Its a good thing then, that the AFL are not promising any unconditional commitment to the WC. From what I've heard of the FFA's organisation to date, I'd be backing the AFL against the FFA /Government in a court of law.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The hideous cost of staging the WC
- Thread starter Blight von Torp
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Its a good thing then, that the AFL are not promising any unconditional commitment to the WC. From what I've heard of the FFA's organisation to date, I'd be backing the AFL against the FFA /Government in a court of law.
Yes, absolutely - I would dearly love for this to end up in the courts!!
Did someone somewhere put up a link on the cost/benefit analysis done of the German WC in 2006?
- Banned
- #29
Let's see .
Restraint of trade .
Unfair trading practices .
Misrepresentation of product .
Profiteering .
.
Just for starters!!
CarnThePiesfor09
Team Captain
Don't the AFL have contracts with the MCG and Etihad stadium anyways? That they're obligated to let the AFL play a certain number of games per season there or something
Yes - but if the Government tried to cumpulsory acquire the property rights, it could end up in the courts - and this is where the AFL would be able to pull out a long list of potential offences caused against them - a massive list - enough to sink the bid right there and then.
CarnThePiesfor09
Team Captain
Well then I hope that is what the AFL does.
There's no doubt it's on AD's mind (some scribes have hinted at this already).
AD's planning would be along the following lines:
Plan A: Healthy compensation package - they have already intiamted they're opening position is 20% of $3.4 billion, or around $700 million. For that price, the AFL would give up both stadiums for 10 weeks apiece.
When that falls over:
Plan B: Hold onto both stadiums. Possible court action - once that happens - it's all over.
Plan C: I won't mention what that is, but if all else fails, there's still a doozy of an option available for the AFL that will stop everything in its tracks.
CarnThePiesfor09
Team Captain
I'm really curious now 
Geez - talking about putting the pressure on me!!!!
CarnThePiesfor09
Team Captain
telsor
Hall of Famer
The government can legislate such things.
Think of the the movie 'the castle'...the constitutional bit is actually correct...The commonwealth can acquire property "On just terms"...Forcing the AFL off all these grounds they have contracts to would cost a fortune.
invinciBlues
Norm Smith Medallist
Yes - agreed.
But a lot of goodwill would be lost to have the Commonwealth take the AFL through the courts.
And on top of that I can imagine a long string of counter suits that would tie things up for many, many years - ok - that's the Plan C just to save everyone from hassling me!!
The AFL would absolutely love for this to get to the courts- because plenty of dodginess woudl be exposed on behalf of both the Government and the FFA.
Now - who in the Government would want such dodginess to be exposed?
The whole thing would be dropped in five minutes flat.
Let us all recall - Mr clean skin Rudd knows nothing about sport.
He has an idea that soccer might help him diplomatically - a sort of fuzzy idea - he might know FIFA is corrupt to the core - he may not - but once this hits the court - he would become a very fast learner!!
He has an idea that soccer might help him diplomatically - a sort of fuzzy idea - he might know FIFA is corrupt to the core - he may not - but once this hits the court - he would become a very fast learner!!
I am not a lawyer, and this can not be construed as legal advice as I am not qualified to give it - but Section 51(xxxi) of the constitution allows the government to compulsorily acquire property "on just terms" but restricts this power to "purposes for which the Commonwealth has power to pass laws".
In other words, the government's right to compulsorily acquire property is limited to where the government will use the property itself; but does not have the power to resume property in order to hand it over to someone else.
Given that the government does not, and can not, run the World Cup, I don't see how legislation to force stadium leases to be handed over to FIFA could hold up in the High Court. This is differentiated from the movie "The Castle", as the government can, and until the Howard government privatisation, did run airports.
I'm not a lawyer, but after the posts in the "Write to FIFA" thread about whether such legislation would be constitutional I looked up the constitution last night. Googling case law, a few cases have been used in relation to the "just terms" provisions but I couldn't find any case law precedents in relation to the use for Commonwealth purposes that would be relevant.
That gels with my understanding 100% (and no, I'm not a lawyer), but I am an economist, with a reasonable appreciation of our liberal democratic political philosophy - and it's difficult to imagine how anyone other than the AFL would triumph if this went to court.
Then you have a poor understanding of the true legal position.
Sorry everyone, I now realise this is the correct thread to put up a link to my in-depth analysis of the net cost of a world cup:
http://barklystend.blogspot.com/2009/12/hosting-world-cup-net-gain-or-net-loss.html
http://barklystend.blogspot.com/2009/12/hosting-world-cup-net-gain-or-net-loss.html
I’m trying to work all this out, my understanding of this so far is, the FFA want to hold the WC in Australia, but they don’t have the money or the stadiums to run it.
So they need government assistance.
Whatever moneys the government spend on this comes out of the tax payer’s pocket.
So even if I don’t want the WC here, I still have to pay.
Ok, there is a promise of an economic boost for our country because of the WC.
But if this does not eventuate, I lose.
So I’m paying for people from overseas to come to my country and watch a sport that I don’t watch myself.
So I pay for FIFA to make billions of $.
So some soccer fans might think this is a selfish way of thinking, but there are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia that don’t follow any sport.
There are many who have sick relatives, there are many with small incomes and every dollar counts.
Don’t you think that the minority are the selfish ones for wanting others to pay so you can watch your sport?
If this game is so important to you, then spend your own money and go oversees and watch it.
So they need government assistance.
Whatever moneys the government spend on this comes out of the tax payer’s pocket.
So even if I don’t want the WC here, I still have to pay.
Ok, there is a promise of an economic boost for our country because of the WC.
But if this does not eventuate, I lose.
So I’m paying for people from overseas to come to my country and watch a sport that I don’t watch myself.
So I pay for FIFA to make billions of $.
So some soccer fans might think this is a selfish way of thinking, but there are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia that don’t follow any sport.
There are many who have sick relatives, there are many with small incomes and every dollar counts.
Don’t you think that the minority are the selfish ones for wanting others to pay so you can watch your sport?
If this game is so important to you, then spend your own money and go oversees and watch it.
Pretty good summary.
Once the national interest bit is quashed - we really have nothing left except soccer wanting Government to spend a lot on soccer, to take assets off the AFL, and for PMs to want photo opportunities.
Similar threads
- Locked
