youve got zero financial data to support anything you've said. Whereas what i wrote is supported by both the MCC and MCG Trust annual reports, linked below

 

[NoobPie]

You dont even have a point beyond, other sports bad, afl good. Youve got zero financial data to support anything you've said. Whereas what i wrote is supported by both the MCC and MCG Trust annual reports, linked below

But it's clear what point Gigantor is making but it is not at all clear to me what point you are trying to make. Doing a dump of financial reports demonstrates nothing.

His point isn't "other sports bad, AFL good". That's a pathetic and frankly disrespectful misrepresentation for a moderator. It's irrefutably the case that the AFL is the only sport that contributes significantly to stadium build in this country.

 

[Gigantor]

But it's clear what point Gigantor is making but it is not at all clear to me what point you are trying to make. Doing a dump of financial reports demonstrates nothing.

His point isn't "other sports bad, AFL good". That's a pathetic and frankly disrespectful misrepresentation for a moderator. It's irrefutably the case that the AFL is the only sport that contributes significantly to stadium build in this country.

Further to this, if we are talking about the cost to the public purse of stadium development, what is the point of showing snippets of the financial statements of non-government bodies, in particular, specfic cash flows between two non-government bodies???

 

[NoobPie]

Further to this, if we are talking about the cost to the public purse of stadium development, what is the point of showing snippets of the financial statements of non-government bodies, in particular, specfic cash flows between two non-government bodies???

The same point as any red herring!

 

[The_Wookie]

But it's clear what point Gigantor is making but it is not at all clear to me what point you are trying to make.

My point remains what it always has been in this thread. Just because the AFL does something doesnt mean everyone else has to, particularly if the normal practice is not do it that way for every other sport. What works in Victoria may not work for other governments.

And my other point is that the taxpayer DOES contribute signficant money to the MCG development.

Doing a dump of financial reports demonstrates nothing.

I didnt do a dump of financial reports for this argument. I did it as a matter of course for what i do elesewhere and in these threads.

His point isn't "other sports bad, AFL good". That's a pathetic and frankly disrespectful misrepresentation for a moderator.

Then he should change his posting because it frankly reads as overzealous and psychopantic. And moderators are allowed to disagree with posters.

It's irrefutably the case that the AFL is the only sport that contributes significantly to stadium build in this country.

And its absolutely irrelevant to...um where did this conversation start again...oh yeah soccer wanting funding.

And ill be splitting this off to its own thread now.[/quote]

 

[The_Wookie]

Further to this, if we are talking about the cost to the public purse of stadium development, what is the point of showing snippets of the financial statements of non-government bodies, in particular, specfic cash flows between two non-government bodies???

The MCG Trust is appointed by the Victorian Government, and governed by the MCG Act. I get your point.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Its was Murdoch owner of the Storm RL club that put the Victorian Government and the AFL under pressure through his Herald Sun newspaper and in the end Brumby buckled!

I seem to recall Eddie Mcguire on the hot breakfast saying exactly that. Someone went to Bracks and said "Build a stadium or else"

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I seem to recall Eddie Mcguire on the hot breakfast saying exactly that. Someone went to Bracks and said "Build a stadium or else"

its a common tactic now - just look at the usa. nfl teams threaten to leave cities regularly now if the city/state doesnt pay for them to have a shiny new stadium

 

[Gigantor]

The MCG Trust is appointed by the Victorian Government, and governed by the MCG Act. I get your point.

It is an incorporated body which operates outside of the state government's budget.
It receives zero appropriations from the state government, meaning, once again, it's unclear why you thought it was an important point that the MCC and the Trust swapped cash flows.
If the Trust receives zero appropriation from Government, it follows that zero taxpayer dollars are flowing from the public purse to the Trust, and therefore, it follows that zero taxpayer dollars are flowing to the MCC to operate the MCG (which is extraordinary when you consider what happens in relation to most stadiums around Australia).
Of course, as you stated earlier, the AFL is the exception.
Correct!

 

[NoobPie]

its a common tactic now - just look at the usa. nfl teams threaten to leave cities regularly now if the city/state doesnt pay for them to have a shiny new stadium

Not really the same thing as a franchise owner threatening to move a team though. The insinuation is murdoch was threatening to attack the government with its tabloid - i.e. standard murdoch gangster business model

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not really the same thing as a franchise owner threatening to move a team though. The insinuation is murdoch was threatening to attack the government with its tabloid - i.e. standard murdoch gangster business model

an attack is an attack, does it matter to your head if you're hit with an axe or a machete?

 

[NoobPie]

an attack is an attack, does it matter to your head if you're hit with an axe or a machete?

*groans

 

[The_Wookie]

It is an incorporated body which operates outside of the state government's budget.
It receives zero appropriations from the state government, meaning, once again, it's unclear why you thought it was an important point that the MCC and the Trust swapped cash flows.
If the Trust receives zero appropriation from Government, it follows that zero taxpayer dollars are flowing from the public purse to the Trust, and therefore, it follows that zero taxpayer dollars are flowing to the MCC to operate the MCG (which is extraordinary when you consider what happens in relation to most stadiums around Australia).
Of course, as you stated earlier, the AFL is the exception.
Correct!

it does not change the originating point - soccer has its hand out for facilities just like everyone else - including the AFL. This is normal practice, the AFL at Dockklands was an exception. You hold up Docklands like its some beacon of self reliance and ignore the hundreds of millions spent at Kardinia Park, and other stadiums - and yes the AFL has contributed a fraction of that cost where others havent, but again they chose to do so - no one else is because they havent been required to nor are they expected to.

is it really zero in apropriations or do you just wish it was? If a Government body is paying money for the redevelopment then its still taxpayer funds. Its either that or the MCC is living essentially rent free at the MCG. You take your pick.

The AFL might be an exception, but what you've got wrong is that you think its a goddamn standard that literally no one else is following. And that has been my central point all along.

 

[BobbyMorri]

It's not "simple". And it's not fair for the taxpayer.

I am saying that other sports can & should follow the example of the AFL, & contribute significant amounts to stadia funding.
The taxpayer should be protected- & no double standards, to "punish" the AFL, simply because it is well managed/ has financial strength, & has, by FAR, the largest average crowds in Australia.

I gave examples (in post#37, of transferred Docklands' Thread) of how the NRL could do this stadium funding itself directly, by cutting grants to NRL clubs; &/or diverting the exhorbitant profits of NRL clubs' affiliated vile pokie dens to RL stadia development.
Other sports can also contribute significant amounts to stadium funding, if they insist on their own rectangular stadia.

Sydney clearly has a surplus of rectangular stadia. Return On Investment abysmal if any new stadia/major refurbishments are done.

There is no justification, on economic grounds etc., cultural grounds (UNESCO principles- see below), & protecting the taxpayer, for FA (& other sports) in its current demands for new soccer stadia to be built.

UNESCO...what??? And I would say getting a kebab at Sydney Olympic is cultural. that has nothing to do with anything.

And it is that simple. If the AFL is investing in something and not getting anything out of it, then they won't have a business for much longer. They not getting "punished", they are getting things done and done to their liking.

NSW fav sport is RL. The sports events competition in Australia got really heated once Perth and Adelaide fixed their outdated stadiums. NSW didn't and doesn't want to lose access to the biggest events in Australia. It's not like Giant Stadium/SCG didn't have a makeover recently. Everywhere got money from somewhere

You are being semantic. Wembley is not rectangular, it is much larger than the usual soccer ground, & has a general oval configuration- & hosted, very successfully many tier 1 soccer matches for c. 60 years. Ditto the Rome & Munich oval Olympic stadia, but not for such a lengthy time.

Do you now if other Olympic oval stadia, or general oval stadia, also have tier 1 soccer matches played on them (not inc. Australia)?

If top British, Italian, & German soccer clubs are happy to play on these oval stadia (similar to West Ham, at the London Olympic stadium), then the much smaller, & less significant, Australian soccer clubs should be accepting also.

And fair for AF, & the AFL (noting GR AF is growing very strongly in NSW & ACT- & there is a shortage of GR AF facilities in Sydney's NS & ES)?
In contrast, GR club male contact RL is collapsing in Greater Sydney (excluding the Penrith District RL comp.).GR male contact RU is in similar dire straits also, & the A League attracts poor to modest crowds (like RL & RU).
Why, with the initial plans to demolish Homebush, was AF, & our unique cultural heritage, being discriminated against, re ability to host very large AFL crowds (the SCG capacity is only a paltry -for the AFL- c. 48k) in Australia's biggest city?

robbieando post on the other thread outlines the soccer argument perfectly.

Just going to add this...Stadium Australia is/was crap for AFL and was barely used by the AFL, especially considering the SCG is a mightily fine consistently modern stadium. In its last days, its attendances were barely higher than the SCG, if not lower.

In the last 20 years and in the next 2, Stadium Aus will have hosted the RU world cup final, the Asian Cup final and the Womens world cup final. That is huge. And that is ignoring SoO, the NRL grand final and a bunch of important international matches in RU and soccer.

NSW almost always hosts the best/biggest Rugby and soccer matches in this country. The reason, the stadiums are the best for these sports. Making Stadium Aus rectangle, considering the AFL is perfectly happy at the SCG and that 99.9% of events played at the stadium are for the smaller sports, is a no brainer. Also a nice point of difference from Adel, Perth and Melb.

 

[The_Wookie]

i think the Unesco argument is my favorite one ever