The hideous cost of staging the WC

[scotto_01]

Doing the rounds in the various sporting forums, one notes a hint of pessimism creeping into the thought patterns of otherwise eager football fans in relation to Australia's bid to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022.

There are good reasons for this pessimism. Assuming that our very best chance is 2022, I would summarise the reasons as follows:

what sporting forums are you refering to BSE?

1. Host Cities

Australia's eight largest cities include the five mainland capitals plus Gold Coast, Newcastle and Canberra, and these would be your starting position if you were to put forward a list of suggestions.

The ACT Government has already publicly distanced itself from the possibility of fronting up the $200 million price tag (plus other costs and indemnities), and the two cities with the least need for large rectangular stadiums, Adelaide and Perth, are also looking iffy.


ACT, yes have came out and said that they dont want to spend the money to build a stadium, they never said they didnt want the wc did they? (all state/territory govts have pledged their support for the bid) the 2billion federal govt infrastructre fund will be used to help canberra out, and others who require it.


While both Adelaide and Perth have ovals that need upgrading, and which might be used for a WC bid at a pinch, both have been big on talk of late, but lacking in political will and decisiveness.


where does fifa say stadiums have to be rectagular? some of the best wc stadia have been oval (maracana) aswell as the last 3 wc finals being at an oval (paris, yokohama, berlin). if this were an issue would fifa approve the wc final at an oval 3 events running? so your point on adelaide and perth is infact, pointless.


2. Stadiums

Following on from the last point, if you're lacking in host cities, there's a real good chance you'll be lacking in stadiums. The accepted wisdom is that we have five stadiums that pass muster, but that would still need money spent on them, and that seven stadiums would virtually need to be built from scratch or at a minimum would require large scale and expensive upgrades.

we have 5 fifa complient stadiums (mcg, suncorp, sfs, etihad, homebush) and theres some small refurbishments required for these. the majority of this is in dressing rooms (sfs imparticular) and media space, all need this- eg, space for different language commentators (this is usually 1 section of a grandstand converted with tv monitors for broadcasting).

in addition to this sfs needs some slight work, nothing major and suncrop (if it is to host a semi) needs to fill in the top corners and having spoken to people about this, its an easilly done exercise and something stadium mgt are considering anyway.


as for 'the other 7, they dont need to be built from scratch, some can be brought upto scratch with simple upgrades (newcaslte, even bruce stadium at a stretch) but this is where the stadium fund from feds kicks in. weve been thru this plenty of times already so not wasting my time saying same thing over and over.

The Australian Financial Review quoted one state government insider on 9 November 2009: "Australia's chance of actually making a serious bid is somewhere between zip and zero because they want us to spend billions of dollars on stadiums and there just isn't a market for it".


thats great, but with all state govt's pledging support + the federal govt i dont see an issue.

Only today I have discovered that The Asian Football Confederation has extended the deadline for Australia to submit its bid to host the 2015 Asian Cup by four months.

the afc have also said time and again that we are the only nation bidding for this tournament, and did you think that the ffa currently have higher priorities? (wc bid, socceroos preperations, running the a-league)

This is so the FFA can: "continue discussions with various levels of Australian government and other stakeholders to formalize the relevant guarantees and facility agreements, which are part of the bid submission. "

so, the ffa are speaking to the govt, other sporting codes/ stadiums about avaliability, isnt this what you are advocating they do for the wc bid with andy d @ afl hq?

3. Finances

I was listening to the Prime Minister only this morning talking about the need to tighten our belts fiscally because the Commonwealth's budget deficit is already in the tens of billions of dollars, and most of the states are no better off (relatively speaking).

you dont think its possible the PM sees this as a great way to generate tourism (for tournament and beyond) and bring $$$ into the country?

The Australian Financial Review quoted one state government insider on 9 November 2009: "The states are furious about the bidder requirements, they are very very unhappy. We would be hard-pressed to find that money and we have got so much else that we have to spend money on. There are not any promises from the commonwealth that they will shovel any money in to build all these stadiums."

again. the states dont have to fine the whole ammount themselves, the federal government is willing and prepared to assist with the funding.

Conclusion

Note that I have not even touched on the issue of the AFL withholding Etihad should it become apparent that the FFA needs it for the bid.

well id like to hear all about it cos im not 100% sure on afl's relationship with etihad. as i understand it afl has a lease to eventually own the stadium, but they do not currently own it, correct?

so, apart from compensation to moving games to another venue, what else to afl need to know about. the actual use of the stadium comes down to etihad stadium mgt, does it not.


Nor have I touched on the US bid which features 18 potential host cities, and 21 magnificent rectangular stadiums, every one of them above 67,000 in capacity.

nor did you mention that they are all nfl stadiums that no mls side playes out of, leaving no lasting legacy/benefit for football in usa.

btw-as you said, only need 8, we got 8 cities

All in all, it's very difficult to see us putting up a competitive bid.

all in all i see us putting up a very strong bid, and i see fifa being very keen to take the wc to a new area.

Fifa World Cup Australia 2022, got a good ring to it dont you think?

 

[greenred]

ACT, yes have came out and said that they dont want to spend the money to build a stadium, they never said they didnt want the wc did they? (all state/territory govts have pledged their support for the bid) the 2billion federal govt infrastructre fund will be used to help canberra out, and others who require it.

The ACT want the WC, but not if they have to pay for it. How many other states are in the same boat? Happy to support the bid, but only if the federal government funds it? The $2bn stadium fund won't go far if the states are contributing very little in addition.

 

[Giants FC]

The states aren't prepared to pay for this, the Federal government is going to have to cough up for the entire expense of the World Cup.

England, the European bidders and the USA are full of large stadiums that are empty in June-July. Hosting the World Cup is easy for them. But in Australia, there are fewer stadiums, and other sports already have watertight contracts for them. The Australian World Cup bid would need to buy out those contracts - it doesn't come cheap, and it's a cost the Australian bid has that others don't and puts Australia's bid at a considerable financial disadvantage.
At a time when the government is already under pressure because of the level of debt incurred in the stimulus package, and when the government is already looking for ways to claw back the deficit (tax changes for charity workers were leaked yesterday), giving a sporting bid a blank cheque goes the opposite way fiscally to where the government should be going.
As well, many supporters of those other sports, as we are seeing by the existence of this board, aren't keen on being shifted. Other major sporting events in Australia would have had near-unanimous support from a forum such as this one; but this bid is one that polarises rather than unites.
And if the sporting fans can't unite behind this, what hope is there for the non-sporting fans? They don't care which bunch of sportspeople run around on any given oval; but the costs, the exclusion zones, the security implications and other logistical implications when they became public knowledge will make it seem more trouble than it's worth.

In summary, this bid is too divisive and too disruptive. But the bottom line is we just can't afford it. It's unfortunate, but that's life.
Hopefully BSE's government contacts are correct and the task force realises in February that it's all too hard. Better to cut our losses now and withdraw the bid.

 

[Barkly St End]

This is what the Taskforce is discovering:

1. FFA divulging no info (we all understand why); and

2. both FFA and FIFA expecting a blank cheque.

Now it's one thing to use the case of the "blank cheque" figuratively, but when sporting bodies actualy believe that a Government can literally write out a blank cheque - then we're in trouble. No public officials are going to be able to formulate a course of action on the basis of an unlimited budget and unlimited indemnities. That's not the way a well run Government normally operates.

 

[Zidane98]

This is what the Taskforce is discovering:

1. FFA divulging no info (we all understand why); and

2. both FFA and FIFA expecting a blank cheque.

Now it's one thing to use the case of the "blank cheque" figuratively, but when sporting bodies actualy believe that a Government can literally write out a blank cheque - then we're in trouble. No public officials are going to be able to formulate a course of action on the basis of an unlimited budget and unlimited indemnities. That's not the way a well run Government normally operates.

1. All bid information will be released upon final submission. The FFA doesn't need to appease anti soccer zealots like yourself with a step by step update on the bid.

2. We all know this point isn't true - the FFA have commissioned an economic study into the event. Nobody is getting blank cheques, if we do win the bid, it will be run on a budget, just like any government project.

 

[Zidane98]

The states aren't prepared to pay for this, the Federal government is going to have to cough up for the entire expense of the World Cup.

England, the European bidders and the USA are full of large stadiums that are empty in June-July. Hosting the World Cup is easy for them. But in Australia, there are fewer stadiums, and other sports already have watertight contracts for them. The Australian World Cup bid would need to buy out those contracts - it doesn't come cheap, and it's a cost the Australian bid has that others don't and puts Australia's bid at a considerable financial disadvantage.
At a time when the government is already under pressure because of the level of debt incurred in the stimulus package, and when the government is already looking for ways to claw back the deficit (tax changes for charity workers were leaked yesterday), giving a sporting bid a blank cheque goes the opposite way fiscally to where the government should be going.
As well, many supporters of those other sports, as we are seeing by the existence of this board, aren't keen on being shifted. Other major sporting events in Australia would have had near-unanimous support from a forum such as this one; but this bid is one that polarises rather than unites.
And if the sporting fans can't unite behind this, what hope is there for the non-sporting fans? They don't care which bunch of sportspeople run around on any given oval; but the costs, the exclusion zones, the security implications and other logistical implications when they became public knowledge will make it seem more trouble than it's worth.

In summary, this bid is too divisive and too disruptive. But the bottom line is we just can't afford it. It's unfortunate, but that's life.
Hopefully BSE's government contacts are correct and the task force realises in February that it's all too hard. Better to cut our losses now and withdraw the bid.

Nearly all of the venues in the World Cup bid are government owned. Moving the sports in them for one month isn't going to cost very much. Relocation of other codes is only a minor issue.

All of the online polls for all major newspapers suggest the overwhelming majority of Australians want the World Cup here. http://www.theage.com.au/polls/sport/form2.html - 68% are happy to sacrifice a season of AFL for the World Cup. And that's from 12,000 votes. We all know that a season of AFL won't be sacrificed for the World Cup - I would imagine that the approval rate would be even higher for the World Cup on the basis that the AFL season can still run. Nearly every footy fan, even the ones that don't follow soccer, would love the event to be here. That's as close to unanimous support as you can get, the Olympics had just as many detractors.

To suggest that we should pander to the small minority that clearly don't like soccer the sport itself as the main reason behind them not wanting the world cup here seems silly. Every nation will have opposition to their respective World Cup bids from their own citizens. If that was a basis for not bidding for the World Cup, nobody would host the event.


Moreover, this event will generate a net gain of 74,000 jobs over the next 12 years, should Australia be successful in the bid process. Exclusion zones, security issues - they are all insignificant in comparison to the benefits. Besides, the Olympics all had similar logistical issues, and Australia did it with ease. It's in our sporting culture - we love big sporting events. There isn't a better non EU host for the 2022 event.

 

[Barkly St End]

1. All bid information will be released upon final submission. The FFA doesn't need to appease anti soccer zealots like yourself with a step by step update on the bid.

2. We all know this point isn't true - the FFA have commissioned an economic study into the event. Nobody is getting blank cheques, if we do win the bid, it will be run on a budget, just like any government project.

The taskforce cannot do anything without the FFA providing basic info. That's where they are at right now.

And yes - you're damn right no one is going to get a blank cheque!

Which is precisely why our bid is going nowhere fast.

 

[Dasher39]

This is what the Taskforce is discovering:

1. FFA divulging no info (we all understand why); and

2. both FFA and FIFA expecting a blank cheque.

And you're privvy to these discussions are you?

Please, spare me your made up crap!

 

[colourpurple]

1. All bid information will be released upon final submission.

You repeat this mantra ad naueum.
Of course the information has to be released sometime.
The lack of disclosure is frustrating and disconcerting and really hurting the FFA bid by encouraging dissent and giving an amateur air to the whole process as they appear to have to no or confused planning.

We all know this point isn't true.

We all know that is an impossible statement.
I for one don't agree.The lack of disclosure makes you unable to verify this.

Nobody is getting blank cheques.

The lack of disclosure gives rise to that impression-that this whole thing is a gigantic white elephant.]

it will be run on a budget, just like any government project.

You really torpedoed the remnants of your argument there.

 

[Zidane98]

Any suggestions that the whole bid process are amateur are purely from the anti-soccer fraternity on here. There is no need for the FFA to release any information about the bid until it is complete. Seriously, you'd think that some people on here devote their entire waking lives to knocking Australia's World Cup bid. Funnily enough, there weren't the same objections when the Sydney 2000 bid went on, which incidentally didn't release details until it was complete.

The whole World Cup certainly isn't a white elephant. Part of the reason why PWC have studied it and found there will be a net increase of 74,000 jobs. But if you want to believe it is, then so be it. Nothing will change your mind.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The whole World Cup certainly isn't a white elephant. Part of the reason why PWC have studied it and found there will be a net increase of 74,000 jobs. But if you want to believe it is, then so be it. Nothing will change your mind.

One could look at it the other way. The World Cup will take 74,000 people away from doing otherwise productive jobs that benefit the nation in the long term, and the day after the World Cup Final there will be a mass unemployment spike as those 74,000 jobs no longer have a purpose.



... alright, I admit it - I'm just stirring now

 

[colourpurple]

One could look at it the other way. The World Cup will take 74,000 people away from doing otherwise productive jobs that benefit the nation in the long term, and the day after the World Cup Final there will be a mass unemployment spike as those 74,000 jobs no longer have a purpose.



... alright, I admit it - I'm just stirring now

But the reality is the best economic climate is for steady growth.
A lot smaller point in the scheme of thing but valid non the less.

 

[colourpurple]

There is no need for the FFA to release any information about the bid until it is complete.

You've just made that point.Everybody knows that.Everbody would agree that it would be better if they did disclose at least a basic plan for lots of reasons.

Funnily enough, there weren't the same objections when the Sydney 2000 bid went on, which incidentally didn't release details until it was complete.

But we always knew the basic concept- an Olympics in Sydney,building infrastrcture and stadia in Sydney.

The whole World Cup certainly isn't a white elephant.

You cannot say that until there is public disclosure.
Until there is disclosure it's your faith against reasonned opinion.

 

[Barkly St End]

And you're privvy to these discussions are you?

Please, spare me your made up crap!

I am privy (one "v) to that information.

It's all quite complicated, but this is how it's working (information gleaned from two internal sources: a senior staffer in one of the relevant Ministers' offices, and a middle ranking public servant who is actually on the task force within the Dept of Health):

1. Rudd wants to do it because Lowy asked him (but apart from that, he's not really taking a huge personal interest in it).

2. Some of the more senior Ministers are keen because they want to direct a fair chunk of the money to ovals (to assist the AFL and Cricket).

3. The FFA is trying to get around point 2, and focusing more on point 1 - that Lowy has Rudd in his back pocket and has virtually promised a blank cheque - for the benefit of the FFA that is.

4. Taskforce is now trying to make it work, get the states to the table in a meaningful and practical way, get the AFL on board, get the FFA talking to everyone - but guess what - that's not the FFA's preferred modus operandi! They just want the blank cheque, thank you very much!

5. For the moment, the the senior public servants on the task force are saying: we can't guarantee any funding, let alone unlimited funding, unless we have more details, more info, more agreement amongst the stakeholders.

6. With five weeks to go - who honestly believes that a bunch of public servants is going to get the FFA, AFL and state governments sitting around a table to sign all of this off?

If you believe that - you'll believe in the tooth fairy!

 

[scotto_01]

The ACT want the WC, but not if they have to pay for it. How many other states are in the same boat? Happy to support the bid, but only if the federal government funds it? The $2bn stadium fund won't go far if the states are contributing very little in addition.

i think you will find that all states are the same on this, they want the world cup, they know about the 2bil fund and want a piece of it.

as i said, all levels of government have pleged support for the bid

 

[scotto_01]

I am privy (one "v) to that information.

It's all quite complicated, but this is how it's working (information gleaned from two internal sources: a senior staffer in one of the relevant Ministers' offices, and a middle ranking public servant who is actually on the task force within the Dept of Health):

1. Rudd wants to do it because Lowy asked him (but apart from that, he's not really taking a huge personal interest in it).

2. Some of the more senior Ministers are keen because they want to direct a fair chunk of the money to ovals (to assist the AFL and Cricket).

3. The FFA is trying to get around point 2, and focusing more on point 1 - that Lowy has Rudd in his back pocket and has virtually promised a blank cheque - for the benefit of the FFA that is.

4. Taskforce is now trying to make it work, get the states to the table in a meaningful and practical way, get the AFL on board, get the FFA talking to everyone - but guess what - that's not the FFA's preferred modus operandi! They just want the blank cheque, thank you very much!

5. For the moment, the the senior public servants on the task force are saying: we can't guarantee any funding, let alone unlimited funding, unless we have more details, more info, more agreement amongst the stakeholders.

6. With five weeks to go - who honestly believes that a bunch of public servants is going to get the FFA, AFL and state governments sitting around a table to sign all of this off?

If you believe that - you'll believe in the tooth fairy!

i know for one your praying it doesnt happen

your kidding yourself if you think a deal will be struck. all these things start with this cheastbeating, but eventually agree to a deal.

 

[telsor]

i think you will find that all states are the same on this, they want the world cup, they know about the 2bil fund and want a piece of it.

as i said, all levels of government have pleged support for the bid

Support comes in many forms.

eg. "Yes, we think it's great, and would love to have the final in Melbourne".

is 'support', but a long way short of "We'll front up hundred of millions of dollars and pass hugely unpopular laws that will cripple our reputation in the business community to get a semi final (maybe)"

 

[Grunty]

One could look at it the other way. The World Cup will take 74,000 people away from doing otherwise productive jobs that benefit the nation in the long term, and the day after the World Cup Final there will be a mass unemployment spike as those 74,000 jobs no longer have a purpose.

Not to mention our cities drowning under a deluge of soccer fan waste.



2010 World Cup to generate a whole lot of waste

Each tourist expected in Cape Town during the 2010 World Cup will generate between 1.7kg and 2kg of waste daily.

The City will perform its routine services while providing additional services to cater for the demands of 2010.

A budget has been allocated for the hire of additional vehicles, supervision and labour.

Additional litter bins are also in the process of being procured and a two-bin system will be allocated to Cape Town's commercial and party areas. The bins allow for the separation of wet and dry waste, including cans, glass and plastic.

Article from Cape Town website.

 

[colourpurple]

Not to mention our cities drowning under a deluge of soccer fan waste.



2010 World Cup to generate a whole lot of waste

Each tourist expected in Cape Town during the 2010 World Cup will generate between 1.7kg and 2kg of waste daily.

The City will perform its routine services while providing additional services to cater for the demands of 2010.

A budget has been allocated for the hire of additional vehicles, supervision and labour.

Additional litter bins are also in the process of being procured and a two-bin system will be allocated to Cape Town's commercial and party areas. The bins allow for the separation of wet and dry waste, including cans, glass and plastic.

Article from Cape Town website.

The costing for this will be disclosed at bid time.
There is no need debate this point.She'll be right.
Trust me.

 

[Barkly St End]

your kidding yourself if you think a deal will be struck. all these things start with this cheastbeating, but eventually agree to a deal.

I'm saying the opposite - right now, a deal doesn't looke likely by the end of Feb.

 

[cos789]

I'm saying the opposite - right now, a deal doesn't looke likely by the end of Feb.

One month to get agreement from different parties, different states ,different codes, different stakehoders and different levels of governent .

.