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