Sensational-Adelaide.com

Norman wrote:You posting Adelaide Now comments is just like putting Big Brother quotes into an honours assignment. Plain stupid. (Yes I am drunk but I still speak the truth).

Nah, don't worry, you have my assurance that there will be no more AdelaideNow comments posted here. BTW, it's a long weekend so I forgive you for being drunk. For those who are wondering, no, I am not drunk at the moment, nor have I ever been. You want underage drinkers? Just walk down Rundle Mall between 4pm and 6pm on a schoolday, you're bound to find some there pathetically looking for attention with a beer in one hand and a ridiculous cigarette in the other.

Norman wrote:By the way, have you noticed that Riverside has dropped off the radar, even for the Libs? It's not even in their Top 5 of priorities anymore.

Yes I have noticed that it's not on their sidebar on MHS's site, other things are. But that doesn't mean that they won't still bring it back. If you cast your mind back a few months, they said that construction wouldn't start for a while after they were elected and they weren't going to get contracts and architectural drawings drawn up before the end of this year either. What do you want? It to be front page headline every day? If it were, there'd be an enormous amount of CO2 being released from Media Mike and Furious Foley's mouths about how the Advertiser is biased. BTW, I'm not mentioning CO2, because I'm saying that they're full of 'hot air', but rather as an ironic reference to the fact that they want us to be a 'green state' (apparently -sorry couldn't resist ).

Norman wrote:...been promised, but so have electric trains for decades, and so was your precious MATS plan.

It seems that you fail to realise the benefits that the city ring route would have experienced from having the trucks removed from them. I ask you to go down to Portrush Road one morning and observe the trucks and ever expanding hills traffic next to one of the school zones. Students are mindless enough as it is standing right on the curb when about to cross without having semi trailers thundering down. It's an accident waiting to happen and I truly dread the day it does. A tragedy it would be indeed. Remember that poor girl a few weeks back on Sir Donald Bradman Drive? Geez, I hate to ask you this, but why was that semi there? BTW, here's something that my dad's uncle, who is an experienced, qualified engineer working for the Australian Submarine Corporation (he's not a high school student like me, mmkay?) e-mailed my dad:

To all the people who appose improving SA's road systems how about this for an approach.

Let’s do nothing we’ve been getting away with it for years, that way if we maintain our pre world war two road system we will also maintain our pre World War 2 population as no one in their right mind will want to settle here. So by 2020 when most our population has gone to that great city in the sky we won’t need a better road system as we won’t have the population to support it. While were at it why don’t we ask the federal government to build a road around Adelaide so anyone travelling from the eastern states can bypass us on the way to WA. SA’s GREAT?? Not, heaven forbid we try to entice people to come here, not surprising since we can’t even cut a tree down in the city and now we have the audacity to consider a new road system. HA HA this state is a joke.

Regards,
Nick Kalogiannis (MIEAust CPEng)
Project Manager
ASC Pty Ltd
Mersey Road, Osborne
South Australia 5018
Telephone: 08 8348 7324
Facsimile: 08 8348 7001
Email: [email protected]

Runs in the family don't you think?

Norman wrote:What do you know that gurantees this Riverside plan? No contracts have been signed.

I'll be honest, I have none. Other than the fact that it would be a political suicide if he didn't at least go ahead with the concept of Riverside West.

Norman wrote:...he wouldn't have to live up to it because he is in an opposition noone gives a shite about. Normal voters don't dig that deep for plans, they look for headlines on who to vote for.

Sorry, but 'What'? Come again? People have been slamming Media Mike about this latest Budget, not to mention the fact that Media Mike pushed it too far with the fake documents thing such that the whole concept of pushing MHS to the limit nearly backfired on [i[him[/i]! Hence he came to his senses and stopped with the pointless publicity. MHS's campaign is gradually gaining momentum again and I'll edit my signature to correspond with this statement, but the next election is up to MHS. Either he doesn't get public approval and people vote for Media Mike. OR, people do accept him and HE wins the election.
You say that they (the voters) look for the headlines on who to vote for, well then MHS has nearly got this one in the bag. We've been getting the Advertiser delivered every day since last September and I can tell you that judging by the 'headlines', MHS is doing better than Media Mike! Maybe you'd like to post again tomorrow night when your mind is clearer, because you say that you were drunk and it seems to me that you weren't really thinking clearly, so I'll forgive you and allow you to re-word that, as I have done so many times.

dj_fishy wrote: Even if it drops off the radar, its still a win. It leaves the door open to anything else. I'm hard pressed to think of many things worse than a RAH relocation there.

Thank you dj_fishy, you've said it all.

Ah crud, another quote war... By the way it was Sunday night when I was intoxicated, not tonight. Check posting dates next time please.

It seems that you fail to realise the benefits that the city ring route would have experienced from having the trucks removed from them. I ask you to go down to Portrush Road one morning and observe the trucks and ever expanding hills traffic next to one of the school zones. Students are mindless enough as it is standing right on the curb when about to cross without having semi trailers thundering down. It's an accident waiting to happen and I truly dread the day it does. A tragedy it would be indeed. Remember that poor girl a few weeks back on Sir Donald Bradman Drive? Geez, I hate to ask you this, but why was that semi there? BTW, here's something that my dad's uncle, who is an experienced, qualified engineer working for the Australian Submarine Corporation (he's not a high school student like me, mmkay?) e-mailed my dad:

I never said anything that a City Ring Route is not needed. In fact, I support it. I was merely pointing out that, just like the MATS Plan and electric trains have been promised for decades, nothing has happened (until now, the trains at least).

Sorry, but 'What'? Come again? People have been slamming Media Mike about this latest Budget, not to mention the fact that Media Mike pushed it too far with the fake documents thing such that the whole concept of pushing MHS to the limit nearly backfired on [i[him[/i]! Hence he came to his senses and stopped with the pointless publicity. MHS's campaign is gradually gaining momentum again and I'll edit my signature to correspond with this statement, but the next election is up to MHS. Either he doesn't get public approval and people vote for Media Mike. OR, people do accept him and HE wins the election.
You say that they (the voters) look for the headlines on who to vote for, well then MHS has nearly got this one in the bag. We've been getting the Advertiser delivered every day since last September and I can tell you that judging by the 'headlines', MHS is doing better than Media Mike! Maybe you'd like to post again tomorrow night when your mind is clearer, because you say that you were drunk and it seems to me that you weren't really thinking clearly, so I'll forgive you and allow you to re-word that, as I have done so many times.

From what I have heard, the media response to this has been that it was an economic budget, a budget to support us to get us out of deficit and back to surplus in 12-18 months. And remember that The Advertiser isn't the only form of media in Adelaide, there's also TV news, radio news and, of course, the Internet (ABC News, AdelaideNow, Google News, etc). So of course there would have been headlines for the current government and Mike Rann, he's not called Media Mike for nothing. Things like infrastructure, education and health changes, events, he is on the scene talking to the media. He is bound to get a headline, even if it's not in The Advertiser.

What I don't like about MHS is his constant negativity and lack of bringing forward his own ideas. Ideas with substance. Yes, Riverside West is nice, but what else has he produced? His Martin 2010 is big on headlines and small on substance, not much can be heard of him on how he will change, for example the fiscal policy of the current government. How much debt would he raise? How many PSA jobs would go under him if he was the leader.

But maybe I'm wrong and am just ranting as I usually do when I see MHS's face pop up. Vicky Chapman is no better (I was close to throwing my laptop at her in parliament because she annoyed me so much). And to show that I'm not entirely politically bias towards Labor, I can't stand Tom K and Maywald either. Conlon isn't fantastic but when I have spoken to him, he seems like he is at least enthusiastic about improving transport and infrastructure.

Anyways, assignments are calling...

Norman wrote:Ah crud, another quote war... By the way it was Sunday night when I was intoxicated, not tonight. Check posting dates next time please.

I too don't want another quote war (caused by me ) and I stated 'tomorrow night' because I assumed that people probably weren't online at that time.

Norman wrote:... just like the MATS Plan and electric trains have been promised for decades, nothing has happened (until now, the trains at least).

Indeed, as TooFar stated on The Great Roads Debate,

TooFar wrote:What frustrates me is the amount of studies and reports that have looked into the ideal public transport system for Adelaide. Generation have gone by and what do we have? A system that has not really changed since the early 70's. 4 different PT Systems with no central terminus.

Please don't anyone say he's being too harsh towards Adelaide, because quite frankly he summed up everything in that post (which included more than what I quoted here) wonderfully.

Norman wrote:And remember that The Advertiser isn't the only form of media in Adelaide,

Yes I agree. There's also AdelaideNow

Norman wrote:But maybe I'm wrong and am just ranting as I usually do when I see MHS's face pop up.

No, don't feel bad. Whenever I see Media Mike's face on TV, I feel like throwing the remote at it. But if I did where could I watch my beloved Gangster Movies? Meanwhile if I hear him on the radio or see him on the Internet, I immediately change radio station or exit the tab on which I am browsing.

Norman wrote:to show that I'm not entirely politically bias towards Labor...

No, I don't think you are, I can understand your arguments. Besides, I'm not entirely against Labor either, in fact this is the only state ALP which I oppose. Well, I don't have much knowledge of the politics of NT, ACT, Tasmania and NSW, however I think that the current ALP Parties of QLD and Vic as well as the former one of WA are great ones.

Norman wrote:Anyways, assignments are calling...

Yes, exam revision is calling me...

Does anyone like my idea for Hindmarsh stadium?

1. We'd have to remove the heritage listed buildings (I know tough assignment!)
2. Take out the southern stand and slide the pitch down
3. Enclose that stadium with stands the size of the current members stand
4. Enjoy some Football!

I’m guessing we’d get an extra 10,000 seats out of this. I don’t believe this is the answer for the World Cup stadium but it would be perfect of Adelaide United for at least the next 10 years.

I don’t think anyone can argue that there’s no money in football
Cristiano Ronaldo transfers to Real Madrid for $163,000,000!

I'm guessing Baz Lehrman directed it but there a short video on the World Game website about the World Cup bid I'm sure there is more to come soon.

I think the World Game (SBS) are doing a special on it this weekend too

dj_fishy wrote: Sorry but you have been extremely frugal with the truth here mate. 2004 Adelaide saw us host the OFC Nations Cup against the HEAVY hitting football nations of Tahiti, Vanuatu, Fiji and Solomon Islands. It is to be expected when the match is essentially a dead rubber that it will hardly be a draw card - thus the couple of thousand turning up. However when we faced some (remotely) half way decent competition like New Zealand, 12,000 people turn out! Oh and this also predates the start of the A-League as well and 2006 World Cup, but hey let's just look to these figures as reflective of how things stand at present like you wish.

I acknowledged the standard of opposition but with all things considered, such as the star power on display for us, I don’t believe that justifies it. It doesn’t matter what you and I think though, the FFA were disappointed and their opinion does count.

I would happily quote more current figures if there were any, but there aren’t. Of course, we could always look at the crowds for the Olyroos Olympic Qualification games in 07, just two years ago. Unfortunately, they weren’t anything to write home about either.

dj_fishy wrote:This season actually averaged 13,000 mate, sorry. Bloody good showing considering there are only 15,500 seats! Furthermore you ignore that when the games are moved to a central location with greater capacity (ie Adelaide Oval) that figure spikes to 23,000+?

Well I got my stats for that one from Wikipedia on this entry for A-League season 08/09 which quotes an average of 11,712. So I was being generous. And I didn’t ignore that 23,000 figure. That was included in the 12,000 average. Had I ignored that game and quoted only Hindmarsh attendances the figure is 10,500, meaning Hindmarsh averaged 2/3 capacity.

dj_fishy wrote:Where is the additional capacity for your more important games? The current venue's capacity is pushed as it stands, what happens towards the end of a successful season? What happens in finals? What happens when Adelaide gets one of the two positions in the Asian Champions League for Aussie clubs? What happens for a Socceroos game be it friendly, ASEAN Football Championship, Asian Cup, World Cup qualification (and in light of the upsurge in popularity following the A-League and 2006 World Cup this time thanks)?

Nothing wrong with occasional sellouts. However, for the really big games there is Adelaide Oval and AAMI Stadium.

dj_fishy wrote:1) Any 15,500+ figure is fantastic mate, not a single seat left in the venue.

Agreed. They are fantastic. I’d like to see them happen a bit more regularly though.

dj_fishy wrote:2) Wrong. You have ignored home matches when held at larger premises. Of course you would never let the truth get in the way of a good story aye mate? While 25,000 (07-08) and 23,000 (08-09) may be artificially inflated by the novelty factor of an Adelaide Oval game, other factors such as inappropriate viewing angles may have held such a figure back too.

I think those games are a good experiment. Hopefully we see more of those games and even more than once a season. I’d like to see crowds maintained over time before we get too carried away. I think you are clutching with your comment the figures might have been held back by viewing angles. Surely that was written tongue-in-cheek.

dj_fishy wrote:3) Wrong again! (Notice a trend?) Chances are that we will qualify for the Asian Champions League once every 5 years - there are two places offered to the 10 Australian clubs. Ten divided by two = five.

Nope. Not wrong. I was clearly referring to the regularity we’d make the last two stages of the ACL, ie. making the Semi Final like last year, rather than the odds of simply just qualifying for the ACL as you so expertly calculated.

The first round of ACL has shown to draw no more than the average A-League crowds of those respective teams so there is no need to talk about capacity issues for those games.

dj_fishy wrote:

Tyler_Durden wrote:I have also been to Hindmarsh on many occasions where the attendance has been less than 10,000, including the most recent match played there, the Preliminary Final against Queensland which drew only 8,000 people to the second biggest game of the A-League season.

Does it escape your memory that Adelaide had just been THRASHED 0-4 the week before and we were widely thought to lose? Of course you casually ignore this - another lie by omission.

No, it doesn’t escape my memory. I just don’t think it justifies it. All it does is demonstrate the fickle nature of our crowds that such a big game can’t draw a crowd. It makes me wonder, if Adelaide’s crowds have averaged low teens with such consistently good results over their history, what will happen when they inevitably have some poor seasons? That does nothing to convince me we need a larger stadium.

dj_fishy wrote:

Tyler_Durden wrote:As all the key performance indicators published by the FFA point out, the A-League has remained fairly stangant (sic) over five years, with a drop in interest last season.

What do you base your assertion on? Other than wishful thinking, that is.

Of course you don't actually factor in the hike in popularity attributed to the A-League itself cloud your rant. Furthermore we are not looking at the whole A-League - looking at Adelaide United is more appropriate.

I thought this discussion had centred predominantly on the situation here in Adelaide.

As you mentioned it, was it the A-League itself that raised popularity or was it the introduction of non-ethnic teams? Because the two current A-League teams that predate the A-League, Adelaide and Perth, actually got just as good (Adelaide) or better (Perth) crowds while competing in the NSL. And because you think it is most appropriate to focus on the situation here in Adelaide we should acknowledge that the revolution happened in 2003 when Adelaide United were formed, almost three years before the World Cup. So as far as Adelaide United is concerned there is no evidence that the formation of the A-League or the World Cup have had much effect on AU crowds and have remained relatively consistent since the club’s formation.

Cruise's summary of thread:
"We need a great big stadium so when we make the ACL all the bandwagoners can get a seat and make us look all big and shit on tele"

Cruise wrote:Cruise's summary of thread:
"We need a great big stadium so when we make the ACL all the bandwagoners can get a seat and make us look all big and shit on tele"

On the other games we'll need everyone to wear the same colour clothes as the seats so no one can tell how many peole are there!

Adelaide Oval rebirth for soccer World Cup bid

SOUTH Australia is joining Australia's bid to host soccer's World Cup.

A redeveloped Adelaide Oval where demolition this week brought down the old western and members' stands is now favoured to host World Cup games, if Australia wins the bid.

South Australia is determined to join other states in hosting matches in the 2018 or 2022 World Cup tournaments.

Either the picturesque Adelaide Oval would be further upgraded to seat an extra 10,000 or more spectators believed to be the State Government's preferred option or the city could get a new 45,000-seat purpose-built rectangular venue.

Both options would receive some level of Federal Government funding. Football Federation Australia would prefer a rectangular stadium that would leave a legacy for the sport after the cup, but it would accept an expanded Adelaide Oval as an alternative.

Federation chief executive Ben Buckley said: ``We've got a very open dialogue with the State Government and I'm sure we'll get the best solution in the long run.

``South Australia's got a proud sports history and a proud soccer history and we will work very closely with the State Government to ensure they are part of the bid.''

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today launches Australia's bid with a television commercial that features Adelaide.

Premier Mike Rann has been invited to the VIP launch in Canberra, but a spokeswoman said yesterday he would not attend.

"We wish Australia every success in its World Cup soccer bid," Mr Rann said. "All of Australia's political leaders will give this bid their enthusiastic support.

"If FIFA announces that Australia has been given the right to stage a future World Cup, then it will give everyone plenty of time to ensure we have the appropriate facilities across the nation."

Despite the gloomy economic times, the FFA estimates the Cup will be an economic bonanza for the nation, generating $3.9 billion in ticket sales, accommodation and meals alone.

The FFA said it expected the 60-plus game tournament would draw up to 4.7 million spectators.

The tournament and infrastructure projects would create the equivalent of 74,000 fulltime jobs, and lead to an overall increase in GDP of $5.3 billion.

Mr Buckley said although the FFA's "bid book" had to be lodged by May 2010, venues would have to be finalised by state governments by the end of this year.

Mr Buckley would not be drawn on how the new and upgraded facilities would be funded.

"That is being worked through at the moment," he said.

"Clearly, building and refurbishing stadia is expensive. First and foremost we need to lock in what our venue plan is and then identify what the costs are."

The sticking point for SA is still the venue.

Soccer world governing body FIFA stipulates a minimum capacity of 40,000 for World Cup venues but AAMI Stadium has been ruled out because of its shallow "seat pitch" and transport issues.

The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.

Stadiums - costing about $250 million each - would be built around the country off the same plan.

The temporary seating would be dismantled after the Cup tournament and given to schools and community sporting organisations.

The cost-saving plan is a cornerstone of Australia's bid.

Mr Buckley yesterday confirmed the FFA's preferred option is for Australia to have 12 World Cup venues, with no more than two venues in each city.

At present only the MCG and Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Football Stadium and Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane, are up to standard.

Perth already has plans to build a multi-purpose city stadium that will have a capacity of 60,000 when it opens in 2014.

The key selling points for Australia's bid are:

PROXIMITY to Asia, as well as our membership of the Asian confederation. More soccer fans live in Asia than any other region.

AUSTRALIA'S track record of hosting major events, including the Olympics and World Youth Day.

BIPARTISAN support across all state and federal governments.

PERCEPTION of Australia internationally as a safe and welcoming destination.

The fact that Australia, as an island, can control who comes to watch the tournament and limit the "hooligan" element - as opposed to continental Europe - is also seen as a plus.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

I still reckon a purpose built stadium is by far the best option but I’d still go even if they played it at Elizabeth oval.

The only problem with having it at Adelaide Oval is you can just tell that all they’re going to do is put up a heap of temporary scaffolding just like at Hindmarsh during the Olympics which looked like s@#t!

My only hope is that if they do end up having it at Adelaide Oval please do it properly upgrade it to 50,0000ish and give Adelaide what it wants…an inner city stadium we can be proud of!

by proud of i mean something we can use all year round

Probably of interest to followers of this thread, as you are probably pro keeping the RAH on current site, thus freeing up the railyards for an entertainment precinct:
(sorry if you read this on another thread as ive replicated the message on a few related topics, just skip it as they are all worded the same)

The Save the RAH Action Group is holding a public sausage sizzle in Rundle Park (end of rundle st, where garden of unearthly delights is held for the fringe).
It is on Sunday 21st June (this sunday coming) at 11am until 2pm. According to the website it will have invited speakers Vickie Chapman MP(Opposition Heath spokesman), Senator Nick Xenophon and Mark Parnell MLC. Health Minister John hill was invited but unfortunately unable to attend.

I think by rocking up is probably the best way (and cheap/easy) to send Rann the message that the railyard RAH is not supported by the community, both medical professional and wider public. With a liberal, independent and green (Parnell) it would appear to be a cross party gathering so don't be put off if you think it will be a liberal rally, thus, hopefully accessible even for labor supporters who still disagree with this one policy.
Writing on forums like Sen-Ad is great to develop my own views and hear other's points of view, but i know ive always been interested in doing something like attending this to actively show my support and am guessing there are also others on the site who share this ambition. Its clear (especially in adelaide) that interest groups (for better and worst) can sway the political process, so might as well use this often harmful tool to progression for an act of good (IMO). If there is a big crowd its going to make the news and get further towards page 1 in the tiser, thus it will be harder for Rann to spin. If there is a poor turn out, i guess the public does support the new railyard RAH and this is how the gov will interpret it.

All this info i found on their website, saverah.com.au. There is more info on the site also and you can join the site to show your support (get their membership number up) and then get emailed news updates.
See you Sunday.

Football Federation Australia launches bid to host 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup

Hosting the World Cup could provide an even bigger boost for Australian football than competing in it.

That's the belief of Socceroos stars who have highlighted Australia's credentials on the field by qualifying for two successive finals and are now pressing the nation's claims off the field.

Goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer is convinced “without a doubt'' Australia's bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cups could deliver greater impetus than qualifying.

“I saw how it transformed Germany in 2006,'' said Australia's newly acclaimed international player of the year at the official bid launch by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Canberra.

“No-one can really understand the magnitude of the game and what it would do for this country, not only for football but for the revenue and the jobs it would create.

“The impact on Australia as a whole would be unbelievable,'' said Schwarzer, 35 years to the day after Australia played its first World Cup finals match in then West Germany.

“Bringing the World Cup here would be bigger than anything we have ever seen before.

“It is truly the greatest show on earth.''

National skipper Lucas Neill was another who took up the prime minister's case that, football passions aside, the event would showcase Australia and deliver an estimated $5 billion revenue windfall.

“This big dream to bring the World Cup to Australia makes me realise how far Australian football has come,'' Neill said.

“Who would have dreamt of this 10 years ago?

“The more I think of it, the more I believe, ‘Yes we can'.''

“It would be great for football, great for the economy, great for business, great for tourism and great for the Australian people.''

Harry Williams, one of the part-time heroes who played in Australia's original 1974 World Cup team, said hosting the event would be “a gift to future generations''.

“This is bigger than the Olympics,'' he said.

Australia will be up against nine other bids when world body FIFA decides on hosts for both the 2018 and 2022 championships in December next year.

They include four bids from Europe - England, Russia and joint campaigns from Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Holland - as well as the US, Mexico and three from Asia besides Australia - Japan/South Korea, Indonesia and Qatar.

Football Federation Australia (FFA) chairman Frank Lowy said winning the bid to host the World Cup was one of the biggest challenges in sport.

He said it would help build the Australian nation, as football brought “Australia to the world and the world to Australia''.

Australia was up against some of the most powerful nations on earth, he said, but “we enter confidently and we enter to win it. We have our own very strong credentials.''

Prime Minister Rudd called the World Cup “the greatest event on earth'' and applauded Australian football's “audacity, sheer chutzpah and organisational skills''.

He praised Lowy's vision and ability to “get inside the head of any politician''.

“Prior to the last election, he said to me, 'How about it Kevin?'. I'm sure he did the same to John Howard.''

“We are good at hosting big events,'' said Mr Rudd.

“This is an extraordinary opportunity to showcase Australia to the world.''

How The Bid Is Won

Bidding Nations
There are nine bidders for the 2018 FIFA World Cup finals

Australia
Belgium/Netherlands
England
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
Portugal/Spain
Russia
United States

The 2022 World Cup finals are subject to the same bids, plus those of Qatar and South Korea.

The two winning bidders will earn the right to host the FIFA World Cup finals, in June/July 2018 or June/July 2022, as well as the FIFA Confederations Cup (held in the preceding year).

Bidding countries must demonstrate:

Compliance with the bidding process, bidding registration and bidding agreement;
Anticipated impact on the game, and on society as a whole, in both the host country and abroad;
Support for the bid from the Government, the general public and football community;
Infrastructure and management capabilities to host the tournament;
An innovative and meaningful legacy programme for after the event.

Bidding Process
Bidding countries are bound by the FIFA Code of Ethics to ensure a fair and balanced process.

FIFA will nominate specific occasions when bidding nations can conduct bid promotions and activities at FIFA or Confederation events such as competitions, draw ceremonies, congresses and meetings. FIFA will also appoint an Inspection Group whose role it is to oversee the bid process, conduct inspection visits and report on each country’s progress and final bids.

Bidding countries are required to submit a "Bid Book" in May 2010. The Bid Book must satisfy FIFA's comprehensive requirements for stadiums, accommodation, transport, IT, medical services, safety and security, broadcasting, commercial rights, corporate hospitality and ticketing.

Each county is also given the opportunity to present their bid to the FIFA Executive around the end of November/beginning of December 2010.

Voting Process
The 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee decide who hosts the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup.

In December 2008, FIFA confirmed simultaneous bidding for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World World Cups. This means that the host countries for both tournaments will be determined by the FIFA Executive Committee, when they meet in December 2010.

The winning bid will be selected by an exhaustive ballot (i.e. each member of the FIFA Executive Committee will vote for a single country, the country with the fewest votes will be eliminated. Further rounds of voting will then occur until the vote is between two remaining countries and a final winner is selected).

Personally I’d say that England and Russia are our two main rivals I’m glad to see that there’s no China bid!

Also I like what John Kosmina said in the paper yesterday that we should build a rectangular stadium just for football that is around 40,000 - 50,000 and once the World Cup is over scale the stadium down to around 30,000 and give the left over seating to local football clubs. But you never know by 2018 and if we are hosting the World Cup football could be so popular that 40,000 - 50,000 might be required by then! (fingers crossed)

If anyone is also interested you can show support at this website

http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/