Few quick photos above as I drove past today from inside a van.
Looking good.
Looking good.
New Townsville Stadium
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So Townsville new rectangle stadium is opening next month with an open day, followed by Elton John.
I wonder, should it have been bigger than the 25-26,500 seats, since that is roughly the same capacity as the old stadium?
Although admittedly the average crowd size for the Cowboys has dropped off significantly from before 2010 even despite winning the 2015 Premiership. But maybe crowds will go back up with the new facilities and location.
I wonder, should it have been bigger than the 25-26,500 seats, since that is roughly the same capacity as the old stadium?
Although admittedly the average crowd size for the Cowboys has dropped off significantly from before 2010 even despite winning the 2015 Premiership. But maybe crowds will go back up with the new facilities and location.
hitthepost
Norm Smith Medallist
This discussion happened with Adelaide Oval and over 5 years or so it's shown to be a good size, once the attraction of "brand new stadium" wears off.
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,858
- AFL Club
- Essendon
There's only 180,000 people in Townsville.
- Dec 7, 2016
- 2,128
- 4,692
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat Roosters
The new stadium may struggle for sustainability. A detailed cost analysis of its viability back in 2016 recommended to the State Government at the time that it wasn't viable. But politics and emotions took over and "viola". The Australian Financial Review did a very detailed account in 2016 as follows:
"The proposed new $250 million sports stadium in Townsville is not financially viable and will cost taxpayers half a billion dollars in its first 30 years in operation, according to a confidential business case submitted to the federal government's peak infrastructure body.
While Bill Shorten has promised $100 million for a new home for rugby league in North Queensland - to match the state Labor government's $100 million pledge - the business case found the project would not deliver a positive benefit cost ratio (BCR).
A positive BCR - where the benefits outweigh the costs - is required to receive any funding from Infrastructure Australia.
The new 25,000 seat stadium in Townsville would only have an estimated 13 event days a year for home games for the North Queensland Cowboys - and received a rating of 0.214 in the Queensland government's business case to Infrastructure Australia, obtained by The Australian Financial Review.
That is, for every taxpayer dollar spent on the stadium it would only deliver a return of 21 cents. The business case prepared by the Queensland Department of State Development - which has never been publicly released - it noted that any Federal support being given for the stadium would be motivated by populist politics aimed at winning seats in North Queensland in the July 2 poll, and that this opportunity should be exploited.
The business case, which was signed off by the Palaszczuk state government in November, found the capital cost of a new stadium was likely to be $250 million, but the full cost of the stadium over 30 years would top $530 million in 2015 dollars.
A stadium with an integrated 5800-seat entertainment centre, as preferred by the Townsville City Council, would cost $380 million to build, but slug taxpayers with $785.3 million over the same timeframe.
The sensitivity analysis found the net benefit of the stadium - the difference between the present value of the total benefits and the costs - was a $170 million loss. The economic position would improve if the stadium had multiple tenants, the report found.
The negative BCR would explain why the Palaszczuk Labor government submitted the information on the Townsville stadium to Infrastructure Australia late last year, but did not ask the federal government body for a formal assessment.
It was not on the state's priority projects list this year, but they still expect the Federal Government to fund almost half of it.
The business case noted public stadiums struggled to deliver a financial return to state or local governments, but there would be wider economic and social benefits for the city.
"Not withstanding the low BCR, the business case noted that the best-practice regional stadium offers significant potential for the catalytic development in Townsville, providing activation of the surrounding area and favourable community benefit uplift," the report said.
The secret document said despite the stadium not being financially viable there were a number of social and community benefits, including "increased levels of social cohesion and well-being in the community".
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was spruiking the Townsville stadium and Federal government support in State Parliament on Wednesday. They want to build the stadium by 2020.
"We know the stadium will create jobs in Townsville because Townsville is hurting," she said. "We need to see a very firm commitment from Malcolm Turnbull to the Townsville stadium because that means jobs for families."
To increase pressure on the Federal Coalition to match the funding, the North Queensland Cowboys have warned they may be forced to leave Townsville within five years if the stadium is not built.
The Prime Minister has been under significant media pressure to commit Federal funding to the populist project. Local Federal Liberal National Party MP Ewen Jones said he supported the project - which he believed could be reworked to focus on urban renewal - but stated "It certainly can't be funded by Infrastructure Australia. I think it's a great project but it should be funded by the State Government like they do for stadiums in South-East Queensland."
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Brendan Lyon said the Federal government would get a better return for their money and boost productivity by investing in transport projects.
"If the Queensland budget was strong the state would be able to do what Victoria and NSW do and fund it with their own money," he said.
"The proposed new $250 million sports stadium in Townsville is not financially viable and will cost taxpayers half a billion dollars in its first 30 years in operation, according to a confidential business case submitted to the federal government's peak infrastructure body.
While Bill Shorten has promised $100 million for a new home for rugby league in North Queensland - to match the state Labor government's $100 million pledge - the business case found the project would not deliver a positive benefit cost ratio (BCR).
A positive BCR - where the benefits outweigh the costs - is required to receive any funding from Infrastructure Australia.
The new 25,000 seat stadium in Townsville would only have an estimated 13 event days a year for home games for the North Queensland Cowboys - and received a rating of 0.214 in the Queensland government's business case to Infrastructure Australia, obtained by The Australian Financial Review.
That is, for every taxpayer dollar spent on the stadium it would only deliver a return of 21 cents. The business case prepared by the Queensland Department of State Development - which has never been publicly released - it noted that any Federal support being given for the stadium would be motivated by populist politics aimed at winning seats in North Queensland in the July 2 poll, and that this opportunity should be exploited.
The business case, which was signed off by the Palaszczuk state government in November, found the capital cost of a new stadium was likely to be $250 million, but the full cost of the stadium over 30 years would top $530 million in 2015 dollars.
A stadium with an integrated 5800-seat entertainment centre, as preferred by the Townsville City Council, would cost $380 million to build, but slug taxpayers with $785.3 million over the same timeframe.
The sensitivity analysis found the net benefit of the stadium - the difference between the present value of the total benefits and the costs - was a $170 million loss. The economic position would improve if the stadium had multiple tenants, the report found.
The negative BCR would explain why the Palaszczuk Labor government submitted the information on the Townsville stadium to Infrastructure Australia late last year, but did not ask the federal government body for a formal assessment.
It was not on the state's priority projects list this year, but they still expect the Federal Government to fund almost half of it.
The business case noted public stadiums struggled to deliver a financial return to state or local governments, but there would be wider economic and social benefits for the city.
"Not withstanding the low BCR, the business case noted that the best-practice regional stadium offers significant potential for the catalytic development in Townsville, providing activation of the surrounding area and favourable community benefit uplift," the report said.
The secret document said despite the stadium not being financially viable there were a number of social and community benefits, including "increased levels of social cohesion and well-being in the community".
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was spruiking the Townsville stadium and Federal government support in State Parliament on Wednesday. They want to build the stadium by 2020.
"We know the stadium will create jobs in Townsville because Townsville is hurting," she said. "We need to see a very firm commitment from Malcolm Turnbull to the Townsville stadium because that means jobs for families."
To increase pressure on the Federal Coalition to match the funding, the North Queensland Cowboys have warned they may be forced to leave Townsville within five years if the stadium is not built.
The Prime Minister has been under significant media pressure to commit Federal funding to the populist project. Local Federal Liberal National Party MP Ewen Jones said he supported the project - which he believed could be reworked to focus on urban renewal - but stated "It certainly can't be funded by Infrastructure Australia. I think it's a great project but it should be funded by the State Government like they do for stadiums in South-East Queensland."
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Brendan Lyon said the Federal government would get a better return for their money and boost productivity by investing in transport projects.
"If the Queensland budget was strong the state would be able to do what Victoria and NSW do and fund it with their own money," he said.
Last edited:
The 13 home games a year certainly won't be the only events held there. There have already been Non-NRL events there in Covid times.
It'll cost Taxpayers' money - you bet. So do freeways, police, public transport, the Armed Forces (
), Fireworks , Pollies' generous Super - the list goes on and on.
It will ( and has ) provide a large influx of people to the CBD on event days that will help local businesses. Not to mention the Airlines.
These things can't always be "cost-benefitted"
I'm not an NRL fan and despite the obvious Pork-Barrelling it is actually nice to see some of "our" money coming back to our community - instead of being slurped up by the Capital city and surrounds. I'm sure you know the value of morale Roogal.
I realise Roogal that you placed this purely for informational purposes, but dry academic arguments don't always touch on the "real" benefits. How many major sporting facilities in the country would "do well" when judged under the same criteria? How long did they take to "come good"?
w***ers that take potshots after the fact would do better to look at their own contribution to society. Accountants would nearly be, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "The first Bastards up against the wall" in MY revolution. Great at telling everyone what to do after its all over - not so good at getting out there and doing it. And what difference to the Punter in the street would State funding vs Federal funding make? - it's still our effing cash!!!!!
It'll cost Taxpayers' money - you bet. So do freeways, police, public transport, the Armed Forces (
), Fireworks , Pollies' generous Super - the list goes on and on.It will ( and has ) provide a large influx of people to the CBD on event days that will help local businesses. Not to mention the Airlines.
These things can't always be "cost-benefitted"
I'm not an NRL fan and despite the obvious Pork-Barrelling it is actually nice to see some of "our" money coming back to our community - instead of being slurped up by the Capital city and surrounds. I'm sure you know the value of morale Roogal.
I realise Roogal that you placed this purely for informational purposes, but dry academic arguments don't always touch on the "real" benefits. How many major sporting facilities in the country would "do well" when judged under the same criteria? How long did they take to "come good"?
w***ers that take potshots after the fact would do better to look at their own contribution to society. Accountants would nearly be, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "The first Bastards up against the wall" in MY revolution. Great at telling everyone what to do after its all over - not so good at getting out there and doing it. And what difference to the Punter in the street would State funding vs Federal funding make? - it's still our effing cash!!!!!
In this climate what constitutes a strong budget is academic. Currently its about the ability to borrow.
Cost benefit analysis in the public sector tends to start with desired result & the analysis developed to meet that desired result.
- Dec 7, 2016
- 2,128
- 4,692
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat Roosters
Yes I think that the key take away point of the AFR article were that the stadium was projected to return only 21 cents for each dollar invested to build it over 30 years. Further, that it was built at the expense of more viable options. It is the classic definition of a white elephant. Of course now built, this stadium needs to be maintained and probably refurbished in 15-20 years as the tropical elements and sea air have their effects. Anyway, happy new year Kwality.
Yes I think that the key take away point of the AFR article were that the stadium was projected to return only 21 cents for each dollar invested to build it over 30 years. Further, that it was built at the expense of more viable options. It is the classic definition of a white elephant. Of course now built, this stadium needs to be maintained and probably refurbished in 15-20 years as the tropical elements and sea air have their effects. Anyway, happy new year Kwality.
White elephants need to be promoted to extract value.
In AFL footy terms its reflected by the move from the 'burbs to the CBD & the problems that can result.
In Townsville they are considering a permanent motor racing venue. https://www.velocitymagazine.com.au...permanent-motorsport-facility-for-townsville/
The 13 home games a year certainly won't be the only events held there. There have already been Non-NRL events there in Covid times.
It'll cost Taxpayers' money - you bet. So do freeways, police, public transport, the Armed Forces (
It will ( and has ) provide a large influx of people to the CBD on event days that will help local businesses. Not to mention the Airlines.
These things can't always be "cost-benefitted"
I'm not an NRL fan and despite the obvious Pork-Barrelling it is actually nice to see some of "our" money coming back to our community - instead of being slurped up by the Capital city and surrounds. I'm sure you know the value of morale Roogal.
I realise Roogal that you placed this purely for informational purposes, but dry academic arguments don't always touch on the "real" benefits. How many major sporting facilities in the country would "do well" when judged under the same criteria? How long did they take to "come good"?
w***ers that take potshots after the fact would do better to look at their own contribution to society. Accountants would nearly be, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "The first Bastards up against the wall" in MY revolution. Great at telling everyone what to do after its all over - not so good at getting out there and doing it. And what difference to the Punter in the street would State funding vs Federal funding make? - it's still our effing cash!!!!!
Things can be cost 'benefitted'. In political decisions on Government spending the benefit is never purely economic. Their are social benefits, as well as political benefits. Its called 'pork barreling'
Things can be cost 'benefitted'. In political decisions on Government spending the benefit is never purely economic. Their are social benefits, as well as political benefits. Its called 'pork barreling'
Tourism bodies across the country look to support such ventures until they need to move on.
Tourism bodies across the country look to support such ventures until they need to move on.
Yes, hence one reason for the push for a Tasmanian AFL club. The social, political as well as the economic considerations come into play.
- Dec 7, 2016
- 2,128
- 4,692
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat Roosters
Your points are noted but those factors were already factored as part of the 21 cents return per 1 tax-payer dollar cost analysis. But we mere tax payers should never question or stand btween a good old fashioned political pork-barelling, or the scent of a Coaltion PM who thinks that he can win a marginal Queensland seat. I don't even think that the Liberal PM visited Victoria more than four times in the last Federal Election much less promise much more than a couple of billion dollars against the $14 billion promised to QLD. But when politics comes into play, the first casualty is always without exception ... common sense.
But on my mere female logic I still can't justify in my head the bottomless Victorian money pit which is colloquially refered to as the 'Melbourne Formula 1 Grand Prix'. That event costs Victorians $200 mil every year to host and run but nobody has ever produced substantiated actual proof of economic activity benefits exceeding its running costs. Yes an event snavelled by a Victorian Coalition government from SA back in the 90s complicitly supported by Victorian ALP governments ever since under the veil of "Commercial-In-Confidence". I do wonder about how these people spend "my" money. Have I not a right to ask?
Last edited:
I pretty much don't give a rat's bum which side of the political spectrum Pork Barrels me. It won't effect my vote one iota and never has.
I'm actually just happy to see some of my community's cash come back at it.
If a good pork barrelling influences voters to that extent then we're really, REALLY in trouble re the attention span of your average voter.
The stadium is nice. It'll bring money into businesses and get lots of people into a city that they maybe otherwise wouldn't have gone to.
Townsville has pretty good facilities now and some good events. Covid actually screwed a few good International cricket fixtures here last year.
The city is really improving in terms of eating/drinking/entertainment venues.
The aforementioned facilities have had a major influence on small business stepping up with those offerings and choices.
Like I said before - not everything is just a dry old "Cost Benefit" equation.
We can all squeal about stuff happening in someone's backyard, but I reckon most of us will agree with line 2 above. Sometimes it's YOUR community that gets lucky.
I'm actually just happy to see some of my community's cash come back at it.
If a good pork barrelling influences voters to that extent then we're really, REALLY in trouble re the attention span of your average voter.
The stadium is nice. It'll bring money into businesses and get lots of people into a city that they maybe otherwise wouldn't have gone to.
Townsville has pretty good facilities now and some good events. Covid actually screwed a few good International cricket fixtures here last year.
The city is really improving in terms of eating/drinking/entertainment venues.
The aforementioned facilities have had a major influence on small business stepping up with those offerings and choices.
Like I said before - not everything is just a dry old "Cost Benefit" equation.
We can all squeal about stuff happening in someone's backyard, but I reckon most of us will agree with line 2 above. Sometimes it's YOUR community that gets lucky.
I wish ours was. We did nothing to further our cause for years & were ignored & used by the VFL/AFL. Now we start making a noise a were now treated like some sort of AFL enemy & they have become quite vindictive.
So damned if you do, damned if you don't.
From such a previously strong football community in Tasmania, so much talent ignored for so long & now lost to the game.
Nor I, & I love the sport & the event.
The only point I'd make is that successive Vic Governments of both sides of politics have reviewed the GP contracts & renewed them. The same thing happened in SA.
Like the Australian Open Tennis, there are other bidders internationally keen to grab the events. I think that influences the price paid.
You might be interested to know the ordinary motor sport enthusiast would prefer money spent on permanent facilities not street circuits.
Over the last 20 years there have been many attempts in WA to move events from the permanent base to street circuits but failed. WA Tourism have supported the permanent facility.
Last edited:
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
There has been talk of moving Ng to a oerma track in Melbourne (Avalon and Sandown have been raised as options), but Bernie used to threaten us with losing the race if we moved away from a street circuit.
No idea what the Americans views on this are now.
- Dec 7, 2016
- 2,128
- 4,692
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat Roosters
The difference between the F1 Grand Prix and the Australian Open is that the latter draws 800,000 plus spectators and generates real money. The F1 Grand Prix perplexes me too. No idea why the state's taxpayers are underwriting that bottomless money pit. Same as for the Olympics, just $30 billion two week piss up for the rest of the world. No wonder there are now only 3 bidders stupid enough to put their hand to host 2032 Gsmes.
Bernie always had another bid in his back pocket. Just as Melbourne gazumped Adelaide, Sydney 'white ants' ....& Asia wants more.
In the US F1 is not the holy grail of its motor sport, thats the Indy 500 running a US formula.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Sydney is no chance. Bernie said as much, plan b is Jakarta
My comparison of the 2 events was that there was international competition for both events.
Bernie has been gone for a couple of years now (Jan 2017) when Liberty Media paid $US4.6bil for control.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
as i said earlier, things may have changed with the yanks... BUT
the money from asia nukes what we can offer. if melbourne lose it, its leaving AU
Not so sure about Sydney.
I would love to read the justification for keeping it in Melbourne, anywhere in fact.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
heres the issue with Sydney. noone, literally noone, wants to see a street circuit at homebush
the only way sydney get it is if they do a street circuit in close proximity of the cbd and on the water.
because sydneys roads were designed by following a goat with gasto, that aint happening
