Hobart stadium business case

[Cam Payne]

The AFL never wanted a team in Tasmania.

It's true they said there's no team without a stadium. It's also true that there's nothing stopping anyone playing AFL football in Tasmania as we speak.

 

[Underarm]

It's true they said there's no team without a stadium. It's also true that there's nothing stopping anyone playing AFL football in Tasmania as we speak.

If the Tasmanian team is a success they will outgrow Bellreive oval immediately and they will need to build a stadium - in 5 years time when its more expensive and the current proposed location has been paved for hotels.

If they aren't successful, The tasmanian government will lose interest and stop funding the team and the AFL will be left propping up another club with even less upside that Gold Coast.

Forcing a new stadium gives the club the best chance of succeeding, and the best chance of keeping the Tasmanian government interested in the club.

 

[Mr Tassie]

In a city of 5 million and a state of 8.5 million replacing a stadium built in 1998 that originally cost $68 million seems like a feasible thing. Spending a minimum of $750 million on a stadium in a city of 190k and a state of 560k doesn't.

253,000 is the most recent population for Hobart.

 

[sherb]

Probably need to ask all the anti's in Tasmania that one.

Well, as you mentioned the negative connotations apparently attached to the stadium running at a loss, I thought you would be able to expand on it for me.

As for me, I regard a new stadium as being public infrastructure, there for the public's benefit, so I am not sure why it would be a requirement for it to run at a profit.

If it was totally a private fund and build, of course I could see the requirement for it to be a profit making venture, but it's not that.

So I continually see this reference to the stadium being a potential loss-making thing, and I don't see how it is even relevant. And that's aside from the fact that it may generate a profit anyway.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Well, as you mentioned the negative connotations apparently attached to the stadium running at a loss, I thought you would be able to expand on it for me.

As for me, I regard a new stadium as being public infrastructure, there for the public's benefit, so I am not sure why it would be a requirement for it to run at a profit.

If it was totally a private fund and build, of course I could see the requirement for it to be a profit making venture, but it's not that.

So I continually see this reference to the stadium being a potential loss-making thing, and I don't see how it is even relevant. And that's aside from the fact that it may generate a profit anyway.

I agree with you,people just don't understand it's about the money it brings into the economy. Obviously you would hope it doesn't go to much over budget though otherwise those benefits soon disappear.

People are also concerned about the interest payments that have to be payed every year and maintenance costs. I think it will be very important they get private investors on board otherwise the government will have no choice but to contribute more money towards it.

I will say I see Regatta Point still being an option considering the huge opposition to the current location with the TSO the latest to express they're disapproval. The amount of groups against Mac 1.0 just continues to grow so I think a late twist in the stadium built could change.

 

[Fire]

So a renegotiation wouldn't be possible?

No.

Tasmania approached the AFL; the AFL did not approach Tasmania.

 

[SA_Great]

Having seen the way Adelaide Oval's redevelopment has positively impacted the CBD, there's surely a decent business case...