Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Good luck with that one.Jeremy rockliff
He signed the contract but he'll be able to seek protection from his employerGood luck with that one.
The cost of the stadium, say realistically 20% over budget (850 million.) divided by less than 600,000 population.Lambie and Greens call for proposed Hobart stadium to be scrapped
The decision comes after both parties failed to form majority government…pulsetasmania.com.au
Cop this load of the bullshit from Woodruff - "People were devastated that a government would choose to spend over a billion dollars on a stadium in Hobart that we don’t need,” Woodruff told ABC Radio.
Laughable.
...The cost of the stadium to the Tasmanian taxpayers is $375m.The cost of the stadium, say realistically 20% over budget (850 million.) divided by less than 600,000 population.
Plus playing maybe only 11-12 games a year, the Tassie shouldn't have to shoulder so much of the burden.
That's a far more realistic figure, but it's not locked in, they are expected to pay for any increases over a 4 year period....The cost of the stadium to the Tasmanian taxpayers is $375m.
That's a far more realistic figure, but it's not locked in, they are expected to pay for any increases over a 4 year period.
Take note of how many major Australian building companies have collapsed in recent years. Trying to price projects on a fixed budget when materials are sky-rocketing and sufficient skilled labour unobtainable.
I'm totally invested in the Devils and their stadium, but can also fully understand concerns regarding the priorities of Tassie's other social issues.
Totally agree, it's too far down the track to reverse out, and it would a poor look.Yes I think those more punitive aspects of the contract will be waved by the AFL, if not explicitly then in the course of events. The fines for late completion of the construction for example will never be levied and if there are blowouts the AFL will find a way to help massage them and not leave it all up to the state. The ground swell of support means this thing has gotten too big for the AFL to accept failure, heartland supporters will be up in arms if the AFL keeps bailing out GWS/GCS but allows an AFL state to wither.
Yes things tend to increase in cost over time, including land. Therefore it's just as plausible to say the $85m expected to be generated via the private sector will increase and balance out any increase in stadium costs.That's a far more realistic figure, but it's not locked in, they are expected to pay for any increases over a 4 year period.
Take note of how many major Australian building companies have collapsed in recent years. Trying to price projects on a fixed budget when materials are sky-rocketing and sufficient skilled labour unobtainable.
I'm totally invested in the Devils and their stadium, but can also fully understand concerns regarding the priorities of Tassie's other social issues.
What is the main reason fuelling opposition to the stadium?Yes things tend to increase in cost over time, including land. Therefore it's just as plausible to say the $85m expected to be generated via the private sector will increase and balance out any increase in stadium costs.
If the AFL said they'd cover up to $100m in blowout costs, there would still be politicians peddling the idea that "Tasmania can't afford a billion dollar stadium" and glossing over the actual breakdown of where the money is coming from (a trick you fell for in post no. 957 btw).
So let us not pretend close and sincere attention to funding details is fuelling opposition to the stadium.
A very vocal portion of the Tasmanian population don't like change.What is the main reason fuelling opposition to the stadium?
I would have thought it's entirely about the distribution of tax payers funding, no matter what the final amount is.
Still think the AFL will cave in and the independents will get their housing, health and education funds.
Might result in a better arrangement for all stakeholders than the original one.
You are not suggesting an Amendment to the Terms & Conditions of a contract which was not negotiable.Yes things tend to increase in cost over time, including land. Therefore it's just as plausible to say the $85m expected to be generated via the private sector will increase and balance out any increase in stadium costs.
If the AFL said they'd cover up to $100m in blowout costs, there would still be politicians peddling the idea that "Tasmania can't afford a billion dollar stadium" and glossing over the actual breakdown of where the money is coming from (a trick you fell for in post no. 957 btw).
So let us not pretend close and sincere attention to funding details is fuelling opposition to the stadium.
Presumably you meant to respond to the person who is actually saying the AFL will change a contract that they have no need to change.You are not suggesting an Amendment to the Terms & Conditions of a contract which was not negotiable.
Yes apologiesSome vocal politicians mistakenly thought that voicing opposition will help them win an election. It didn't help, which would suggest Tasmanians for the most part are not opposed to the new stadium.
Presumably you meant to respond to the person who is actually saying the AFL will change a contract that they have no need to change.
Indeed, the time to negotiate is before you sign the papers. Now it's building time.
And do you really believe that if the stadium wasn't going to be built, that would make even the tiniest shred of a difference to any of those issues you raised? Also you want to retain young people in the state... then give us some things to do.What you fail to realize is that while Hobart is the biggest city, the majority of the population live in the north. Homelessness, educational outcomes and health services mean far more to them than Hobart getting a Gucci Bag stadium. I am pro stadium but understand why eating and seeing a doctor is more important to a great many of us.
Hobart and the South East have just over half the states population.Nah that's horse s**t. Tasmania has some of the worst education, health and housing issues in Australia. The population is shrinking, again, and is amongst the oldest in the country; meaning very complicated health issues and a shrinking tax base (along with a shrinking GST carve out).
When you think of Tasmania's issues think of the NT on steroids. Most young people leave for the mainland for much better opportunities, Hobart rentals are more expensive than Sydney and it's a dead end for anyone wishing to advance their careers compared to the mainland or overseas.
What you fail to realize is that while Hobart is the biggest city, the majority of the population live in the north. Homelessness, educational outcomes and health services mean far more to them than Hobart getting a Gucci Bag stadium. I am pro stadium but understand why eating and seeing a doctor is more important to a great many of us.
And do you really believe that if the stadium wasn't going to be built, that would make even the tiniest shred of a difference to any of those issues you raised? Also you want to retain young people in the state... then give us some things to do.
Hobart and the South East have just over half the states population.
That's not what oppositional defiant means. Not sure why you are accusing me of it anyway, look at the tone of your post vs mine...Did you even read my post? I said I'm pro stadium. Please stop being so oppositional defiant if you can. All I said is I understand those who feel it's a waste of money when families are living in tents, unable to see a doctor or have to choose between food and rent. I can tell you don't fit into any of those categories.