Tasmania Congratulations on Tassie License. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Other details TBA 3/5

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope so as I think it’s the best spot. No need to reclaim land like with the Regatta Point proposal. And even though it’s close to the water it’s not right on the water like Regatta Pt. I hope when they do feasibility studies they pay very close attention to forecast sea level changes otherwise we may end up with the world’s largest paddling pool.
I don't think the design for Macquarie Point includes a roof either so it should be considerably cheaper.
 
Macquarie Point in Hobart could still become the home of Tassie's new AFL stadium and at a cheaper price. The plan is to call it devil's den and it has the support of Tasmania's tourism boss Like Martin and the property council of Tasmania. I think we will start seeing some different options for a Tassie stadium coming up in coming weeks so definitely going to be interesting to see what they come up with.
The report commissioned by the government to assess possible stadium locations had Macquarie Point as it's top scoring site. Has all of the benefits of Regatta Point, but is closer to the city/Salamanca and would be significantly cheaper to build considering most of the site work is pretty much done already.

The report dismissed the chances of getting a stadium built on the site as too difficult politically, but general consensus among industry groups and the general public seem to be very supportive of the idea, and I suspect the cheaper price tag may help get opposition over the line too.

Given the head of the Mac Point Development Corporation (who has been adamant in the past the site's plans won't change) has just resigned, the premier has already acknowledged that now is the time to reassess the site's relationship with the new sports and entertainment precinct, so that is a good sign.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yep fully agree
Not necessarily true. Sponsors will pay more if they are able to communicate and engage with bigger numbers.
E.g. 20K Launceston members (4 games) and 20K Hobart members (7 games) (40K total) is more attractive to a sponsor (say an energy company) than 20K Tassie 11 game members. Total numbers are important to clubs in terms of reach, finals tickets allocation, potential growth.
 
Last edited:
I still think there will be a roof. That's what the AFL has asked for.
We don't know that. The proposed stadium also had moveable stands for rectangular sports and there is no way that the AFL would have asked for that. Reckon it will be a 30K stadium, no roof, no rectangular mode. Cost $350m - $400m. Launceston to possibly be scaled back a fraction to 23k-25K (just a new outer wing, no moveable stands).
 
We don't know that. The proposed stadium also had moveable stands for rectangular sports and there is no way that the AFL would have asked for that. Reckon it will be a 30K stadium, no roof, no rectangular mode. Cost $350m - $400m. Launceston to possibly be scaled back a fraction to 23k-25K (just a new outer wing, no moveable stands).
The rectangular configuration will definitely be included. They'd already committed to a new rectangular stadium so it saves the government building a separate one for $200m.
 
The rectangular configuration will definitely be included. They'd already committed to a new rectangular stadium so it saves the government building a separate one for $200m.
For what purpose? It simply will never be used. The commitment by Labor was for a 10K - 15K stadium, but they are not in power. You could build a 10K stadium for 100K if Hobart ever got an A-League club. And a 10K - 15K stadium was never going to attract marque events anyway, so for the once in a decade NRL, Rugby test, or soccer international, it will be much better to have a bigger crowd in an oval stadium. Moveable stands reduce capacity and are expensive/time consuming to operate (which is why they were very rarely used at Docklands) and sitelines for 30K smallish oval stadium will be much better than MCG or Optus. It for have a spare $100k put it into increased capacity rather than white elephant movable stands. Or go the cheaper, pretend rectangular option of drop in seats like Optus (have only been used once despite numerous rectangular events - will be interesting to see if they use them next week for SOO).
 
I'm sure The_Wookie has put up figures disproving this.

90,000 supporters yes, but not 90,000 members of the 1,113,441 total 2021 club members, given Tassie only has 2% of the Oz population, and 4.5% of the total population of the 4 heartland footy states and the NT.
Yes, strange how that has almost become accepted. Footy clubs have a lot of churn, so maybe it was 90K that have ever been AFL club members. That would still seem high. You would think that 20K from north, 20K from Hobart and 10K from the mainland would be about right. One thing for sure is that they will be bigger than GC and GWS form day 1.
 
Yes, strange how that has almost become accepted. Footy clubs have a lot of churn, so maybe it was 90K that have ever been AFL club members. That would still seem high. You would think that 20K from north, 20K from Hobart and 10K from the mainland would be about right. One thing for sure is that they will be bigger than GC and GWS form day 1.
The hawks wouuld have the biggest based Tassie members and the biggest figure I saw for them was 6,800 in ome of their premiership years. No way say 10 clubs would have 5k or more members down in Tassie.
 
The hawks wouuld have the biggest based Tassie members and the biggest figure I saw for them was 6,800 in ome of their premiership years. No way say 10 clubs would have 5k or more members down in Tassie.
Hawks have been steady at around 9K for more than a decade. Most was 9564 in 2019.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think a a fully sheltered venue is required but you can save soo much by not having a roof.
The specs make it look as if part of the stadium will either be built over water, or some of the bay will be filled and land reclaimed. Is this correct? If so, which one?
 
For what purpose? It simply will never be used. The commitment by Labor was for a 10K - 15K stadium, but they are not in power. You could build a 10K stadium for 100K if Hobart ever got an A-League club. And a 10K - 15K stadium was never going to attract marque events anyway, so for the once in a decade NRL, Rugby test, or soccer international, it will be much better to have a bigger crowd in an oval stadium. Moveable stands reduce capacity and are expensive/time consuming to operate (which is why they were very rarely used at Docklands) and sitelines for 30K smallish oval stadium will be much better than MCG or Optus. It for have a spare $100k put it into increased capacity rather than white elephant movable stands. Or go the cheaper, pretend rectangular option of drop in seats like Optus (have only been used once despite numerous rectangular events - will be interesting to see if they use them next week for SOO).

Part of the establishment of Stadiums Tasmania by the current Liberal government was to "determine the feasibility and appropriate location in the south for a new rectangular stadium". It's not just a Labor party commitment. They may very well go with Optus-style drop-in seats if cost is an issue.

The choice of 27,000 seats is deliberate, rather than being a cost-cutting measure. Its calculated based on 150% of the capacoty of the 'base case' estimate for the AFL team.

Yeah Macquarie point, only an oval, all seats covered but no roof seems the best most practical option of the lot.

This seems to be the common sense compromise option to keep those worried about cost happy. But I don't have any data to back this view up. Does a fully enclosed stadium do a significantly better job of keeping patrons warmer during winter? Does a full roof cost much more than a partial roof? These are probably questions that the government will be looking for answers on when condusting the feasibility study.
 
Part of the establishment of Stadiums Tasmania by the current Liberal government was to "determine the feasibility and appropriate location in the south for a new rectangular stadium". It's not just a Labor party commitment. They may very well go with Optus-style drop-in seats if cost is an issue.

The choice of 27,000 seats is deliberate, rather than being a cost-cutting measure. Its calculated based on 150% of the capacoty of the 'base case' estimate for the AFL team.



This seems to be the common sense compromise option to keep those worried about cost happy. But I don't have any data to back this view up. Does a fully enclosed stadium do a significantly better job of keeping patrons warmer during winter? Does a full roof cost much more than a partial roof? These are probably questions that the government will be looking for answers on when condusting the feasibility study.
If you can keep a lot of the wind out then that will make it warmer.
 
The Regatta Point one will be built over water by the looks of it but the proposed Devils Den would be completely on land.
But will it be on concrete pillars and have a concrete base and 200mm of grass and soil and be completely f@cked up at growing grass like Docklands, or will they reclaim land so that there is no concrete base and the grass can grow normally because there is a few metres of soil, so it has worms, soil biology and most importantly warmth, so that grass can grow compared to a cold concrete base.

You don't want to spend $750m and have the same BS problems you have at Docklands and will always have at Docklands until they blow a hole in the concrete base and fill in the car park with soil.

Now if they figure they can have 40-50 other events each year, where they don't really need good grass growth, and that pays the bills instead of the annual 7-11 football games, then so be it, and football then just has to put up with a s**t surface like Docklands.
 
Last edited:
Hawks have been steady at around 9K for more than a decade. Most was 9564 in 2019.
Ok 6,800 must have been the figure after the 2008 flag. This hawks article said you broke 9,000 barrier in 2016.

Bottom line, whether you had 7k, 8k or 9k for most of the last decade, GWS and GC would have each struggled to have had 100 members there, which means Hawks + GC averaged 5,000 each and maybe North + GWS are close to a 5k average each, but the other 14 clubs aren't close to individually having 5k members each in Tassie.
 
But will it be on concrete pillars and have a concrete base and 200mm of grass and soil and be completely f@cked up at growing grass like Docklands, or will they reclaim land so that there is no concrete base and the grass can grow normally because there is a few metres of soil, so it has worms, soil biology and most importantly warmth, so that grass can grow compared to a cold concrete base.

You don't want to spend $750m and have the same BS problems you have at Docklands and will always have at Docklands until they blow a hole in the concrete base and fill in the car park with soil.

Now if they figure they can have 40-50 other events each year, where they don't really need good grass growth, and that pays the bills instead of the annual 7-11 football games, then so be it, and football then just has to put up with a s**t surface like Docklands.
Here's a bit of info on the Regatta Point site from the location report:

Whilst there are some challenges to overcome such as reclaiming and structural works, the topography of the site lends itself to a structure of this size with the land already falling away from 20 metres to sea level in the desired location. The water level is shallow here also fanning out to a depth of no more than 10 metres.

I believe the plan would be to cut into the hill, and use what they've cut to bring the land level up out of the water.

In the report, this site was rated equal-second cheapest to build (Mac Point first).
 
If they are thinking about Macquarie Point they will need to hurry up. Most of the site works already done for the existing redevelopment plans.
 
The rectangular configuration will definitely be included. They'd already committed to a new rectangular stadium so it saves the government building a separate one for $200m.
Optus has such a configuration, but it hardly ever gets used. I think it's been used twice since it was built. Its was a total waste of money - they can't use it during winter as it screws up the surface.
I can't even imagine Hobart hosting an event where it would get used at all. Even on the off chance they get an A League team, any new stadium will be way too big for them.
 
Optus has such a configuration, but it hardly ever gets used. I think it's been used twice since it was built. Its was a total waste of money - they can't use it during winter as it screws up the surface.
I can't even imagine Hobart hosting an event where it would get used at all. Even on the off chance they get an A League team, any new stadium will be way too big for them.
It helps juice up the business model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top