Independent report into Hobart's proposed new stadium has found the costs of the project have been significantly underestimated

Remove this Banner Ad

Lol it's public knowledge that the reigning premiers built their list with this philosophy of drafting players from the country instead of the city, for retention purposes. It worked perfectly for them, I think it was the 15 or 16 draft they started this.
They’ve drafted about 4 of their premiership side from the country.
 
The stadium reaches it use by date, eg needs to be rebuilt.

Current thinking on stadiums is ~25 years is a major refresh, ~50 years lifespan.

Get them right up front and they’ll stand the test of time and prove decent value.

If you’re looking to rebuild in 30 years then you’ve probably got it very wrong (Docklands).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It started the turnaround in high picks leaving them and was a deliberate strategy from the club that appeared to work well. I thought everybody knew this, they couldn't retain any high picks prior to this.

View attachment 2201334
A Recruiting strategy that produced 4 of their 23 premiership players isn’t sustainable and imo is also crap. The very next draft they used two first round picks on players from the city. No doubt you take the player who is less likely to leave but as it’s been shown with Brisbane, it’s unlikely you can build a side around country Vic kids.
 
An infrastructure project going over budget? Never!
It's such a stupid pearl clutching, alarmist tangent. it's impossible to budget for a household – phone dies, bills go up, Christmas is coming around – so with as many moving parts as a highway, hospital, or stadium, what do you think is going to happen? a material becomes scarce, workers strike, new legislation or standards inevitably change over four years, a political party might even turn over.

Taxes are constantly pissed away. Robbie Williams 'free concerts,' getting an extra person or two on that interstate work junket, dodgy contracts and agreements, some ex-mayor of a bumpkin small town on a pension and going to parliament house for his free roast dinner...

It's not even worth worrying about, like 70% of public funds are probably grossly or ineptly pissed away.

It is also not a dichotomy. people love the old 'but we need a new hospital!' well that hospital wasn't built in the last 25 years, why will it be now? rail projects are built for plenty of reasons, but it's not because of a straw poll against resourcing services, putting up wages, or a new tourism campaign.

The only known is that you very very rarely look back and go 'jeez that was the wrong time to build that.' there's proposals for 20,000 capacity stadiums with intentionally cheap amenities like no concourses, few exits, food trucks instead of built in kitchens that are budgeted to cost as much as Optus Stadium. and that budget included significant rail creations and upgrades.
 
It's such a stupid pearl clutching, alarmist tangent. it's impossible to budget for a household – phone dies, bills go up, Christmas is coming around – so with as many moving parts as a highway, hospital, or stadium, what do you think is going to happen? a material becomes scarce, workers strike, new legislation or standards inevitably change over four years, a political party might even turn over.

Taxes are constantly pissed away. Robbie Williams 'free concerts,' getting an extra person or two on that interstate work junket, dodgy contracts and agreements, some ex-mayor of a bumpkin small town on a pension and going to parliament house for his free roast dinner...

It's not even worth worrying about, like 70% of public funds are probably grossly or ineptly pissed away.

It is also not a dichotomy. people love the old 'but we need a new hospital!' well that hospital wasn't built in the last 25 years, why will it be now? rail projects are built for plenty of reasons, but it's not because of a straw poll against resourcing services, putting up wages, or a new tourism campaign.

The only known is that you very very rarely look back and go 'jeez that was the wrong time to build that.' there's proposals for 20,000 capacity stadiums with intentionally cheap amenities like no concourses, few exits, food trucks instead of built in kitchens that are budgeted to cost as much as Optus Stadium. and that budget included significant rail creations and upgrades.
Nail. Head. Hammer
 
It's such a stupid pearl clutching, alarmist tangent. it's impossible to budget for a household – phone dies, bills go up, Christmas is coming around – so with as many moving parts as a highway, hospital, or stadium, what do you think is going to happen? a material becomes scarce, workers strike, new legislation or standards inevitably change over four years, a political party might even turn over.

You are missing the main one, the construction companies deliberately underquote to get the contract. The government probably knows this and goes along with it anyway because it's more palatable to the public.
 
People keep saying this but GWS is 14 years old and GC is already 16. How many more years do you think it will be before it will be seen as the "right move"?

I mean, I think many people would already understand why it was the right move.

But if you mean by getting larger crowds, I think that is a 2-3 generations+ thing. I think people need to grow up with the team, bring their kids along and so on.

16 years is nothing, it is a very long term move starting a new club.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I think many people would already understand why it was the right move.

But if you mean by getting larger crowds, I think that is a 2-3 generations+ thing. I think people need to grow up with the team, bring their kids along and so on.

16 years is nothing, it is a very long term move starting a new club.
Total cope, I think the Suns have done pretty well considering all the other codes' failures there and the pitiful existence they've had. still not outstanding, though. but GWS is horrible. very very minimal crowd growth, a third of their games outside their own state, but fairly consistent finals and a Grand Final. they are horrible, but Victorians especially have a weird hard on for them.
 
Yes, but to get back on topic Tasmania is one of the poorest states in the country with by far the lowest GDP and almost zero population growth. Around 1/3 of the 500,000 residents live in the North, so at least 2 hours away from Hobart (up to 4 for some).

The whole "well you all wanted your own team" thing is mostly true, but no one was told it would cost 1 billion dollars plus to set one up. In truth if the government spent even half that on freight equalization support (so Tasmanian farmers could compete equally on the mainland) the benefits would be extraordinary. We have little to no heavy industry here and no financial or IT sector at all, it's just agriculture/aquaculture and a bit of mining and forestry. And it's the same in terms
of costs in bringing goods from the mainland, we call it the "Tassie tax".

A 25,000-seat stadium will only cater to those who can afford such a largess, even though each and every Tasmanian will have to fork out around $1400 to just build the thing.

I am for a Tasmanian team, but not at this cost.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but to get back on topic Tasmania is one of the poorest states in the country with by far the lowest GDP and almost zero population growth.
That's why Tasmania has been given $240m by the Federal government.

The whole "well you all wanted your own team" is mostly true, but no one was told it would cost 1 billion dollars plus to set one up.
No independent economist is supporting that $1b+ claim. Gruen couldn't find any peer willing to go above $860m (i.e. about 10% over budget, the same as every comparable project in the last 15 years). Next.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's why Tasmania has been given $240m by the Federal government.


No independent economist is supporting that $1b+ claim. Gruen couldn't find any peer willing to go above $860m (i.e. about 10% over budget, the same as every comparable project in the last 15 years). Next.

Yes and it's nice they have finally told us it won't come out of our GST budget. I'm not sure what "Next" is supposed to mean, I'm concerned about my state's finances, I think I have a right to be.
 
Yes, but to get back on topic Tasmania is one of the poorest states in the country with by far the lowest GDP and almost zero population growth. Around 1/3 of the 500,000 residents live in the North, so at least 2 hours away from Hobart (up to 4 for some).

The whole "well you all wanted your own team" thing is mostly true, but no one was told it would cost 1 billion dollars plus to set one up. In truth if the government spent even half that on freight equalization support (so Tasmanian farmers could compete equally on the mainland) the benefits would be extraordinary. We have little to no heavy industry here and no financial or IT sector at all, it's just agriculture/aquaculture and a bit of mining and forestry. And it's the same in terms
of costs in bringing goods from the mainland, we call it the "Tassie tax".

A 25,000-seat stadium will only cater to those who can afford such a largess, even though each and every Tasmanian will have to fork out around $1400 to just build the thing.

I am for a Tasmanian team, but not at this cost.

One of the things that amused me when I moved to the mainland is that, because it's such a pain in the arse to get anywhere, pretty much any time mainlanders get in the car it's a journey (unless you're going to work.)

Having grown up in Launceston it always struck as me as strange, cos trips to Devonport or Scotsdale or even Hobart weren't "a journey". You might just get up one day and decide to go visit someone, or decide to get up and go to the cricket, or your mum felt like going to Big W on the eastern shore.

What I'm saying is that, while 2 hours sounds very significant to mainlanders who would never do that on a whim, it kind of aint shit to most Tasmanians.

There are a lot of anti-stadium arguments that have some merit, I've made some of them myself. But this north/south issue, tyranny of distance argument isn't one of those with merit IMO.
 
One of the things that amused me when I moved to the mainland is that, because it's such a pain in the arse to get anywhere, pretty much any time mainlanders get in the car it's a journey (unless you're going to work.)

Having grown up in Launceston it always struck as me as strange, cos trips to Devonport or Scotsdale or even Hobart weren't "a journey". You might just get up one day and decide to go visit someone, or decide to get up and go to the cricket, or your mum felt like going to Big W on the eastern shore.

What I'm saying is that, while 2 hours sounds very significant to mainlanders who would never do that on a whim, it kind of aint shit to most Tasmanians.

There are a lot of anti-stadium arguments that have some merit, I've made some of them myself. But this north/south issue, tyranny of distance argument isn't one of those with merit IMO.

OK I acknowledge your experience, but I work at the Deloraine tip (some times Westbury) and the number of people who tell me it's to far to drive to one or the other (they are open different days) is astounding. Many say they rarely go to Launceston as it's too far (30 mins). There are many here who never or rarely leave their hometowns. To say it "ain't shit to most Tasmanians'" is not my experience at all.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Independent report into Hobart's proposed new stadium has found the costs of the project have been significantly underestimated

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top