I don't know, but it's probably worth it. A stadium used dozens of times a year is a far better use of land than showgrounds that have one major event per year. If that costs a chunk of money, so be it.How much you think that might cost to buy them out (assuming that's an easy process which I can guarantee it wouldn't be)?
By what measure? Pure cost? Because there are benefits outside of that. For example, the Lions not having to move for 4-5 years and still getting a new stadium at the end of the day.I can hazard a guess and then if you add in the cost of demolishing buildings, dealing with heritage buildings/structures and the cost of actually building a new stadium, it's doubtful you're going to be any better off than the situation we find ourselves in now.
So be it. The cost of land is lower at Boondall, there's still railway access and ample parking. I'd rather move the RNA than move a school.Even then you haven't factored in the cost of the RNA building new facilities, which you'd have to either do for them or compensate them for.
Still a bad use of public money given its improving someone else's asset.Public money will (presumably) be spent on it as it's (a) earmarked to be an Olympic venue; (b) the deal that Qld Cricket and we have with Stadiums Qld will likely have some sort of provision as to inconvenience to long-term tenants; (c) although privately-owned, it does fill a public need and will into the future. It wouldn't surprise me though if here's some dialogue happening with the RNA and/or the IOC about needing to kick in some more money.
So what?I know you're just spit balling, but honestly this is akin to the search for our headquarters by trawling for green space on Google Maps.