NRL, AFL and Union to shutdown for 8 weeks

[Goddo]

I'd love to know your source for this, or is this more "word on the street" like your post about Penrith Stadium being upgraded??

Head of FFA saying what I said about TV revenue:
http://goal.com/en/news/808/austral...o-australias-world-cup-bid-ffa-chairman-frank

On the Penrith thing, it won't be permanent 45k, it would be reduced to 30k afterwards. I posted a link to a news article that mentions the intention to use Western Sydney for Stadium 12. Frustratingly, there is no hard info on it anywhere, just mentions of "Western Sydney" in lots of news articles. It has to be way out west or else it is concidered part of Sydney or Homebush (FFA will try and argue they are different cities so it can use Etihad and MCG) and breaks the 2 stadium rule, which is why there is talk about it being Penrith. Where ever it is, it will probably end up the home of the new Western Sydney A league club.

If what you are saying about Asia is true, why has only one previous tournament been played in that time zone??

I don't know, ask someone at FIFA.

If anything, the Asians will watch the games regardingless of time they are played, as they are used to watching European League matches at the wee small hours..

I was working in Jakarta during the last World Cup, and I can tell you that the fact that the games were in the middle of the night had no effect on peoples interest in watching the games ....

I would asume the same, but apparently not.

Also, you mention that Asia will maximise TV dollars..... You must be kidding - European TV stations would pay many multiples of what Asian stations can to broadcast the rights, because the Asian countries cant afford to ( Japan & Sth Korea are exceptions )

A lot of the broadcasters in Asia are government owned channels that wont be paying top dollar to show the games....

Nope, read the article. Maximum TV revenue is if it is at a TV friendly time into asia. Apparently the Europeans will pay squilions regardless of time of broadcast. Asians are more fussy about paying top dollar for something at 2am. This is one of the core arguements of Australia's bid, that and our track record with big events, the chance to grow soccer in Australia (will be a bubble like union after the 2003 world cup) and holding it on the only continent not to have hosted the WC.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Head of FFA saying what I said about TV revenue:
http://goal.com/en/news/808/austral...o-australias-world-cup-bid-ffa-chairman-frank

Nope, read the article. Maximum TV revenue is if it is at a TV friendly time into asia. Apparently the Europeans will pay squilions regardless of time of broadcast. Asians are more fussy about paying top dollar for something at 2am. This is one of the core arguements of Australia's bid, that and our track record with big events, the chance to grow soccer in Australia (will be a bubble like union after the 2003 world cup) and holding it on the only continent not to have hosted the WC.

The only direct quotes in the article are attributed to Lowy.... hardly an impartial source I would imagine...

There is a reference to FIFA stats that say Asia audience reduced by 25% whilst European audiences increased by 29% - suggest that this dents your argument about Europeans watching regardless of time ( same with my comments about Asia viewers..)

We would need to see how the TV dollars are carved up before we can comment much further... I still maintain that the Europe dollars would be worth far more....

 

[Goddo]

I'm not disputing that Europe don't make up the bulk of the tv revenue. I would be interested to see Lowy's document. Would make interesting reading, especially comparing to NRL tv rights. I think there is also a SMH article on this topic too, but says virtually the same thing.
As you say, we will have to wait and see. Australia is in the running with this thing, it just has to sort its issues and is running out of time.

I think the agreement to meet FIFA requirements and preliminary details are due in December and the full bid has to be in by May next year. All the details will emerge over the next two months... I have my fingers crossed for the NRL to get huge benefits from this thing.

 

[*Paul*]

Look like Canberra is pulling the pin ...

Phew, we've already pissed away enough on Bruce to little effect.

 

[duck_dodgers]

Goddo - can't forget how FIFA & Blatter treated us for so many years when we were in Oceania . We're still a very small fish in the whole scheme of things and they won't lose any sleep by dudding us again .

Interesting comments lately from Blatter re the Russian bid for 2018 ... brown paper bags from Abramovich perhaps ?

As for sabre rattling from NRL identities ... how about this backflip from the Cowboys Peter Parr ...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/fo...rs-alift/2009/10/25/1256405308443.html?page=2

Here's North Queensland Cowboys boss Peter Parr quoted in The Daily Telegraph: ''I imagine there would be a lot of people in North Queensland, which is rugby league heartland, that would say, 'Why do we have to suspend our competition for a soccer tournament?' albeit something as big as the World Cup. I just don't see why you would do it. They wouldn't get me to put my hand up to agree with it.''

Here's Parr, quoted the same day in his local newspaper, the Townsville Bulletin, about the news Dairy Farmer's Stadium would get a complete facelift if the World Cup bid succeeds: ''We are hopeful that something would happen before 2018 but if the soccer World Cup was to come here, and if that was the catalyst for it to happen, then we would obviously be all for it.''

Funny that.

:lol:

 

[Green Machine]

I read that Soccer whinge from Michael Cockerill on Monday and he mentioned some strange things about stadium upgrades in 2000. I see no reason why the NRL can’t play at regional / suburbian stadiums whilst the Soccer World Cup is on. I don’t usually agree with Richard Hinds, but I agree with what he wrote today:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/world-cup-evangelists-play-holier-than-thou/2009/10/27/1256405389238.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

World Cup evangelists play holier than thou

Richard Hinds
October 28, 2009
It is reasonable to suggest that if Qantas was asked not to land planes at Sydney Airport at the height of the tourist season so that another carrier could use the runways, the airline's administrators would have something to say on behalf of their shareholders.
So, please, spare us the sanctimonious lectures about the ''self-interested'' NRL and AFL airing what have been, to date, vague concerns about potential scheduling conflicts during the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. Surely even those dedicated and once downtrodden promoters of the round-ball game who believe their time has come can appreciate that the other participants in Australia's escalating football war are duty-bound to defend their own piece of this small, crowded sporting market.
Or perhaps the don't-call-it-soccer crowd are so blinkered by their long-held ambition to see the rest of the world's game universally adored here, or so beguiled by the impressive strategy of the FFA to make soccer the nation's government-approved code, that they expect the world - and the World Cup - on a plate. The late Johnny Warren, who titled his autobiography Sheilas, Mediterranean Descendants and twinkies, might have best appreciated the irony created by the FFA's successful courting of the Federal Government - that to question the World Cup bid has become downright un-Australian. Those who raise legitimate concerns about how their own competitions might suffer are, according to colleague Michael Cockerill, ''saboteurs''.
How long before there is a call to lock up those imperilling the World Cup bid under special emergency laws formulated by a Prime Minister who, Cockerill argues, has a mandate for the bid because he won a majority at the last election (even if he did not throw his weight, and almost 50 million taxpayer dollars, behind it until he was available for photo opportunities in The Lodge)? Of course, in making their bid more iconic than Bart Cummings's eyebrows, the FFA's lobbying has been top shelf. Through the lips of Kevin Rudd, who, you suspect, spends far more time watching the opinion polls than the A-League, they have posed two questions: Do you love the Socceroos? Do you want the World Cup? Then let's party!
Hence the soccer-mad ''majority''.
The subtext, well known to the FFA and its rivals, is that the level of Federal Government patronage provided by a World Cup bid, let alone the World Cup itself, is effectively making a code that still ranks well behind the AFL and NRL on most meaningful measures - crowds, ratings, corporate support - a quasi-official national game.
Far more significant than the excitement of the World Cup, the FFA is well aware a successful bid would greatly accelerate its growth in those key areas. If so, it will have successfully used its greatest competitive advantage with the AFL and NRL to gain a taxpayer funded leg-up: the fact that it is the one code with genuine national appeal at international level.
None of which means the World Cup would not be a great event. Perhaps - allowing for the trail of government-funded debt left by Olympics and World Cups - even a profitable one when the always rubbery figures in the economic benefit statement are calculated. But at a time when other codes are fighting for first-choice athletes and the eyeballs of fans, surely even the FFA would not seriously expect it to be beyond criticism from fierce rivals.
Yet the cheerleaders demand complete co-operation or, at worst, compliant silence.
It has been seriously suggested other codes should bite their tongues because they stand to benefit from the $2 million in stadium redevelopment the World Cup would bring. This will get a laugh, particularly from the AFL, whose massive box office appeal - more than taxpayer funded grants - has funded the rebuilding of the MCG, the logical venue for a World Cup final.
Despite the FFA's self-serving call for everyone to get behind the bid in the ''national interest'', surely it is the AFL and NRL's prerogative - perhaps obligation - to hold their ground against their passive-aggressive rival.
So spare them the pious lectures and allow them to do, without massive taxpayer support, what the FFA is doing so well with the government purse - looking after their own best interests.

 

[Goddo]

thats a good read. sums it up pretty neatly. If the soccer mob want the world cup, they should have to heavily subsidise the NRL and AFL.

 

[Green Machine]

Michael Cockerill has outdone Monday’s whinge with a better one today. Some amazing stuff:

• The NRL caused the demise of the Wollongong Wolves
• The money spent on the Gabba should have been spent on Perry Park
• Frank Lowy has a hotline to Kevin Rudd
• Kevin Rudd will crack the whip and bring the NRL, AFL and State Governments into line
• Kevin Rudd is not a sports lover

amazing stuff Michael:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/forget-turf-wars--everyone-will-gain-from-cup/2009/10/29/1256405474204.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


Forget turf wars - everyone will gain from Cup

Power trio … FFA chairman Frank Lowy, right, with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and FIFA supremo Sepp Blatter in Switzerland in July.
Photo: Penny Bradfield
Michael Cockerill
October 30, 2009Clearly, it's going to get ugly before Australia's World Cup bid gets over its first significant hurdle. Commitments about infrastructure spending have to be made within the next couple of months, and the scaremongering is as premeditated as it is predictable.
The fact that all the football codes, plus cricket, will ultimately benefit from the facilities bonanza seems to be lost on those, including my colleague Richard Hinds, who seem interested only in fertilising their own turf.
Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill, who has a unique perspective, rightly describes the World Cup as ''nation building'' and has no doubt rugby union stands to gain more than it may lose.
For the benefit of Hinds, a few facts are worth noting. Since Frank Lowy took over in 2003, football has received about $77 million from the Federal government, of which $45m has been allocated to fund a World Cup bid which ultimately benefits all.
In roughly the same time, AFL has received about $453m from the three tiers of government - almost six times that received by football.
From the $77m it has received from Canberra for redevelopment work at the MCG, to the $28m it received for Skilled Stadium in Geelong, to a $5m grant to the South Australian AFL to develop community facilities, to $250,000 for developing AFL in the Kimberley, the sport has gained in every state, at every level. AFL remains, by a considerable distance, the most generously taxpayer-supported sport in the country.
Next best is cricket, which has received about $141m - still close to double that received by football during the same time. The money spent on new facilities at the SCG and Adelaide Oval also suits the AFL. Strange that. Behind football comes rugby league (about $45.5m), tennis (about $14.5m) and rugby union (about $9m). These are the facts.
It also cannot be disputed that until Lowy came along football was chronically underfunded. It suited the other sports to keep it that way. What better example than in the Illawarra, where Brandon Park - a ground built brick-by-brick by the local football community - was knocked down and Wollongong Wolves were effectively evicted in order to justify an upgrade of WIN Stadium, where the NRL was the major tenant. It was the beginning of the end for the Wolves, the two-time national champions, who no longer exist.
At the 2000 Olympic Games, football was again sold short by the politicians and the lobbyists. The money spent on the Gabba, where cricket and AFL co-habit, remains an especially sore point for football, which had been hoping for a new rectangular stadium in Brisbane instead.
What's changed is that football now has a patriarch who can pick up the phone and get put through to The Lodge. Lowy is a powerful man, with powerful connections well beyond these shores. Kevin Rudd is not, by nature, a sports lover, but he sees the big picture. Globally, a World Cup can give Australia a shot in the arm. Domestically, it can leave a legacy of infrastructure that benefits all sports, not just one.
It's a win-win, but typically some still refuse to see it that way. The AFL and NRL - not content with a $2 billion windfall of bricks and mortar - also want Rudd to financially compensate them for the disruption the World Cup will bring to their fixture list. How you quantify something that, at best, is going to happen nine years from now is anyone's guess. It's sheer audacity but, to be fair, it's the sort of brinkmanship which has worked in the past.
Ultimately, it will be Rudd who will have to stare down these sports, stare down the critics, and stare down the recalcitrants at state government level, to get the World Cup bid past the first, and perhaps most important, base. No stadiums, no World Cup. Funnily enough, that might not help the saboteurs as much as they might think.

 

[shiznit]

:lol: Soccer is not a competitor of Rugby League.

Can I have your drugs?

it could well be if Australia host the world cup.

 

[shiznit]

how about a REAL world club challenge in those 8 weeks.... the top 8 NRL teams & top 8 ESL teams entered into a tournament.

 

[Green Machine]

it could well be if Australia host the world cup.

Just like the ARU after the 2003 Union World Cup?

 

[Perth Red]

how about a REAL world club challenge in those 8 weeks.... the top 8 NRL teams & top 8 ESL teams entered into a tournament.

Played where?

You can't play them here and there is no point playing them in England as the whole country goes soccer crazy during the WC.

 

[Goddo]

I can't believe how bias towards AFL the governments are in alocating spending. Its rediculous.
I hope that Gallop being vague might actually work in our favour in up comming negotiations on Grand Final venues, TV rights et cetera. We need a bidding war, then hopefully the powers that be can see the real value the game adds to our communities.

I am really happy to see the NSW Premier saying he will fight tooth and nail for the NRL grand final. Maybe he might continue to fund projects like the WIN Stadium upgrade. Governments seem to have no trouble ripping our game off. I know they use the 'your owned by a corporation' angle to justify it, but really its bollocks

 

[Loudstrat]

Played where?

You can't play them here and there is no point playing them in England as the whole country goes soccer crazy during the WC.

That's the whole point. Why cant you play them here?

 

[Garts]

Not allowed to have any major sporting comps such as league, union or AFL being played in the country whilst the cup is on.

 

[Loudstrat]

Says who? I know the FISA turds want it that way, but what is the bloody need for it?

They are welcome to have their WC here, but not to interfere with the NRL.

 

[Perth Red]

Says who? I know the FISA turds want it that way, but what is the bloody need for it?

They are welcome to have their WC here, but not to interfere with the NRL.

says the multi billion $ event that is a soccer WC. He who pays the piper and all that!

 

[Loudstrat]

So how much will they pay the NRL? And how much is it worth the f*ck up an entire season when Murdoch paid $500 million to (sort of) do likewise?

No amount is worth that.

 

[fourplay]

2,616 crowd on the Gold Coast tonight for the A-League. I don't think any amount of stadium upgrades is worth giving soccer a free kick to revive itself.

 

[Perth Red]

$100 mill plus upgrades to 5+ NRL stadiums and I could live with a shortened NRL season and longer rep season!