News All things Tasmania Footy Media

[Cunnington Cartel]

OK that's even more confusing. What about upgrading the Hobart stadium?
* the AFL, it's the Tassie people that should own this team, not some Vicco's throbbing their own members.
If the Greens have the balance of power, they won't let the Libs finance a stadium

York Park has a role to play, but as a secondary venue only of 3-4 games per season. Bellerive cannot be upgraded to the required standard so a new Hobart stadium has to be built (e.g. no stadium = no team).

Initially, Labor tried to promote a no stadium position; however, they must have read the tea leaves after meeting with the AFL because their language softened in the lead up to the election. For example, saying they want to “re-negotiate the contract with the AFL” and that they might support a new stadium if the team can “prove itself” in terms of demand.

The Greens’ policy is to have the team based fully out of York Park, but they live in a fantasy world so their views can be taken with a grain of salt. Therefore, it’s easy for them to promote these kind of unviable ideas as they know their base will lap it up, but they’ll never be accountable to actually implementing them.

If Liberal form minority government (the most likely outcome) then both Houses of Parliament will have to vote on the stadium next year after the POSS process has been completed. Hopefully when Liberal form minority government they arrange deals with independents etc to sure-up enough support for the stadium. This would mean that the independents and possibly Lambie Network hold the balance of power, instead of the Greens (no one wants to do deals with them).

If Liberal can’t convince all members of their minority government to support the stadium then it’s still not dead. When the final parliamentary vote after POSS becomes essentially no stadium = no team, then I don’t think Labor will be stupid enough to vote against the stadium and kill the team.

Labor will have a new leader soon, so I hold hope that this would see Labor form a more pragmatic position on the issue. They could have killed the stadium already when there was a vote to initiate the POSS process last year, but they voted in favour, which kind of highlights their inconsistent messaging regarding the stadium.

 

[TassieSaint]

The outcome of all this serves literally no one. Labor were never going to win majority I will forever resent the political opportunism in trying to use the stadium to wedge the libs and in the process making it far more controversial than it needs to be.

The only savings grace here is that it's in no one's interest (political or otherwise) to kill the team at this point and hopefully there can be some compromise. NFI how that works though if it's Lambie members needed for minority government.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The outcome of all this serves literally no one. Labor were never going to win majority I will forever resent the political opportunism in trying to use the stadium to wedge the libs and in the process making it far more controversial than it needs to be.

The only savings grace here is that it's in no one's interest (political or otherwise) to kill the team at this point and hopefully there can be some compromise. NFI how that works though if it's Lambie members needed for minority government.

Lambie is big on supportive disadvantaged members of the community, so a starting point for her would likely be more funding and support for social services. With her military background as well, I think we might find that the RSL will be reaching out to Lambie members with concerns about the impact of the stadium on the cenotaph. The project may then have to incorporate some of their needs more effectively like the 2.0 proposal had.

 

[Jayman15]

Our “future” Tas FC CEO Brendan Gale on 3AW 24/3:

Brendon Gale breaks silence on links to Tasmania CEO role - 3AW is Football

Richmond CEO Brendon Gale joins Tony Shaw, Matthew Richardson and Jimmy Bartel in the box.

omny.fm

 

[Mogumber]

ok thanks Cunnington. How much is the $ cost again? And isn't there some dispute on the proposed location?
I'm just a rookie here, so please bear with me!
Also, what's the deal with the roof? Why does it have to have a roof?

 

[madmug]

ok thanks Cunnington. How much is the $ cost again? And isn't there some dispute on the proposed location?
I'm just a rookie here, so please bear with me!
Also, what's the deal with the roof? Why does it have to have a roof?

Ah, the roof! No one really seems to know why a roof. Its not as if we get snow or even lots of rain, being the second driest capital next to Adelaide.
None the less, it'll make the venue weather proof for any events at any time. Whether that be for night footy, T20 cricket or the various concert gigs they might attract.
I guess it gives absolute certainty to any event that conditions will be perfect..

 

[Hodgey 15]

Our “future” Tas FC CEO Brendan Gale on 3AW 24/3:

Brendon Gale breaks silence on links to Tasmania CEO role - 3AW is Football

Richmond CEO Brendon Gale joins Tony Shaw, Matthew Richardson and Jimmy Bartel in the box.

omny.fm

Gale playing the straight bat as expected.

On SM-S906E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

ok thanks Cunnington. How much is the $ cost again? And isn't there some dispute on the proposed location?
I'm just a rookie here, so please bear with me!
Also, what's the deal with the roof? Why does it have to have a roof?

At this stage, it’s being described as a $715m project, with the state government contribution being $375m. The final design with more accurate costings will be released later this year and many are tipping it will be more than $715m. During the election, Rockliff said that the state government spending will be capped at $375m and they’ll be seeking funding from the private sector if more is required and to insure against cost overruns (whether or not they can secure private sector partners is unknown at this stage).

There was a site selection report commissioned by the government (below), which outlined Macquarie Point and (nearby) Regatta Point as the two best inner-city locations by an overwhelming margin. The report also demonstrates why it’s not possible to upgrade existing venues like Bellerive and North Hobart. Unfortunately, this report is rarely mentioned in the media, so people keep raising alternative stadium ideas that were ruled out as options years ago. Regatta Point is the location for the proposed 2.0 public-private stadium precinct plan led by Dean Coleman’s consortium, which is at this stage unfavored by the government because they have a preference for the Mac Point site and keeping their status as the major stakeholder in the project.

The Mac Point location is controversial because it’s the last remaining site near Hobart’s CBD, located behind the historic waterfront area, so some locals are concerned about the effect it might have on the aesthetics of the area. Mac Point was also originally slated to be developed into a truth and reconciliation art park; however, since it’s now the preferred stadium site, the plans are for the size of the park to be downscaled. To further complicate matters the Hobart cenotaph will overlook the Mac Point site so the RSL are concerned about what the impact will be on them and the lack of consultation they have received from the government so far.

In regards to the roof, it’s needed to improve the stadium economics by securing more content and larger attendances. Hobart is cold and windy in winter, so a roof will clearly improve crowds and the quality of footy during the season. Unlike Adelaide Oval and Optus Stadium, there’ll be only one footy club as a tenant of Mac Point stadium and that will only be 7-8 games per season, as it’s a state side that will also play 3-4 games in Launnie. They need more content and that’s another point where the roof comes into play.

The Hurricanes will play some cricket there and the AFLW side, but that still won’t be enough, so the roof will help the venue become a more attractive option for hosting concerts and festivals because it will be the second largest capacity roofed stadium in the country (after Marvel). Tassie already misses out on many of these events because of population, but they also don’t have an existing indoor venue that can cater for crowds over 10k, so there’s a need for a bigger capacity indoor venue for Tassie if they hope to secure these types of events in the future.

The proposed roof will be a perspex roof like Forsyth Barr stadium in Dunedin, NZ. This is way cheaper than a Marvel-style roof and will allow natural light to come through, which partly reduces the ongoing maintenance costs with the grass/surface. This has all been thoroughly researched for years. The club won’t be viable without a new stadium and the stadium probably won’t be viable without a roof, so one way or another, it just has to get done.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/412435/2._Hobart_Stadium_-_Site_Selection_Process_Report_-_MCS_Management_and_Consulting_in_conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf

 

[Pure_Ownage]

York Park has a role to play, but as a secondary venue only of 3-4 games per season. Bellerive cannot be upgraded to the required standard so a new Hobart stadium has to be built (e.g. no stadium = no team).

Initially, Labor tried to promote a no stadium position; however, they must have read the tea leaves after meeting with the AFL because their language softened in the lead up to the election. For example, saying they want to “re-negotiate the contract with the AFL” and that they might support a new stadium if the team can “prove itself” in terms of demand.

The Greens’ policy is to have the team based fully out of York Park, but they live in a fantasy world so their views can be taken with a grain of salt. Therefore, it’s easy for them to promote these kind of unviable ideas as they know their base will lap it up, but they’ll never be accountable to actually implementing them.

If Liberal form minority government (the most likely outcome) then both Houses of Parliament will have to vote on the stadium next year after the POSS process has been completed. Hopefully when Liberal form minority government they arrange deals with independents etc to sure-up enough support for the stadium. This would mean that the independents and possibly Lambie Network hold the balance of power, instead of the Greens (no one wants to do deals with them).

If Liberal can’t convince all members of their minority government to support the stadium then it’s still not dead. When the final parliamentary vote after POSS becomes essentially no stadium = no team, then I don’t think Labor will be stupid enough to vote against the stadium and kill the team.

Labor will have a new leader soon, so I hold hope that this would see Labor form a more pragmatic position on the issue. They could have killed the stadium already when there was a vote to initiate the POSS process last year, but they voted in favour, which kind of highlights their inconsistent messaging regarding the stadium.

I broadly agree with that but a couple of things.

1. Independents and lambie are just as unpredictable as the greens (if not more so) so im not sure negotiating a deal with them on the stadium is as straightforward as that and

2. In your latter scenario i dont think labor would vote no and kill everything. I think they would make a yes vote conditional on things like removing the late delivery penalties in the contract (as you know ive said from the start that clause was ridiculous when every other major project in the country atm shows you this probably wont be done by 2030) and by inserting new clauses that mean if the cost blows out from 750mil (which it likely will) then the afl is responsible to pay an agreed % of that rather than the whole burden falling on the taxpayer.
They will then push it back on rockliff and the afl to get those changes done.

But time will tell.

 

[Jazny]

OK that's even more confusing. What about upgrading the Hobart stadium?
* the AFL, it's the Tassie people that should own this team, not some Vicco's throbbing their own members.
If the Greens have the balance of power, they won't let the Libs finance a stadium

They are irrelevant if Labor backs it. Labor are way more pro than Greens will ever be.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I broadly agree with that but a couple of things.

1. Independents and lambie are just as unpredictable as the greens (if not more so) so im not sure negotiating a deal with them on the stadium is as straightforward as that and

2. In your latter scenario i dont think labor would vote no and kill everything. I think they would make a yes vote conditional on things like removing the late delivery penalties in the contract (as you know ive said from the start that clause was ridiculous when every other major project in the country atm shows you this probably wont be done by 2030) and by inserting new clauses that mean if the cost blows out from 750mil (which it likely will) then the afl is responsible to pay an agreed % of that rather than the whole burden falling on the taxpayer.
They will then push it back on rockliff and the afl to get those changes done.

But time will tell.

1. I might be off the mark here, but I’m basing this on the belief that if Liberal get 15 seats then they’ll only need the support of three other parliamentarians to get their majority of 18 for the stadium (and this is before Labor even enters the equation). David O’Byrne (Independent and Southern Football League President) is very much pro-stadium, so he will not take much convincing to vote for it. There will be two Lambie members. Jacqui has been anti-stadium publicly; however, when you read the excerpt from her website about the stadium (attached) then it reads as if they could be swayed on this issue (certainly more likely than anything I’ve ever seen from the Greens). Kirstie Johnstone (independent) has been staunch anti-stadium and she hasn’t given any indication so far that she will budge on the issue. Fortunately for Rockliff, he probably won’t need her support if he can work a deal with the two Lambie members because he’ll have the numbers (by the barest of margins). I’d say the Greens members are the least unpredictable of all because they’re the most anti-stadium group out there.

2. I hope that can eventuate because it would be hugely beneficial in terms of securing support. It would require a significant u-turn from the AFL though, which they aren’t obliged to do since the contract is already signed. The AFL are making significant contributions already, particularly when the $360m funding package is taken into consideration. During the election, Rockliff already said that government funding would be capped at $375m “and not a red cent over”. Therefore, he must have a plan in place for funding in the event of cost blowouts that protects the taxpayer. This would also be crucial in terms of getting the support of parliament. I hope the picture becomes clearer over the next few weeks, otherwise we’ll be left hanging until the conclusion of the POSS process which will take up to 12 months before it has run its course.

 

[peetoo]

Funny think it’s if they get Hobart new stadium with roof and upgraded yours park both around 23k capacity and this proves inadequate
Remember part of the govts enthusiasm is the tourism it will generate. But tourists won’t come if stadium is full every week

Ironically York park would probably be easier to expand capacity

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Funny think it’s if they get Hobart new stadium with roof and upgraded yours park both around 23k capacity and this proves inadequate
Remember part of the govts enthusiasm is the tourism it will generate. But tourists won’t come if stadium is full every week

Ironically York park would probably be easier to expand capacity

People have said due to the big membership uptake which is now about 170,000 they may need consider a bigger capacity. I think 30,000 is what it really needs to be but im not sure how that works now considering the business plan is built around a smaller capacity.

 

[FilthyMule]

People have said due to the big membership uptake which is now about 170,000 they may need consider a bigger capacity. I think 30,000 is what it really needs to be but im not sure how that works now considering the business plan is built around a smaller capacity.

I think how cheap if you will the founding membership cost is will not exactly translate into how much people are willing to pay to watch the actual games when the Devils start playing in the AFL. Don't get me wrong, the excitement in Tasmania and in general is real and awesome to see, but will be interesting to see how it holds up a couple of years from now if you will.

I think 23k is fine for now as long as more capacity can be added on easily if need be.

Wished I live in Hobart haha, but will come over from the USA to watch as many games as I can, finances permitting, as it is not cheap to fly that far!

 

[Mr Tassie]

I think how cheap if you will the founding membership cost is will not exactly translate into how much people are willing to pay to watch the actual games when the Devils start playing in the AFL. Don't get me wrong, the excitement in Tasmania and in general is real and awesome to see, but will be interesting to see how it holds up a couple of years from now if you will.

I think 23k is fine for now as long as more capacity can be added on easily if need be.

Wished I live in Hobart haha, but will come over from the USA to watch as many games as I can, finances permitting, as it is not cheap to fly that far!

I think if we can get around a quater of this number signed to season memberships in year one it will be a great result. I'm thinking that 28,000 needs to be the capacity straight away because it will probably cost more to do it later although I'm no expert.

 

[Tandy]

I want increase capacity but they'll need more money which won't happen. And you can't sell it to them as more tourism dollars because they refuse to acknowledge and consider this as it is.

 

[Perry Pie]

A fundamental point about the roof is will it pay for itself by providing a venue for substantially more events. That bit of simple calculation needs to be made on that, one based on realistic use.
Design is critical too. AFL grounds are very big, how the new stadium is laid out will be critical for the alternative uses. Will require some inventive thinking.
More games needed in Hobart to use the stadium... AFL need to be creative on that one, Devils should be quietly pushing to put that on the table.
Finally, if it's at Mac Point it has to be a fantastic landmark, cheap looking will be a disaster.

 

[Tandy]

Does the recent JLN politician leaving the party and going independent mean anything stadium wise? From the article I read it seems like she still likes Lambie even though she got the boot. Was asked to leave.

 

[Sphynx]

OK that's even more confusing. What about upgrading the Hobart stadium?
* the AFL, it's the Tassie people that should own this team, not some Vicco's throbbing their own members.
If the Greens have the balance of power, they won't let the Libs finance a stadium

You don’t seem to understand the structure of the AFL.

It’s owned by the clubs, not the sporting body.

The decision of the AFL executive needs to go to a vote of the clubs to be ratified.

I have heard a few club presidents in the last few weeks speak on Tasmania all were of a very similar view.

A business case was presented to the AFL clubs regarding Tasmania with a stadium and a roof at its core.

If that business case is to change, it needs to go back to the clubs for a vote.

All of the presidents to a tee said “Good luck” if it doesn’t contain the original stadium.

Tasmania FC would essentially be given an ownership share of a multi billion dollar sporting organization, at the same time the current clubs will be agreeing to a diluted share and years of compromised drafts.

You don’t get that for free with minimal crappy upgrades of what currently amounts to country stadiums.

If the Tasmanian people and government want to buy a share of the AFL and everything that goes with it, cough up.

 

[peetoo]

Does the revenant JLN politician leaving the party and going independent mean anything stadium wise? From the article I read it seems like she still likes Lambie even though she got the boot. Was asked to leave.

That was quick

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Wasn't sure where to put this but, for the designers out there, how would the Tassie Devils ladder pieces look?

 

[Jayman15]

Sam McClure on 3AW 24/4 - Tassie looking at Blair Hartley as well as Benny Gale

 

[Jimmybob]

Sam McClure on 3AW 24/4 - Tassie looking at Blair Hartley as well as Benny Gale

Tough seeing this but it was always going to be the case. Vultures!

 

[Jayman15]

Sam McClure The Age article following on his comments on radio re: Gale, Hartley & delayed timeline re: stadium. Loves his anonymous sources

https://archive.vn/Kkn7s

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Sam McClure The Age article following on his comments on radio re: Gale, Hartley & delayed timeline re: stadium. Loves his anonymous sources

https://archive.vn/Kkn7s

Since the POSS was announced there have been multiple Tas politicians who’ve stated that the vote on the stadium won’t occur until 2025. Since day dot, everyone has also stated that the stadium won’t be hosting games until 2029. This completion date is written into the contract with the AFL and is also in the business case for the stadium (image below). McClure must not have anything of note to write about, because he isn’t reporting anything that hasn’t been discussed for the last 9-10 months.