Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 29

[Festerz]

Remember all the dumb campaigners protesting against the Adelaide Oval redevelopment that revitalised the city?

Adelaide Oval was not a greenfields development. Nor did the redevelopment involve a roof catering for a maximum crowd of just 23k. And the city of Adelaide already had TWO AFL teams with strong supporter bases and was an established base for Test Cricket and international one day games.

There is ZERO comparison to be made with the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval to the rushed poorly thought out greenfields development of a new stadium in Hobart, where the commercial case for alternative revenue sources outside of bi weekly AFL games for 6 months a year is extremely weak.

Which is all fine if the Tasmanian Government has the financial capacity to cover the capital and ongoing financial losses for getting it wrong.

But they don't.

That's the issue.

 

[JimmyBC]

Wouldn't the stadium be used for concerts, cricket, BBL etc. as well?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Adelaide Oval was not a greenfields development. Nor did the redevelopment involve a roof catering for a maximum crowd of just 23k. And the city of Adelaide already had TWO AFL teams with strong supporter bases and was an established base for Test Cricket and international one day games.

There is ZERO comparison to be made with the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval to the rushed poorly thought out greenfields development of a new stadium in Hobart, where the commercial case for alternative revenue sources outside of bi weekly AFL games for 6 months a year is extremely weak.

Which is all fine if the Tasmanian Government has the financial capacity to cover the capital and ongoing financial losses for getting it wrong.

But they don't.

That's the issue.

I think the ongoing financial losses are overblown and can and will be countered by the general economic uptick from the wider MacPoint development. That report seems wildly pessimistic and again, there is no such thing as an independent report.

And ultimately, it's not going to send the state broke. So i'm not really fussed about the finances. Governments exist to enrich the lives of their constituents. This is a huge net positive for Tasmania and they can either spend it or get left further behind culturally.

I'm neither here nor there on a roof, it's just worth doing what they have to do to get this done. I think it will get done, and I think in a decade Tasmanians will look back on the argy bargy over the development and laugh, just as we do.

 

[Festerz]

Wouldn't the stadium be used for concerts, cricket, BBL etc. as well?

That's one of the points made in the damning economic assessment- a 23k capacity is woefully insufficient to provide the financial return to entice most middle and top tier music and other acts to hold concerts in Hobart, even ignoring the lack of connecting flights.

And, apart from shield or BBL games involving Tasmania, it is only suitable for low 2nd tier cricket games - certainly not Test matches involving the major revenue earning teams of India and England.

The financial case just doesn't stack up and was never tested properly in the rush to fit the fake Tasmanian election and Gil McLachlan's swansong deadline.

I'm sure it will go ahead for political reasons - but only because taxpayers outside of Tasmania have subsidised it. And then wait for when the Tasmanian Government cries poor again because they have zero money left to fund the things the money should have been used for instead - like new hospitals and aged care facilities in Hobart and Launceston. The hand will be out for more money from the mainland again.

The AFL has the financial capacity to fund a major part of the redevelopment and refused to do it.

 

[Andre]

Absolutely. There's never going to be a magical time in the future where all of these people are okay with a new stadium. There will always be protests. The only way to get something like this going is to strongarm people into making a decision.

Similarly, it's insane to me that the QLD Govt didn't end up using the Olympics to update the Gabba, which is an awful outdated stadium desperately in need of refurbishment. It's a wasted opportunity which will end up being even more expensive to fix later. Despite how we in Adelaide have seen that a stadium refurbishment can revitalise a city, every time a stadium or stadium redevelopment is proposed, the nimbys will sook and certain politicians will see opposing it as wastage as a vote winner.

Add to the sooks, they inevitably unironically include a bunch complaining their kids/grandkids have left the state for more exciting cities or those still in the location can’t get jobs as industries / events have bailed You listen to some and no tax dollars should be spent on anything other than health, education and police (and some object to the last of those).

 

[TeeKray]

Welcome to the paying for it part of the 'let's all make ourselves feel good by pushing for a Tasmanian team in the AFL despite there being no economic case for it' movement.

We don't need more teams, we need less.

 

[JimmyBC]

Welcome to the paying for it part of the 'let's all make ourselves feel good by pushing for a Tasmanian team in the AFL despite there being no economic case for it' movement.

We don't need more teams, we need less.

I think Tassie will work it will bring Hobart to life, it's hanging on to irrelevant mainland teams in Melbourne that forever fukcs everything.

 

[Festerz]

Welcome to the paying for it part of the 'let's all make ourselves feel good by pushing for a Tasmanian team in the AFL despite there being no economic case for it' movement.

We don't need more teams, we need less.

The case for a Tasmanian team in a national competition makes absolute sense. I'll go one further to state the obvious - to not have an AFL team from a state where Aussie Rules is THE top game makes zero sense.

But because of a pact between AFL House and the half of the AFL competition residing within a couple of decent screwies from Docklands, the AFL refuses to rejig its assets to take out a loan to make it happen.

Despite the fact 2 of those Melbourne based clubs- Hawthorn and North- have bled Tasmania dry in recent years to sustain their own financial stability - money that could and should have been used by McLachlan to building a standalone Tasmanian team with facilities to match.

And now the AFL suits sit behind their desks in Docklands smirking while politicians (and the taxpayers they represent) fight over who will make it work financially, when it should have been the AFL's task to solve.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Why do they need a roof? It's a winter sport.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Slash two melbourne teams and put Tassie in. Ez game.

 

[Steve Dore]

Why do they need a roof? It's a winter sport.

The roof is for the spectators not the players.

 

[Festerz]

The roof is for the spectators not the players.

Commissioning Kathmandu to make bespoke parkas in Tassie Devils colours for every one of the 23,000 season ticket holders every year for the first 10 years will probably save them about $100m compared to building a roof.

The NFL has some of its fans in the northern cities like Buffalo willing to sit in the snow to watch games FFS. You chose to live in Hobart - embrace it ffs.

 

[TeeKray]

Modern football is absolutely horrendous when it rains, turns the already ugly rolling maul into a total skill free shit show. The roof is a good investment.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Modern football is absolutely horrendous when it rains, turns the already ugly rolling maul into a total skill free shit show. The roof is a good investment.

Wet footy used to have a romance to it. I guess just like so much in the game did. Not there now.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Don't they already play games in Tasmania (and every ground in Australia except Docklands) in stadiums without roofs? What am I missing?

 

[JimmyBC]

What am I missing?

A roof

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Modern football is absolutely horrendous when it rains, turns the already ugly rolling maul into a total skill free shit show. The roof is a good investment.

Bash and crash slip and slide is always fun in moderation - just as long as you're watching on TV!

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm sure it will go ahead for political reasons - but only because taxpayers outside of Tasmania have subsidised it. And then wait for when the Tasmanian Government cries poor again because they have zero money left to fund the things the money should have been used for instead - like new hospitals and aged care facilities in Hobart and Launceston. The hand will be out for more money from the mainland again.

I'm completely fine with all of this, although I think the risk of the stadium sending Tasmania broke is very low.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Welcome to the paying for it part of the 'let's all make ourselves feel good by pushing for a Tasmanian team in the AFL despite there being no economic case for it' movement.

We don't need more teams, we need less.

There is no economic case for me to keep buying more expensive Lego sets but it makes me feel good.

Looking at things through a purely financial lens when we're talking about a not for profit professional sports league is pretty sad. I don't care if the AFL has to financially support the Tassie team forever, it's good for the game that this 40 year wrong has finally been righted.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

The case for a Tasmanian team in a national competition makes absolute sense. I'll go one further to state the obvious - to not have an AFL team from a state where Aussie Rules is THE top game makes zero sense.

I agree with this but for me the question has always been on timing.

The first step that needed to be taken in this venture was always to fold or merge Norf, and thus create the need for an 18th side (as odd numbered comps don't work as well). The best time to do this was in forming the Gold Coast Kangaroos. The next best time is to fold Norf tomorrow. The AFL failed to do this and now we're in a tricky situation, especially given the corrupt nightmare that is Laura Kane having so much power.

I think a large part of the issue is with Gillon McLachlan. Gil was effectively a seagull CEO (one who flies in, shits everywhere, and leaves). He was desperate to ensure he started a bunch of stuff so he would get all the credit for it, but knew he would be able to get out before the shit hit the fan and the promises he made would need to be delivered on. He made all of the easy calls but none of the tough calls. If you look at what he did at the top: Gold Coast, AFLW, Tasmania, all things that sound really good and go to his "legacy", but which are proving to be financially difficult to maintain. All while ignoring the concussion issues, the umpiring, Norf, the racism scandals at Hawthorn and the Tingles, etc. Now his successor has to find a way to actually make things work and its already proving to be difficult.

As you say, Tasmania has helped Norf remain in existence. If someone has been willing to think of the long-term and take the tough call we'd be in a situation now where the path to a Tasmanian team is either clearer, or Hawthorn would have been able to re-brand as the Hawthorn-Tasmania Hawks.

 

[Duck Farmer]

As you say, Tasmania has helped Norf remain in existence.

Ok, you've convinced me. Better off blowing money on a roof than propping up a gaggle of shittruck Victorian clubs.

 

[Lagooner]

The roof is way better for tourism and hosting non-sporting events. Hobart’s entertainment centre only holds about 5000 people. There’d be heaps they miss out on now because it’s not worth the trouble but that changes if they can triple/quadruple capacity.

If they build it without a roof they’ll be talking about how they should’ve done it for 40 years before finally doing it as an upgrade for triple the cost one way expressway style.

 

[TeeKray]

There is no economic case for me to keep buying more expensive Lego sets but it makes me feel good.

Looking at things through a purely financial lens when we're talking about a not for profit professional sports league is pretty sad. I don't care if the AFL has to financially support the Tassie team forever, it's good for the game that this 40 year wrong has finally been righted.

And it's the same mentality that will maintain the 10 Victorian teams forever and results in us having 19 and eventually 20 and who knows how many more teams with a talent pool that would support about half that in a competition where there is one prize and many supporter bases including ours will now likely go their whole lives without seeing their team win the thing. The continual expansion of the competition is rubbish and one of the things turning me off the sport the most.

 

[Andre]

Welcome to the paying for it part of the 'let's all make ourselves feel good by pushing for a Tasmanian team in the AFL despite there being no economic case for it' movement.

We don't need more teams, we need less.

We need less Victorian teams. 2 QLD, 2 NSW, 2 SA, 2 WA, Tassie, 7 Vic sides is an ideal mix for a national competition. Take your pick of North, St. Kilda, Melbourne and Bulldogs to merge/go out.

 

[240volt]

We need less Victorian teams. 2 QLD, 2 NSW, 2 SA, 2 WA, Tassie, 7 Vic sides is an ideal mix for a national competition. Take your pick of North, St. Kilda, Melbourne and Bulldogs to merge/go out.

Unfortunately what we need and what we get are two different things.
There will be no merger’s, you’ll get more teams and a less entertaining product due to a stretch in the player pool.
It always has and always will be an VFL extended competition.