Hobart stadium

[WestCoast05]

Glenorchy would of be better but if the transport corridor is activated for the area then it will be a good location.

If i was looking on googlemaps what is the currently proposed location?

 

[Nevillle Monkeyrod]

My vote is to play at least 3 Tassie team games at Queenstown. Tasmania's don't like to travel too much and the people in the North West should be able to attend matches live too.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

If i was looking on googlemaps what is the currently proposed location?

The Regatta Grounds next to the Tasman Bridge.

 

[Trent the flight Steward]

Vocal minority. Hobart is a beautiful city with so much capacity for growth and culture, the team should be based there and play the majority of games there. It's not that far to travel.

Exactly beautiful old buildings, has to be Hobart, people will relocate there, great for the state

 

[Blackhawk42]

The Launceston major has today come saying they are worried about losing the AFL blockbusters that was promised if Tasmania get a team due to a new Hobart stadium,I can see this north south stuff already firing up.

I can't see Tassie playing Hawthorn anywhere but Launceston. That will be an in-built early rivalry.

Likewise when they play North in Hobart.

 

[Walshawk]

My plan
19 teams
18 games (play everyone one once home and away flipped each year)

19th game is a double up against a rival (vic teams and tas to decide that somehow).
9 home games 9 away games each side
1 game a year for each team at a neutral venue, ideally regional (cairns townsville darwin alice ballarat hobart (to get annual games here up from 7) launnie)

Doesn’t work. One team would have a bye while the other play game 19.Need to have an even number of games when Yu have an uneven number of teams. 22 is great. One bye each week and 15 byes the week before finals.

 

[Billy ray]

Doesn’t work. One team would have a bye while the other play game 19.Need to have an even number of games when Yu have an uneven number of teams. 22 is great. One bye each week and 15 byes the week before finals.

Wooden spooner from season before has bye in final round. Second last team from year before has bye in round 1. Rarely do bottom 2 teams make finals the following year so makes sense to schedule these two teams with byes in weeks 1 and 19

 

[Freomaniac]

View attachment 1335983
Tasmanian government released plans today for a 750 million retractable roof stadium on Hobart waterfront

Saw this on yesterday's Adelaide advertiser.

Would only be approved if tassie gets an AFL side

 

[Walshawk]

Wooden spooner from season before has bye in final round. Second last team from year before has bye in round 1. Rarely do bottom 2 teams make finals the following year so makes sense to schedule these two teams with byes in weeks 1 and 19

The AFL is not going for fewer games. It is more games that pays for the new team.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

The AFL boss yesterday said they have all the finances needed for a Tassie team so I wonder if that will include money for the new stadium, interesting 6 months ahead for Tassie's AFL bid.

 

[deck]

The AFL is not going for fewer games. It is more games that pays for the new team.

People need to stop fantasizing about playing each team only once. It isn't happening. The season will be 22 games or more not less.

 

[darcytiger]

Delete Gold Coast and add Tassie

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Delete Gold Coast and add Tassie

The AFL is never going to give up on the Gold Coast,they have already made it clear Tasmania won't be getting the Gold Coast's licence.

 

[Walshawk]

The AFL boss yesterday said they have all the finances needed for a Tassie team so I wonder if that will include money for the new stadium, interesting 6 months ahead for Tassie's AFL bid.

If there is consensus, they could grant a licence as early as this month. Jake Niall suggested today that is likely.

 

[Billy ray]

The AFL is not going for fewer games. It is more games that pays for the new team.

A guaranteed thursday night game (and deleting the sat simultaneous game) would be a rights $ increase though. Having odd numbers of teams meaning the team with bye could play the following thursday v a team who played the friday the week before) would increase value compared to status quo scheduling with no extra game

 

[mcs095]

West Coast tickets would be expensive regardless of stadium build cost = waaaah blame other states !?

WA spent up big on some ballsy projects = waaaah blame other states !?

Rising WA state debt caused a Federal rethink on gst distribution = waaah blame the other states !? (probably the closest maybe)

WA still pays 30cents on the dollar towards other states when it comes to the carve up and I think "that's fine" = waaah blame the other states !?


Someone commented on Perth's stadium as an example and reference the ticket prices to which I responded.
Your comments (genius as they are) contributed nothing and dont even really flow with the convo.

I wish people would stop thinking of GST as 'State Revenue' taken away and given to others. It is not a state based tax, and so borders/where it is collected is somewhat irrelevant. It is a Commonwealth tax, collected across goods all across Australia. The whole pot is collected by the Commonwealth then distributed back to each of the states on a needs basis, determined by an independent commission - well at least it was until Morrison stepped in turned it into a political football by adding artificial constraints.

The whole idea that one state is subsidising another through GST is nothing but a political construct and a whole lot of hot air. No one ever talks in the same terms about other Commonwealth taxes - such as income tax. When in effect, it is primarily the same (I.e. C/W collects from everyone, then spends -> except that isn't protected by the 'needs' basis). It is such a lazy argument that doesn't stack up at all. The needs based approach is meant to ensure each state is treated fairly in terms of distribution of $ - taking into account that $1 doesn't buy/deliver the same outcome irrespective of where it is spent, but funding levels are set to attempt to achieve the same 'level' of outcome irrespective of location.

Anyway, enough of that rant. Back on topic. A question for those closer to the action - I assume the intent would be for the new stadium to host cricket as well? I can't see how a 'insert actual figure here' $ stadium is likely to ever stack up economically unless its got 7/8 AFL games + Hurricanes + any international cricket.

Even then it'll be stretching it to see more then 15 match days in any given year. A lot of investment I would of thought when maybe $100m? each on the two existing grounds could easily get them (in broad terms) up to a pretty decent standard to host a Tassie based team.

I love the visits I've been on to Tassie to watch the Swans down there - and looking forward to going back to Launceston in 6 weeks time. I'm not entirely convinced a roofed stadium will make a huge difference to whether the tourist $ (a key element of this at the end of the day) is spent there or not. Its a nice 'nice to have' but not a 'must have' for mine.

 

[Sphynx]

Not a chance in hell Hawthorn and North will be paid to play in Tassie if this is built as some have suggested in here.

They will need to pay off that stadium as soon as possible.

For the same reason as I think they would keep Launceston happy for a few years prior to them receiving the GWS, GC and Fremantle home fixtures for the foreseeable future. If a $750m stadium is built in what is frankly a regional area, you have to play in it, sorry Launnie....


This is the carrot that will get the AFL over the line if it gets built imo.

 

[Walshawk]

A guaranteed thursday night game (and deleting the sat simultaneous game) would be a rights $ increase though. Having odd numbers of teams meaning the team with bye could play the following thursday v a team who played the friday the week before) would increase value compared to status quo scheduling with no extra game

An extra team means 11 extra games.

 

[Walshawk]

I wish people would stop thinking of GST as 'State Revenue' taken away and given to others. It is not a state based tax, and so borders/where it is collected is somewhat irrelevant. It is a Commonwealth tax, collected across goods all across Australia. The whole pot is collected by the Commonwealth then distributed back to each of the states on a needs basis, determined by an independent commission - well at least it was until Morrison stepped in turned it into a political football by adding artificial constraints.

The whole idea that one state is subsidising another through GST is nothing but a political construct and a whole lot of hot air. No one ever talks in the same terms about other Commonwealth taxes - such as income tax. When in effect, it is primarily the same (I.e. C/W collects from everyone, then spends -> except that isn't protected by the 'needs' basis). It is such a lazy argument that doesn't stack up at all. The needs based approach is meant to ensure each state is treated fairly in terms of distribution of $ - taking into account that $1 doesn't buy/deliver the same outcome irrespective of where it is spent, but funding levels are set to attempt to achieve the same 'level' of outcome irrespective of location.

Anyway, enough of that rant. Back on topic. A question for those closer to the action - I assume the intent would be for the new stadium to host cricket as well? I can't see how a 'insert actual figure here' $ stadium is likely to ever stack up economically unless its got 7/8 AFL games + Hurricanes + any international cricket.

Even then it'll be stretching it to see more then 15 match days in any given year. A lot of investment I would of thought when maybe $100m? each on the two existing grounds could easily get them (in broad terms) up to a pretty decent standard to host a Tassie based team.

I love the visits I've been on to Tassie to watch the Swans down there - and looking forward to going back to Launceston in 6 weeks time. I'm not entirely convinced a roofed stadium will make a huge difference to whether the tourist $ (a key element of this at the end of the day) is spent there or not. Its a nice 'nice to have' but not a 'must have' for mine.

Whilst that may all be true, obviously the AFL has told Tassie that the price of an AFL team is a 27.5k city stadium with a roof, as well as a seriously upgraded York Park. Tassie has agreed to pay that price. It only makes financial sense when you factor in all the jobs at the new club, plus all the tourism dollars. The stadiums themselves will make huge losses.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Another team, talk about weakening the product.

Agreed.

 

[mcs095]

Whilst that may all be true, obviously the AFL has told Tassie that the price of an AFL team is a 27.5k city stadium with a roof, as well as a seriously upgraded York Park. Tassie has agreed to pay that price. It only makes financial sense when you factor in all the jobs at the new club, plus all the tourism dollars. The stadiums themselves will make huge losses.

Part of my point though is I actually don't buy there will be a massive additional influx of tourist dollars. What are there now - 8 games or so in Tassie. That would shift to somewhere around 11-12. Yes every club will go there on a semi regular basis that will see some additional interest from clubs that never head down there now, but I don't think that a flasher stadium or an upgrade to York Park will make a huge difference to be honest.

Even stretching it to include all the jobs associated with the new club, its going to be a long while before the good part of a billion $ is recovered.

Look I'd love to see it happen, but I'd be astounded if any have well put together Cost benefit analysis gets anywhere near a ratio 1 to 1 on costs, let alone positive. That isn't to say government wont make a call to fund it.

 

[Walshawk]

Part of my point though is I actually don't buy there will be a massive additional influx of tourist dollars. What are there now - 8 games or so in Tassie. That would shift to somewhere around 11-12. Yes every club will go there on a semi regular basis that will see some additional interest from clubs that never head down there now, but I don't think that a flasher stadium or an upgrade to York Park will make a huge difference to be honest.

Even stretching it to include all the jobs associated with the new club, its going to be a long while before the good part of a billion $ is recovered.

Look I'd love to see it happen, but I'd be astounded if any have well put together Cost benefit analysis gets anywhere near a ratio 1 to 1 on costs, let alone positive. That isn't to say government wont make a call to fund it.

Hawthorn has been playing the same teams in Tassie for 20 years. Freo, Port, BL, WB, GC. Once you get Pies, Tigers, Blues & Bombers plai Ng there you will not only get a few thousand coming from Melbourne, but 5k travelling from North to South for games and vice versa.

 

[RUNVS]

Delete Gold Coast and add Tassie

Gold Coast has more growth potential than Tasmania.

Sidenote, I am not sure it was mentioned but what capacity is this stadium supposed to be?

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Gold Coast has more growth potential than Tasmania.

Sidenote, I am not sure it was mentioned but what capacity is this stadium supposed to be?

27000 for footy and 30000 for concerts.

 

[RUNVS]

27000 for footy and 30000 for concerts.

That is probably a good amount as I very much doubt there would be many games in Hobart where they could get a crowd over 27,000.