The Stadium!

[T2B_]

I didn't read the report as quite frankly I can't be bothered and it wouldn't change my opinion anyway. Just get it done, whatever it takes.

 

[Saucery]

I could have just said "I don't believe you", but the meme seemed a nicer way to put it. Who reads a report like that twice? Why would you?

OK I' just going to leave here. you obviously don't like people having their own opinions and insult them when they do. I love a good conversation but not a grudge match. What reason you have to doubt me is beyond my comprehension, but it's a bit too fanatical in here for me.

I bought two foundation memberships, one for me and one for my rusted-on hawthorn supporting brother. I won't bother renewing as we only ever go to York Park anyway, as we live in Delorian.

Good luck with everything, I'd love to see a Tassie team own the mainlanders (unless it's my beloved Lions of course).

 

[Jazny]

OK I' just going to leave here. you obviously don't like people having their own opinions and insult them when they do. I love a good conversation but not a grudge match. What reason you have to doubt me is beyond my comprehension, but it's a bit too fanatical in here for me.

I bought two foundation memberships, one for me and one for my rusted-on hawthorn supporting brother. I won't bother renewing as we only ever go to York Park anyway, as we live in Delorian.

Good luck with everything, I'd love to see a Tassie team own the mainlanders (unless it's my beloved Lions of course).

Thanks! There is a mainboard to shout about the sky falling over like 0.9% of the state budget expenditure over the next 4 years. This board is for supporters of Tasmania, so you might get a little bit of pushback if you come in here praising Jaquie Lambie and doomsaying the stadium which the team's existence depends on. Glad you have a team to support, because without the stadium I won't.

But I am not selfish, if I didn't believe it would be worth it for the state in the long term, I wouldn't support it. Anyway, the feds will have to bail us out if we spend too much

As it is, if the stadium comes in on budget, we are getting the deal of the century! For 375 million, we get a return of 360 million from the AFL in investment in Tasmanian football, 240 million from the feds, a brand new state of the art roofed stadium for hosting all kinds of events, and an AFL and AFL/W team that will help our economy. The return on the investment is amazing. So if it blows out a bit, it's not really an issue.

 

[footyscribe]

I did read it, twice actually. As I live here, I think I have a right to comment on financial stories that affect my state. After the whole Tas ferries fiasco, which we will be paying for for decades to come, I don't think any of the assumptions are either hilarious or represent a blatant lack of understanding of the industry. Infrastructure projects here have a long history of going **** up.

I’d read it a third time then.

Some bizarre stuff in there.

For example, adding a decade of Devils funding in as a stadium cost.

There’s also a $9m “visual disamenity” cost that has been added in.

His costings also include $155m of “opportunity cost” and he has bolted on every ancillary cost he can find including $1m for a UTAS pocket park as part of its southern campus transformation (???)

And the author assumes interstate crowds in Tasmania will be the same, even with Collingwood games at a new city stadium. In fact, he actively decides not to include them.

There’s a bunch of valid stuff in there of course, but more than enough malarkey to really make you wonder.

 

[Jazny]

I’d read it a third time then.

Some bizarre stuff in there.

For example, adding a decade of Devils funding in as a stadium cost.

There’s also a $9m “visual disamenity” cost that has been added in.

His costings also include $155m of “opportunity cost” and he has bolted on every ancillary cost he can find including $1m for a UTAS pocket park as part of its southern campus transformation (???)

And the author assumes interstate crowds in Tasmania will be the same, even with Collingwood games at a new city stadium. In fact, he actively decides not to include them.

There’s a bunch of valid stuff in there of course, but more than enough malarkey to really make you wonder.

lol when I have time I will fact check this, but if that's true that is incredibly bad faith from old Gruen! How much did we pay this guy?

 

[BoomerRoo]

I did read it, twice actually. As I live here, I think I have a right to comment on financial stories that affect my state. After the whole Tas ferries fiasco, which we will be paying for for decades to come, I don't think any of the assumptions are either hilarious or represent a blatant lack of understanding of the industry. Infrastructure projects here have a long history of going **** up.

I live here as well, so so using your logic, I also have a right to comment, which was that "I disagree with you". Now that doesn't make me any better than you Saucery or vice versa.

As others have commented, there are plenty of disingenuous statements in the report, some of them stated above, others still seeking substantiation.

In my opinion, Nic, whom I know personally for what it's worth, hasn't recognised the "brief as such" (poor choice of words, but it's late).

I've a meeting first thing Monday, in which myself and a few in my "agency", will look through the review more thoroughly obviously.

As I've pointed out many many pages before, I work in "Stadia", overseas for a few years (not so much anymore) and lately more locally, Optus, Etihad/Marvel, Allianz and one or two other smaller projects and have done so for many years (feels like way too many actually). I worked on this proposal in it's early days, but my "contract" finished a few months ago now, so in saying all of the above, I'd just like to repeat, these views are my own.



As for the "Ferry Fiasco" as you call it, TT-Line and Tas Ports have a lot to answer for in regards to this atrocious lack of responsibility. Their whole boards should have been dismissed immediately.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Even at $2 billion it would still be worth it.

A major football team gives the state cultural relevance on a national stage that they're severely lacking.

At 2 billion it would most definitely not be worth it.

At 1billion it might not be either.

 

[The_Wookie]

Take some time and read the report deeply.

There’s some hilariously pessimistic assumptions in there and some very interesting methodology.

There’s also a very blatant lack of understanding of the AFL and broader industry

Its true.





I mean this was bullshit, not least because he cites a US researcher based on the US experience. Doesnt seem to want to look at Adelaide at all, which is the prime model for Australian stadiums now.


I mean this is just pulling figures out his arse.
But this is my favourite


Dont worry about actual attendances as a percentage of memberships or anything, or this doozy



West Coast is popular in Perth not Tasmania, Geelong is not Essendon, Collingwood, or Richmond and Carlton are unlikely to go there again while they are rising like this. Never mind that their oponents have mostly been friggin North, GWS, Gold Coast, or other non victorian sides or anything.

 

[footyscribe]

Its true.

View attachment 2198825
View attachment 2198821

View attachment 2198799
I mean this was bullshit, not least because he cites a US researcher based on the US experience. Doesnt seem to want to look at Adelaide at all, which is the prime model for Australian stadiums now.

View attachment 2198802
I mean this is just pulling figures out his arse.
But this is my favourite

View attachment 2198808
Dont worry about actual attendances as a percentage of memberships or anything, or this doozy

View attachment 2198811

West Coast is popular in Perth not Tasmania, Geelong is not Essendon, Collingwood, or Richmond and Carlton are unlikely to go there again while they are rising like this. Never mind that their oponents have mostly been friggin North, GWS, Gold Coast, or other non victorian sides or anything.

The interstate visitation stuff in this report is some of the most ludicrous Mac Point stadium literature I’ve read and believe me there’s some stinker stuff.

 

[Bjo187]

The interstate visitation stuff in this report is some of the most ludicrous Mac Point stadium literature I’ve read and believe me there’s some stinker stuff.

The government should be on the front door pointing out the flaws in the report, control the narrative.

 

[Underarm]

At 2 billion it would most definitely not be worth it.

It's called hyperbole.

At 1billion it might not be either.

If the margins were that thin, they never should have begged for a football team in the first place.

 

[peetoo]

The crowds for the first ten years of tassie devils will be closer to the first ten years of hawks than more recently

I reckon threll be sell outs and not accessible to poorer tasmanians etc

 

[Jazny]

That report just breathed a little life back into the no stadium people, but a few weeks and it will die down again. The sunken costs will mean pulling out of it will be worse than going ahead soon.

 

[madmug]

Its true.

View attachment 2198825
View attachment 2198821

View attachment 2198799
I mean this was bullshit, not least because he cites a US researcher based on the US experience. Doesnt seem to want to look at Adelaide at all, which is the prime model for Australian stadiums now.

View attachment 2198802
I mean this is just pulling figures out his arse.
But this is my favourite

View attachment 2198808
Dont worry about actual attendances as a percentage of memberships or anything, or this doozy

View attachment 2198811

West Coast is popular in Perth not Tasmania, Geelong is not Essendon, Collingwood, or Richmond and Carlton are unlikely to go there again while they are rising like this. Never mind that their oponents have mostly been friggin North, GWS, Gold Coast, or other non victorian sides or anything.

Economists & accountants make good employees, but terrible managers. Thats oft stated for a reason. They often have little imagination or lateral thinking.
Using the report as a warning that costs must be managed is fine, & to be expected. But as you say, the report has flaws.
Looking at the consultation in Perth, the naysayers in Perth never stopped attacking the project until the day it was a success. Adelaide oval too had to be dragged across the line because of sectional in fighting. They too shut up when it was such a success.
So much of the report is so negative & even disingenuous. Opportunity cost? That could apply to ANYTHING built anywhere. Government support for the Devils is money spent here, whereas Hawthorn & North support money goes straight out of Tasmania. So infact its a benefit. That apart, we know inner city quality venues attract patrons. A quality comfortable venue like this will attract maximum support. (Thats why I think the capacity should be at least 28,000 to start.)

 

[madmug]

That report just breathed a little life back into the no stadium people, but a few weeks and it will die down again. The sunken costs will mean pulling out of it will be worse than going ahead soon.

I still think Stadium 2.0 should be assessed properly & seriously considered. There is value in PPP ventures when properly done. Especially in providing the other aspects it proposes, apart from the suitable stadium. After all, its only some 200 metres or so away from the MacPoint proposal 1!

 

[Jazny]

I still think Stadium 2.0 should be assessed properly & seriously considered. There is value in PPP ventures when properly done. Especially in providing the other aspects it proposes, apart from the suitable stadium. After all, its only some 200 metres or so away from the MacPoint proposal 1!

It won't happen, time to move on.

 

[Truetiger]

The crowds for the first ten years of tassie devils will be closer to the first ten years of hawks than more recently

I reckon threll be sell outs and not accessible to poorer tasmanians etc

Will be interesting to see the breakdown of Tickets to Members, GA and oppo fans.

 

[The_Wookie]

Economists & accountants make good employees, but terrible managers. Thats oft stated for a reason. They often have little imagination or lateral thinking.
Using the report as a warning that costs must be managed is fine, & to be expected. But as you say, the report has flaws.
Looking at the consultation in Perth, the naysayers in Perth never stopped attacking the project until the day it was a success. Adelaide oval too had to be dragged across the line because of sectional in fighting. They too shut up when it was such a success.
So much of the report is so negative & even disingenuous. Opportunity cost? That could apply to ANYTHING built anywhere. Government support for the Devils is money spent here, whereas Hawthorn & North support money goes straight out of Tasmania. So infact its a benefit. That apart, we know inner city quality venues attract patrons. A quality comfortable venue like this will attract maximum support. (Thats why I think the capacity should be at least 28,000 to start.)

I was particularly amused when he started waffling on about the state losing money from people going to Devils matches interestate and saying that had to be factored. Like wtf

 

[The_Wookie]

I still think Stadium 2.0 should be assessed properly & seriously considered. There is value in PPP ventures when properly done. Especially in providing the other aspects it proposes, apart from the suitable stadium. After all, its only some 200 metres or so away from the MacPoint proposal 1!

With all the land reclamation from the Derwent? Its never going to happen.

The Government is going to private enterprise to help with macpoint though

 

[peetoo]

I was particularly amused when he started waffling on about the state losing money from people going to Devils matches interestate and saying that had to be factored. Like wtf

Tasmanians regularly travel to Melbourne to attend AFL already

 

[madmug]

With all the land reclamation from the Derwent? Its never going to happen.

The Government is going to private enterprise to help with macpoint though

2.0 appears to tick so many boxes. It's had geotech work done so the reclamation is quite doable, it has support from the HCC as it has other added aspects that are needed. It makes no sense to me that it gets dismissed so flippantly.

 

[footyscribe]

2.0 appears to tick so many boxes. It's had geotech work done so the reclamation is quite doable, it has support from the HCC as it has other added aspects that are needed. It makes no sense to me that it gets dismissed so flippantly.

I think 2.0 has far more environmental and heritage hurdles, land ownership issues and will cost the public as much as Mac Point while having no federal or AFL backing. Not to mention a pivot to 2.0 now would well and truly sink the 2029 timeline.

 

[Underarm]

2.0 appears to tick so many boxes. It's had geotech work done so the reclamation is quite doable, it has support from the HCC as it has other added aspects that are needed. It makes no sense to me that it gets dismissed so flippantly.

You've been sold by the the brochure, the marketing spinned up by those who will profit the most from it going ahead.

If 2.0 was that much better it would have been considered in the first place.