The Stadium!

[Mr Tassie]

The Cost Benefit analysis shows the stadium has a BCR rating of .69 which is still better than what Townsville stadium and Allianz stadium had and they are both successful stadium's.

 

[jj15]

I reckon it will end up one of the best venues for atmosphere to watch. Closer to the action the better.

Easily best home ground atmosphere imo.

 

[Truetiger]

Easily best home ground atmosphere imo.

Much like Geelong. That’s the advantage they will have unlike most victorian clubs. Ticket sales will interesting and hard to get what ya think Mr Tassie

 

[jj15]

The membership is the thing that interests me. I can’t see how they can sell a traditional 11 game home membership. Would lock out too many and cap our membership numbers too much due to the lack of seats.

 

[Truetiger]

The membership is the thing that interests me. I can’t see how they can sell a traditional 11 game home membership. Would lock out too many and cap our membership numbers too much due to the lack of seats.

They could limit the reserved seats membership, make most of them walk up? Then have to have X amount for the away team. Brendan Gale will do it successfully.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Much like Geelong. That’s the advantage they will have unlike most victorian clubs. Ticket sales will interesting and hard to get what ya think Mr Tassie

I think it's great

 

[Mr Tassie]

Interesting to see the government has hired an assessment panal to assess Mac point 2.0 . I think this could still be in the mix, so could they're yet be a twist in the stadium deal?

 

[footyscribe]

Interesting to see the government has hired an assessment panal to assess Mac point 2.0 . I think this could still be in the mix, so could they're yet be a twist in the stadium deal?

Nah.

I believe government is obligated to assess unsolicited proposals of this nature, rightly or wrongly.

What advantages or benefits would 2.0 have that 1.0 doesn’t? I can’t see any. In fact, I think 2.0 has far more challenges and obstacles.

If 1.0 doesn’t pass, then 2.0 is no chance

 

[Mr Tassie]

Nah.

I believe government is obligated to assess unsolicited proposals of this nature, rightly or wrongly.

What advantages or benefits would 2.0 have that 1.0 doesn’t? I can’t see any. In fact, I think 2.0 has far more challenges and obstacles.

If 1.0 doesn’t pass, then 2.0 is no chance

Ok thankyou for your opinion.

 

[Jayman15]

More items revealed as not being budgeted for in Hobart's proposed stadium costings

A three-storey, underground car park at Hobart's proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium is the latest known exclusion from the building cost estimates, a parliamentary hearing is told.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Aussie in exile]

More items revealed as not being budgeted for in Hobart's proposed stadium costings

A three-storey, underground car park at Hobart's proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium is the latest known exclusion from the building cost estimates, a parliamentary hearing is told.

www.abc.net.au

Oh dear

 

[Mr Tassie]

Oh dear

How could they of not included the car park in the cost estimate is what I would like to know.

 

[Walshawk]

Both Hawthorn and North are looking at playing their home games v Tassie, in Tassie.

Both clubs will instantly regret this once the first ball is bounced and they realise that they have given up valuable home ground advantage with the vast majority of the crowd against them.

 

[Walshawk]

The membership is the thing that interests me. I can’t see how they can sell a traditional 11 game home membership. Would lock out too many and cap our membership numbers too much due to the lack of seats.

Actually, unless the AFL dumps Gather Round, there are likely to be 12 home games for Tasmania (you can’t have a 23 games season with an odd number of teams).

Sorting out the memberships between North and South will be key to having 50k members. You don’t want the same 22k buying reserved seats to both venues. It will r3euce total membership numbers, and will result in empty seats for some games.

 

[footyscribe]

How could they of not included the car park in the cost estimate is what I would like to know.

My understanding of this is that the car park is only partly for stadium use, but mostly for broader precinct use including prospective hotel and antarctic precinct.

It was included in the PoSS submission so they could get planning approval for it to be built.

I believe the carpark wont be included in the stadium construction breif. Itll be done seperately, and be done with private money, which is why it hasnt been included in the cost.

Its a 530 space car park with only about 70 spaces for the stadium, and will be for public use on non-event days (of which there will be about 300) so will be very attractive to a car park developer

 

[Mr Tassie]

My understanding of this is that the car park is only partly for stadium use, but mostly for broader precinct use including prospective hotel and antarctic precinct.

It was included in the PoSS submission so they could get planning approval for it to be built.

I believe the carpark wont be included in the stadium construction breif. Itll be done seperately, and be done with private money, which is why it hasnt been included in the cost.

Its a 530 space car park with only about 70 spaces for the stadium, and will be for public use on non-event days (of which there will be about 300) so will be very attractive to a car park developer

Thankyou kindly for that. With the government only contributing $375 million, do you still think the stadium will attract private investment (excluding the car park) considering the stadium is expected to run at a loss?....

 

[Aussie in exile]

How could they of not included the car park in the cost estimate is what I would like to know.

Dumb on thier part in my opinion. Really dumb

 

[footyscribe]

Thankyou kindly for that. With the government only contributing $375 million, do you still think the stadium will attract private investment (excluding the car park) considering the stadium is expected to run at a loss?....

Yes, because you need to look beyond simply "the stadium".

The privates wont be, and arent, interested in the stadium in and of itself. They want access to the entire site. And why wouldnt they? Its one of the most attractive parcels of lands in the country for development.

The car park will be one revenue generator. As will a potential hotel. As will a potential convention centre. As will whatever else a private wants to put there. This is what they do. They fund public infrastructure and then build their own moneymakers around them. Maybe one of the consortiums pitches a private hospital or clinic?

The price of entry for a private will be tipping in for the stadium (likely through those 'revenue generators' that were left out of the costings - food and bev, ad boards, carpark) in exchange, government will say fill your boots on the remainder of the site.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Yes, because you need to look beyond simply "the stadium".

The privates wont be, and arent, interested in the stadium in and of itself. They want access to the entire site. And why wouldnt they? Its one of the most attractive parcels of lands in the country for development.

The car park will be one revenue generator. As will a potential hotel. As will a potential convention centre. As will whatever else a private wants to put there. This is what they do. They fund public infrastructure and then build their own moneymakers around them. Maybe one of the consortiums pitches a private hospital or clinic?

The price of entry for a private will be tipping in for the stadium (likely through those 'revenue generators' that were left out of the costings - food and bev, ad boards, carpark) in exchange, government will say fill your boots on the remainder of the site.

With only $250 million from the federal government which isn't GST exempt,$15 million from the afl and $375 million from the state government a lot of money will also have to come from the private sector or elsewhere.

 

[footyscribe]

With only $250 million from the federal government which isn't GST exempt,$15 million from the afl and $375 million from the state government a lot of money will also have to come from the private sector or elsewhere.

Yep, so lets say 375 + 15 + 120 (assuming half the fed money gets clawed back)

Thats $510m into the stadium and precinct from the government, which we will say is going to cost $850m to build.

So for the price of $300m or so (the gap), a private consortium will

• Fund a slice of the stadium, and earn a percentage of revenue from it
• Have exclusive rights to fund and build ad boards, food and bev, carpark and derive all or most revenues from them (lets say 55m + carpark build at $20m - so $70m)
• Have exclusive rights to build hotel, conference centre and whatever else they want on one of the most vaunted parcels of land in the country, and take the lions share of all revenue from them (lets say they spend 400m on these)
• Enter into a 25-30 year agreement with the government that will see the government pay the consortium a yearly 'availability' fee that covers all maintenance etc, which lets say will be 15m per year

So in all, a consortium might end up outlaying 7-800m of money but will take maybe something like 400m in availability fees alone over 30 years, as well as the 30 years worth of profits from all their ventures.

Deduct all costs over the lifetime, and the profits are still going to be there.

That carpark will do 3-4m a year alone.

They will absolutely 100% make money.

The attractive thing about these ventures is the long term nature. Its a 30 year revenue and profit stream, at least.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Yep, so lets say 375 + 15 + 120 (assuming half the fed money gets clawed back)

Thats $510m into the stadium and precinct from the government, which we will say is going to cost $850m to build.

So for the price of $300m or so (the gap), a private consortium will

• Fund a slice of the stadium, and earn a percentage of revenue from it
• Have exclusive rights to fund and build ad boards, food and bev, carpark and derive all or most revenues from them (lets say 55m + carpark build at $20m - so $70m)
• Have exclusive rights to build hotel, conference centre and whatever else they want on one of the most vaunted parcels of land in the country, and take the lions share of all revenue from them (lets say they spend 400m on these)
• Enter into a 25-30 year agreement with the government that will see the government pay the consortium a yearly 'availability' fee that covers all maintenance etc, which lets say will be 15m per year

So in all, a consortium might end up outlaying 7-800m of money but will take maybe something like 400m in availability fees alone over 30 years, as well as the 30 years worth of profits from all their ventures.

Deduct all costs over the lifetime, and the profits are still going to be there.

That carpark will do 3-4m a year alone.

They will absolutely 100% make money.

The attractive thing about these ventures is the long term nature. Its a 30 year revenue and profit stream, at least.

Thankyou for this comprehensive explanation of how a private partnership could work for the stadium. I have seen many say that investors won't go near the stadium because it's expected to run at a loss, so great to see how it really could work.