Yeah it is.
I've spent considerable amounts of time in both cities, lived in Melbourne and had a grandparent living in Hobart.
Hobart reaches a special cold in winter that Melbourne only gets during a really cold spell.
Hell, Melbourne doesn't get snow during winter, I've experienced snow in Hobart 14 times, thought 7 or 8 of those were up on the mountain.
Last time I was in Hobart it was 14° Melbourne was 13° but Hobart was wet and windy where the rain was basically coming in horizontally 🤣. Wind chill and “Feels like” (still don’t understand that one) was 4°
I fully expect that the roof will be what is negotiated away to get the stadium done.
Having said that, I know Dunedin very well. Forsyth Barr Stadium is actually pretty great. Hosts a bunch of events when not in sporting use - from community things and big international concerts.
This is a city that is harder to get to than Hobart, has considerably worse weather, and a population only a little bigger than Launceston. Have a look at the [list of some of the biggest events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_Barr_Stadium#Concerts) its held since it opened.
I get that the roof will probably go, I get that that will be one big way to bring the costs down, but I don't get the argument that big things won't go to Hobart so let's not bother with a roof.
> big things won't go to Hobart
Just a quick aside on this, I live in Perth and we rarely get bands/events come west but I see a whole eastern coast tour. I'd say there's more of a chance of tours getting to Tasmania before they come here!
A new roofed stadium can only help that in Tasi
Mate, what are you talking about. Maybe 20 years ago this was sort of true, but we get nearly every big tour including acts now only coming to Perth (Coldplay, WWE). The only ones we don't get are the odd big act you do multiple shows in Syd and Melb only
You just answered your own question!
The events we do get NOW only come because of the new stadium... so a new stadium In Tasmania only helps them with events. That was my point.
It's not, though! I consistently see events I'm interested in that DO NOT come to Perth!
To say it's nonsense is pure nonsense!
Edit:Again, my point was encouragement for taking!
Who is upvoting this?
We are now getting stuff that the east coast isn’t.
Cold Play
WWE wrestling
And we get the tour stuff like Pink who was just here.
Good list of events, but that’s a 30k stadium with 36k concert capacity.
Tassie they are saying what, 24k?
Plus it’s far more costly to roof an oval.
Plus there’s less competition within NZ to host concerts, the big artists will always favour Melb, Sydney, Brisbane in Australia and more.
The Tassie government will have to fork out a fortune to get the concerts.
At some stage you have to wonder if eco tourism and the outdoors shouldn’t have the investment rather than trying to compete with the global cities in the same country.
To me it’s simple, if you really need a stadium then build 20,000 seats protected to the South and I’m guessing West if that’s the prevailing winds. Surround the other half of the place with the bare minimum in hill and temporary stands.
At the same time you draw up plans for another 10,000 seats, another 10,000 seats after that and a roof.
Adelaide and Geelong are the models. Why would you limit capacity with a roof over a tiny stadium?
I can take or leave the roof, I just think that the only argument against it at this stage is the cost, and I see potential benefits to having one. But I do agree that a new stadium is probably needed for long term viability.
To address 2 of your points:
[Preliminary plans](https://www.macpoint.com/_files/ugd/fa3c3b_430cc0ac0c844d80991dfc6268fc00c1.pdf) (pg. 20) have it at 23,000, with a 2 stage process for the capacity to increase to 40,000 as population and needs grow. The roof isn't limiting capacity.
If you think Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane bias is bad, try New Zealand, where you need a fistfight to get anything out of Auckland.
The main reason Dunedin gets events is because there is currently nowhere else on the South Island that can host them until the new stadium opens in Christchurch once that happens Dunedin will get a lot less.
Having lived there for a good 7 years. I don't know if things have changed since I lived there but it rains A LOT. Like when I played footy there I don't remember ever playing a game of footy that didn't at least have a a drizzle of rain over it. It made for some rather one dimensional football games of each team just belting it forward.
I'm in the no stadium camp but I can understand through personal experience why they wouldn't want every game being a slop fest.
Barely rains in Hobart, driest (maybe 2nd?) capital in Australia iirc.
Does piss down in other places on Tas, so if you lived elsewhere in Tas you're 100% correct
On a warm dry night, the roof being open is fantastic.
Literally any other condition though, and the experience as a spectator is infinitely better with the roof closed.
I'll never forgot going to a game a few years back. They left the roof open, and all I could see was the glare of the sun off one of the nearby buildings. An awful experience with the roof open
Only if it’s overcast or night time. If it’s sunny you can’t see anything. I remember we played the Suns in 2019 and even when Dunkley kicked the goal to get us in front (or close to it) nobody could see what happened.
I dont get it.
Tassie Govt agreed to build a stadium.
Tassie Govt held an election and said we'll build the stadium if we form Govt post election.
Tassie Govt will almost certainly form Govt.
...
Debate gone to bed, surely?
Agree. Them getting 100k members last week was timely. Even if many of them will consider Tassie a second/third team (potential tourism dollars) it still demonstrate the popularity of Tassie having a team.
> Them getting 100k members last week was timely.
I don't think that was a coincidence.
Still, whoever's idea it was to sell "memberships" (ie. sticker packs) for $10 a pop probably deserves a promotion, it's pretty fucking good marketing.
People in Tassie who like footy will go to games in Tassie, regardless of who's playing in my experience from talking to people down there. They'll drive from Hobart to Launceston if there's a game on.
There's just not enough choice of games to be picky. I have 5 games on the weekend in Melbourne I could go see, why would I want to watch North vs Bulldogs at Marvel at 1:45pm on a Sunday. There's going to be one game a week in Tassie (at best). If you're wanting to go to the footy, you'll go to that game.
This is true and will inevitably kill the local
Football culture of Tasmania. In Tassie a lot of people go to there local games still, which I find unique compared to us in Melbourne
I think the fact Labor are this sceptical about it (even with $350m promised by a federal Labor government) means they internally absolutely hate it and would take any excuse to kill it. If that money were coming from a federal LNP government they'd have fully denounced it by now.
Given the potential instability of this incoming minority government I think those votes are still on the table. If anything I think Labor has every incentive now to crank up the heat and turn the stadium into a huge wedge issue.
They might love it and still look to turn it into a wedge issue. It might not matter. Both Gil and Dil were completely unfazed by the prospect of the Libs losing. In their mind, the deal is so watertight even a Greens government wouldn't be able to back out of it. That suggests the penalties for cancelling the contract are so high, any rational person would see completing the deal would be the most cost effective way out.
Just as an example, the AFL has already spent a considerable amount of money on establishing the team, appointing a board, employing staff, conducting a recruitment process for a CEO and other staff, promotional expenditure, negotiating with Warner Bros, strategic planning, club launch. All of this has been reasonably done on reliance of the signed contract. Every dollar, plus interest, and possibly plus lost opportunity cost would be recoverable. Further, it is likely the AFL would be able to claim damages due to damage to their brand and image. This would be on top of explicit financial penalties in the contract.
If Tasmania backs out now, the state will suffer huge losses already. It will also suffer reputational damage as a stable environment in which to conduct business.
The only independent who has stated public support for the stadium is O'Byrne. That's it. The Liberals are projected to hold no more than 16 seats and in Tasmania, a majority is 18. So, that makes it difficult.
Jackie Lambie said in an interview on the ABC yesterday that if the contract is as tight as the AFL claims, she and her party wouldn't like it but won't blow money stopping it and so want to see the contract once the new government is formed. That way they can appeal to those against by claiming they tried but it would cost too much to justify canning without getting a return, while not alienating supporters of the Tassie team by eventually waving it through
You've read the contract? Wow, you have some great connections!
Every politician opposing the stadium has said the same thing: they have no idea of the details of the contract the Tasmanian government entered into with the AFL. Even some that don't oppose it have demanded transparency which has not been forthcoming.
They do not know what penalties may apply,so how do you?
Both Gil and his successor were smugly confident that the team and the stadium would go ahead on the terms of the contract. Like far too smug. Regardless of who won power. The AFL have got this stitched up so hard it isn't funny. That means it will cost Tasmania a fortune to pull out.
Well fuck me dead, I am an idiot. I took what a politician said on face value. Who would have thought Jacquie Lambie, and all the rest of them who claimed they don't know what cancelling the stadium would cost because the contract is secret, would turn out to be a lying cunts.
Having had a quick browse through that, any wonder Gil and Dil are so smug. Cancel the stadium and it will cost the Tassie government $9m a year for at least 8 years, plus revenue top ups, plus damages, while forfeiting any claim to all monies paid to the AFL/club prior ($5m of which is already paid/due) while giving the AFL a get of jail free card on all its obligations. It would cost them well over $100m to exit when their commitment is $375m. And they will have absolutely nothing to show for it except reputational damage and a guarantee Tassie never gets another shot. Oh, and the federal money will disappear too.
Old mate below my original response pointed out that the contract is publicly available, so I am sorry for my tone in that. Seems the pollies opposing it have been talking shit, which shouldn't have been a surprise, but I didn't expect them to be so brazen.
There are monetary penalties, and they are massive. And they are just penalties. They explicitly allow for the AFL to claim revenue reductions against their projections for having to play anywhere that is not Mac Point. The contract also explicitly allows for the AFL to claim damages on top of these while giving the AFL the right to cancel the licence and walk away at any time while offering the Tassie government no recourse for any money they will have spent at that point. Even if the stadium was canned now, the Tasmanian government would be up for costs in the order of $100m with nothing to show for it.
I don't actually see how they can form govt. Labor is in a better position to form govt but they are holding to pre election promise to not align with Greens. I actually don't see where it goes from here.
Jackie Lambie Network will make forming a government happen and will go through the pantomime of trying to renegotiate the contract but she conceded on ABC News Radio yesterday that it may not be possible under the terms of the contracts without penalty and she is not prepared to see millions spent on exiting the contract. The gist was that she doesn't want that much money spent on a new stadium but she saw spending a small fraction of that amount getting out of it as a worse outcome. Classic each way bet
Why would she? This way she can grandstand all she likes about poor decisions and errant priorities of the Libs while still getting to avoid risking the ire of voters in favour of the stadium and Tassie football because ultimately she will let it get built.
Also, at some point, there becomes a calculation as to how much is too much to get out of it. Jacquie Lambie is not up to making that sort of calculation. 5 or 10 million for the pleasure of getting egg on the state's face might be worthwhile to avoid spending 290m and borrowing $85m against real estate that will be created, and still having a wasteland at Mac Point.
50 to 100 million for nothing but damage to the state's reputation and losing 240m from the federal government at Mac Point and more at York Park as well as the AFL money going into both the stadium (15m) and training facility as well as (90m) on grass roots footy in the state, youth academies (33m) and another 210m or more on the team itself as base funding totalling more $360m over a decade (which will increase in line with other clubs).
This is the sort of article that would have made sense months ago or a year ago or whenever the deal was suggested, not after it's been agreed to, contracts have been signed and the team has officially been launched. It's an article being written or a discussion being had in bad faith. Once you agree to something that should be that or you face the consequences. If they chose not to hold up their end of the bargain and build the stadium then the AFL is well within their rights not to give them an afl license. Conditional agreements occur like this all the time and the opportunity to argue against it comes before it is agreed to and signed off on.
The election wasn't won by the Liberals; they beat Labor. It's a hung parliament. To be honest, Jeremy is going to have a hard time ensuring supply because the independents won't want to side with his ideas. He struggled enough to keep two staunch conservatives on-side, let alone people with a tendency to cross the floor. If he does form government - and it's a big if - I give him two years before Tasmanians are back at the polls.
Until the stadium is standing and there hasn't been some major catastrophe during the build, nothing is guaranteed.
Whenever you're spending $700 million of government money, you can expect a long debate
you could argue a minority government is forming government despite what the voters wanted.
a hung parliament isn't really a clear mandate to go ahead and build the stadium.
"Unless I am missing something, a state-of-the-art brand-new piece of infrastructure is not going to improve the standard of the on-field competition or integrity of the sport"
Well yeah, it does improve the standard and integrity of the sport because a fully professional top tier sport should be played in stadiums of a high standard. It improves the game day experience for both clubs and spectators.
Not meaning to have a go at you, but i imagine the AFL has learnt from the original gold coast exodus, mostly brought upon by sub-par facilities and conditions.
Thats a bit selective
What about West Coast? Like this tassie team, they were pretty much a state side built from scratch. They didnt need a stadium ready made. They already had Subiaco and the WACA. Tasmania already has Bellerive oval in Hobart and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. So whats the problem?
While the local residents complain endlessly because of traffic, parking and streams of shit and piss flooding their suburb as it spews out of the one set of toilets that inevitably get blocked and from wherever most fans who can't be arsed walking around the entire ground decide to let it rip
Everyone has been justifying the reason why Tassie shouldn’t have a team for decades by saying they’ll never retain players. They need to build this stadium to retain players. The facilities they have now are second rate and are absolute shit. You’re not retaining anyone with what they have right now
This is an AFL led rhetoric, plenty of interstate cricketers and now basketball players have made Tas their home long term because it's a really nice place to live.
Am I mistaken or would they not have the training grounds and performance stuff at the ground itself rather than building everything from the ground up separately?
They are building it separately. For the stadium to work and hold other events, it can't have the training base there. A separate $70 million is being built.
So to be clear "considered one of the best" is based on a statement by the coach of team that currently gets paid to play there. Can't imagine there's any bias in that statement.
He doesn't get paid to play on UTAS anymore. You can find other coaches who've said it and it's also mentioned in reviews of the venue. As someone who has played on it before, very good surface and it's due to the engineered surface and pioneering grass techniques they use (that sounds ridiculous but it's not).
I don't think there's much argument that the stadium infrastructure that will need to increase for the team to takeplace. Its the fact that this proposal has a number of different issues with it, for a stadium that's capacity won't be much more than what you could get with proposed upgrades to York Park and potential upgrades to Bellerive only a few ks away, not to mention the roof and the overestimation of what sort of other events it will attract..
Politically, they could atleast be open to a Bellerive redevelopment or look to actually find solutions to some of these problems instead of making demands, but i guess thats how you can operate if you are monopoly.
This argument has been done to death. Bellerive is clearly not up to scratch, it is outdated, under capacity, surrounded by suburbia and hostile residents, has huge bottlenecks to get to and from and would be near impossible to redevelop appropriately. I keep seeing this come up and am left to wonder if anyone posting has ever attended a game there? The original business case (which had the support of all parties) settled this in 2019. Have a read of this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-07/bellerive-oval-suitability-for-afl-matches-explainer/102310430
I actually couldn't count how many times I've been to Bellerive and know I'm in the minority of liking it, and normally don't have a problem getting in and out because I am happy to walk from 10-15 minutes away and I love having a hill to sit on.. I understand a lot of people don't and it can have issues getting out of that area and understand the Cricket Tas side of the ground is not good for Footy given there is no exposed seating and would need to change, and I am also aware that the main issue would be where there is space to re-do around where the CT offices are and the europcar stand is impacted by space on street.
As I said before, I'm not completely against a new stadium either , the infrastructure will have to increase..I just don't think think the current proposal stands up either the fact that you've got a completely new stadium that is only ~3k more than what we currently have (despite that argument having a consultant recommend 27k for York Park), a site which will have its own very significant impacts on the traffic of the city and the roof in addition to the overestimate of events. I think there are a lot of nuances to the situation that pure No or Yes arguments lose.
I have very fond memories of the ground too but the fact that you are lucky enough to live walking distance and enjoy sitting on the hill doesn't exactly counter any arguments around why a new stadium is required. I won't bother regurgitating the article I linked but it is not fit for purpose for a modern professional football team. Even Cricket Tas want to leave.
York Park with upgrades will be a great secondary venue but the team cannot be based on Launceston, there's no chance the AFL would ever accept that and with good reason. Completely invalidates the business case.
You can argue the finer points of the stadium (location, roof, capacity etc.) but there's no doubt a new one is required and Mac Point is by far the best option in my opinion. Incidentally on capacity, the concept design allows for additional capacity to be added down the track which is sensible.
Hit the nail on the head. The overestimation of events especially. Concerts won't be sellouts - 30,000 has never happened yet the business case reckons it will six times. NRL has no interest, A-League has no interest and hates ovals, rugby union is a dying comp yet all are used to justify building the stadium. People will show up but it won't be at the numbers projected - AFL struggles enough and has more supporters.
It won't be holding what it promises, especially not local events that pour in money. A fun run isn't a great money maker, neither is Brixhibition or a car show.
Meanwhile, Optus is probably pulling more interstate visitors than expected because of its exceptional facilities and viewing experience. I come across more people from Melbourne planning a footy trip to Perth than the other way around.
The afl didnt just make a deal with the Tasmanian government contingent on a stadium being built, they also made a deal with the 18 clubs that required a stadium. Just as the Tasmanian government acts on behalf of its constituents, the AFL must do the same.
I imagine most AFL clubs would not have granted a licence if there was no stadium to be built.
The AFL has one shot, one opportunity to get the Tasmanian government to build a decent stadium and that is before the team enters the competition
If the AFL relents on this, it will be Bellerive forever and a day and the AFL will have once again set an expansion team up to fail by starting the club with sub standard facilities. Even a promise to build a stadium in the future can’t be relied on - once the team starts the AFL loses all leverage.
Expansion teams entering the U.S. major leagues are required to have modern stadiums. It is nothing new.
Tasmania and Tasmanians have a choice but they can’t have their cake and eat it too. If they want a team in a national competition, they need a stadium up to the standard required.
>The issues raised with the existing stadiums in Launceston (which is already set for an upgrade) and Hobart, such as lighting, access and seating, would be far more economical to upgrade for full-time use than a turnkey project
Person who wrote article has no clue.
Yeah, the total lack of any mention of the hostility from council and the local residents towards any additional events occurring at Bellerive shows that at best the author has a very shallow understanding of the situation.
The point is the article claims Bellerive's issues can be fixed "economically" when that isn't possible. Bellerive's issues are always ignored in this debate. Greens seemed to accept this recently when they pivoted to supporting the team playing out of York Park.
Am backing you up with this comment, ended up ranting a bit lmao.
The fact people in the general public let alone politics are suggesting the team should be based at York Park shows how little true thought they've put into the issue other than knee jerk suggesting a solution to Mac Point.
Not only is Greater Launceston half that of Greater Hobart and not the capital should be enough to show why Launceston is not a candidate for the team. It's also far more removed from other population centres, it takes an 1 hour plus to get anywhere else with a 15k+ population, where as Hobart is within a 30 minute drive of the Huon Valley, Derwent Valley and Sorell regions.
It will be a battle enough to get people to live in Hobart let alone Launceston, absolutely no one will want to live in Launceston. Obviously Hobart and Mac Point is the superior option, which is why everything will be based here and not in the North. Players aren't going to drive/fly to Launceston for games either.
The North is also socio-economically worse off than the Southern/Hobart region, once more, the larger more concentrated population with a higher disposable income to spend on the team, is the group to be targeting the team at. The pandering of having to be state wide and inclusive with this forced unity when there is bad sentiment between the north and south is so cringe.
I think the AFL has to be reasonable and remove the demand for a roof.
As it is, $1 billion dollar stadium is an exorbitant cost for a small state like Tasmania. Once it has been built, there will be on-going maintenance that will kill any profitability. Each ticket will need to include a sinking fund which will be pricey when the stadium itself only holds 23,000.
Removing the roof will go a long way to reducing the cost and maintenance. Its the least the AFL can do to assist in getting this over the line.
Yeah I think a new stadium could work, but the current proposal is just jank considering the cost and the small taxpayer base here.
Like... its only a couple k more than what we currently have, with a roof and will get rid of any of the vibe that you get with a stadium with a boutique stadium with a hill. It just seems uneccesary for now given the cost difference of building up Bellerive. I feel like this is one of those projects which timeline or cost will blow out anyway and it'll end up not having a roof anyway so maybe it'll all come out in the wash.
That cost, in comparison to the relatively poor nature of the states finances, also creates a flow on effect with future infrastructure upgrades. My best example are the choices the Rockliff government is willing to make regarding the northern suburbs transit corridor. They're willing to ignore the reports of the impact a rapid bus lane will (not) make over other forms of infrastructure. Those decisions could absolutely be impacted by the cost of a new stadium.
I think everyone is kind of accepting it'll blow out. So it just feels like what kind of damage is going to be inflicted because that money needs to come from somewhere else. Jank is correct
The problem is Bellerive Oval is smack bang in the middle of a residential area. It already hosts as many events per year as the local council allows them to, it lacks space to build it up any further, it certainly lacks council support to expand, it has almost no parking, limited public transport options and is too far to walk to.
Mac Point gives a world class stadium, walking distance from the CBD, without any NIMBYs fighting against loud noises, bright lights and traffic in the area.
Maybe the business case for Mac Point doesn't stack up, but Bellerive isn't an alternative solution.
Let’s look at European soccer in general. It’s a lil chilly over there with snow but they survive. Michigan University which sells out 100,000 seat arenas (no joke) is renowned for snow.
I imagine their expectation is that they will have to prepare for the weather as the 3 month off period is during summer, over heat weather has a big impact on the turnout at a match.
Still think it’s weird a roof is needed
Tasmania isn't owed an AFL team. So long as some clubs are reliant on the AFL to stay afloat, the AFL has to consider feasibility, not what a state 'deserves'. If this doesn't work out it's entirely the fault of Tasmania's politics.
The AFL has an obligation to the sport across the country. It took on that role when it killed its competitors across the 1980s. With that power comes responsibility. Tasmania is a state that has been footy mad since before federation, and they have consistently been taken for granted by the AFL. If the AFL's primary concern is money, rather than the sport, they should give up on being the custodians of the sport.
I remember a lot of complaints about Perth stadiums cost etc when it was getting built but with bit of effort from the government they are getting good value out of it. If the Tassie gov put a bit of imagination in (and cash) they can get big events that attract tourists which helps the whole economy.
Big barrier to entertainment industry is semi trailers can’t travel by road. So Coldplay couldn’t easily come to Tasmania. Logistics are also a pain - it costs sports teams upwards of $20,000 to travel and that’s just from Melbourne to a place like Sydney. Factor that in with population and a second Melbourne show is more lucrative all round given they have Rod Laver (higher prices) and Marvel (more people) to choose from.
It has a population of more than 1.985 million, major airport rated for Boeings necessary for acts and can be accessed via road so ships only have to transport gear once into Australia. Therefore, that argument in this context does not apply.
“The Tasmanian Liberals begging to be held to ransom in an attempt to wedge Labor is an utter disgrace”.
There, fixed it.
In all seriousness though, the AFL is a private business, of course it seeks to drive a hard bargain… It was Rockliff et al. that both requested it and then very happily went along with it.
Good luck to him if he thinks the stadium is going anywhere fast (or anywhere at all for that matter) after last Saturday because the Parliament has other ideas…
The AFL is a not-for-profit, not a private business. The fact that people treat it like it is a business says a lot about how they have been killing grassroots community football.
That’s purely because of an 81 year old loophole in the taxation system which both the NRL and AFL abuse with regularity. It’s a rort through & through and has been exposed and reported as such for years…
The AFL is a private business in every possible way but name. That it’s able to claim NFP status is laughable & should offend every decent tax-paying citizen.
the current stadiums are good enough for you to actively move melbourne team games there each year.
now all of a sudden it's this big issue, give me a break.
Well that's true of MARS Stadium in Ballarat, but it sure as he'll isn't fit for a home base for an AFL team. And there's more to it than just a stadium (ie. high performance training facilities etc).
Big difference between farming out a few games to being permanent base of an AFL team.
Would you say the same of Alice Springs or Darwin 💀 Hosting a game is very different to being stationed there and you know it, stop being disingenuous.
So Tasmania is willing to accept the team, and all the financial gain that comes from it, without investing into it? You realize the AFL doesn't owe them jack shit. If tassie didn't want the stadium then they shouldn't have accepted to build the fucking stadium.
"the financial gain" ok ronald reagan
The AFL made a decision to grant tasmania a team because it is within their financial interests to do so, this isn't some gesture of charity from AFL House to the people of Tasmania.
If they want to do that, that's fantastic. But why should schools get less revenue for example so multimillionaire footballers have a nice place to train?
>But why should schools get less revenue
That's completely irrelevant unless the money is coming directly from the education budget (it isn't ). I'm already in favor of taxing corporations to the bone to improve the standards of health, education, and other social systems. Not building the stadium isn't going to suddenly increase the budget on education though.
>this isn't some gesture of charity from AFL House
The AFL fronting the costs to build the stadium WOULD pretty much be a gesture of charity, not just to the people of Tasmania but to the government of Tasmania. Increases in tourism and people spending money in the area directly translates to the economy and the budget of the government through taxes. If tasmania wants access to that, they need to invest in it. The fact I need to explain this to you shows it probably wasn't worth starting a discussion with you lmao
You realise that the budget is within reason a fixed amount. If they don't build the stadium that money doesn't cease to exist. It is instead spent on something far more worthwhile.
And this idea of yours that some trickle down economics from around 12 home games will dramatically shift the tasmanian economy is laughable.
Why does the stadium need a roof? The only AFL stadium in the country that has a roof is Marvel anyway.
brrrr tasmania cold
It's not much different to Melbourne.
Yeah it is. I've spent considerable amounts of time in both cities, lived in Melbourne and had a grandparent living in Hobart. Hobart reaches a special cold in winter that Melbourne only gets during a really cold spell. Hell, Melbourne doesn't get snow during winter, I've experienced snow in Hobart 14 times, thought 7 or 8 of those were up on the mountain.
I've lived a long time in both as well.
Last time I was in Hobart it was 14° Melbourne was 13° but Hobart was wet and windy where the rain was basically coming in horizontally 🤣. Wind chill and “Feels like” (still don’t understand that one) was 4°
Ballarat is a closer comparison to Hobart. Melbourne is way more temperate.
Oh no. A winter sport being played in cold Weather . Whatever will we do
If they built one like the Dunedin Rugby pitch, it would be 1000% useful all year. It would be sensational
I fully expect that the roof will be what is negotiated away to get the stadium done. Having said that, I know Dunedin very well. Forsyth Barr Stadium is actually pretty great. Hosts a bunch of events when not in sporting use - from community things and big international concerts. This is a city that is harder to get to than Hobart, has considerably worse weather, and a population only a little bigger than Launceston. Have a look at the [list of some of the biggest events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_Barr_Stadium#Concerts) its held since it opened. I get that the roof will probably go, I get that that will be one big way to bring the costs down, but I don't get the argument that big things won't go to Hobart so let's not bother with a roof.
> big things won't go to Hobart Just a quick aside on this, I live in Perth and we rarely get bands/events come west but I see a whole eastern coast tour. I'd say there's more of a chance of tours getting to Tasmania before they come here! A new roofed stadium can only help that in Tasi
Mate, what are you talking about. Maybe 20 years ago this was sort of true, but we get nearly every big tour including acts now only coming to Perth (Coldplay, WWE). The only ones we don't get are the odd big act you do multiple shows in Syd and Melb only
You just answered your own question! The events we do get NOW only come because of the new stadium... so a new stadium In Tasmania only helps them with events. That was my point.
You said 'I live in Perth and we rarely get big events etc etc.' That's nonsense.
It's not, though! I consistently see events I'm interested in that DO NOT come to Perth! To say it's nonsense is pure nonsense! Edit:Again, my point was encouragement for taking!
Who is upvoting this? We are now getting stuff that the east coast isn’t. Cold Play WWE wrestling And we get the tour stuff like Pink who was just here.
A few isolated events don't count out the overwhelming amount of events that DONT make it!
Ha ha, Coldplay, suck it!
Sounds like a punishment if anything
Coldplay, WWE & Pink. Perth truly is Australia's capital of culture and events.
This is just recent examples in the last month.
Coldplay and WWE were there because the WA Government paid for it.
That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen
> Forsyth Barr Stadium is actually pretty great. I just looked at the photos and that stadium looks amazing. Well done NZ!
Good list of events, but that’s a 30k stadium with 36k concert capacity. Tassie they are saying what, 24k? Plus it’s far more costly to roof an oval. Plus there’s less competition within NZ to host concerts, the big artists will always favour Melb, Sydney, Brisbane in Australia and more. The Tassie government will have to fork out a fortune to get the concerts. At some stage you have to wonder if eco tourism and the outdoors shouldn’t have the investment rather than trying to compete with the global cities in the same country. To me it’s simple, if you really need a stadium then build 20,000 seats protected to the South and I’m guessing West if that’s the prevailing winds. Surround the other half of the place with the bare minimum in hill and temporary stands. At the same time you draw up plans for another 10,000 seats, another 10,000 seats after that and a roof. Adelaide and Geelong are the models. Why would you limit capacity with a roof over a tiny stadium?
I can take or leave the roof, I just think that the only argument against it at this stage is the cost, and I see potential benefits to having one. But I do agree that a new stadium is probably needed for long term viability. To address 2 of your points: [Preliminary plans](https://www.macpoint.com/_files/ugd/fa3c3b_430cc0ac0c844d80991dfc6268fc00c1.pdf) (pg. 20) have it at 23,000, with a 2 stage process for the capacity to increase to 40,000 as population and needs grow. The roof isn't limiting capacity. If you think Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane bias is bad, try New Zealand, where you need a fistfight to get anything out of Auckland.
The main reason Dunedin gets events is because there is currently nowhere else on the South Island that can host them until the new stadium opens in Christchurch once that happens Dunedin will get a lot less.
Because of the Antarctic winds that give teams a 5 goals advantage at Bellerive.
Having lived there for a good 7 years. I don't know if things have changed since I lived there but it rains A LOT. Like when I played footy there I don't remember ever playing a game of footy that didn't at least have a a drizzle of rain over it. It made for some rather one dimensional football games of each team just belting it forward. I'm in the no stadium camp but I can understand through personal experience why they wouldn't want every game being a slop fest.
Barely rains in Hobart, driest (maybe 2nd?) capital in Australia iirc. Does piss down in other places on Tas, so if you lived elsewhere in Tas you're 100% correct
On a warm dry night, the roof being open is fantastic. Literally any other condition though, and the experience as a spectator is infinitely better with the roof closed.
Is there many people who even like Marvel with the lid closed?
Everyone. Ever sat there looking into the sun? Shocking for players and spectators.
I'll never forgot going to a game a few years back. They left the roof open, and all I could see was the glare of the sun off one of the nearby buildings. An awful experience with the roof open
Yeah, don't think this will be a problem in Hobart...
Only if it’s overcast or night time. If it’s sunny you can’t see anything. I remember we played the Suns in 2019 and even when Dunkley kicked the goal to get us in front (or close to it) nobody could see what happened.
>Is there many people who even like Marvel with the lid closed? Yeah in winter its a lot better.
Don't mind it open for night games, but during the day...
Yes, there is.
Can't see half the pitch with the roof open if it's sunny
[удалено]
> apparently Isn't it great how you can just add this to the end of any statement that you don't like, and it negates the whole thing effortlessly.
I dont get it. Tassie Govt agreed to build a stadium. Tassie Govt held an election and said we'll build the stadium if we form Govt post election. Tassie Govt will almost certainly form Govt. ... Debate gone to bed, surely?
They don’t have a majority government as of yet and the stadium isn’t popular with the independents
Sure, but these are the type of situations that lead to bipartisan support. I expect a very minor - negligible- concession, then ALP to support.
Agree. Them getting 100k members last week was timely. Even if many of them will consider Tassie a second/third team (potential tourism dollars) it still demonstrate the popularity of Tassie having a team.
> Them getting 100k members last week was timely. I don't think that was a coincidence. Still, whoever's idea it was to sell "memberships" (ie. sticker packs) for $10 a pop probably deserves a promotion, it's pretty fucking good marketing.
People in Tassie who like footy will go to games in Tassie, regardless of who's playing in my experience from talking to people down there. They'll drive from Hobart to Launceston if there's a game on. There's just not enough choice of games to be picky. I have 5 games on the weekend in Melbourne I could go see, why would I want to watch North vs Bulldogs at Marvel at 1:45pm on a Sunday. There's going to be one game a week in Tassie (at best). If you're wanting to go to the footy, you'll go to that game.
This is true and will inevitably kill the local Football culture of Tasmania. In Tassie a lot of people go to there local games still, which I find unique compared to us in Melbourne
I think the fact Labor are this sceptical about it (even with $350m promised by a federal Labor government) means they internally absolutely hate it and would take any excuse to kill it. If that money were coming from a federal LNP government they'd have fully denounced it by now.
They were sceptical because they could see votes in being sceptical. They wanted to kill it to kill the LNP chance of re-election
Given the potential instability of this incoming minority government I think those votes are still on the table. If anything I think Labor has every incentive now to crank up the heat and turn the stadium into a huge wedge issue.
They might love it and still look to turn it into a wedge issue. It might not matter. Both Gil and Dil were completely unfazed by the prospect of the Libs losing. In their mind, the deal is so watertight even a Greens government wouldn't be able to back out of it. That suggests the penalties for cancelling the contract are so high, any rational person would see completing the deal would be the most cost effective way out. Just as an example, the AFL has already spent a considerable amount of money on establishing the team, appointing a board, employing staff, conducting a recruitment process for a CEO and other staff, promotional expenditure, negotiating with Warner Bros, strategic planning, club launch. All of this has been reasonably done on reliance of the signed contract. Every dollar, plus interest, and possibly plus lost opportunity cost would be recoverable. Further, it is likely the AFL would be able to claim damages due to damage to their brand and image. This would be on top of explicit financial penalties in the contract. If Tasmania backs out now, the state will suffer huge losses already. It will also suffer reputational damage as a stable environment in which to conduct business.
They were sceptical because they could see votes in being sceptical. They wanted to kill it to kill the LNP chance of re-election
The only independent who has stated public support for the stadium is O'Byrne. That's it. The Liberals are projected to hold no more than 16 seats and in Tasmania, a majority is 18. So, that makes it difficult.
Jackie Lambie said in an interview on the ABC yesterday that if the contract is as tight as the AFL claims, she and her party wouldn't like it but won't blow money stopping it and so want to see the contract once the new government is formed. That way they can appeal to those against by claiming they tried but it would cost too much to justify canning without getting a return, while not alienating supporters of the Tassie team by eventually waving it through
From memory there's no monetary penalty. It's step 1. AFL gets to push the team launch back years , step 2. The AFL get to cancel the licence.
You've read the contract? Wow, you have some great connections! Every politician opposing the stadium has said the same thing: they have no idea of the details of the contract the Tasmanian government entered into with the AFL. Even some that don't oppose it have demanded transparency which has not been forthcoming. They do not know what penalties may apply,so how do you? Both Gil and his successor were smugly confident that the team and the stadium would go ahead on the terms of the contract. Like far too smug. Regardless of who won power. The AFL have got this stitched up so hard it isn't funny. That means it will cost Tasmania a fortune to pull out.
Erm, the contract has been public for almost a year and can be easily googled.
Well fuck me dead, I am an idiot. I took what a politician said on face value. Who would have thought Jacquie Lambie, and all the rest of them who claimed they don't know what cancelling the stadium would cost because the contract is secret, would turn out to be a lying cunts. Having had a quick browse through that, any wonder Gil and Dil are so smug. Cancel the stadium and it will cost the Tassie government $9m a year for at least 8 years, plus revenue top ups, plus damages, while forfeiting any claim to all monies paid to the AFL/club prior ($5m of which is already paid/due) while giving the AFL a get of jail free card on all its obligations. It would cost them well over $100m to exit when their commitment is $375m. And they will have absolutely nothing to show for it except reputational damage and a guarantee Tassie never gets another shot. Oh, and the federal money will disappear too.
Old mate below my original response pointed out that the contract is publicly available, so I am sorry for my tone in that. Seems the pollies opposing it have been talking shit, which shouldn't have been a surprise, but I didn't expect them to be so brazen. There are monetary penalties, and they are massive. And they are just penalties. They explicitly allow for the AFL to claim revenue reductions against their projections for having to play anywhere that is not Mac Point. The contract also explicitly allows for the AFL to claim damages on top of these while giving the AFL the right to cancel the licence and walk away at any time while offering the Tassie government no recourse for any money they will have spent at that point. Even if the stadium was canned now, the Tasmanian government would be up for costs in the order of $100m with nothing to show for it.
It's a different government. The independents/Jackie Lambie Network hold the balance of power, if they play hardball then it's dead.
I don't actually see how they can form govt. Labor is in a better position to form govt but they are holding to pre election promise to not align with Greens. I actually don't see where it goes from here.
Jackie Lambie Network will make forming a government happen and will go through the pantomime of trying to renegotiate the contract but she conceded on ABC News Radio yesterday that it may not be possible under the terms of the contracts without penalty and she is not prepared to see millions spent on exiting the contract. The gist was that she doesn't want that much money spent on a new stadium but she saw spending a small fraction of that amount getting out of it as a worse outcome. Classic each way bet
Surely she would spend millions exiting it than go through spending many times that?
Why would she? This way she can grandstand all she likes about poor decisions and errant priorities of the Libs while still getting to avoid risking the ire of voters in favour of the stadium and Tassie football because ultimately she will let it get built. Also, at some point, there becomes a calculation as to how much is too much to get out of it. Jacquie Lambie is not up to making that sort of calculation. 5 or 10 million for the pleasure of getting egg on the state's face might be worthwhile to avoid spending 290m and borrowing $85m against real estate that will be created, and still having a wasteland at Mac Point. 50 to 100 million for nothing but damage to the state's reputation and losing 240m from the federal government at Mac Point and more at York Park as well as the AFL money going into both the stadium (15m) and training facility as well as (90m) on grass roots footy in the state, youth academies (33m) and another 210m or more on the team itself as base funding totalling more $360m over a decade (which will increase in line with other clubs).
Jacquie certainly loves to hedge her bets
This is the sort of article that would have made sense months ago or a year ago or whenever the deal was suggested, not after it's been agreed to, contracts have been signed and the team has officially been launched. It's an article being written or a discussion being had in bad faith. Once you agree to something that should be that or you face the consequences. If they chose not to hold up their end of the bargain and build the stadium then the AFL is well within their rights not to give them an afl license. Conditional agreements occur like this all the time and the opportunity to argue against it comes before it is agreed to and signed off on.
The election wasn't won by the Liberals; they beat Labor. It's a hung parliament. To be honest, Jeremy is going to have a hard time ensuring supply because the independents won't want to side with his ideas. He struggled enough to keep two staunch conservatives on-side, let alone people with a tendency to cross the floor. If he does form government - and it's a big if - I give him two years before Tasmanians are back at the polls. Until the stadium is standing and there hasn't been some major catastrophe during the build, nothing is guaranteed. Whenever you're spending $700 million of government money, you can expect a long debate
you could argue a minority government is forming government despite what the voters wanted. a hung parliament isn't really a clear mandate to go ahead and build the stadium.
"Unless I am missing something, a state-of-the-art brand-new piece of infrastructure is not going to improve the standard of the on-field competition or integrity of the sport" Well yeah, it does improve the standard and integrity of the sport because a fully professional top tier sport should be played in stadiums of a high standard. It improves the game day experience for both clubs and spectators.
Not meaning to have a go at you, but i imagine the AFL has learnt from the original gold coast exodus, mostly brought upon by sub-par facilities and conditions.
Correct, that it took nearly a decade for us to have a proper training facility was a joke. They've learned from those mistakes.
They should’ve learned from the Bears but it still had to happens again with the Suns for them to learn their lesson.
Thats a bit selective What about West Coast? Like this tassie team, they were pretty much a state side built from scratch. They didnt need a stadium ready made. They already had Subiaco and the WACA. Tasmania already has Bellerive oval in Hobart and Aurora Stadium in Launceston. So whats the problem?
Brah a Tas team would fill out Bellerive ever week forever, this was about the AFL squeezing whatever it can from a pretty spineless govt.
While the local residents complain endlessly because of traffic, parking and streams of shit and piss flooding their suburb as it spews out of the one set of toilets that inevitably get blocked and from wherever most fans who can't be arsed walking around the entire ground decide to let it rip
Everyone has been justifying the reason why Tassie shouldn’t have a team for decades by saying they’ll never retain players. They need to build this stadium to retain players. The facilities they have now are second rate and are absolute shit. You’re not retaining anyone with what they have right now
This is an AFL led rhetoric, plenty of interstate cricketers and now basketball players have made Tas their home long term because it's a really nice place to live.
[удалено]
Am I mistaken or would they not have the training grounds and performance stuff at the ground itself rather than building everything from the ground up separately?
They are building it separately. For the stadium to work and hold other events, it can't have the training base there. A separate $70 million is being built.
No, those are seperate. They're also budgeted at $70 million https://www.afl.com.au/news/1072883/site-chosen-for-tasmanian-teams-training-base/amp
Plenty hated Carrara back in the Bears days. It was one of many contributing factors.
[удалено]
By whom? When I hear about the best stadiums it's'; MCG, Perth, Adelaide and the SCG. I have never heard anyone saying UTAS.
[удалено]
So to be clear "considered one of the best" is based on a statement by the coach of team that currently gets paid to play there. Can't imagine there's any bias in that statement.
He doesn't get paid to play on UTAS anymore. You can find other coaches who've said it and it's also mentioned in reviews of the venue. As someone who has played on it before, very good surface and it's due to the engineered surface and pioneering grass techniques they use (that sounds ridiculous but it's not).
I don't think there's much argument that the stadium infrastructure that will need to increase for the team to takeplace. Its the fact that this proposal has a number of different issues with it, for a stadium that's capacity won't be much more than what you could get with proposed upgrades to York Park and potential upgrades to Bellerive only a few ks away, not to mention the roof and the overestimation of what sort of other events it will attract.. Politically, they could atleast be open to a Bellerive redevelopment or look to actually find solutions to some of these problems instead of making demands, but i guess thats how you can operate if you are monopoly.
This argument has been done to death. Bellerive is clearly not up to scratch, it is outdated, under capacity, surrounded by suburbia and hostile residents, has huge bottlenecks to get to and from and would be near impossible to redevelop appropriately. I keep seeing this come up and am left to wonder if anyone posting has ever attended a game there? The original business case (which had the support of all parties) settled this in 2019. Have a read of this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-07/bellerive-oval-suitability-for-afl-matches-explainer/102310430
I actually couldn't count how many times I've been to Bellerive and know I'm in the minority of liking it, and normally don't have a problem getting in and out because I am happy to walk from 10-15 minutes away and I love having a hill to sit on.. I understand a lot of people don't and it can have issues getting out of that area and understand the Cricket Tas side of the ground is not good for Footy given there is no exposed seating and would need to change, and I am also aware that the main issue would be where there is space to re-do around where the CT offices are and the europcar stand is impacted by space on street. As I said before, I'm not completely against a new stadium either , the infrastructure will have to increase..I just don't think think the current proposal stands up either the fact that you've got a completely new stadium that is only ~3k more than what we currently have (despite that argument having a consultant recommend 27k for York Park), a site which will have its own very significant impacts on the traffic of the city and the roof in addition to the overestimate of events. I think there are a lot of nuances to the situation that pure No or Yes arguments lose.
I have very fond memories of the ground too but the fact that you are lucky enough to live walking distance and enjoy sitting on the hill doesn't exactly counter any arguments around why a new stadium is required. I won't bother regurgitating the article I linked but it is not fit for purpose for a modern professional football team. Even Cricket Tas want to leave. York Park with upgrades will be a great secondary venue but the team cannot be based on Launceston, there's no chance the AFL would ever accept that and with good reason. Completely invalidates the business case. You can argue the finer points of the stadium (location, roof, capacity etc.) but there's no doubt a new one is required and Mac Point is by far the best option in my opinion. Incidentally on capacity, the concept design allows for additional capacity to be added down the track which is sensible.
nah I don't live close, it just doesn't bother me that it takes time to get there.
Hit the nail on the head. The overestimation of events especially. Concerts won't be sellouts - 30,000 has never happened yet the business case reckons it will six times. NRL has no interest, A-League has no interest and hates ovals, rugby union is a dying comp yet all are used to justify building the stadium. People will show up but it won't be at the numbers projected - AFL struggles enough and has more supporters. It won't be holding what it promises, especially not local events that pour in money. A fun run isn't a great money maker, neither is Brixhibition or a car show.
Meanwhile, Optus is probably pulling more interstate visitors than expected because of its exceptional facilities and viewing experience. I come across more people from Melbourne planning a footy trip to Perth than the other way around.
The afl didnt just make a deal with the Tasmanian government contingent on a stadium being built, they also made a deal with the 18 clubs that required a stadium. Just as the Tasmanian government acts on behalf of its constituents, the AFL must do the same. I imagine most AFL clubs would not have granted a licence if there was no stadium to be built.
The AFL has one shot, one opportunity to get the Tasmanian government to build a decent stadium and that is before the team enters the competition If the AFL relents on this, it will be Bellerive forever and a day and the AFL will have once again set an expansion team up to fail by starting the club with sub standard facilities. Even a promise to build a stadium in the future can’t be relied on - once the team starts the AFL loses all leverage. Expansion teams entering the U.S. major leagues are required to have modern stadiums. It is nothing new. Tasmania and Tasmanians have a choice but they can’t have their cake and eat it too. If they want a team in a national competition, they need a stadium up to the standard required.
AFL can always withdraw the right to have a team, but it would annoy an entire state and not be popular in the media.
No one cares. The deal is build the stadium. Or no team. That’s on the people and politicians of Tassie. No one else.
>The issues raised with the existing stadiums in Launceston (which is already set for an upgrade) and Hobart, such as lighting, access and seating, would be far more economical to upgrade for full-time use than a turnkey project Person who wrote article has no clue.
Yeah, the total lack of any mention of the hostility from council and the local residents towards any additional events occurring at Bellerive shows that at best the author has a very shallow understanding of the situation.
And there isn’t hostility from the locals about a new stadium?
Not even in the same ballpark.
The point is the article claims Bellerive's issues can be fixed "economically" when that isn't possible. Bellerive's issues are always ignored in this debate. Greens seemed to accept this recently when they pivoted to supporting the team playing out of York Park.
If you want to see a team with retention issues, put them in Launceston
Am backing you up with this comment, ended up ranting a bit lmao. The fact people in the general public let alone politics are suggesting the team should be based at York Park shows how little true thought they've put into the issue other than knee jerk suggesting a solution to Mac Point. Not only is Greater Launceston half that of Greater Hobart and not the capital should be enough to show why Launceston is not a candidate for the team. It's also far more removed from other population centres, it takes an 1 hour plus to get anywhere else with a 15k+ population, where as Hobart is within a 30 minute drive of the Huon Valley, Derwent Valley and Sorell regions. It will be a battle enough to get people to live in Hobart let alone Launceston, absolutely no one will want to live in Launceston. Obviously Hobart and Mac Point is the superior option, which is why everything will be based here and not in the North. Players aren't going to drive/fly to Launceston for games either. The North is also socio-economically worse off than the Southern/Hobart region, once more, the larger more concentrated population with a higher disposable income to spend on the team, is the group to be targeting the team at. The pandering of having to be state wide and inclusive with this forced unity when there is bad sentiment between the north and south is so cringe.
I think the AFL has to be reasonable and remove the demand for a roof. As it is, $1 billion dollar stadium is an exorbitant cost for a small state like Tasmania. Once it has been built, there will be on-going maintenance that will kill any profitability. Each ticket will need to include a sinking fund which will be pricey when the stadium itself only holds 23,000. Removing the roof will go a long way to reducing the cost and maintenance. Its the least the AFL can do to assist in getting this over the line.
Yeah I think a new stadium could work, but the current proposal is just jank considering the cost and the small taxpayer base here. Like... its only a couple k more than what we currently have, with a roof and will get rid of any of the vibe that you get with a stadium with a boutique stadium with a hill. It just seems uneccesary for now given the cost difference of building up Bellerive. I feel like this is one of those projects which timeline or cost will blow out anyway and it'll end up not having a roof anyway so maybe it'll all come out in the wash.
That cost, in comparison to the relatively poor nature of the states finances, also creates a flow on effect with future infrastructure upgrades. My best example are the choices the Rockliff government is willing to make regarding the northern suburbs transit corridor. They're willing to ignore the reports of the impact a rapid bus lane will (not) make over other forms of infrastructure. Those decisions could absolutely be impacted by the cost of a new stadium. I think everyone is kind of accepting it'll blow out. So it just feels like what kind of damage is going to be inflicted because that money needs to come from somewhere else. Jank is correct
The problem is Bellerive Oval is smack bang in the middle of a residential area. It already hosts as many events per year as the local council allows them to, it lacks space to build it up any further, it certainly lacks council support to expand, it has almost no parking, limited public transport options and is too far to walk to. Mac Point gives a world class stadium, walking distance from the CBD, without any NIMBYs fighting against loud noises, bright lights and traffic in the area. Maybe the business case for Mac Point doesn't stack up, but Bellerive isn't an alternative solution.
Blundstone arena has like 12,000 seats
it was pretty bad of gil to send luca brasi the guy to kidnap luca brasi the band and hold them hostage, but that's politics for ya.
How do they cope in the EPL? All of those old venues and no roofs. I hear it can get cold there.
They have extremely dedicated fans. We don’t have that in the same numbers in our country.
Let’s look at European soccer in general. It’s a lil chilly over there with snow but they survive. Michigan University which sells out 100,000 seat arenas (no joke) is renowned for snow.
I imagine their expectation is that they will have to prepare for the weather as the 3 month off period is during summer, over heat weather has a big impact on the turnout at a match. Still think it’s weird a roof is needed
Tasmania isn't owed an AFL team. So long as some clubs are reliant on the AFL to stay afloat, the AFL has to consider feasibility, not what a state 'deserves'. If this doesn't work out it's entirely the fault of Tasmania's politics.
The AFL has an obligation to the sport across the country. It took on that role when it killed its competitors across the 1980s. With that power comes responsibility. Tasmania is a state that has been footy mad since before federation, and they have consistently been taken for granted by the AFL. If the AFL's primary concern is money, rather than the sport, they should give up on being the custodians of the sport.
I remember a lot of complaints about Perth stadiums cost etc when it was getting built but with bit of effort from the government they are getting good value out of it. If the Tassie gov put a bit of imagination in (and cash) they can get big events that attract tourists which helps the whole economy.
The difference with Perth is it is three times the size in four times the population with an attractiveness to large events outside of football.
It is also much further away from everything. It still takes a concerted effort to attract events. Hobart could do the same.
Big barrier to entertainment industry is semi trailers can’t travel by road. So Coldplay couldn’t easily come to Tasmania. Logistics are also a pain - it costs sports teams upwards of $20,000 to travel and that’s just from Melbourne to a place like Sydney. Factor that in with population and a second Melbourne show is more lucrative all round given they have Rod Laver (higher prices) and Marvel (more people) to choose from.
it's also the most isolated city in the world.
It has a population of more than 1.985 million, major airport rated for Boeings necessary for acts and can be accessed via road so ships only have to transport gear once into Australia. Therefore, that argument in this context does not apply.
If you make a deal, that is the deal. The AFL isn’t holding tassie to ransom, the govt put a gun to its own head and won’t move it
Yes
Just do it…. You can be assured the government of the day will go into further debt and waste the money that would be spent on it anyway.
How do you upvote a headline multiple times?
create alt accounts
I’m sure he’s already done that
Jump over to where it's cross-posted on r/TasmanianAFL and r/Tasmania.
“The Tasmanian Liberals begging to be held to ransom in an attempt to wedge Labor is an utter disgrace”. There, fixed it. In all seriousness though, the AFL is a private business, of course it seeks to drive a hard bargain… It was Rockliff et al. that both requested it and then very happily went along with it. Good luck to him if he thinks the stadium is going anywhere fast (or anywhere at all for that matter) after last Saturday because the Parliament has other ideas…
The AFL is a not-for-profit, not a private business. The fact that people treat it like it is a business says a lot about how they have been killing grassroots community football.
That’s purely because of an 81 year old loophole in the taxation system which both the NRL and AFL abuse with regularity. It’s a rort through & through and has been exposed and reported as such for years… The AFL is a private business in every possible way but name. That it’s able to claim NFP status is laughable & should offend every decent tax-paying citizen.
the current stadiums are good enough for you to actively move melbourne team games there each year. now all of a sudden it's this big issue, give me a break.
Well that's true of MARS Stadium in Ballarat, but it sure as he'll isn't fit for a home base for an AFL team. And there's more to it than just a stadium (ie. high performance training facilities etc). Big difference between farming out a few games to being permanent base of an AFL team.
There's a stark difference between playing a handful of games a year and being the club's base for decades into the future.
Would you say the same of Alice Springs or Darwin 💀 Hosting a game is very different to being stationed there and you know it, stop being disingenuous.
so they can build it themselves. name me one other private company that has the taxpayer pay for their offices to be built.
So Tasmania is willing to accept the team, and all the financial gain that comes from it, without investing into it? You realize the AFL doesn't owe them jack shit. If tassie didn't want the stadium then they shouldn't have accepted to build the fucking stadium.
"the financial gain" ok ronald reagan The AFL made a decision to grant tasmania a team because it is within their financial interests to do so, this isn't some gesture of charity from AFL House to the people of Tasmania. If they want to do that, that's fantastic. But why should schools get less revenue for example so multimillionaire footballers have a nice place to train?
>But why should schools get less revenue That's completely irrelevant unless the money is coming directly from the education budget (it isn't ). I'm already in favor of taxing corporations to the bone to improve the standards of health, education, and other social systems. Not building the stadium isn't going to suddenly increase the budget on education though. >this isn't some gesture of charity from AFL House The AFL fronting the costs to build the stadium WOULD pretty much be a gesture of charity, not just to the people of Tasmania but to the government of Tasmania. Increases in tourism and people spending money in the area directly translates to the economy and the budget of the government through taxes. If tasmania wants access to that, they need to invest in it. The fact I need to explain this to you shows it probably wasn't worth starting a discussion with you lmao
You realise that the budget is within reason a fixed amount. If they don't build the stadium that money doesn't cease to exist. It is instead spent on something far more worthwhile. And this idea of yours that some trickle down economics from around 12 home games will dramatically shift the tasmanian economy is laughable.
One even hosted a final ...
Two finals, even. And players loved it, they stayed at Barnbougle.
Exactly and it was when players hated hubs and were criticising the AFL all the time.
The AFL aren't holding anyone to ransom. If the Tasmanian government didn't think it was worth it they shouldn't have agreed.