16 grounds for an Australian FIFA World Cup ...

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:47 pm

Perth will require at least $ 1 billion for a new stadium and then more for infrastructure .With the federal government saying that WA's and QLD's Commonwealth games bids are not going to be federally backed and thus effectively culling them , those state governments are going to be very angry .I can see the WA liberal government saying simply "you build it" .
They wont choose the el cheapo options selected at present .
They'll want it built in the centre of the city .

Chuq · Post by **Chuq** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:31 pm

I can see four options for each of Perth/Adelaide:

1. State government builds new stadium

2. Federal government builds new stadium

3. Stadium not built, city excluded from WC.

4. Stadium not built, due to lack of national support WC bid fails.

I think the State governments can't afford #1, so are going for #2, not understanding that there is a risk of #3 (joke is on them), or #4 (we are screwed).

Alternatively, they actually ARE idiots.

Dasher39 · Post by **Dasher39** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:33 pm

Chuq wrote:Alternatively, they actually ARE idiots.

I go for this option, at least for SA.

Anyone who actually thinks AAMI Stadium could be a venue for a FIFA World Cup is an idiot. No two ways about it.

There could be another option where State and Federal Govt (throw in a little from city councils too) jointly fund the stadiums.

Either way you look at it, new stadiums are required in Perth and Adelaide.

Nines · Post by **Nines** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:58 pm

Chuq wrote:I can see four options for each of Perth/Adelaide:

1. State government builds new stadium

2. Federal government builds new stadium

3. Stadium not built, city excluded from WC.

4. Stadium not built, due to lack of national support WC bid fails.

1.States are never going to build the appropiate stadium in the appropiate timeframe without substantial Federal money - that's a gimme .

2.Feds are never going to build the appropiate stadium in the appropiate timeframe without substantial state money - that's a gimme .

3.Nothing new for WA to be excluded from a national event .

4.Other countries always have a slight advantage over Australia .

5.Hey , in a modern day miracle of co-operation the federal government could endorse the states Commonwealth games bid on condition that the states co-operate on the WC bid - too easy . Never happen .

.

hot_dogma · Post by **hot_dogma** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 pm

I can forsee an athletics track being thrown into the mix for a new stadium in Adelaide if they don't decide to go multi-purpose with the SANFL and/or SACA.

A stand-alone rectangular venue just does not seem viable unless it is heavily downgraded post tournament.

the crow · Post by **the crow** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:43 pm

hot_dogma wrote:I can forsee an athletics track being thrown into the mix for a new stadium in Adelaide if they don't decide to go multi-purpose with the SANFL and/or SACA.

A stand-alone rectangular venue just does not seem viable unless it is heavily downgraded post tournament.

Possibly build a real big RP stadium and then raise the level afterwards for an oval to be inserted at a later date

the WAFL and SAFL will see that this isnt the option though.

cam · Post by **cam** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:33 pm

A full page article in the Herald Sun today regarding soccer taking over the MCG for a month if we win the 2018 FIFA World Cup "Soccer threat to 'G": http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html

Anyway, what's not published in the online article, were some facts why Melbourne should host the final. Had to have a bit of a chuckle....

WHY MELBOURNE, NOT SYDNEY, SHOULD HAVE THE WORLD CUP FINAL

- WE have the MCG a short stroll from the centre of town; they have the Olympic stadium somewhere in country NSW.

- WE think about sport all the time; they think about it only after shopping, a gossip and a latte and some Fench toast in Oxford St.

- WE'RE the sporting capital of the world; they're not even the capital of Australia.

- WE have the Australian Open tennis, Formula One, Spring Racing Carnival, Boxing Day Test, AFL Grand Final; they have the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

THEY have one of the world's great harbours and superb beaches; but you can't play play a World Cup final on sand or water.

Here Here.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:49 pm

So I wonder when the FFA realise they have to decide on the shitfight now

Goodbye World Cup's, if the people in high places are not going to make a decision about the Final.

IanRitchie · Post by **IanRitchie** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:17 am

cam wrote:
WHY MELBOURNE, NOT SYDNEY, SHOULD HAVE THE WORLD CUP FINAL

- WE have the MCG a short stroll from the centre of town; they have the Olympic stadium somewhere in country NSW.

- WE think about sport all the time; they think about it only after shopping, a gossip and a latte and some Fench toast in Oxford St.

- WE'RE the sporting capital of the world; they're not even the capital of Australia.

- WE have the Australian Open tennis, Formula One, Spring Racing Carnival, Boxing Day Test, AFL Grand Final; they have the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

THEY have one of the world's great harbours and superb beaches; but you can't play play a World Cup final on sand or water.

Here Here.

Egan wrote:
World Cup's

I don't know which is the most offensive post.

Chuq · Post by **Chuq** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:19 am

cam wrote:A full page article in the Herald Sun today regarding soccer taking over the MCG for a month if we win the 2018 FIFA World Cup "Soccer threat to 'G":

I can see one very important reason why they shouldn't - that headline.

Note: I don't actually think that Melbourne shouldn't have it, I'm impartial, but if that headline reflects the mentality of the press in the city ...

Tancred · Post by **Tancred** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:27 pm

If Melbourne really is the "sporting capital of the world" the headline and article would be far more positive. Melbourne is the Aussie Rules capital of the world and it really shows.

cam · Post by **cam** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:30 pm

hahahaha, here we go....

In any case, read beyond the headline - the article doesn't talk about any "threat". David Hastie obviously couldn't think of anything else. And in regards to "Soccer" being used instead of "Football" - that won't change over night, if ever, in Melbourne. In Sydney it may due to the plastic nature of sport and its supporters in that city, however Melbourne already has a "Football" which is followed ever so strongly by the entire population. As Simon Hill said during the A-League Grand Final season 2: "Melbourne, the Football capital of Australia". Nothing has changed, and the gap only looks like increasing at this rate.

timmers · Post by **timmers** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:38 pm

It is an interesting question, I live in Sydney, but am sick to death of Sydney sports fans, sorry JF, but I don't think a teams supporter group should turn on their players (The Cove and Aloisi incident).

Regardless of the positives and negatives of the city, it needs to come down to the stadiums. The MCG is undoubtedly the best stadium in the country, however it is an oval, so the Sydneysiders say that ANZ should be used. Its an oval as well! Perhaps they don't know because they were going to go to a game there, but because it was a little cloudy on the day decided not to attend. (Refer to Jeffles sign-off a few months ago)

I reckon the MCG should host the final, because Sydney might not fill the ground if it rains.

Tancred · Post by **Tancred** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:14 am

cam wrote:hahahaha, here we go....

In any case, read beyond the headline - the article doesn't talk about any "threat". David Hastie obviously couldn't think of anything else. And in regards to "Soccer" being used instead of "Football" - that won't change over night, if ever, in Melbourne. In Sydney it may due to the plastic nature of sport and its supporters in that city, however Melbourne already has a "Football" which is followed ever so strongly by the entire population. As Simon Hill said during the A-League Grand Final season 2: "Melbourne, the Football capital of Australia". Nothing has changed, and the gap only looks like increasing at this rate.

I tried, I tried, really hard but once again the Tards just cannot resist jumping in against Sydney.

let me try again.
If Melbourne really is the "sporting capital of the world" the headline and article would be far more positive. The headline would have read "MCG bidding for world cup final" instead of "Soccer threat to 'G" The chance to host the World Cup final would be seen as the massive honour that it is, and not viewed as a problem for a game 95% of the planet has not even heard of.

Melbourne is the Aussie Rules capital of the world and it really shows. In the real "sporting capital of the world" the Heraldsun would have had a reporter that actually knew something about football write the article.

1) If Australia host the World Cup, the MCG will be unavailable for 8 weeks, not 4.
2) The MCG is not the "logical choice of stadium", but then again for a writer who has probably never left Melbourne I sure it seems that way.
3) FIFA is not "expected to decide next year", they *will* decide next year. That means there is a very tight deadline that the FFA has to work to to get the bid ready.

I was not going to bring up the naming issue but since Cam already has, I would have assumed that if the "sporting capital of the world" was actually serious about the bid, the Sport and Recreation Minister would at least have the common sense and decency to use the sports official name.

Dasher39 · Post by **Dasher39** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:13 pm

Far be it for me to agree with a NSWman, but Tancred is right. It was a poor article and a pathetic headline.

I picked up on exactly the same points as Tancred. Just poor journalism. But then again, it is the Herald Sun so we shouldn't expect anything different.