Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[Cunnington Cartel]

Returning to this comment, to win the battle, finding a way to meet people's concerns is more useful than dismissing them as bitter and twisted. The pro-stadium movement need to find a way to assure people that the cost won't go over $715 million, and the Liberal Party in particular need to show they're taking healthcare and housing seriously. Then people might change their stance. Perhaps they could propose the AFL grant a licence with the guarantee of building a new stadium 10-15 years in, buying them time to do something about healthcare and housing now.

1. The stadium design (and more accurate estimation of cost) hasn’t been finalised yet.

2. The Liberal government have done a pathetic job in educating the public about the benefits of this project (although it’s not helpful when so much misinformation has been shared by the other camp).

3. The government are investing record amounts into health and housing. It will never be enough due to Tasmania’s unique demographic and economic challenges.

4. A major justification for this project is to “grow the economy”. Making it more diversified by opening the state up to events, industries and jobs they’ve never had the chance to attract in the past. This will certainly not fix some of the issues mentioned, but it will be a step in the right direction.

4. The club will run at a loss if they have to play at Blundstone Arena that long. They’ll also fail to attract and retain players and spectators (particularly interstate visitors) if they’re operating out of the worst home ground (by a long way) in the entire league. This has been considered and ruled out by those who prepared the business case as well as the AFL and its 18 clubs. If you’re going to do it, you have to do it properly.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Their concerns with the project are primarily financial, yet they’re basing most of their arguments on the Mac Point Stadium’s projected CBA and the deal the Premier signed with the AFL.

Because that's the best indication we have on what the costs and benefits will be. What other figures should they use?

When the entire project is analysed (stadium + team) then their arguments don’t stack up because they’re primarily based on misconceptions or analysing the stadium in isolation.

What misconceptions? What should they be analysing the stadium in conjunction with? The existing analysis already assumes an AFL team playing 7 games a year.

Thus, ignoring the fact that the entire business model of the club is based on a yield that an 11k-seat Blundstone Arena cannot provide. Hence, the team cannot be successful or profitable without a bigger, more modern stadium

I feel like you're missing the point of their argument. They do not want to pay for a new stadium for 7 games a year. And if that means no team, they consider that a better outcome than paying for a new stadium for 7 games a year.

Also, if the club is going to be profitable with the stadium, why does the government also need to commit to tipping in subsidies for the first 12 years?

and the stadium won’t attract enough content without a team.

Of course. Nobody in Tasmania is proposing to build a stadium without a team.

They’re also ignoring the stimulus that gaining 4 higher-drawing games per season in Launceston will provide.

I reckon that stimulus won't be all that much greater than the current four games per season. Do you have statistics to prove that it will be?

I disagree with them because at best, they’re gullible or lazy, at worst they’re dishonest or stupid.

This is called extremism. How sad that they can't all be as wise and intelligent as you.

1. The stadium design (and more accurate estimation of cost) hasn’t been finalised yet.

Do you think it's going to go up or down?

3. The government are investing record amounts into health and housing. It will never be enough due to Tasmania’s unique demographic and economic challenges.

Then it seems like a bad idea to prevent further spending on those things if they're such a constant need.

Also, every government routinely invests record amounts into things, because inflation increases dollar figures for the same real amount of spending.

4. A major justification for this project is to “grow the economy”. Making it more diversified by opening the state up to events, industries and jobs they’ve never had the chance to attract in the past. This will certainly not fix some of the issues mentioned, but it will be a step in the right direction.

What industries and jobs do you mean? Why would funding a stadium be more effective for that than, say, business subsidies?

4. The club will run at a loss if they have to play at Blundstone Arena that long. They’ll also fail to attract and retain players and spectators (particularly interstate visitors) if they’re operating out of the worst home ground (by a long way) in the entire league. This has been considered and ruled out by those who prepared the business case as well as the AFL and its 18 clubs. If you’re going to do it, you have to do it properly.

That doesn't mean people want to pay the price for it. They're entitled to have their view. It's up to the pro-stadium people to convince them that it's a price worth paying.

 

[Section 5]

The figure you’re quoting for Launceston is only the Launceston City Council Area, which does not include several of Launceston’s biggest suburbs. When the other councils in and around the Greater Launceston area are considered (West Tamar, Meander Valley and Northern Midlands) then the number is about 120k. There’s also another 90k+ on NW Coast, which is between 50 min and 2hrs drive from Launceston (yet 3-4 hours drive from Hobart).



You say Brisbane has a lot more going for it than Tasmania. I moved from Tas and now live in Brisbane. IMO it has SOME things going for it, but I’ll tell you what it doesn’t have - it doesn’t have the widespread level of passion, community support and heritage for this game that Tasmania does (and I doubt it ever will).

Your local knowledge of Launceston is better than mine. I just googled population and those were the results.
However, the Stadium is to be in Hobart anyhow and the population of Tasmania would only be around the 600,000 mark in 2024.
Below ABS figures from the last census in 2021.

Regarding the bolded i was talking about Brisbane in 1987 compared to Tasmania in 2024.
Regarding the widespread passion i have no idea if that would be correct or not.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Because that's the best indication we have on what the costs and benefits will be. What other figures should they use?

Clearly, the stadium CBA is a major factor. It’s not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration though. The construction of a new, roofed multipurpose stadium was a condition of the contract for the 19th license that the Premier signed with Gill McLaughlan. So I’ll say it again, the AFL team and stadium are inextricably linked and if your argument is an economic one, then you cannot base the value of the entire deal on the stadium alone.

The stadium business case and the team’s business case (attached below) both placed the value of the AFL & AFLW teams to the state’s economy at $120m per annum. If the stadium deficit (over a 20 year period) is $306m, then those deficits will be easily covered by the yearly $120m boost from the club that won’t exist without a new stadium.
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

What misconceptions? What should they be analysing the stadium in conjunction with? The existing analysis already assumes an AFL team playing 7 games a year.

I could give plenty more, but here are a few common misconceptions shared by the “no” group.

1. No other club has been required to build a new stadium (as a condition of entry). We have two stadiums that are perfectly fine that we already cannot fill.

Incorrect. Metricon Stadium was completely rebuilt before the Suns entered the comp. Giants Stadium wasn’t completely rebuilt but it underwent a major refurb before GWS entered as well. A new site wasn’t required for either of these venues because they weren’t in the middle of residential area like Blundstone.

2. Why does Tasmania need to play home games at two home grounds? No other AFL club hosts games at two different grounds.

Hawthorn, North, Bulldogs, Suns and GWS all currently host games at secondary venues.

3. There’s not enough space at Mac Point for a stadium.

The site selection report (attached below) suggests otherwise. In fact, it also rules out some of the often suggested alternative sites for this very reason e.g. Blundstone, North Hobart, some of the TCA sites etc.

4. The AFL should fund the stadium if they want it so bad.

When has the AFL ever fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past? When has any Australian sporting body fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past - I can’t think of any examples. Ridiculous argument!

5. Money is being diverted from health and housing to pay for the stadium.

The fact of the matter is that health and housing are currently receiving record amounts of state government funding. This argument is also overlooking the $240m of federal government funding to the stadium and the $365m package for the Tas AFL team, community football, talent pathways and funding towards the stadium. Over $600m of external funding the state will not receive if the stadium is not built.

I feel like you're missing the point of their argument. They do not want to pay for a new stadium for 7 games a year. And if that means no team, they consider that a better outcome than paying for a new stadium for 7 games a year.

Also, if the club is going to be profitable with the stadium, why does the government also need to commit to tipping in subsidies for the first 12 years?

They won’t be paying for a new stadium for 7 games per year, because it’s a multipurpose stadium. The stadium business case is based around an annual event calendar of 44 events, which is 28 more than what Blundstone Arena currently hosts.

Because it’s expensive to establish a new club in the most expensive sporting league in the country. Look at the AFL’s annual special distribution data per AFL club. More than 10 years on and GC and GWS are still receiving way more funding than any other club. The government’s plan is that their funding will remain for the initial 12 years of the club so they can establish a fanbase and alternative revenue streams and be less reliant on government support.

This argument is also neglecting to acknowledge that the government is already directly and indirectly tipping in about $8m pa to Hawthorn and North Melbourne so two interstate clubs can play low-drawing games down there. A few extra million is a small price to pay to attract additional games and games involving the more widely supported clubs.

I reckon that stimulus won't be all that much greater than the current four games per season. Do you have statistics to prove that it will be?

I would dispute that entirely - what are you basing your opinions on?

Look at the crowds for UTAS stadium. In the early days Hawthorn were regularly attracting crowds of 15-20k. Now they’re barely getting 10k. The novelty has worn off and people are sick of being given scrappy games used to make interstate clubs richer - we want our own side. During Covid, the Essendon v Bulldogs final sold out in under an hour (at 50% reduced capacity but the point remains) so the appetite is there for good games.

Don’t forget these are interstate clubs that most Tasmanian footy fans don’t support. Do you honestly think the demand for games involving a homegrown side will not exceed those hosted by Hawks and Roos?

The state and federal governments must be anticipating higher demand because they’re investing $65m each towards stage 1 and 2 of the UTAS redevelopment. This development will increase capacity to 23k. This project isn’t going ahead due to Hawthorn’s dwindling crowds at the venue, I suspect that it’s happening because they anticipate that a locally-based side will attract bigger crowds and will require more modern stands and amenities to encourage more people to purchase reserved seating memberships at higher prices.

UTAS Stadium Crowds (York Park / University of Tasmania Stadium) | Austadiums

UTAS Stadium Redevelopment | Infrastructure Tasmania

www.infrastructure.tas.gov.au

This is called extremism. How sad that they can't all be as wise and intelligent as you.

What, as opposed to your extreme condescension?

Everyone is entitled to their views. I’ve seen so much vitriol from the stadium opponents, however, that I’ve decided to push back when I see things I don’t agree with. If you don’t like that then I don’t care.

I’d say that with my background living in Tassie, being heavily involved in community footy and attending AFL games there for several decades, so I have as much right as anyone to share my views on this topic. Does this make me incredibly biased, absolutely. Does it mean that I’ve taken the time to analyse the documents below - yep.

I must ask, are you Tasmanian? If not, have you lived there before? Interested to know what you are basing your views on.

Do you think it's going to go up or down?

We’ll find that out later this year when the design is actually finished. This has been another bug bear of mine. Why doesn’t everyone take a breath until the work is done?

A few things to consider is that the government has asked them to keep the design within their budget (so certain design features may be left out), the capacity of the stadium is not huge (23k), a lot of the site preparation has already been completed, and the permanent, transparent roof will ensure that it’s a lot cheaper than one with a retractable roof would be.

Then it seems like a bad idea to prevent further spending on those things if they're such a constant need.

Also, every government routinely invests record amounts into things, because inflation increases dollar figures for the same real amount of spending.

In many cases you would have a point here, but Tasmania’s demographic trends are that it has the oldest population in the country and routinely loses young people to interstate (further diminishing the tax base). Tasmanians are also regularly flying to Melbourne for footy games, to attend concerts etc.

This stadium will help Hobart be a more exciting place to live in terms of major events and as I’ve already explained long-term the entire deal (stadium + team) is an economic win for the state so the state will actually be worse off if there’s no AFL team and no stadium. Therefore, there’s fewer entertainment options for the public, less money to fund the essential services and less money flowing into community sport (due to missing out on the AFL funding), which we all know acts as a preventative health measure.

What industries and jobs do you mean? Why would funding a stadium be more effective for that than, say, business subsidies?

I don’t know the pros and cons of stadium v subsidies, I’m not an economist, so I’ll stick to the reports compiled by professionals who work in that space.

The club’s business case says that independent modelling showed that a permanent AFL team would add 250 full time footy tourism-related jobs and the club itself would add a further 116 full time jobs.

The stadium will open up further opportunities in the events management space and a stadium precinct will contain commercial and residential zoning, the proposed Tasmanian sports museum and hall of fame, and provide an impetus for the construction of light rail on a disused line and an expansion to Hobart’s ferry network.

The stadium economic impact assessment has some interesting insights regarding other benefits for the Tasmanian economy and further justification for the team and stadium.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...tadium_Economic_Impact_Assessment_PwC_1.0.pdf

That doesn't mean people want to pay the price for it. They're entitled to have their view. It's up to the pro-stadium people to convince them that it's a price worth paying.

There are plenty of Tasmanians who do think it’s a price worth paying. I know heaps of people who can’t wait to buy season tickets. There’s a pro-stadium group on Facebook with way more members than the “no” group.

All Tasmanians know there are a prominent group of regressive locals who have tried to hold the state to ransom and prohibit progress for decades. They are extremely vocal regarding the AFL team contract and stadium and there have been numerous instances of them (and Green and Labor pollies) trotting out misinformation to try and manipulate others into joining their bandwagon.

Have you seen the bogus artist’s impression of what the stadium would look like? It was intentionally ghastly and deceptive.

After reading many of their arguments I believe they simply know very little about sport or football and haven’t read most of the documents I’ve shared with you - they’ve simply latched on to certain figures within that suit their agenda without looking at the whole project in its entirety. They bully anyone who disputes their claims so I’ve made a decision to fight fire with fire.

Fortunately, their views will have little impact on the final decision about the stadium. It is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which should separate the fact from the fiction and then it will be voted on by both Houses of Parliament in just over one year. There’s no viable alternative for a stadium design anywhere in inner-city Hobart (except for the 2.0 proposal at Regatta Point) - that should be taken into consideration. We just need to sit back and let the process unfold.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AFL_Taskforce_Report_Tasmania.pdf



https://footyindustry.com/docs/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/..._conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Clearly, the stadium CBA is a major factor. It’s not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration though. The construction of a new, roofed multipurpose stadium was a condition of the contract for the 19th license that the Premier signed with Gill McLaughlan. So I’ll say it again, the AFL team and stadium are inextricably linked and if your argument is an economic one, then you cannot base the value of the entire deal on the stadium alone.

The stadium business case and the team’s business case (attached below) both placed the value of the AFL & AFLW teams to the state’s economy at $120m per annum. If the stadium deficit (over a 20 year period) is $306m, then those deficits will be easily covered by the yearly $120m boost from the club that won’t exist without a new stadium.
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

I could give plenty more, but here are a few common misconceptions shared by the “no” group.

1. No other club has been required to build a new stadium (as a condition of entry). We have two stadiums that are perfectly fine that we already cannot fill.

Incorrect. Metricon Stadium was completely rebuilt before the Suns entered the comp. Giants Stadium wasn’t completely rebuilt but it underwent a major refurb before GWS entered as well. A new site wasn’t required for either of these venues because they weren’t in the middle of residential area like Blundstone.

2. Why does Tasmania need to play home games at two home grounds? No other AFL club hosts games at two different grounds.

Hawthorn, North, Bulldogs, Suns and GWS all currently host games at secondary venues.

3. There’s not enough space at Mac Point for a stadium.

The site selection report (attached below) suggests otherwise. In fact, it also rules out some of the often suggested alternative sites for this very reason e.g. Blundstone, North Hobart, some of the TCA sites etc.

4. The AFL should fund the stadium if they want it so bad.

When has the AFL ever fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past? When has any Australian sporting body fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past - I can’t think of any examples. Ridiculous argument!

5. Money is being diverted from health and housing to pay for the stadium.

The fact of the matter is that health and housing are currently receiving record amounts of state government funding. This argument is also overlooking the $240m of federal government funding to the stadium and the $365m package for the Tas AFL team, community football, talent pathways and funding towards the stadium. Over $600m of external funding the state will not receive if the stadium is not built.


They won’t be paying for a new stadium for 7 games per year, because it’s a multipurpose stadium. The stadium business case is based around an annual event calendar of 44 events, which is 28 more than what Blundstone Arena currently hosts.

Because it’s expensive to establish a new club in the most expensive sporting league in the country. Look at the AFL’s annual special distribution data per AFL club. More than 10 years on and GC and GWS are still receiving way more funding than any other club. The government’s plan is that their funding will remain for the initial 12 years of the club so they can establish a fanbase and alternative revenue streams and be less reliant on government support.

This argument is also neglecting to acknowledge that the government is already directly and indirectly tipping in about $8m pa to Hawthorn and North Melbourne so two interstate clubs can play low-drawing games down there. A few extra million is a small price to pay to attract additional games and games involving the more widely supported clubs.

I would dispute that entirely - what are you basing your opinions on?

Look at the crowds for UTAS stadium. In the early days Hawthorn were regularly attracting crowds of 15-20k. Now they’re barely getting 10k. The novelty has worn off and people are sick of being given scrappy games used to make interstate clubs richer - we want our own side. During Covid, the Essendon v Bulldogs final sold out in under an hour (at 50% reduced capacity but the point remains) so the appetite is there for good games.

Don’t forget these are interstate clubs that most Tasmanian footy fans don’t support. Do you honestly think the demand for games involving a homegrown side will not exceed those hosted by Hawks and Roos?

UTAS Stadium Crowds (York Park / University of Tasmania Stadium) | Austadiums


What, as opposed to your extreme condescension?

Everyone is entitled to their views. I’ve seen so much vitriol from the stadium opponents, however, that I’ve decided to push back when I see things I don’t agree with. If you don’t like that then I don’t care.

I’d say that with my background living in Tassie, being heavily involved in community footy and attending AFL games there for several decades, so I have as much right as anyone to share my views on this topic. Does this make me incredibly biased, absolutely. Does it mean that I’ve taken the time to analyse the documents below - yep.

I must ask, are you Tasmanian? If not, have you lived there before? Interested to know what you are basing your views on.


We’ll find that out later this year when the design is actually finished. This has been another bug bear of mine. Why doesn’t everyone take a breath until the work is done?

A few things to consider is that the government has asked them to keep the design within their budget (so certain design features may be left out), the capacity of the stadium is not huge (23k), a lot of the site preparation has already been completed, and the permanent, transparent roof will ensure that it’s a lot cheaper than one with a retractable roof would be.


In many cases you would have a point here, but Tasmania’s demographic trends are that it has the oldest population in the country and routinely loses young people to interstate (further diminishing the tax base). Tasmanians are also regularly flying to Melbourne for footy games, to attend concerts etc.

This stadium will help Hobart be a more exciting place to live in terms of major events and as I’ve already explained long-term the entire deal (stadium + team) is an economic win for the state so the state will actually be worse off if there’s no AFL team and no stadium. Therefore, there’s fewer entertainment options for the public, less money to fund the essential services and less money flowing into community sport (due to missing out on the AFL funding), which we all know acts as a preventative health measure.


I don’t know the pros and cons of stadium v subsidies, I’m not an economist, so I’ll stick to the reports compiled by professionals who work in that space.

The club’s business case says that independent modelling showed that a permanent AFL team would add 250 full time footy tourism-related jobs and the club itself would add a further 116 full time jobs.

The stadium will open up further opportunities in the events management space and a stadium precinct will contain commercial and residential zoning, the proposed Tasmanian sports museum and hall of fame, and provide an impetus for the construction of light rail on a disused line and an expansion to Hobart’s ferry network.

The stadium economic impact assessment has some interesting insights regarding other benefits for the Tasmanian economy and further justification for the team and stadium.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...tadium_Economic_Impact_Assessment_PwC_1.0.pdf


There are plenty of Tasmanians who do think it’s a price worth paying. I know heaps of people who can’t wait to buy season tickets. There’s a pro-stadium group on Facebook with way more members than the “no” group.

All Tasmanians know there are a prominent group of regressive locals who have tried to hold the state to ransom and prohibit progress for decades. They are extremely vocal regarding the AFL team contract and stadium and there have been numerous instances of them (and Green and Labor pollies) trotting out misinformation to try and manipulate others into joining their bandwagon.

Have you seen the bogus artist’s impression of what the stadium would look like? It was intentionally ghastly and deceptive.

After reading many of their arguments I believe they simply know very little about sport or football and haven’t read most of the documents I’ve shared with you - they’ve simply latched on to certain figures within that suit their agenda without looking at the whole project in its entirety. They bully anyone who disputes their claims so I’ve made a decision to fight fire with fire.

Fortunately, their views will have little impact on the final decision about the stadium. It is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which should separate the fact from the fiction and then it will be voted on by both Houses of Parliament in just over one year. There’s no viable alternative for a stadium design anywhere in inner-city Hobart (except for the 2.0 proposal at Regatta Point) - that should be taken into consideration. We just need to sit back and let the process unfold.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AFL_Taskforce_Report_Tasmania.pdf



https://footyindustry.com/docs/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/..._conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

You have done a great job on this. I think people don't understand if the POSS doesn't consider it a good deal for Tasmania then they won't recommend it for approval.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

You have done a great job on this. I think people don't understand if the POSS doesn't consider it a good deal for Tasmania then they won't recommend it for approval.

Thank you. Yes, that’s what it all boils down to. I’m optimistic though because I think that it is a good deal overall.

 

[Tandy]

Clearly, the stadium CBA is a major factor. It’s not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration though. The construction of a new, roofed multipurpose stadium was a condition of the contract for the 19th license that the Premier signed with Gill McLaughlan. So I’ll say it again, the AFL team and stadium are inextricably linked and if your argument is an economic one, then you cannot base the value of the entire deal on the stadium alone.

The stadium business case and the team’s business case (attached below) both placed the value of the AFL & AFLW teams to the state’s economy at $120m per annum. If the stadium deficit (over a 20 year period) is $306m, then those deficits will be easily covered by the yearly $120m boost from the club that won’t exist without a new stadium.
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

I could give plenty more, but here are a few common misconceptions shared by the “no” group.

1. No other club has been required to build a new stadium (as a condition of entry). We have two stadiums that are perfectly fine that we already cannot fill.

Incorrect. Metricon Stadium was completely rebuilt before the Suns entered the comp. Giants Stadium wasn’t completely rebuilt but it underwent a major refurb before GWS entered as well. A new site wasn’t required for either of these venues because they weren’t in the middle of residential area like Blundstone.

2. Why does Tasmania need to play home games at two home grounds? No other AFL club hosts games at two different grounds.

Hawthorn, North, Bulldogs, Suns and GWS all currently host games at secondary venues.

3. There’s not enough space at Mac Point for a stadium.

The site selection report (attached below) suggests otherwise. In fact, it also rules out some of the often suggested alternative sites for this very reason e.g. Blundstone, North Hobart, some of the TCA sites etc.

4. The AFL should fund the stadium if they want it so bad.

When has the AFL ever fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past? When has any Australian sporting body fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past - I can’t think of any examples. Ridiculous argument!

5. Money is being diverted from health and housing to pay for the stadium.

The fact of the matter is that health and housing are currently receiving record amounts of state government funding. This argument is also overlooking the $240m of federal government funding to the stadium and the $365m package for the Tas AFL team, community football, talent pathways and funding towards the stadium. Over $600m of external funding the state will not receive if the stadium is not built.


They won’t be paying for a new stadium for 7 games per year, because it’s a multipurpose stadium. The stadium business case is based around an annual event calendar of 44 events, which is 28 more than what Blundstone Arena currently hosts.

Because it’s expensive to establish a new club in the most expensive sporting league in the country. Look at the AFL’s annual special distribution data per AFL club. More than 10 years on and GC and GWS are still receiving way more funding than any other club. The government’s plan is that their funding will remain for the initial 12 years of the club so they can establish a fanbase and alternative revenue streams and be less reliant on government support.

This argument is also neglecting to acknowledge that the government is already directly and indirectly tipping in about $8m pa to Hawthorn and North Melbourne so two interstate clubs can play low-drawing games down there. A few extra million is a small price to pay to attract additional games and games involving the more widely supported clubs.

I would dispute that entirely - what are you basing your opinions on?

Look at the crowds for UTAS stadium. In the early days Hawthorn were regularly attracting crowds of 15-20k. Now they’re barely getting 10k. The novelty has worn off and people are sick of being given scrappy games used to make interstate clubs richer - we want our own side. During Covid, the Essendon v Bulldogs final sold out in under an hour (at 50% reduced capacity but the point remains) so the appetite is there for good games.

Don’t forget these are interstate clubs that most Tasmanian footy fans don’t support. Do you honestly think the demand for games involving a homegrown side will not exceed those hosted by Hawks and Roos?

The state and federal governments must be anticipating higher demand because they’re investing $65m each towards stage 1 and 2 of the UTAS redevelopment. This development will increase capacity to 23k. This project isn’t going ahead due to Hawthorn’s dwindling crowds at the venue, I suspect that it’s happening because they anticipate that a locally-based side will attract bigger crowds and will require more modern stands and amenities to encourage more people to purchase reserved seating memberships at higher prices.

UTAS Stadium Crowds (York Park / University of Tasmania Stadium) | Austadiums

UTAS Stadium Redevelopment | Infrastructure Tasmania

www.infrastructure.tas.gov.au

What, as opposed to your extreme condescension?

Everyone is entitled to their views. I’ve seen so much vitriol from the stadium opponents, however, that I’ve decided to push back when I see things I don’t agree with. If you don’t like that then I don’t care.

I’d say that with my background living in Tassie, being heavily involved in community footy and attending AFL games there for several decades, so I have as much right as anyone to share my views on this topic. Does this make me incredibly biased, absolutely. Does it mean that I’ve taken the time to analyse the documents below - yep.

I must ask, are you Tasmanian? If not, have you lived there before? Interested to know what you are basing your views on.


We’ll find that out later this year when the design is actually finished. This has been another bug bear of mine. Why doesn’t everyone take a breath until the work is done?

A few things to consider is that the government has asked them to keep the design within their budget (so certain design features may be left out), the capacity of the stadium is not huge (23k), a lot of the site preparation has already been completed, and the permanent, transparent roof will ensure that it’s a lot cheaper than one with a retractable roof would be.


In many cases you would have a point here, but Tasmania’s demographic trends are that it has the oldest population in the country and routinely loses young people to interstate (further diminishing the tax base). Tasmanians are also regularly flying to Melbourne for footy games, to attend concerts etc.

This stadium will help Hobart be a more exciting place to live in terms of major events and as I’ve already explained long-term the entire deal (stadium + team) is an economic win for the state so the state will actually be worse off if there’s no AFL team and no stadium. Therefore, there’s fewer entertainment options for the public, less money to fund the essential services and less money flowing into community sport (due to missing out on the AFL funding), which we all know acts as a preventative health measure.


I don’t know the pros and cons of stadium v subsidies, I’m not an economist, so I’ll stick to the reports compiled by professionals who work in that space.

The club’s business case says that independent modelling showed that a permanent AFL team would add 250 full time footy tourism-related jobs and the club itself would add a further 116 full time jobs.

The stadium will open up further opportunities in the events management space and a stadium precinct will contain commercial and residential zoning, the proposed Tasmanian sports museum and hall of fame, and provide an impetus for the construction of light rail on a disused line and an expansion to Hobart’s ferry network.

The stadium economic impact assessment has some interesting insights regarding other benefits for the Tasmanian economy and further justification for the team and stadium.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...tadium_Economic_Impact_Assessment_PwC_1.0.pdf


There are plenty of Tasmanians who do think it’s a price worth paying. I know heaps of people who can’t wait to buy season tickets. There’s a pro-stadium group on Facebook with way more members than the “no” group.

All Tasmanians know there are a prominent group of regressive locals who have tried to hold the state to ransom and prohibit progress for decades. They are extremely vocal regarding the AFL team contract and stadium and there have been numerous instances of them (and Green and Labor pollies) trotting out misinformation to try and manipulate others into joining their bandwagon.

Have you seen the bogus artist’s impression of what the stadium would look like? It was intentionally ghastly and deceptive.

After reading many of their arguments I believe they simply know very little about sport or football and haven’t read most of the documents I’ve shared with you - they’ve simply latched on to certain figures within that suit their agenda without looking at the whole project in its entirety. They bully anyone who disputes their claims so I’ve made a decision to fight fire with fire.

Fortunately, their views will have little impact on the final decision about the stadium. It is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which should separate the fact from the fiction and then it will be voted on by both Houses of Parliament in just over one year. There’s no viable alternative for a stadium design anywhere in inner-city Hobart (except for the 2.0 proposal at Regatta Point) - that should be taken into consideration. We just need to sit back and let the process unfold.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AFL_Taskforce_Report_Tasmania.pdf



https://footyindustry.com/docs/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/..._conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

Enjoyed reading this
Number 5. Is one of the really interesting points of conversation. It seems no matter how hard people try to explain and confirm that the money being allocated is not from the healthcare fund and regardless of stadium build, will not be going to healthcare it's just money missed out on for no good reason. If the money goes where it should, the stadium is built, the population grows, they then require health care and education, the more funding they get. It's a cycle. It's only a positive but they are just so stubborn. Lol. Like activists who block the road in front of cars, then get offended whhen they nearly get hit by the cars.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Clearly, the stadium CBA is a major factor. It’s not the only factor that needs to be taken into consideration though. The construction of a new, roofed multipurpose stadium was a condition of the contract for the 19th license that the Premier signed with Gill McLaughlan. So I’ll say it again, the AFL team and stadium are inextricably linked and if your argument is an economic one, then you cannot base the value of the entire deal on the stadium alone.

The stadium business case and the team’s business case (attached below) both placed the value of the AFL & AFLW teams to the state’s economy at $120m per annum. If the stadium deficit (over a 20 year period) is $306m, then those deficits will be easily covered by the yearly $120m boost from the club that won’t exist without a new stadium.
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

I could give plenty more, but here are a few common misconceptions shared by the “no” group.

1. No other club has been required to build a new stadium (as a condition of entry). We have two stadiums that are perfectly fine that we already cannot fill.

Incorrect. Metricon Stadium was completely rebuilt before the Suns entered the comp. Giants Stadium wasn’t completely rebuilt but it underwent a major refurb before GWS entered as well. A new site wasn’t required for either of these venues because they weren’t in the middle of residential area like Blundstone.

2. Why does Tasmania need to play home games at two home grounds? No other AFL club hosts games at two different grounds.

Hawthorn, North, Bulldogs, Suns and GWS all currently host games at secondary venues.

3. There’s not enough space at Mac Point for a stadium.

The site selection report (attached below) suggests otherwise. In fact, it also rules out some of the often suggested alternative sites for this very reason e.g. Blundstone, North Hobart, some of the TCA sites etc.

4. The AFL should fund the stadium if they want it so bad.

When has the AFL ever fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past? When has any Australian sporting body fully funded tier 1 or 2 stadiums in the past - I can’t think of any examples. Ridiculous argument!

5. Money is being diverted from health and housing to pay for the stadium.

The fact of the matter is that health and housing are currently receiving record amounts of state government funding. This argument is also overlooking the $240m of federal government funding to the stadium and the $365m package for the Tas AFL team, community football, talent pathways and funding towards the stadium. Over $600m of external funding the state will not receive if the stadium is not built.


They won’t be paying for a new stadium for 7 games per year, because it’s a multipurpose stadium. The stadium business case is based around an annual event calendar of 44 events, which is 28 more than what Blundstone Arena currently hosts.

Because it’s expensive to establish a new club in the most expensive sporting league in the country. Look at the AFL’s annual special distribution data per AFL club. More than 10 years on and GC and GWS are still receiving way more funding than any other club. The government’s plan is that their funding will remain for the initial 12 years of the club so they can establish a fanbase and alternative revenue streams and be less reliant on government support.

This argument is also neglecting to acknowledge that the government is already directly and indirectly tipping in about $8m pa to Hawthorn and North Melbourne so two interstate clubs can play low-drawing games down there. A few extra million is a small price to pay to attract additional games and games involving the more widely supported clubs.

I would dispute that entirely - what are you basing your opinions on?

Look at the crowds for UTAS stadium. In the early days Hawthorn were regularly attracting crowds of 15-20k. Now they’re barely getting 10k. The novelty has worn off and people are sick of being given scrappy games used to make interstate clubs richer - we want our own side. During Covid, the Essendon v Bulldogs final sold out in under an hour (at 50% reduced capacity but the point remains) so the appetite is there for good games.

Don’t forget these are interstate clubs that most Tasmanian footy fans don’t support. Do you honestly think the demand for games involving a homegrown side will not exceed those hosted by Hawks and Roos?

The state and federal governments must be anticipating higher demand because they’re investing $65m each towards stage 1 and 2 of the UTAS redevelopment. This development will increase capacity to 23k. This project isn’t going ahead due to Hawthorn’s dwindling crowds at the venue, I suspect that it’s happening because they anticipate that a locally-based side will attract bigger crowds and will require more modern stands and amenities to encourage more people to purchase reserved seating memberships at higher prices.

UTAS Stadium Crowds (York Park / University of Tasmania Stadium) | Austadiums

UTAS Stadium Redevelopment | Infrastructure Tasmania

www.infrastructure.tas.gov.au

What, as opposed to your extreme condescension?

Everyone is entitled to their views. I’ve seen so much vitriol from the stadium opponents, however, that I’ve decided to push back when I see things I don’t agree with. If you don’t like that then I don’t care.

I’d say that with my background living in Tassie, being heavily involved in community footy and attending AFL games there for several decades, so I have as much right as anyone to share my views on this topic. Does this make me incredibly biased, absolutely. Does it mean that I’ve taken the time to analyse the documents below - yep.

I must ask, are you Tasmanian? If not, have you lived there before? Interested to know what you are basing your views on.


We’ll find that out later this year when the design is actually finished. This has been another bug bear of mine. Why doesn’t everyone take a breath until the work is done?

A few things to consider is that the government has asked them to keep the design within their budget (so certain design features may be left out), the capacity of the stadium is not huge (23k), a lot of the site preparation has already been completed, and the permanent, transparent roof will ensure that it’s a lot cheaper than one with a retractable roof would be.


In many cases you would have a point here, but Tasmania’s demographic trends are that it has the oldest population in the country and routinely loses young people to interstate (further diminishing the tax base). Tasmanians are also regularly flying to Melbourne for footy games, to attend concerts etc.

This stadium will help Hobart be a more exciting place to live in terms of major events and as I’ve already explained long-term the entire deal (stadium + team) is an economic win for the state so the state will actually be worse off if there’s no AFL team and no stadium. Therefore, there’s fewer entertainment options for the public, less money to fund the essential services and less money flowing into community sport (due to missing out on the AFL funding), which we all know acts as a preventative health measure.


I don’t know the pros and cons of stadium v subsidies, I’m not an economist, so I’ll stick to the reports compiled by professionals who work in that space.

The club’s business case says that independent modelling showed that a permanent AFL team would add 250 full time footy tourism-related jobs and the club itself would add a further 116 full time jobs.

The stadium will open up further opportunities in the events management space and a stadium precinct will contain commercial and residential zoning, the proposed Tasmanian sports museum and hall of fame, and provide an impetus for the construction of light rail on a disused line and an expansion to Hobart’s ferry network.

The stadium economic impact assessment has some interesting insights regarding other benefits for the Tasmanian economy and further justification for the team and stadium.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...tadium_Economic_Impact_Assessment_PwC_1.0.pdf


There are plenty of Tasmanians who do think it’s a price worth paying. I know heaps of people who can’t wait to buy season tickets. There’s a pro-stadium group on Facebook with way more members than the “no” group.

All Tasmanians know there are a prominent group of regressive locals who have tried to hold the state to ransom and prohibit progress for decades. They are extremely vocal regarding the AFL team contract and stadium and there have been numerous instances of them (and Green and Labor pollies) trotting out misinformation to try and manipulate others into joining their bandwagon.

Have you seen the bogus artist’s impression of what the stadium would look like? It was intentionally ghastly and deceptive.

After reading many of their arguments I believe they simply know very little about sport or football and haven’t read most of the documents I’ve shared with you - they’ve simply latched on to certain figures within that suit their agenda without looking at the whole project in its entirety. They bully anyone who disputes their claims so I’ve made a decision to fight fire with fire.

Fortunately, their views will have little impact on the final decision about the stadium. It is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which should separate the fact from the fiction and then it will be voted on by both Houses of Parliament in just over one year. There’s no viable alternative for a stadium design anywhere in inner-city Hobart (except for the 2.0 proposal at Regatta Point) - that should be taken into consideration. We just need to sit back and let the process unfold.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/AFL_Taskforce_Report_Tasmania.pdf



https://footyindustry.com/docs/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/..._conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf



https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/412430/Strategic_Business_Case.pdf

$3/4 billion is a awful lot of money for 366 jobs.

 

[Walshawk]

$3/4 billion is a awful lot of money for 366 jobs.

But it’s not just about the jobs is it?

When the time ones the Warne stand will be replaced @ MCG. That will cost $2B and won’t generate any jobs post construction.

 

[Speck]

I wonder if the AFL may also be dangling the idea of a Gather Round or two in Tasmania as a result of the new stadium to the government. Would be huge for tourism and getting people to the new stadium.

4 games at the new stadium, 2 at Bellrieve and 3 in Launceston.

Clearly it doesn't have the capacity of the other states but would be a strong tourism boost.

 

[JohnZ]

I wonder if the AFL may also be dangling the idea of a Gather Round or two in Tasmania as a result of the new stadium to the government. Would be huge for tourism and getting people to the new stadium.

4 games at the new stadium, 2 at Bellrieve and 3 in Launceston.

Clearly it doesn't have the capacity of the other states but would be a strong tourism boost.

Four years more in Adelaide, four years to build a stadium.....

 

[My_Username]

I wonder if the AFL may also be dangling the idea of a Gather Round or two in Tasmania as a result of the new stadium to the government. Would be huge for tourism and getting people to the new stadium.

4 games at the new stadium, 2 at Bellrieve and 3 in Launceston.

Clearly it doesn't have the capacity of the other states but would be a strong tourism boost.

The SA government is paying the AFL a lot of money for gather round.

Do you think the Tas government will match that? Or do you think the AFL will give up all that money?

 

[Aussie in exile]

The SA government is paying the AFL a lot of money for gather round.

Do you think the Tas government will match that? Or do you think the AFL will give up all that money?

100% the AFL won't give up all that money, and neither would any sporting body.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The SA government is paying the AFL a lot of money for gather round.

Do you think the Tas government will match that? Or do you think the AFL will give up all that money?

You have to spend money to make money. Last year’s Gather Round generated $80m for the SA economy and they reportedly paid the AFL less than $20m for the hosting rights. Obviously, Tassie is smaller and it doesn’t have a venue like Adelaide Oval, but if a Tourism Minister/Premier can’t sell the benefits of hosting that event to the public then they be should be stepping down.

 

[Tandy]

You have to spend money to make money. Last year’s Gather Round generated $80m for the SA economy and they reportedly paid the AFL less than $20m for the hosting rights. Obviously, Tassie is smaller and it doesn’t have a venue like Adelaide Oval, but if a Tourism Minister/Premier can’t sell the benefits of hosting that event to the public then they be should be stepping down.

Well said. Sadly selling anything to the public is difficult in Tas for some reason

 

[My_Username]

You have to spend money to make money. Last year’s Gather Round generated $80m for the SA economy and they reportedly paid the AFL less than $20m for the hosting rights. Obviously, Tassie is smaller and it doesn’t have a venue like Adelaide Oval, but if a Tourism Minister/Premier can’t sell the benefits of hosting that event to the public then they be should be stepping down.

The point of gather round is to get all games/clubs in one place, not spread across the state.

Hosting rights would have gone up after the success of the first year (and consequent interest from other states), and the $80M is only of those typically inflated estimates used to justify such things.

Revenue would would be lower in Tas (lower population, smaller grounds, etc). SA had 268K attend, Tas would get ~200K if they sold out every game, so call that 75% of the attendance (and thus revenue).

So instead of $20M making $80M you would (optimistically) be looking at paying $30M to make what some pencil pusher will claim is $60M (but is probably less in reality).

Given how soft those total revenue figures are 2:1 is not a good deal.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The H&A season will be extended to 24 games per team when Tasmania join the competition, enabling a 2nd Gather Round each year if the AFL wishes. That would be one option for Hobart to get more games.

Another possibility would be to just expand the new Opening Round concept to include a couple of games in Hobart that otherwise would've been played in Melbourne: something like NM v Tas & Haw v Ess.

 

[My_Username]

The H&A season will be extended to 24 games per team when Tasmania join the competition, enabling a 2nd Gather Round each year if the AFL wishes. That would be one option for Hobart to get more games.

Another possibility would be to just expand the new Opening Round concept to include a couple of games in Hobart that otherwise would've been played in Melbourne: something like NM v Tas & Haw v Ess.

24 games?

Source?

 

[Teen Wolf]

24 games?

Source?

They can't do 23 games with 19 teams, mathematical impossibility.

So the choice is to go back to 22 (which you've already acknowledged won't happen, because the AFL aren't giving up the $80m+ from Gather Round) or to extend to a minimum of 24.

The AFL and AFLPA are already on the same page about this:

Players have been open to playing more rounds of football, with the successful Gather Round an example of players being open to finding new revenue streams after COVID. The players remain open to adding one further round of football.

 

[beema limapep]

They can't do 23 games with 19 teams, mathematical impossibility.

So the choice is to go back to 22 (which you've already acknowledged won't happen, because the AFL aren't giving up the $80m+ from Gather Round) or to extend to a minimum of 24.

The AFL and AFLPA are already on the same page about this:

AFL want to start the season 2 to 3 weeks earlier.

 

[kurt_kb]

They can't do 23 games with 19 teams, mathematical impossibility.

So the choice is to go back to 22 (which you've already acknowledged won't happen, because the AFL aren't giving up the $80m+ from Gather Round) or to extend to a minimum of 24.

The AFL and AFLPA are already on the same page about this:

Why would it be mathematically impossible?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Why would it be mathematically impossible?

Uneven number of teams requires an even number of games, otherwise there'll always be one team leftover with a game to play while everybody else has already played all their games.

The problem is no different to fixturing a 3-team competition where each team plays 1 match.

 

[kurt_kb]

Uneven number of teams requires an even number of games, otherwise there'll always be one team leftover with a game to play while everybody else has already played all their games.

The problem is no different to fixturing a 3-team competition where each team plays 1 match.

Ah yep. 9.5 x 23 = 218.5 games. That was tricky to conceptualise.

 

[Aussie in exile]

AFL want to start the season 2 to 3 weeks earlier.

Which would mean more money for those authorities who own the grounds when football is played

 

[JohnZ]

AFL want to start the season 2 to 3 weeks earlier.

26-28 week season likely.