The Game Future NRL Stadiums part II

[taipan]

Righto, PNG and Nauru it is.

Nah Nauru is sacred fumbler ground. Agreement would never get past first seagull.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Probably, although from memory games have been hosted on oval grounds before, it is definitely a black mark against any Australian bid though.

At a stretch they could offer MCG and Optus Stadium as "one and a half ovals" seeing as Optus can put in temp seating for rectangular codes, Adelaide may have to miss out unless they want to plow money in to a rectangular stadium. Best bet probably would be adding Auckland (60k), Wellington (40k) & Christchurch (40k) if NZ is willing to come to the party.

Again, there is a massive difference between ovals (which have been used before) and CRICKET ovals. No stadium with the dimensions of the MCG has ever been used in a World Cup, and if we think the history and capacity of the MCG will persuade FIFA to compromise we are mistaken.

The World Cup is the biggest most sought after sporting event in the world. If we ever bid again we are going to be up against over 10 other countries who will submit world class rectangular stadiums. Our cricket ovals will not cut it.

 

[Canard]

I read an article the other day that said China would be affected by Qatar hosting but Australia could be shown some sympathy. It also stated that FIFA were looking more closely at Australia and how they could market the WC here.

Why would Australia be shown "sympathy"?

 

[no name]

Yeah, can’t see Australia getting any WC favours when our time zones are so far off the bigger markets.
We need to have a tight bid, no cricket/fumble fields involved, even then we will be up against it to get the nod.

 

[Marlins]

Why would Australia be shown "sympathy"?

It didn’t say why. It just said we might be excluded from the Asian bracket for that bid. So Qatar hosting in 2022 would affect say China but not us. Something like that.

 

[Perth Red]

Is Australia big enough to host it? Dont they normally have 10-15 venues hosting games. At best Australia would maybe have 6-8 stadiums fit for the purpose.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Is Australia big enough to host it? Dont they normally have 10-15 venues hosting games. At best Australia would maybe have 6-8 stadiums fit for the purpose.

Could do a joint bid with Indonesia. They only have about half the number of stadiums necessary as well.

Probably the only way we would ever rival a China bid.

 

[Marlins]

We hosted and did a terrific job of the 2000 olympics. I can’t see why we can’t host a sooka WC.

 

[Perth Red]

We hosted and did a terrific job of the 2000 olympics. I can’t see why we can’t host a sooka WC.

Olympics is predominantly single city multi sport venue based eve t where as World Cup is multi city and requires numerous sports venues of the same type. They are very different hosting requirements,

 

[Timbo]

There was a fundamental difference between how the NRL and ARU were looking at the WC, as opposed to the AFL.

The NRL and ARU could see this was a huge win, as not only would it guarantee new stadiums in Canberra, Townsville and Blacktown in addition to massive upgrades for Homebush, the SFS, Suncorp, Newcastle, there would also be a huge whack of cash thrown at upgrading club grounds for the pre-cup friendlies. Australia is so far away, virtually every team would have had to base themselves here in the run-in. Since FIFA takes over the grounds a month before the cup, it wasn't just the 10 cup grounds that would've been upgraded, but also a host of smaller grounds would have been made FIFA international compliant for teams pre-cup hitouts. Sure there would've been inconveniences - Brisbane would've had to use the Gabba or Ballymore for a month, the Roosters the SCG, etc - but is one month of slightly less than ideal conditions not a reasonable trade for every single ground getting upgraded?

The AFL on the other hand bitched and moaned, refused to release Etihad (which with its retractable seating was infinitely more suitable for the cup than the MCG) and remained wilfully ignorant of FIFA policies and practices. You had people from the AFL making comments like 'I don't see why we cant have a premiership match on a Friday, and a soccer match on a Saturday' even though FIFA are very clear - they own the ground for one month before the first game, through to the full time whistle of the final match on the ground. This was of course compounded by the Victorian government jumping on their high-horse about Melbourne being 'the sports capital' and having to host the final - meaning they had to put the MCG forward so that they had a larger capacity ground than ANZ in play.

Every single time I heard them going on about the MCG being 'iconic', I shuddered. Yeah, it's iconic in AFL and cricket circles - but it's not Wembley or the Maracana. FIFA isn't impressed by it at all, and it's very poorly suited for rectangle-field sports.

Even now that the AFL has to allow Etihad to be used for other sports, I don't see this changing if we were to bid again. The Victorian obsession with the MCG and their desperate need to host the final would almost certainly mean that'd be the stadium they would put forward.

 

[LineBall]

There was a fundamental difference between how the NRL and ARU were looking at the WC, as opposed to the AFL.

The NRL and ARU could see this was a huge win, as not only would it guarantee new stadiums in Canberra, Townsville and Blacktown in addition to massive upgrades for Homebush, the SFS, Suncorp, Newcastle, there would also be a huge whack of cash thrown at upgrading club grounds for the pre-cup friendlies. Australia is so far away, virtually every team would have had to base themselves here in the run-in. Since FIFA takes over the grounds a month before the cup, it wasn't just the 10 cup grounds that would've been upgraded, but also a host of smaller grounds would have been made FIFA international compliant for teams pre-cup hitouts. Sure there would've been inconveniences - Brisbane would've had to use the Gabba or Ballymore for a month, the Roosters the SCG, etc - but is one month of slightly less than ideal conditions not a reasonable trade for every single ground getting upgraded?

The AFL on the other hand bitched and moaned, refused to release Etihad (which with its retractable seating was infinitely more suitable for the cup than the MCG) and remained wilfully ignorant of FIFA policies and practices. You had people from the AFL making comments like 'I don't see why we cant have a premiership match on a Friday, and a soccer match on a Saturday' even though FIFA are very clear - they own the ground for one month before the first game, through to the full time whistle of the final match on the ground. This was of course compounded by the Victorian government jumping on their high-horse about Melbourne being 'the sports capital' and having to host the final - meaning they had to put the MCG forward so that they had a larger capacity ground than ANZ in play.

Every single time I heard them going on about the MCG being 'iconic', I shuddered. Yeah, it's iconic in AFL and cricket circles - but it's not Wembley or the Maracana. FIFA isn't impressed by it at all, and it's very poorly suited for rectangle-field sports.

Even now that the AFL has to allow Etihad to be used for other sports, I don't see this changing if we were to bid again. The Victorian obsession with the MCG and their desperate need to host the final would almost certainly mean that'd be the stadium they would put forward.

Would be nice for the FFA to put a bid forward - excluding Victoria - for the lols.

 

[Marlins]

If Homebush gets the full treatment, surely they would use that as a selling point for the WC.

 

[LineBall]

If Homebush gets the full treatment, surely they would use that as a selling point for the WC.

The other problem would be the world cup is expanding to 48 teams come 2026, with a total of 80 matches being played compared to 64 currently. I don't know if Australia has the amount of stadiums required for such an event.

 

[El Diablo]

There was a fundamental difference between how the NRL and ARU were looking at the WC, as opposed to the AFL.

The NRL and ARU could see this was a huge win, as not only would it guarantee new stadiums in Canberra, Townsville and Blacktown in addition to massive upgrades for Homebush, the SFS, Suncorp, Newcastle, there would also be a huge whack of cash thrown at upgrading club grounds for the pre-cup friendlies. Australia is so far away, virtually every team would have had to base themselves here in the run-in. Since FIFA takes over the grounds a month before the cup, it wasn't just the 10 cup grounds that would've been upgraded, but also a host of smaller grounds would have been made FIFA international compliant for teams pre-cup hitouts. Sure there would've been inconveniences - Brisbane would've had to use the Gabba or Ballymore for a month, the Roosters the SCG, etc - but is one month of slightly less than ideal conditions not a reasonable trade for every single ground getting upgraded?

The AFL on the other hand bitched and moaned, refused to release Etihad (which with its retractable seating was infinitely more suitable for the cup than the MCG) and remained wilfully ignorant of FIFA policies and practices. You had people from the AFL making comments like 'I don't see why we cant have a premiership match on a Friday, and a soccer match on a Saturday' even though FIFA are very clear - they own the ground for one month before the first game, through to the full time whistle of the final match on the ground. This was of course compounded by the Victorian government jumping on their high-horse about Melbourne being 'the sports capital' and having to host the final - meaning they had to put the MCG forward so that they had a larger capacity ground than ANZ in play.

Every single time I heard them going on about the MCG being 'iconic', I shuddered. Yeah, it's iconic in AFL and cricket circles - but it's not Wembley or the Maracana. FIFA isn't impressed by it at all, and it's very poorly suited for rectangle-field sports.

Even now that the AFL has to allow Etihad to be used for other sports, I don't see this changing if we were to bid again. The Victorian obsession with the MCG and their desperate need to host the final would almost certainly mean that'd be the stadium they would put forward.

they also were demanding $100 million compensation

 

[herbert henry1908]

The other problem would be the world cup is expanding to 48 teams come 2026, with a total of 80 matches being played compared to 64 currently. I don't know if Australia has the amount of stadiums required for such an event.

It’d have to be with New Zealand now.

Although hopefully the 48 team World Cup proves to be a flop and they revert to 32. The qualifiers will be absolutel nonsense. Australia will walk it in.


If we did host it, ideally there’d be a stack of 40k seat stadiums that could be downgraded to 30k after the cup.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Every single time I heard them going on about the MCG being 'iconic', I shuddered. Yeah, it's iconic in AFL and cricket circles - but it's not Wembley or the Maracana. FIFA isn't impressed by it at all, and it's very poorly suited for rectangle-field sports.

Exactly. The MCG is not of the caliber of the Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Wembley, Old Trafford, Juventus Stadium, nor Allianz Arena (which is Bayhern Munich FC's home ground).

 

[taipan]

Why would Australia be shown "sympathy"?

Because Gallop needs sympathy.

 

[taipan]

If Homebush gets the full treatment, surely they would use that as a selling point for the WC.

Think Homebush and a new SFS may help and/or Parra.

 

[Dogs Of War]

The NRL could do a bush rounds in the lead up to a World Cup. With a lot of the big teams unable to play at there normal home grounds.

 

[Timbo]

It’d have to be with New Zealand now.

Although hopefully the 48 team World Cup proves to be a flop and they revert to 32. The qualifiers will be absolutel nonsense. Australia will walk it in.


If we did host it, ideally there’d be a stack of 40k seat stadiums that could be downgraded to 30k after the cup.

With them allowing the joint US/Canada/Mexico bid which has 16 stadiums, I would hope an Australia/NZ bid with 10-12 stadiums in Australia, and 3 in NZ may be acceptable.

Interestingly at this World Cup, they allowed Russia to have two stadiums with 33,500 capacity down from their normal 40,000 rule. Hopefully that would allow places like Wellington and the new Christchurch stadium to sneak across the line.