Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
gyfox wrote:Actually it will come down to the venue that FIFA believes will give the spectators and TV viewers the best experience of the game. The difference in dollars between an 83k and 88k saleable venue is insignificant when you think that Broadcast Rights, Partnership agreements and other sponsorship for the 4 year Cup cycle bring in $4B to FIFA. At $600 a ticket it represents only 0.075% of FIFA's income from the Cup. This is one of the reasons FIFA had no qualms at all in ordering Brazil to reduce the capacity of the Maracana from 87.5K to 82k for Brazil 2014.
Absolutely.
Despite all the protestations, the MCG is a Cricket and Aussie Rules ground. Watching Football broadcast from there is anything but impressive. Sure when they cut to the stands and pan across it is a decent sight, but for the actual game you're looking at a field, surrounding by a couple of acres of grass.
As it stands it's really not a question where any Final would be played. It's a convenient co-incidence that the biggest and most well known city in Australia also has the largest capacity Football ground. If Melbourne had the equivalent then it would be an open question where the Final would be played, but they don't.
Last edited by Spirit of Santos on Thu May 20, 2010 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amaru wrote:I see the usual anti Melbourne dicks are still at it. The anti Melbourne sentiment on this forum and in particular anything to do with the WC bid for 18 and 22 is just disgraceful. Here's a reality check to anyone advocating they take the G out of the WC...no G = no WC for Australia. Now you can convince yourself otherwise that that would not happen all you like, but that is the reality. It does not matter that it is oval shaped or that the Vic Govt has not been involved in the bid as much as the NSW Govt, the fact is you bozos, the G is Australia's biggest stadium, and it will remain Australia's biggest stadium. Take the G out of the equation and suddenly you are left with a massive void. Could you imagine trying to win a country with the best bridges competition and we didn't include the Syd Harb Bridge? Because this is what you are basically advocating. The bottom line is, if the G is good enough to host a WC match, it's good enough to host the final. If Syd tries to increase ANZ, Melb will increase the G, so the difference in capacity won't change. By the time 18 or 22 comes around there will be a different Govt in power so stop with this Vic Govt bullshit. I don't half blame them anyway, all we have seen to date is the FFA and the NSW Govt getting it on they are probably thinking WTF.
And to those clowns who say that Melb refers to itself as the sporting capital, just for the record you numnuts, two, that's 1, 2, orgs have declared Melbourne the sporting capital. Even if Melb did declare itself the sporting capital, how is that any different to Syd, and now Brisbane, referring itself as a global international city? Anyone been to London or Paris to see what a true global city looks and feels like? Sydney is like Darwin in comparison.
And Gyfox, you sound like a f***ing broken record with this most registered players crap. Who cares? It does not equate to decent crowds in the A-League. Syd's crowds are embarrasing to say the least. As Australia's biggest city, which apparently according to the stats it won't be for too much longer, Syd should be selling out it's home games. But suffice to say, it's getting that bad for them that soon they will have to play their home games at a park so the dwindling
crowds can park their cars around the pitch and honk their horns when a goal is scored. Absolute amatuerism.
You may now continue with your disgraceful bashing of Melbourne you jealous fuckwitts.
You're forgetting something.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge isn't an oval shape with shithouse sightlines.
Spirit of Santos wrote:With NSW and Victoria Football participation numbers, one has to consider that the difference is probably down to Rugby League vs Aussie Rules.
League is a lot more taxing on the body then AFL, hence a lot of mothers in NSW will make their kids play Football instead. Even for kids who do play RL they are more likely to switch to Football as adults as it's frankly the more sensible option for a weekend pastime.
This doesn't exist to the same extent in Victoria with Aussie Rules, so that sport attracts more players both child and adult. If Rugby League was the number one sport in Victoria, I'd expect the player numbers for Football would be comparable to NSW.
That doesn't really explain it for me. The rate of player registration in SA and WA is double that of Victoria and Tas in triple that of Victoria.
I think the difference has more to do with the resistance to anything imperial in Victoria at the time the football codes became codified and the following 50 years. Would be interesting to discuss elsewhere than this thread.
gyfox wrote:Actually it will come down to the venue that FIFA believes will give the spectators and TV viewers the best experience of the game. The difference in dollars between an 83k and 88k saleable venue is insignificant when you think that Broadcast Rights, Partnership agreements and other sponsorship for the 4 year Cup cycle bring in $4B to FIFA. At $600 a ticket it represents only 0.075% of FIFA's income from the Cup. This is one of the reasons FIFA had no qualms at all in ordering Brazil to reduce the capacity of the Maracana from 87.5K to 82k for Brazil 2014.
Absolutely.
Despite all the protestations, the MCG is a Cricket and Aussie Rules ground. Watching Football broadcast from there is anything but impressive. Sure when they cut to the stands and pan across it is a decent sight, but for the actual game you're looking at a field, surrounding by a couple of acres of grass.
As it stands it's really not a question where any Final would be played. It's a convenient co-incidence that the biggest and most well known city in Australia also has the largest capacity Football ground. If Melbourne had the equivalent then it would be an open question where the Final would be played, but they don't.
Yeah I remember watching State of origin there a few years ago and the view was horrible. I think it'd the same for Football. The MCG as it is now, is not really good for rectangular sports. If they make some adjustments, I might actually be open to it but at the moment I think Stadium Australia should get the final.
Amaru wrote:I see the usual anti Melbourne dicks are still at it. The anti Melbourne sentiment on this forum and in particular anything to do with the WC bid for 18 and 22 is just disgraceful. Here's a reality check to anyone advocating they take the G out of the WC...no G = no WC for Australia. Now you can convince yourself otherwise that that would not happen all you like, but that is the reality. It does not matter that it is oval shaped or that the Vic Govt has not been involved in the bid as much as the NSW Govt, the fact is you bozos, the G is Australia's biggest stadium, and it will remain Australia's biggest stadium. Take the G out of the equation and suddenly you are left with a massive void. Could you imagine trying to win a country with the best bridges competition and we didn't include the Syd Harb Bridge? Because this is what you are basically advocating. The bottom line is, if the G is good enough to host a WC match, it's good enough to host the final. If Syd tries to increase ANZ, Melb will increase the G, so the difference in capacity won't change. By the time 18 or 22 comes around there will be a different Govt in power so stop with this Vic Govt bullshit. I don't half blame them anyway, all we have seen to date is the FFA and the NSW Govt getting it on they are probably thinking WTF.
And to those clowns who say that Melb refers to itself as the sporting capital, just for the record you numnuts, two, that's 1, 2, orgs have declared Melbourne the sporting capital. Even if Melb did declare itself the sporting capital, how is that any different to Syd, and now Brisbane, referring itself as a global international city? Anyone been to London or Paris to see what a true global city looks and feels like? Sydney is like Darwin in comparison.
And Gyfox, you sound like a f***ing broken record with this most registered players crap. Who cares? It does not equate to decent crowds in the A-League. Syd's crowds are embarrasing to say the least. As Australia's biggest city, which apparently according to the stats it won't be for too much longer, Syd should be selling out it's home games. But suffice to say, it's getting that bad for them that soon they will have to play their home games at a park so the dwindling
crowds can park their cars around the pitch and honk their horns when a goal is scored. Absolute amatuerism.
You may now continue with your disgraceful bashing of Melbourne you jealous fuckwitts.
To the average Joe Aussie, anything rectangular on the MCG looks crap on TV. There's a wide open space of grass on the sides and ends that really make the whole viewing pleasure, well, unpleasurable. It just seems a little out of place and you could say it looks a bit of a patch-up job.
To the Aussie Rules lover, they probably don't realise this too much because of their love of the oval game, and, if you're Victorian, a love of the "G". But to a sports lovers who only watch rectangular sports, the feeling is "What the f**K?", is this the best stadium they could come out with?"
i would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from my misguided fellow melburnians in this forum.
spirit of santos and jowel, i'm going to disagree with you. i think the tv experience, whilst not optimal, is far from terrible. the pitch is displaced to the southern end, with the corners abutting the fence essentially, giving the impression that the ground surface is smaller than it actually is. accordingly, there's less grass around the outside than you'd expect, and overall it's not a terrible tv view.
of course, the above compounds the viewing problems for patrons on the northern side of the ground, particularly on the first level. but that's another issue.
kame_22 wrote:sorry your a sydney sider your the last person i need information on
I wasn't providing information on myself. I'd be concerned if you wanted information on me. Although I've never had an internet stalker and was momentarially chuffed.
danny wrote:i would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from my misguided fellow melburnians in this forum.
spirit of santos and jowel, i'm going to disagree with you. i think the tv experience, whilst not optimal, is far from terrible. the pitch is displaced to the southern end, with the corners abutting the fence essentially, giving the impression that the ground surface is smaller than it actually is. accordingly, there's less grass around the outside than you'd expect, and overall it's not a terrible tv view.
of course, the above compounds the viewing problems for patrons on the northern side of the ground, particularly on the first level. but that's another issue.
I'm not saying it would be horrible, I'm just saying it is the worst of two options. Compare the scenes from the 2003 WC qualifier at the MCG to the 2005 qualifier at Homebush.
