Australia's bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup

[Jesus]

Id like all Asia to stand behind one bid, Bin Hammam said. Its not important which country wins but were determined to see the 2018 or 2022 WC in Asia.

The World Cup can motivate the whole continent for all those years building up to the event. It can drive huge numbers of fans who are not football fans yet.

I read those two comments, in particular the second, as a reference to the continent of Asia, not at all the Asian football confederation. I can't see him backing the only non Asian country over his own and others, especially considering his form re Australia. It wouldn't help him win a popularity contest in his region.

My guess...the politics for the backing of Qatar has begun.

Since when didnt Oz count as asia?

We are probably more east asia than west asia are, and more west asia than east asia are thanks to our multiculturalism

 

[midfielder]

Qatar is way to hot to hold the WC.. But they present a real problem for us in getting to the finals rouinds ... Look at the figures below and if Qatar take the Asian vote and as some suspect have the AFc vote ... they have 8 votes ... enough to maybe take Australia out in the early rounds..

page 20 of this thread


Confederation ... Votes....  Aus . US .. Japan .. Oatar                     

Oceania.................1 ........1
CONMEBOL ............3 ..............3
CONCACAF ............3...............3
CAF ..................4 .............................4
AFC ..................4 ........1...........1........2
Sub Total ..........15 ........2.....6.....1..........6
UEFA ................7
British Special .....1
El Presidente .......1
Total ..............24

Assume UEFA gets us to the final three now
Confederation ... Votes..  Aus . US . . Oatar                     

 

[dibo]

Who says that Qatar will get all the AFC votes? There are Japanese, Korean and Aussie bids there. The Oceania vote will have to go somewhere too.

It's well known that we've been courting votes in CAF and UEFA circles, not to mention hiring friends of Jack Warner.

Like I said months ago:

It's interesting that there's an event in Nigeria at the Australian High Commission and Jack Warner's there.

I wonder if any of Issa HAYATOU (Cameroon), Amos ADAMU (Nigeria), Jacques ANOUMA (Cte d'Ivoire) or Hany ABO RIDA (Egypt) were also there? That's 5 votes in a room... We need 13.

EDIT - at the very least, 5 votes keeps you in the ballot long enough to see off the first couple of rounds of eliminations and you start to scavenge votes - if you're enough people's second choices after their own favourite bids falter, then you can get up. There's even the possibility of a USA/Australia joint ticket between them simply denying England a majority for long enough to then have eliminated nations get them over the line.

If the other bids are getting their shit together, the pool of available votes is thinner. You just need to avoid being eliminated early, so if we can at each stage secure 'not-the-least-number' of votes and remain in the game, we're in play to pick up the votes that had previously supported eliminated candidates.

In the first round, this may mean that what we need to pick up is two votes, and there will be several additional votes coming onto the table at each subsequent round. If we're the second favourite of enough of the right voters, we're in the game very quickly.

In other circles, this is known as 'pulling a Fielding'.

 

[midfielder]

Dibo

No one said that Qatar was going to get all the asians votes .. it was following on from posts made above about Qatar intentions..

On the European votes ... as I understand it we have the European votes and the US is trying to divide European ... but that is just talk and may or maynot be right..

The chart simply shows the various votes of each conf .... and yes if Australia can get a solid block of votes we should make the latter rounds..

 

[curious]

Since when didnt Oz count as asia?

We are probably more east asia than west Asia are, and more west asia than east asia are thanks to our multiculturalism

Since Australia wasn't part of the Continent of Asia. Like, always.
Since Australia was a separate continent in 'Oceania' and the largest Island in Oceania. Like always.
Since modern Australia has grown from overwhelmingly, GB and European roots and culture, (due in part to the white Australia policy brought about originally by anti Chinese immigrant attitude) far removed from any part of Asia.
Since the 2006 census stated that 6.7% of Australian residents are of S.E. Asian, N.E. Asian or S. and C. Asian descent. (dropped to 0.4% during the many decades of the white Australia policy)
Since Australia was 5 1/2 thousand klms from the nearest Asian country.
Since I learned at school (and kids still do) that Australia is the largest country in Oceania.
Since every source you care to find will have Australia as part of Oceania and not as part of Asia.


We aren't an Asian nation today anymore than we were during and following the anti Asian propaganda policies of Howard and Hanson and being admitted to play football under the wing of the AFC doesn't alter that. Though, one would hope it can assist just a little in mending some bridges of the past if we don't act like an impertinent Johny-come-lately.

 

[kevrenor]

Since Australia was 5 1/2 thousand klms from the nearest Asian country.

I think you will find Christmas Island is only a few hundred km from Indonesia, and the mainland only a bit more from Indonesia's Flores and West Papua.

I take your point on the impact.

If it is between Qatar and us for AFC endorsement, were are screwed.

ps. We aren't the only non Asian country in the AFC ... Timor Leste is technically not part of the continent of Asia either, and ethnically it could be argued they aren't really either, and the Papua and Timor parts of Indonesia aren't either.

 

[Gopher of Pern]

Don't know about you, but I never learnt the Australia was in a seperate continent called Oceania. AFAIK, Oceania is a unique term coind by FIFA for the Pacific Island region of the world. Australia has always been it's own continent. Smallest continent, largest island.

 

[dibo]

The continent is the landmass.

This rules out Japan, the Phillipines, the vast majority of Malaysia and Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Maldives, the Federated States of Micronesia... there's more that I'm sure I'm missing... Then there's Russia who are the biggest country in Asia and Europe at the same time, and they're in Europe. Uzbekistan are pretty much European but they're in Asia. Kazakhstan are pretty much Asian but they're in Europe. And then there's Israel.

By and large our population looks different and we're hanging off the bottom of the continental landmass on a continent (Australia's the continent, not Oceania) of our own in a region sometimes called Oceania, but we're also diplomatically and geographically linked to the ASEAN group, which is Asian.

But all of that matters not a jot, we're full members of the Asian Football Confederation. The rest is trivial.

 

[serious14]

In 100 years time the world is going to be Asian-ised, Blade Runner style anyway.  We're just getting in on the act early. 

 

[Jesus]

The continent is the landmass.

This rules out Japan, the Phillipines, the vast majority of Malaysia and Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Maldives, the Federated States of Micronesia... there's more that I'm sure I'm missing... Then there's Russia who are the biggest country in Asia and Europe at the same time, and they're in Europe. Uzbekistan are pretty much European but they're in Asia. Kazakhstan are pretty much Asian but they're in Europe. And then there's Israel.

By and large our population looks different and we're hanging off the bottom of the continental landmass on a continent (Australia's the continent, not Oceania) of our own in a region sometimes called Oceania, but we're also diplomatically and geographically linked to the ASEAN group, which is Asian.

But all of that matters not a jot, we're full members of the Asian Football Confederation. The rest is trivial.

My point.

Basically the votes dont come entirely from the mideast. They dont come from far east.

I dont see why the koreans would vote for qatar over korea?

Or qatar over us except mainly due to bribes?

I doubt that qatar has as much of a trade relationship with korea japan or china as we do. Though i dont know the figures.

Asia is not a flat pack with 48 countries sitting next to each other, all of same race culture colour or creed.

I think that to say an asutralian or a qatari has some ultimate significance to the koreans over the other is ignorant to the scale and diversity of asia.

 

[curious]

Don't know about you, but I never learnt the Australia was in a seperate continent called Oceania. AFAIK, Oceania is a unique term coind by FIFA for the Pacific Island region of the world. Australia has always been it's own continent. Smallest continent, largest island.

I didn't learn what you said, either. I learned what i said. Best  browse my comment once again. Posted below for your convenience.

Since Australia was a separate continent in 'Oceania' and the largest Island in Oceania

Unless FIFA where on the french exploration ship in 1831 with the explorer Jules Dumont d'Urville, i don't think they can be credited with the term Oceania. But FIFA have their noses in everything so they might have been there. 

 

[Gopher of Pern]

Don't know about you, but I never learnt the Australia was in a seperate continent called Oceania. AFAIK, Oceania is a unique term coind by FIFA for the Pacific Island region of the world. Australia has always been it's own continent. Smallest continent, largest island.

I didn't learn what you said, either. I learned what i said. Best  browse my comment once again. Posted below for your convenience.

Since Australia was a separate continent in 'Oceania' and the largest Island in Oceania

Unless FIFA where on the french exploration ship in 1831 with the explorer Jules Dumont d'Urville, i don't think they can be credited with the term Oceania. But FIFA have their noses in everything so they might have been there. 

I mis-read you there. But my main point still stands. Australia is not in Oceania, depending on your definition of Oceania. As we are talking football, Australia is definitely not in Oceania. Also note the AFAIK. I obviously didn't know when the term was coined, but FIFA is the only place where I had heard the term. Most of the time I hear it called 'Australiasia'.

 

[midfielder]

Not unexpected but still a little disappointing...

http://www.gfc.com.au/geelongnews/newsarticle/tabid/3933/newsid/90072/default.aspx

The Victorian state government has announced that Skilled Stadium is one of two venues they have recommended as suitable to host games as part of Australias soccer World Cup bid.

With the MCG confirmed as a venue and Etihad Stadium ruled out, there has been enormous debate as to which Victorian stadium would be put forward as the second venue.

The club was informed on Monday that Skilled Stadium had received the tick from the Brumby government to be included in the bid.

This is great recognition for Geelong as a region, Cats CEO Brian Cook said.

Geelong can provide a world class experience in a world class venue. We all know that Geelong is a great city, and a great sporting city. It is exciting times that Geelong has been earmarked for the bid.

The AFL has acknowledged that it will be impossible to complete a season in either 2018 or 2022 in the event that both the MCG and Etihad Stadium were unavailable. With Etihad out, and the new rectangular stadium in Richmond too small to host games, the search led to Geelong.

Skilled Stadium would need to be enhanced, with capacity increased to around 44,000.

Seems FFA ... have to accept what Vic & AFL needs ... so Football WC and build new stadiums for Geelong, Perth, Adelaide & Carrara.

They bitch and complain and have four brand new stadiums and MCG done up... they are if nothing else smart operators...

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/brumby-pushed-geelong-venue-to-reluctant-ffa-20100302-peef.html?autostart=1

Brumby pushed Geelong venue to 'reluctant' FFA

 

[Jesus]

Geelong has no post world cup benefit for football. Why not move afl games there and leave the dome for world cup?

Why spend all that money and not do it on swan street?

 

[midfielder]

Be careful what you bid for, economist warns hosts

This will bring out all the other codes death riding the WC bid...

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/be-careful-what-you-bid-for-economist-warns-hosts-20100314-q65i.html

Be careful what you bid for, economist warns hosts

TIM COLEBATCH


March 15, 2010


www.hktdc.com/hkwinefair

AS AUSTRALIA finalises its bid to stage soccer's World Cup, the International Monetary Fund has published an article arguing that the economic benefits of big sports events are negligible, while the costs tend to be far heavier and long-lasting.

Drawing on evidence from the Sydney Olympics, among other events, US economist Andrew Zimbalist concluded that the economic gains from staging big sporting events are ''modest to non-existent''.

FIFA will decide on December 2 which nations will host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Australia has applied for both. The 2018 cup is tipped to go to Europe, but Australia is among the favourites for 2022.

Melbourne might have to build yet another sports stadium to provide two venues, as planned. The MCG would be one, but Docklands is committed to AFL, and the new soccer/rugby stadium now being built will not have the 40,000 seats FIFA demands. Professor Zimbalist, of Smith College, warns that host nations routinely find the costs of staging events such as the Olympics and the Winter Olympics end up far higher than estimated, leaving them with big deficits and empty stadiums.

''Athens initially projected that its [2004] Games would cost $US1.6 billion ($A1.09 billion), but they ended up costing closer to $US16 billion, including facility and infrastructure costs,'' he said.

''Beijing [2008] projected costs of $US1.6 billion, but the final price tag was $US40 billion, including expansion of the Beijing subway system. London expected its 2012 Games to cost less than $US4 billion, but they are now projected to cost $US19 billion.'' While some of this spending is on infrastructure with lasting benefits for the host city, much of it leaves behind expensive white elephants, Professor Zimbalist warned.

''Many facilities built especially for the Games go unused or under-utilised after the 16 or 17 days of the competition itself, require tens of millions of dollars a year to maintain, and occupy increasingly scarce real estate,'' he said.

''For example, in Sydney, it now costs $US30 million a year to operate the 90,000-seat Olympic stadium.''

While economic studies financed by host governments report net benefits in hosting big sporting events, the studies are not objective and suffer from many flaws, he warned.

Professor Zimbalist advised aspiring host cities, states and nations to ''think before you bid''.

Should they get what they ask for, they need be take care in deciding land use, and maximise post-event use, he said.

 

[dibo]

This is not a new argument. I remember reading something very similar a couple of years ago:

No medals for economic benefits of the Games

JACOB SAULWICK
April 12, 2008

Everyone liked the Sydney Olympics. For some, they were a chance to reach new heights of sporting achievement. For many others, they were a two-week window into a world where binge drinking, in the right spirit and properly accompanied by well-lit public transport and entertainment, can be a force for good.

But the economic impact of the Olympics is a lot more contentious and complicated. Before the Games - before the ceremony, before the torch lapped its way around town, and before the first sod of Homebush soil was turned - the boosters waxed lyrical about the economic growth it would stimulate. The arguments were not new, but standard issue for those touting big events, particularly when they are trying to squeeze money out of governments.

Eight years and innumerable health and transport crises later these arguments bear some testing.

In Sydney's case, the Olympics were meant to stimulate a wave of extra tourist dollars - not just during the Games but in the years that followed. The Games would offer an opportunity to "showcase" the city. Once "showcased" it would then be an irresistible lure. Sydney's bars, hotels and its redundant monorail would hum with a new lease of life.

The tourism boom, however, never happened. Or if it did, there was nothing particularly Olympian about it. To be sure, the low dollar made the 2000s a great time to be in the tourism game. But as a recent study by James Giesecke and John Madden from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University points out, in the years since 2001, foreign tourism to NSW grew by less than tourism to Australia as a whole.

Another argument used by spruikers of big events is that they have a "multiplier" effect on broader economic development. This is a simple argument to understand and a simpler one to sell.

So, booking Tim Freedman for an outdoor concert has the initial result of putting money in the pocket of a Newtown singer-songwriter. Once he comes to perform, however, the concert creates work for the people who sell home-made lemonade in big plastic cups. As it does for bus drivers needed to shuttle people to the gig. And cleaners who arrive in the early morning with bags and brushes and pick up all the cups. Like a pebble dropped in a pool, the initial investment ripples wider.

This argument, particularly on an Olympic scale, is a powerful one. It has the ring of John Maynard Keynes about it. To build a stadium you sure need a lot of workers, a lot of cranes, a lot of bricks, a lot of mortar and a lot of hard plastic seats.

But what a simple "multiplier" analysis fails to capture is that resources have to be redirected from elsewhere. If you build a stadium, you might not build, say, the odd emergency ward. If Freedman plays the Domain, he cannot play Revesby Workers.

And what Giesecke and Madden also argue is that if you are interested in stimulating the economy in the long term, building sporting venues is not the ideal way to go about it. Why? Because the billions tipped into them do not add to the aggregate stock of productive capital in the years following the Games. Equestrian centres, softball compounds and man-made rapids are not particularly useful beyond their immediate function.

In fact, because so much taxpayer money was funnelled into relatively unproductive Games-related projects, in the years since the Olympics, the two economists estimate that $2.1 billion has been shaved from public consumption.

This does not mean that there was no benefit from having the Games or that they should not have been held. It is just that, on their analysis, the benefit in terms of what a good time we all had should be equal to $2.1 billion.

(To be fair to the Games, this is $2.1 billion spread over a number of years and the figure relies on certain assumptions like full employment and little spare capacity.)

But "it is clearly important that citizens of countries bidding for mega sporting events be aware that such events may not bring a double dividend of intangible benefits accompanied by an economic stimulus," Giesecke and Madden write.

While there might have been an intangible dividend from the Sydney Olympic Games, there was no double economic dividend from them.

Cities across the world are constantly testing this argument.

A British study this year tried to put a value on the intangible benefits of hosting the London Olympic Games. That report, published in Urban Studies, reckoned that Britons would be prepared to pay 2 billion ($4.2 billion) towards hosting the Games.

Then of course there is Melbourne and its grand prix. The Australian Grand Prix Corporation regularly trots out estimates of the economic benefit Victorians enjoy from hosting the grand prix, putting the total at more than $1.5 billion since 1996.

The critics say the estimates are bogus. For one thing, any supposed benefit on tourism is wiped out by the volumes of appalled Melburnians leaving town for the weekend.

In the United States, the debate has a subprime ring to it. During the housing boom - since busted - state governments and city councils assisted with the construction of numerous large stadiums, often touting their important contribution to economic development.

And according to one report, George Bush, President and one-time baseball club owner, was one major beneficiary of this practice.

Last year the New York Times investigative reporter David Cay Johnston's book Free Lunch outlined the way in which the owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team, of whom Bush was one, got their hands on millions of dollars through a publicly underwritten stadium.

In Johnston's account, Bush, as the former governor of Texas, owes some two-thirds of his fortune to a sales tax levied to build a stadium. While the stadium was built from the tax revenue, he and partners subsequently bought it back from the local government for a song.

And people complain about SOCOG.

Ross Gittins is on leave.

For the record, I loved the Sydney Olympics. I was a scruffy undergrad student having a great time, including one afternoon watching Australia win in the sailing while completely baked, and another going up the street to get blue slushies to put vodka in the day we won in the archery.

Good times!

 

[Jesus]

Big difference comparing world cup to olympics, when olympics needs a variety of types of stadiums, in one city.

Infrastructure is similar, but usually required anyway, and only something like this will force the govt to look to the future and build it

 

[Forum Phoenix]

And WC draws more numbers than Olympics with far less infrastructure and development required.

 

[pjennings]

From memory - (the gist is correct the dates might be iffy). The GST was implemented soon after the Olympics. In return for the GST monies the states no longer got as many tied grants. The GST agreements screwed Vic and in particular NSW. It was not until 2007 that NSW got as much money as before the the GST.

Costello was correct that the states as a whole were getting more money from the Commonwealth. But for 6 or 7 years NSW weren't.

During some of that time NSW budgets were okay since they rode the real estate stamp duty bubble - but there was a huge structural black hole. This is why maintenance across the board in state run schools, hospitals and utilities were slashed and many new programs cancelled.

 

[FFC Mariner]

But we do not and will not accept second place for Australian football.


Get used to it you Tard c**t