The Stadium!

[The Tilt]

It only paid $30m of $430m build cost for Docklands in 2000 which it would receive full title and rights to in 31/10/2025 for $10 transfer, yes $10, in a BOOT - Build, Own, Operate, Transfer model, but decided to pay $200m+ in October 2016 and get the cashflow of the asset 9 years earlier, and then in 2019 was able to squeeze the Vic government for $225m for upgrades to their asset, as well as another $250m for footy facilities in Victoria - professional and amateur.

The AFL contributed $30m to the initial construction, but also entered a contract to stage 45 matches per season at the Docklands for the next 25 years: this contract facilitated the remaining $400m needed. The state government paid nothing whatsoever: the Victorian public got all the benefits of a multi-purpose stadium without having to pay for it.

I don't know how anyone looks at that and thinks that the AFL has gotten away with something they shouldn't have.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL contributed $30m to the initial construction, but also entered a contract to stage 45 matches per season at the Docklands for the next 25 years: this contract facilitated the remaining $400m needed. The state government paid nothing whatsoever: the Victorian public got all the benefits of a multi-purpose stadium without having to pay for it.

The AFL didnt contribute to the initial construction. It paid $30 million in 2001 for the freehold title.

From the 1997 Report





From the 2016 Concise Annual Report


------------------------------------------

I don't know how anyone looks at that and thinks that the AFL has gotten away with something they shouldn't have.

People are dumb and misunderstand the principle of the BOOT program this was done under. The AFL effectively paid off the debt of SOL

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The AFL are explicitly not wanting a team in Tasmania at all and have gotten $12 million per year for 12 years guaranteed from the Tasmanian government to cover the shortfall of the team representative of the fact that it's representing a region/city with a far lesser population and therefore it will always be behind in its ability to generate revenue.

The fact that the AFL are tipping in anything at all for a team they don't really want should say something.

The Tasmania team will still be paying rent to the owners, it's not as if that won't happen.

 

[Not Important]

i’m not convinced the boot system applies here.

in any event, the primary reason for the stadium being built is for the purpose of playing afl football. it will be used for other purposes, but the fact remains - no afl football, no stadium. and for the afl to get away with stumping up such a small proportion of the funding is hard to defend. added to which, as the costs blow out as they inevitably will, the tassie gov’t will have to stump up more money and go cap in hand to the feds to help bail them out. you can bet your sweet bippy the afl won't cough-up another cent.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

i’m not convinced the boot system applies here.

in any event, the primary reason for the stadium being built is for the purpose of playing afl football. it will be used for other purposes, but the fact remains - no afl football, no stadium. and for the afl to get away with stumping up such a small proportion of the funding is hard to defend. added to which, as the costs blow out as they inevitably will, the tassie gov’t will have to stump up more money and go cap in hand to the feds to help bail them out. you can bet your sweet bippy the afl won't cough-up another cent.

But that's inevitable when the state needs the team more than the AFL as an institution needs the team.

This whole process started off by Tasmania asking the AFL what would be required to have a team, not the AFL asking Tasmania to build a stadium for a team.

The AFL isn't really benefitting from a Tasmanian team. It has an obligation to manage and be the custodian of football, granted, but it also needs to try and generate revenue generally, of which a Tasmanian team won't mange.

If the Tasmanian government says "we won't put in more money even though more money is needed", the AFL will say "ok, sure, that breaches the contract we all signed" and be happy to move on without the team.

 

[Not Important]

How much did soccer and rugby contribute to the rectangular stadium in Melbourne? I think it was all government

whataboutism perhaps, maybe, possibly..........

 

[Not Important]

But that's inevitable when the state needs the team more than the AFL as an institution needs the team.

This whole process started off by Tasmania asking the AFL what would be required to have a team, not the AFL asking Tasmania to build a stadium for a team.

The AFL isn't really benefitting from a Tasmanian team. It has an obligation to manage and be the custodian of football, granted, but it also needs to try and generate revenue generally, of which a Tasmanian team won't mange.

If the Tasmanian government says "we won't put in more money even though more money is needed", the AFL will say "ok, sure, that breaches the contract we all signed" and be happy to move on without the team.

seriously?

 

[The_Wookie]

i’m not convinced the boot system applies here.

It doesnt. This hasnt been mentioned in any proposal, and isnt in the contract

 

[Perry Pie]

I think the stadium, with its roof, is going to work out really well in the end.
What is the worst that can happen?
1/ The Devils fold and it sits unused? Well that is not going to happen - we have seen the level of support which has surprised everyone.
2/ Cricket refuses to use for some reason? Not likely - a weatherproof ground will work really well. (remember that TV likes events to be mostly free of interruptions... filming rain does not do much for ratings)
3/ No other events happen? Well, there will be some, again the all weather capability works in favour of its use. AFLW may be limited after October due to cricket use, but they will use it. Soccer will give it a go at some point - having the stadium creates opportunities.

With the integration of other things on and near the site it will work really well. The RSL is pushing some something which is a good idea, the "aboriginal cultural zone" should be improved too to make the whole site and its surrounds more than just the stadium.

The biggest risk is construction failures or mistakes in design, not how or if its going to be used.

 

[peetoo]

I think the stadium, with its roof, is going to work out really well in the end.
What is the worst that can happen?
1/ The Devils fold and it sits unused? Well that is not going to happen - we have seen the level of support which has surprised everyone.
2/ Cricket refuses to use for some reason? Not likely - a weatherproof ground will work really well. (remember that TV likes events to be mostly free of interruptions... filming rain does not do much for ratings)
3/ No other events happen? Well, there will be some, again the all weather capability works in favour of its use. AFLW may be limited after October due to cricket use, but they will use it. Soccer will give it a go at some point - having the stadium creates opportunities.

With the integration of other things on and near the site it will work really well. The RSL is pushing some something which is a good idea, the "aboriginal cultural zone" should be improved too to make the whole site and its surrounds more than just the stadium.

The biggest risk is construction failures or mistakes in design, not how or if its going to be used.

Just don’t make the mistakes melbournes docklands stadium did. It hasn’t revitalise the area t all

 

[Not Important]

I think the stadium, with its roof, is going to work out really well in the end.
What is the worst that can happen?
1/ The Devils fold and it sits unused? Well that is not going to happen - we have seen the level of support which has surprised everyone.
2/ Cricket refuses to use for some reason? Not likely - a weatherproof ground will work really well. (remember that TV likes events to be mostly free of interruptions... filming rain does not do much for ratings)
3/ No other events happen? Well, there will be some, again the all weather capability works in favour of its use. AFLW may be limited after October due to cricket use, but they will use it. Soccer will give it a go at some point - having the stadium creates opportunities.

With the integration of other things on and near the site it will work really well. The RSL is pushing some something which is a good idea, the "aboriginal cultural zone" should be improved too to make the whole site and its surrounds more than just the stadium.

The biggest risk is construction failures or mistakes in design, not how or if its going to be used.

i think using the stadium for other events was central to the pitch. as does the ‘g’, docklands, and aami.

 

[Not Important]

are we waiting for benny to take the ceo chair before we get updates on the stadium development? very quiet.

 

[The King!]

Was at the seminar thing where Kathryn McCann spoke about the Devils and their progress.

All she said about the stadium was the devils are pushing on with building the team but things like stadium and performance centre are out of the clubs hands, they are stuck waiting for the government (as is Benny Gale) like everyone else .

 

[Jazny]

are we waiting for benny to take the ceo chair before we get updates on the stadium development? very quiet.

It's going to be quiet for awhile.

 

[Jazny]

The GST exemption for the $240m the government is contributing is going ahead

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Bjo187]

i’m surprised the afl, as a major beneficiary, has got away with only ponying up $15 million when the state is tipping in $375 million and the feds $240 million.

This is one of the dumbest posts I've read. The Tasmanian government demands a team and the afl to expand against it's will, the afl says ok, on the condition of a new stadium, then the afl has to chip in because the federal government intentionally under funds their portion?

The afl is the only sport in the country that continually chips in for these stadium builds and training facilities, it's nuts, projects they shouldn't be contributing to at all, when no other sport in Australia ever does.

I don't think you've figured out that the 15 mill they're chipping in for the stadium (how much is cricket chipping in by the way?), gets likely taken away from grassroots development that could be used to produce more talent in Tasmania, it's gotta come from somewhere.

 

[Not Important]

This is one of the dumbest posts I've read. The Tasmanian government demands a team and the afl to expand against it's will, the afl says ok, on the condition of a new stadium, then the afl has to chip in because the federal government intentionally under funds their portion?

The afl is the only sport in the country that continually chips in for these stadium builds and training facilities, it's nuts, projects they shouldn't be contributing to at all, when no other sport in Australia ever does.

I don't think you've figured out that the 15 mill they're chipping in for the stadium (how much is cricket chipping in by the way?), gets likely taken away from grassroots development that could be used to produce more talent in Tasmania, it's gotta come from somewhere.

thanks for a dumb riposte, bomber

the major beneficiaries are the afl and by a distance. to get away with contributing a comparatively small per cent fixed is a joke. moreso cos we know, as with all these major projects, the sum blows out.

and they are not the only sport that chips in on these matters. had you kept abreast of recent news, you’d be better informed.

btw the criticism is of the respective governments for not pressuring the afl. and that applies to your whataboutism re cricket. although their potential use hasn’t been determined, and they do not need the expansion.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

the major beneficiaries are the afl and by a distance.

But if the AFL thought that there was a benefit to the AFL, they would be the ones pushing for a team, not having to be asked and then have a committment of $12 million per year for $12 years to underwrite the team.

That's the whole point being missed here. Why should the AFL fund a stadium, where even if such a team is playing in a new stadium, they see as a burden, and not a benefit? So much so that they've gotten $144 million contractually guaranteed from the Tas government for the team to exist?

 

[Aussie in exile]

But if the AFL thought that there was a benefit to the AFL, they would be the ones pushing for a team, not having to be asked and then have a committment of $12 million per year for $12 years to underwrite the team.

That's the whole point being missed here. Why should the AFL fund a stadium, where even if such a team is playing in a new stadium, they see as a burden, and not a benefit? So much so that they've gotten $144 million contractually guaranteed from the Tas government for the team to exist?

This a good reason why sports should build their own stadiums and not use taxpayers money.

 

[Bjo187]

thanks for a dumb riposte, bomber

the major beneficiaries are the afl and by a distance. to get away with contributing a comparatively small per cent fixed is a joke. moreso cos we know, as with all these major projects, the sum blows out.

There's always a major beneficiary in each stadium build, as each stadium requires content to pay the bills. The difference with this is, the Tasmanian government demanded a team, then the afl had to put it's hand in it's own pocket for the team to meet the criteria they set out

and they are not the only sport that chips in on these matters. had you kept abreast of recent news, you’d be better informed.

What other league in Australia has contributed to a new stadium build? The recent stadiums I can think of are Townsville, Parramatta, Sydney football stadium in the rectangular world, of course no contribution from major beneficiaries the nrl (who don't even contribute to their own expansion sides these days) and the A league.

In the oval stadium world we have Adelaide oval, Carrara stadium, Sydney showgrounds stadium (all AFL contributions), Perth the only one with no AFL contribution, Tasmania (AFL contribution).

I ask again, why is the AFL the only league in Australia required by government to drain it's coffers and chip in? Particularly when cricket uses all these stadiums as well and never contributes?

btw the criticism is of the respective governments for not pressuring the afl. and that applies to your whataboutism re cricket. although their potential use hasn’t been determined, and they do not need the expansion.

I think you'll find Albanese did pressure the AFL to chip in 'we want to see a bigger contribution from the AFL' were his words when he wanted to drain their coffers.

Of course he doesn't ask that of his mates the NRL, despite giving them 650 mill in funding for infrastructure and a sports team with no benefit to the Australian public at all.

Also of note, the afl generally only make profits of 20 mill per year, so their contribution is basically a whole years worth of profits to the Tasmanian stadium (they're also contributing to the training centre for some reason).

Again, compare that to the AFL's main competitor the nrl, that have made around 3x the profits of the AFL in the past couple of years, that then get 3x the amount of government funding for png compared to the tassie stadium. All with zero requirement for any contribution from the nrl either, the double standards are extrodinary. It definitely pays to have mates in government is all I can say.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This a good reason why sports should build their own stadiums and not use taxpayers money.

No, but the Tasmanian government gains benefits from externalities that the AFL doesn't benefit from, such as tourism spend. The AFL doesn't get money from hotel bookings in cities that they take games to, for instance.

These are concepts that are not unknown to both governments and the AFL.

 

[footyscribe]

As anticipated, the government has now commenced its EOI process for private investors. The only question is how the precinct will be procured.

I’d expect some very strong interest from public infrastructure funders and consortiums. We know that the Plenary group will propose a PPP model.

May the games begin!

 

[nobbyiscool]

As anticipated, the government has now commenced its EOI process for private investors. The only question is how the precinct will be procured.

That is so far from the only question...

 

[The_Wookie]