But again 2 large supported teams would never play at MRS or SFS. These stadiums would only host minnows like say Togo v Korea. Blockbuster matches would be at first choice venues

Gyfox, do you know what the Government's (if any) redevelopment plans of York Park are? Hope it isn't used, just for interest sake.

Yeah, but it would be unfair to the teams that would travel to Perth then have to go to say Brisbane. The AFL teams already make a fuss about the travel...
If we had more of a spread, then more teams would be in the same boat. Which is why there were only two venues on the East and West Coasts (albeit with a smaller tournament) in USA `94.

They are currently developing plans for another $5.5M stand and eventually want to increase its capacity to 30,000. The new stand will increase capacity to 25,000 I think but only 16,000 of it is seated.

In my view the only reason the Tasmanian Government would put it forward as a World Cup venue is so they can blame someone else for Tasmania being left off the map when it is rejected by FFA or FIFA. They must surely know that there is no way it could ever be made World Cup standard.

It's actually a likely situation, as the teams get drawn into the group stages with all the venues predetermined, so they can plan their training venues and travel plans.

Also, 50,000 is probably going to be a medium size stadium in an Australian World Cup.

In my view Perth would have 5 games from the same group with the 6th game played in either Adelaide or in the east. There is no way that we would be able to move 40,000 fans back and forward across to Perth in the 3 or 4 days between games. It would need 30 or 40 A380 flights each way each day.

which is why almost all matches from 1 group would be based in Perth except 1 of the last 2 which would most likely be hosted by Adelaide. Centralizing stadiums around what Australians call one area may be against FIFA policy but remember the South-Eastern section of Australia is equivalent to France, Spain, Andorra and Portugal combined. With 80% of the population it would make sense to have 11 stadiums in this cluster plus Perth to minimise travel (though i would like North Queensland included, but certainly not Darwin).

But secondary stadiums for a city would have the least preference for matches and would likely host the lowest-key games of the Group Stage. Or at the very least Perth, Adel, Bris, Newc., GC and Can plus the MCG and ANZ Stadium would have preference above MRS and SFS.



Which is exactly why they would no be hosting big matches that are reserved for 60,000+ seat stadiums.

Just thinking for the Adelaide conundrum

We could do a reverse of the city of manchester stadium, start of with a playing surface below ground level with a rectangular pitch and a lower bowl purely designed for rectangular sports, and then fill the thing with dirt and have a 30,000 seat oval-shaped field for athletics.

Or now that I think of it, do it the same way but start with a capacity of 80,000 whilst rectangular for the world cup (could even host a semi!) and then fill her in for a 60,000 seat AFL ground.

Sigh...All the money that I would waste on stadia if I were a premier...

There's no such thing as 'secondary stadiums' for the World Cup. Instead, you have two stadiums from the one city. They'll arrange the matches so that there won't be any days where a city doesn't have two matches on the same day, then the MRS/SFS/Docklands would only be given four or five group stage matches but no round of 16 or quarter finals.

But this is all finalised before the teams have drawn their pools and games. The way the groups work is there is a seeded team (eg: Argentina), followed by usually another three teams. It could read as this:

Argentina
Croatia
Nigeria
Korea

Luck could have it that Argentina and Croatia are drawn to play at the so-called 'secondary stadium'. And there's no chance in hell that FIFA are going to alter the venue for them.

I reckon when they allocate the grounds before the draw they ensure that the games involving the teams from the higher pools get the biggest stadiums.

For a city of it's size, yes.

Unfortunately per capita arguments don't really have much place here.

And unlike most European cities of similar size, it's a f***ing long way from the nearest city as well. If Cairns was half an hour away with a reliable, regular rail link, then Townsville would probably be a suitable place.



You are dead right, but it still needs to be sustainable post World Cup for private investors to pump dollars in. No-one's going to build a hotel for a week or 2 if it's going to be 80% empty once it's over.

When i say secondary stadium I'm just referring to the second venue selected from Melbourne or Sydney; not a second-rate stadium.


I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here...
They would never schedule a city to host 2 matches in 1 day.


The draw will be configured so that all the matches involving seeded teams will be treated as "blockbuster" matches and drawn to play at the larger venues (i.e MCG, ANZ, Suncorp, New Adelaide Stadium etc.). SFS or MRS would only host matches involving the remaining 3 teams from a pool; hence Argentina v Croatia would never occur at either of these venues.

Virgin Blue have just announced flight between Townsville and Cairns for $39.

Being a 45 minute flights, you halve it get the price in Euros - 20 Euros. These prices means Cairns can be added, plus you have airports at Hamilton Island, Whitsundays...

It also is a venue that fills up now for the North Queensland Cowboys, would be in the dry season during July and would be a central route for Asian tourists coming from Korea/Japan.

Cheap flights might be fine but can they move the volume on game day if Townsville is say 10,000 or more beds short?