Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[kurt_kb]

Definitely. I still reckon that they could trim a lot of the fat off it and strip it down to a bare bones stadium with just a roof. All the extras can be added on over time.

I've always found the AFL's requirement that there be a roof bizarre. As the gatekeeper to entering the league, they're using standover tactics to have governments fund a stadium for it that they're essentially not contributing anything towards.

Stadium roofs for field sports are relatively rare in professional sport globally, the exceptions being in the US where 10 of the 30 stadiums in the mega rich NFL and 7 of the 30 stadiums in the MLB have roofs, a handful of stadiums across soccer and the MLB in Japan, and a small spattering of major soccer stadiums in Europe.

AFL uses a much larger field size than any of these other stadiums, is a poorer league that doesn't fund its own grounds, and unlike the majority of the existing roofed stadiums, Hobart is neither in an extremely hot climate, nor in a climate commonly affected by snowfall. Hobart's winter climate is only a degree or two colder on average than Melbourne, with the same number of average days of rainfall as both Melbourne and Adelaide, and significantly fewer millimetres of rainfall than Adelaide, and the AFL in those places functions extremely well at stadiums without a roof.

All in all, it seems like an unreasonable demand for a stadium that will get used for AFL 14 times a year at best.

 

[The_Wookie]

I've always found the AFL's requirement that there be a roof bizarre. As the gatekeeper to entering the league, they're using standover tactics to have governments fund a stadium for it that they're essentially not contributing anything towards.

The League had no obligation to provide a team to Tasmania at all. The Government repeatdly pushed the issue, proposed the stadium, and the AFL accepted it and both parties signed the contract.

is a poorer league that doesn't fund its own grounds,

is the only league providing funding for any of its grounds, but even so stadiums are generally owned by the Government and are state assets, not league assets. The only exceptions to this in professional Australian sport are Docklands (owned by the AFL), Cazalys Stadium (owned by AFL North Queensland), and Endeavor Oval (owned by Cronulla) as well as Bellerive Oval (City of Clarence) and York Park (City of Launceston) - although York Park is supposed to fall under Stadiums Tasmania any day now.

 

[Bjo187]

It's amazing the media spin on this whole thing, that now even has so called footy fans pushing the rhetoric that the afl 'bullied' the Tasmanian government. It's like they only started following the story in the past 12 months.

 

[Ratdweller]

I've always found the AFL's requirement that there be a roof bizarre. As the gatekeeper to entering the league, they're using standover tactics to have governments fund a stadium for it that they're essentially not contributing anything towards.

Stadium roofs for field sports are relatively rare in professional sport globally, the exceptions being in the US where 10 of the 30 stadiums in the mega rich NFL and 7 of the 30 stadiums in the MLB have roofs, a handful of stadiums across soccer and the MLB in Japan, and a small spattering of major soccer stadiums in Europe.

AFL uses a much larger field size than any of these other stadiums, is a poorer league that doesn't fund its own grounds, and unlike the majority of the existing roofed stadiums, Hobart is neither in an extremely hot climate, nor in a climate commonly affected by snowfall. Hobart's winter climate is only a degree or two colder on average than Melbourne, with the same number of average days of rainfall as both Melbourne and Adelaide, and significantly fewer millimetres of rainfall than Adelaide, and the AFL in those places functions extremely well at stadiums without a roof.

All in all, it seems like an unreasonable demand for a stadium that will get used for AFL 14 times a year at best.

I agree!

I've read through many of the previous posts and your concerns are valid. Hobart gets considerably less rain during the footy season months than Sydney and Perth. A breakdown of weather for the major cities between April to September including average rainfall totals, mean temperatures and average sunshine hours per-day paints a very revealing picture as follows:

• Hobart 291mm, 10.46°C and 5.50 hours per-day
• Sydney 505mm, 15.65°C and 6.91 hours per-day
• Melbourne 290mm, 11.78°C and 5.08 hours per-day
• Geelong 225mm, 11.68°C and 5.14 hours per-day
• Adelaide 280mm, 13.46°C and 6.91 hours per-day
• Perth 575mm, 20.66°C and 6.91 hours per-day
• Brisbane 275mm, 17.25°C and 7.83 hours per-day.

It can be reasonably argued by the Tasmanian Government and AFL Tasmania that Hobart gets only 1 extra mm of rain on average than Melbourne and almost an extra half an hour per day of sunshine, while only being 1.32°C cooler on average. One cannot argue with the stats. Hobart is considerably drier than Sydney and Perth, so where is the argument valid that the Hobart stadium must have a roof for the sake of being 1.32°C and 1.22°C cooler on average between April to September than Melbourne and Geelong respectively?

 

[BoomerRoo]

You'd be very surprised at how high the importance of "thermal comfort" is to spectators.

The roof comes with "guarantees", which are extremely significant, especially if you're a music promoter for example. It also helps attract many varying types of events.

 

[Ratdweller]

You'd be very surprised at how high the importance of "thermal comfort" is to spectators.

The roof comes with "guarantees", which are extremely significant, especially if you're a music promoter for example. It also helps attract many varying types of vents.

Fine. Then build an outdoor stadium or re-develop Blundstone arena for ... say $300 mil and at the same time build a decent indoor 15,000 capacity arena with a permanently closed roof in Hobart for another $300 mil. Then the music promoters can have their indoor venue and the new indoor arena can be used for the Jack Jumpers. Tasmanian footy spectators will turn out in droves to watch what will effectively be their State AFL team irrespective of the weather conditions on a given day. It's not like Tasmanians aren't accustomed to their own weather conditions. They will come to games dressed appropriately for the occasion. The only people moaning about the weather will be the Eddie MacGuires and Melbourne TV commentators who are happy to blow away hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money so that the game on the field is played in the petrified sterile conditions of Marvel Stadium (Which incidently, Melbourne football supporters apparently all hate and want bulldozed).

 

[BoomerRoo]

Fine. Then build an outdoor stadium or re-develop Blundstone arena for ... say $300 mil and at the same time build a decent indoor 15,000 capacity arena with a permanently closed roof in Hobart for another $300 mil. Then the music promoters can have their indoor venue and the new indoor arena can be used for the Jack Jumpers. Tasmanian footy spectators will turn out in droves to watch what will effectively be their State AFL team irrespective of the weather conditions on a given day. It's not like Tasmanians aren't accustomed to their own weather conditions. They will come to games dressed appropriately for the occasion. The only people moaning about the weather will be the Eddie MacGuires and Melbourne TV commentators who are happy to blow away hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money so that the game on the field is played in the petrified sterile conditions of Marvel Stadium (Which incidently, Melbourne football supporters apparently all hate and want bulldozed).

How about we agree to disagree.... I'm 100% in support of a multipurpose stadium and you aren't, that's fine.

 

[Bjo187]

I can tell you in the heart of winter in Melbourne, especially for night games, I much preferred going to marvel instead of the freezing cold and potentially wet mcg.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fine. Then build an outdoor stadium or re-develop Blundstone arena for ... say $300 mil and at the same time build a decent indoor 15,000 capacity arena with a permanently closed roof in Hobart for another $300 mil. Then the music promoters can have their indoor venue and the new indoor arena can be used for the Jack Jumpers. Tasmanian footy spectators will turn out in droves to watch what will effectively be their State AFL team irrespective of the weather conditions on a given day. It's not like Tasmanians aren't accustomed to their own weather conditions. They will come to games dressed appropriately for the occasion. The only people moaning about the weather will be the Eddie MacGuires and Melbourne TV commentators who are happy to blow away hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money so that the game on the field is played in the petrified sterile conditions of Marvel Stadium (Which incidently, Melbourne football supporters apparently all hate and want bulldozed).

Blundstone does not have the footprint needed for a new redevelopment. Or it probably would be.

 

[Rob]

Fine. Then build an outdoor stadium or re-develop Blundstone arena for ... say $300 mil and at the same time build a decent indoor 15,000 capacity arena with a permanently closed roof in Hobart for another $300 mil. Then the music promoters can have their indoor venue and the new indoor arena can be used for the Jack Jumpers. Tasmanian footy spectators will turn out in droves to watch what will effectively be their State AFL team irrespective of the weather conditions on a given day. It's not like Tasmanians aren't accustomed to their own weather conditions.

All good in theory, but I'm not sure that it's as obvious as you think. There were a paltry 5k at the BBL last night because of poor conditions earlier. And that's with a team that's doing pretty well. Different sport I know (with the threat of a washout) but still a hideously poor crowd nonetheless.

I don't think the cost of the roof is justified, but I can see why the AFL wants to take no risks with this.

 

[Cam Payne]

All good in theory, but I'm not sure that it's as obvious as you think. There were a paltry 5k at the BBL last night because of poor conditions earlier. And that's with a team that's doing pretty well. Different sport I know (with the threat of a washout) but still a hideously poor crowd nonetheless.

I don't think the cost of the roof is justified, but I can see why the AFL wants to take no risks with this.

The AFL want someone else to pay for the stadium and want the people who pay for it to spend the most the AFL can squeeze out of them. Them people is the Tassie taxpayer. The advantage the Tassie govt get is every time something bad occurs, like the recent commission of enquiry revelations, they can point to the stadium and change the subject.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The AFL want someone else to pay for the stadium and want the people who pay for it to spend the most the AFL can squeeze out of them. Them people is the Tassie taxpayer. The advantage the Tassie govt get is every time something bad occurs, like the recent commission of enquiry revelations, they can point to the stadium and change the subject.

The Tas govt's unsolicited proposal involved spending $300m+ on a new CBD-based roofed stadium. The AFL accepted it, promised to throw in $15m on top of that, and will also give them another $350m to get the club up and running.

This in turn led to the Federal government contributing an additional $240m, so there goes the sob story about poor Tassie taxpayers being left to fend for themselves.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL want someone else to pay for the stadium and want the people who pay for it to spend the most the AFL can squeeze out of them. Them people is the Tassie taxpayer. The advantage the Tassie govt get is every time something bad occurs, like the recent commission of enquiry revelations, they can point to the stadium and change the subject.

The AFL didnt want a team, let alone a stadium. Every step of this has been driven by the TasGov being desperate for a team. EVERY STEP. The Tasmanian Gov came up with a proposal the AFL could accept, the AFL and the clubs agreed to it, and now theres a contract the AFL will hold them to.

 

[Cam Payne]

The AFL didnt want a team, let alone a stadium. Every step of this has been driven by the TasGov being desperate for a team. EVERY STEP. The Tasmanian Gov came up with a proposal the AFL could accept, the AFL and the clubs agreed to it, and now theres a contract the AFL will hold them to.

The AFL don't want to pay for the stadium. What in that statement is incorrect?
The AFL want to squeeze every last penny out of the taxpayer to build a white elephant. What's incorrect there?
The Tassie govt want a shiny new thing to distract people from the state of govt in Tassie. What's incorrect about that?

 

[Cam Payne]

The Tas govt's unsolicited proposal involved spending $300m+ on a new CBD-based roofed stadium. The AFL accepted it, promised to throw in $15m on top of that, and will also give them another $350m to get the club up and running.

This in turn led to the Federal government contributing an additional $240m, so there goes the sob story about poor Tassie taxpayers being left to fend for themselves.

The poor Tassie taxpayer is gunna fit the bill for every single cent of the current $250 mill blowout and the additional blowouts that are yet to be realised.

Enough of this. I'm off to have a swim in the lovely warm WA GST pool.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The AFL don't want to pay for the stadium. What in that statement is incorrect?

Maybe the fact they're providing $15 million to help pay for the stadium.

 

[Cam Payne]

Maybe the fact they're providing $15 million to help pay for the stadium.

1.5% of the current estimated cost. That's virtually free. We should go to dinner and I'll contribute 1.5% of the price. That'll be satisfactory, no?

 

[Bjo187]

1.5% of the current estimated cost. That's virtually free. We should go to dinner and I'll contribute 1.5% of the price. That'll be satisfactory, no?

The poor old Tasmanian's, bullied into having their own side by the afl and then bullied into having an adequate stadium to play in so the team isn't a financial basket case.

Oh and the afl are the only sports league in the country that for some reason continually chips in for stadium builds.

 

[Teen Wolf]

1.5% of the current estimated cost. That's virtually free. We should go to dinner and I'll contribute 1.5% of the price. That'll be satisfactory, no?

Perhaps I'll agree to those terms, in writing, then complain and try to renegotiate after the fact. You would be fine with that apparently.

 

[Cam Payne]

Perhaps I'll agree to those terms, in writing, then complain and try to renegotiate after the fact. You would be fine with that apparently.

Not me. I would have gone with you to the existing restaurant for a nice meal. We'd not need a new shiny place that sells the same food at a ridiculously inflated price.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL don't want to pay for the stadium. What in that statement is incorrect?

No other sport is paying for their stadiums either. A stadium was proposed by the Government. It will be a state asset. Why would the AFL pay for that>

The AFL want to squeeze every last penny out of the taxpayer to build a white elephant. What's incorrect there?

The Government made the offer. If you are looking for someone to blame, look no further than TasGov

The Tassie govt want a shiny new thing to distract people from the state of govt in Tassie. What's incorrect about that?

Nothing, but your first two statements are bullshit.

 

[The_Wookie]

The poor Tassie taxpayer is gunna fit the bill for every single cent of the current $250 mill blowout and the additional blowouts that are yet to be realised.

Enough of this. I'm off to have a swim in the lovely warm WA GST pool.

The poor Tassie Taxpayer shouldnt have elected a desperate Liberal Government. The AFL didnt want this team, told them so repeatedly over the years. So they upped the ante, and here we are.

 

[The_Wookie]

1.5% of the current estimated cost. That's virtually free. We should go to dinner and I'll contribute 1.5% of the price. That'll be satisfactory, no?

That really depends on what you agree on before hand. You want the three course dinner and your ok with me buying you a coke as my contribution, thats cool. But dont whine about it when the full bill comes out.

 

[The_Wookie]

Not me. I would have gone with you to the existing restaurant for a nice meal. We'd not need a new shiny place that sells the same food at a ridiculously inflated price.

But in this case, you first suggest a nice shiny new restaurant would be ideal, then propose a nice shiny new restaurant to go too, which we then agree to go to, but now we are all dressed up and on the way to the restaurant you change your mind and want us to go to the same resturant weve been going to for 30 years.

 

[Rob]

The AFL don't want to pay for the stadium. What in that statement is incorrect?
The AFL want to squeeze every last penny out of the taxpayer to build a white elephant. What's incorrect there?
The Tassie govt want a shiny new thing to distract people from the state of govt in Tassie. What's incorrect about that?

Why would the AFL pay for a stadium? They're not the owner, nor are they even a tenant.
It's an extremely generous offer to kick in $15m given the above.