Why?????????????????

[Janus]

Mate - the AFL enters long term contracts to have grounds for its competition.

The FFA has to do the same.

Pfft. The AFL enters long term contracts in order to broker a better deal on the rental of stadiums that they don't own. When the MCG and Etihad are the only grounds available to you, your not exactly in a position of power in negotiations, are you?

Or how is it that for every upgrade done to the MCG that the AFL pays for, part of the settlement is a renegotiation of the contract length (and thereby contract terms)?

Here's an idea - what if the federal government/FFA entered into a contract for the MCG that started at the very end of the exisiting AFL contract (2037 or something), and lasted for 10 years. Pay them whatever they want.

Then you can stick your contracts where the sun don't shine and have 10 seasons of no MCG. Either that, or provide the FFA/federal government 'compensation' of being able to use the MCG/Etihad for the WC tournament. Remember, it's a contract - and I doubt the MCC would care where they get their money from. It's not like the AFL can go anywhere else.

You reckon the AFL would come to the party then?

 

[magpie_militia]

Either that, or provide the FFA/federal government 'compensation' of being able to use the MCG/Etihad for the WC tournament. Remember, it's a contract - and I doubt the MCC would care where they get their money from. It's not like the AFL can go anywhere else.

You reckon the AFL would come to the party then?

Actually, I don't.

In this hypothetical, I think the AFL would realise it is a bluff and play it like that. FFA leaks enough cash as it is, why would they want to leak more just to spite another competition?

If they did sign a contract to start in 2037, the AFL would have more than enough time to find (or build) a new stadium. Who knows, "Waverley" might make a comeback!

 

[Admiral Byng]

Pfft. The AFL enters long term contracts in order to broker a better deal on the rental of stadiums that they don't own. When the MCG and Etihad are the only grounds available to you, your not exactly in a position of power in negotiations, are you?

Or how is it that for every upgrade done to the MCG that the AFL pays for, part of the settlement is a renegotiation of the contract length (and thereby contract terms)?

Here's an idea - what if the federal government/FFA entered into a contract for the MCG that started at the very end of the exisiting AFL contract (2037 or something), and lasted for 10 years. Pay them whatever they want.

Then you can stick your contracts where the sun don't shine and have 10 seasons of no MCG. Either that, or provide the FFA/federal government 'compensation' of being able to use the MCG/Etihad for the WC tournament. Remember, it's a contract - and I doubt the MCC would care where they get their money from. It's not like the AFL can go anywhere else.

You reckon the AFL would come to the party then?

Excellent idea, spend yet more taxpayers money.

 

[Barkly St End]

Here's an idea - what if the federal government/FFA entered into a contract for the MCG that started at the very end of the exisiting AFL contract (2037 or something), and lasted for 10 years. Pay them whatever they want.

Surely you appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the AFL and the MCG?

What do you reckon the MCG would look like without the AFL?

Have a look at Adelaide Oval for your answer.

 

[Janus]

Excellent idea, spend yet more taxpayers money.

What, and the $300 million or so that some of you guys are talking about as compensation isn't doing the same? For $150 million, the AFL increased their contract length with the MCC by some years because the paid for the Great Southern Stand. I'm sure the same amount of money could buy a few seasons from the MCC. And it would be cheaper than the 'compensation' that some are asking for.

Besides, the FFA can always sub-let the ground out to the AFL, at a rate that is comparable to the deal that led to a lot of clubs complaining about how much they were having to pay. Make it a nice little money spinner for the FFA - and then can schedule international matches and disrupt the AFL season whenever they want. Wins all round, really.

You guys want to hang your hat on contracts, well go ahead. You want to be vindictive and not give a 'free kick' to a rival code, who just wants you to SHIFT one season for eight weeks, go ahead. But until the AFL own the MCG, they aren't in the position of absolute power that you guys make them out to be.

 

[Janus]

Surely you appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the AFL and the MCG?

What do you reckon the MCG would look like without the AFL?

Have a look at Adelaide Oval for your answer.

That's why I've now mentioned sub-letting the ground back to the AFL - at a much higher rate, of course.

Far better way to spend the 'compensation' money, wouldn't you say? Might be able to get most of it back

 

[Admiral Byng]

What, and the $300 million or so that some of you guys are talking about as compensation isn't doing the same? For $150 million, the AFL increased their contract length with the MCC by some years because the paid for the Great Southern Stand. I'm sure the same amount of money could buy a few seasons from the MCC. And it would be cheaper than the 'compensation' that some are asking for.

Besides, the FFA can always sub-let the ground out to the AFL, at a rate that is comparable to the deal that led to a lot of clubs complaining about how much they were having to pay. Make it a nice little money spinner for the FFA - and then can schedule international matches and disrupt the AFL season whenever they want. Wins all round, really.

You guys want to hang your hat on contracts, well go ahead. You want to be vindictive and not give a 'free kick' to a rival code, who just wants you to SHIFT one season for eight weeks, go ahead. But until the AFL own the MCG, they aren't in the position of absolute power that you guys make them out to be.

Is this supposed to be a counter-argument?

Where are the FFA getting this money from - out of their own pockets?? The money the AFL has paid to secure the leases came from theirs.

This is the great stumbling block you can't seem to get around. You don't enough have the stadiums to fill a bid book. There is just this automatic assumption that everyone else should help out - the taxpayer, the government, the other codes - because it is good for national pride or something. The real world doesn't work like that. I have an electricity bill on my desk that I have been frantically waving an Australian flag at for days, but it still remains unpaid.

There is absolutely no moral or ethical reason for the AFL to agree to shift their season if it means that doing so will cost them money. That is why the issue of compensation arises.

Why do you make the assumption that everyone should go along with the bid?

 

[Zidane98]

No need to get personal, it is just my opinion. To help you though, the phrase is "Are you thick or just plain stupid?".

If that is the case, what is the point of even having a contract?

Even though your delusional ranting is humerous, I will feel slightly sorry for you when we don't win either of the 2018/22 world cups.

However, in true BigFooty fashion, I will make sure to bump this thread for you

Exactly the reason all of this hysteria and hyperbole from AFL loving sokkah haters about the 2022 world cup bid is ridiculous - why not wait to see if we actually win the bid first, before you get upset about your beloved AFL?


For the record, South Melbourne Football Club have a 25 year lease on bob jane stadium as of 1991. They, like the AFL vacating the MCG for the 2022 world cup, have to vacate their premises for the F1 Grand Prix when it is on. Incidentally, the grand prix falls during the Victorian Premier League season. Using some of the logic exhibited by certain members on here, South Melbourne FC could stop the F1 Grand Prix from going ahead because they have a lease on Bob Jane Stadium.

We all know in reality, that isn't the case. I can say with 100 percent knowledge, that all South Melbourne FC get out of being kicked out of their stadium is 500 free tickets to the Grand Prix, which they can sell on if they wish.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Exactly the reason all of this hysteria and hyperbole from AFL loving sokkah haters about the 2022 world cup bid is ridiculous - why not wait to see if we actually win the bid first, before you get upset about your beloved AFL?

Because it all has to be decided within 2 months, by the end of february. Slunky Kate has spoken. Now is the perfect time to air these concerns.

 

[Zidane98]

Is this supposed to be a counter-argument?

Where are the FFA getting this money from - out of their own pockets?? The money the AFL has paid to secure the leases came from theirs.

This is the great stumbling block you can't seem to get around. You don't enough have the stadiums to fill a bid book. There is just this automatic assumption that everyone else should help out - the taxpayer, the government, the other codes - because it is good for national pride or something. The real world doesn't work like that. I have an electricity bill on my desk that I have been frantically waving an Australian flag at for days, but it still remains unpaid.

There is absolutely no moral or ethical reason for the AFL to agree to shift their season if it means that doing so will cost them money. That is why the issue of compensation arises.

Why do you make the assumption that everyone should go along with the bid?

The world cup is for the benefit of the nation. If a mostly Victorian based competition is disrupted for it, so be it. It is only a one in a 100 year event. AFL will survive just fine with an interrupted season.

Stadiums are not a problem. The State and Federal governments have signed a guarantee, just as South Africa did, that the stadiums will be completed for the tournament. If we win the bid, and let me remind you that is a big if, work will begin immediately, for a duration of 10 years up until the event. That is more then enough time to get everything ready.

 

[Barkly St End]

The world cup is for the benefit of the nation. If a mostly Victorian based competition is disrupted for it, so be it. It is only a one in a 100 year event. AFL will survive just fine with an interrupted season.

Stadiums are not a problem. The State and Federal governments have signed a guarantee, just as South Africa did, that the stadiums will be completed for the tournament. If we win the bid, and let me remind you that is a big if, work will begin immediately, for a duration of 10 years up until the event. That is more then enough time to get everything ready.

Well, they become a bit of a problem if the AFL doesn't allow access to both the MCG and Etihad, a weak bid starts to look even weaker.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Exactly the reason all of this hysteria and hyperbole from AFL loving sokkah haters about the 2022 world cup bid is ridiculous - why not wait to see if we actually win the bid first, before you get upset about your beloved AFL?


For the record, South Melbourne Football Club have a 25 year lease on bob jane stadium as of 1991. They, like the AFL vacating the MCG for the 2022 world cup, have to vacate their premises for the F1 Grand Prix when it is on. Incidentally, the grand prix falls during the Victorian Premier League season. Using some of the logic exhibited by certain members on here, South Melbourne FC could stop the F1 Grand Prix from going ahead because they have a lease on Bob Jane Stadium.

We all know in reality, that isn't the case. I can say with 100 percent knowledge, that all South Melbourne FC get out of being kicked out of their stadium is 500 free tickets to the Grand Prix, which they can sell on if they wish.

This is great undercover work
Great comparison
This news should end all arguments
I can't believe I've been so naive all this time, when the facts where just sitting there looking us in the face.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The world cup is for the benefit of the nation. If a mostly Victorian based competition is disrupted for it, so be it. It is only a one in a 100 year event. AFL will survive just fine with an interrupted season.

Stadiums are not a problem. The State and Federal governments have signed a guarantee, just as South Africa did, that the stadiums will be completed for the tournament. If we win the bid, and let me remind you that is a big if, work will begin immediately, for a duration of 10 years up until the event. That is more then enough time to get everything ready.

I'm not a Victorian.

If stadiums are not a problem, why did Spunky Kate set up her special taskforce? That's what the whole song and dance is about - getting agreement for the use of stadiums, and funding committments between state and federal levels of government. It is far from being sorted.

 

[Admiral Byng]

This is great undercover work
Great comparison
This news should end all arguments
I can't believe I've been so naive all this time, when the facts where just sitting there looking us in the face.

Quite the opposite.

The Grand Prix only goes for one weekend so the disruption is not so great, even given the lead-in time for preparation and putting everything back afterwards.

It only concerns one team, not the entire league. The scheduling can be re-jigged so they play away matches during that period. This can't be done with AFL, the other available grounds in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Gold Coast will also be taken by the World Cup. Different kettle of fish altogether.

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

It only concerns one team, not the entire league. The scheduling can be re-jigged so they play away matches during that period. This can't be done with AFL, the other available grounds in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Gold Coast will also be taken by the World Cup. Different kettle of fish altogether.

Yes, which is why we're proposing a FOUR WEEK BREAK. Not that complicated.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yes, which is why we're proposing a FOUR WEEK BREAK. Not that complicated.

It works out more than that. grounds need to be made available for 4 weeks prior to the start of the tournament. The tournament goes for about 6 weeks - 4 weeks of preliminary rounds and 2 weeks of finals. So that means grounds are unavailable for 8-10 weeks in total. So even if you took a 4 week break, where do you play for the other 4-6 weeks?

 

[Zidane98]

Quite the opposite.

The Grand Prix only goes for one weekend so the disruption is not so great, even given the lead-in time for preparation and putting everything back afterwards.

It only concerns one team, not the entire league. The scheduling can be re-jigged so they play away matches during that period. This can't be done with AFL, the other available grounds in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Gold Coast will also be taken by the World Cup. Different kettle of fish altogether.

Incorrect. The setting up of the grand prix track takes 3 months. SMFC must vacate Bob Jane stadium for 4 weeks in the middle of the season.

The most likely result if a WC bid is successful is a 4 week mid season break for the AFL. Who knows, that may be a good idea, with the amount of injuries these days. Gold Coast? Skilled stadium will be upgraded to 40,000 seats if the World Cup bid is succesful. Adelaide - well the Adelaide Oval will be turned into a 50,000 multi purpose venue. The AFL can continue to use AAMI stadium. I assume stadium perth will go ahead if the WC bid is successful, leaving Subiaco to the AFL. Even if it didn't the AFL can use WACA for the duration of the World Cup. No, stadiums will not be an issue. Australia has already guaranteed as much.

The point remains the same. SMFC have a lease on BJS. However, if there are bigger events on, they will get kicked out. It is commercial reality.

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

The AFL can continue to use AAMI stadium.

Actually, I believe they're demolishing that, because they have the foresight of a stapler.

 

[Zidane98]

Actually, I believe they're demolishing that, because they have the foresight of a stapler.

I assume that any plans to demolish AAMI stadium will be put on hold until we know whether the World Cup bid is successful. It will come in handy for the AFL during the 2022 world cup.

 

[Zidane98]

Well, they become a bit of a problem if the AFL doesn't allow access to both the MCG and Etihad, a weak bid starts to look even weaker.

Yes, just as South Melbourne FC were going to deny the F1 Grand Prix corporation the right to use Albert Park. Use of the stadium for the 2022 world cup, if successful, is guaranteed. Get over it and move on.

 

[mighty tiges]

Yes, which is why we're proposing a FOUR WEEK BREAK. Not that complicated.

It would be at least an EIGHT week break given the WC venues must not be used for 4 weeks leading into the WC. FIFA doesn't want the ground surface chopped up before the tournament has even started.

The barney is all about Etihad; not the MCG. The AFL was fine with the MCG being available for the WC. They would use Etihad during the WC (have a break while the semi-finals and final was on) and fix their schedule to move all "blockbuster" games (>50k) outside the eight week window and avoid clashes when the Socceroos were playing. The FFA told the AFL initially that's fine as they wouldn't require Etihad. However in typical Australian soccer officialdom style they reneged on the compromise deal and included Etihad in the bid when they realised after agreeing it would cost $150m to upgrade the rectangular stadium and the upgrade would put the rectangular stadium out of action for 4 to 5 years. Sheer incompetence by the FFA, Lowy and Buckley not to have done their sums and planning before bidding or making any deal with other codes. The other codes now rightly don't trust the FFA's word and their now let's wait and see until we get it approach and want confirmation in writing of all the details surrounding the WC bid. The FFA is now playing dumb and blaming FIFA for the lack of info. Another typical Australian soccer officialdom stuff-up .

 

[Admiral Byng]

Adelaide - well the Adelaide Oval will be turned into a 50,000 multi purpose venue. The AFL can continue to use AAMI stadium. I assume stadium perth will go ahead if the WC bid is successful, leaving Subiaco to the AFL. Even if it didn't the AFL can use WACA for the duration of the World Cup. No, stadiums will not be an issue. Australia has already guaranteed as much.

There are some factual errors in your posts too.

AAMi will be demolished.
Perth Stadium would mean Subiaco is demolished (they actually overlap on the plans, the Eastern end of the new stand would be in the centre square of the current Subi Oval. The WACA has been redeveloped and is now too small for footy, so that can't be used either.

Stadiums are an issue. Money is limited and governments don't want to spend any more than they have to - otherwise we'd just build 10-12 brand new ones from scratch.

 

[finders]

I'm sure that noone on this forum would have a problem if the FFA were actually able to provide their own stadiums for the bid. It then wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Thats the point I couldnt care less if the WC actually comes here in some far distant time
but if Soccer so popular in Australia like the soccer fools say, it should have enough money to build its own stadiums like other sports have but being a minor sport locally it cannot survive without massive government handouts! You want it so much then ****ingly well PAY for IT!

 

[cos789]

Surely you appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the AFL and the MCG?

What do you reckon the MCG would look like without the AFL?

Have a look at Adelaide Oval for your answer.

Better still - the WACA without Aussie Rules .

.

 

[cos789]

Then you can stick your contracts where the sun don't shine

Glad to hear that , so we can get the wc then simply reneg all on the details and not worry about FIFA compliant .
Yes - that is the solution - not honouring contracts .

.