Football people get a very good coverage from Fox Sports, SBS and Fairfax. Why would any football fan buy the Telegraph, whose coverage of the game is at best unsatisfactory? "I genuinely believe that we have the best soccer coverage of the main newspapers in Australia. Just because we don't publish what the FFA wants us to print all the time doesn't mean our coverage is unsatisfactory . The most passionate of fans might agree with what you're saying but I can assure you that the general public - and I'm not here just to put out a paper for soccer fans - gets a fair coverage of the game. Last year we had three soccer writers and you've done a bit of work for us too."

Yes, but for all the space you give football, one cadet journalist would have been enough, wouldn't it? "No, I disagree with that. By the way you keep referring to the game as 'football'. Why are the Socceroos not called 'Footballroos' then!"

Very simple, mate. The Socceroos are a brand and you don't change the names of brands. "But don't you think that for most people in Sydney going to the football means going to the rugby league!"

So can we expect a decent coverage of the World Cup next year?"Our coverage will be bigger and better than last time. Obviously the space we will throw at it will be determined by advertising support. Nobody supported the A-League when it started as we did. We had an eight-page liftout and had the full backing of the FFA. The Sydney Morning Herald throws a lot of space at rugby union because they get a lot of money from rugby advertising, we give rugby league plenty of space because we get a lot of money from rugby league advertising. If we get the same level of support during the World Cup we'll do the same with soccer...